Or trying to holster it with a finger inside the trigger guard.

they're already ripping people out of their homes at gunpoint, no badges, ko identification whatsoever, then sending them to whoknowswhere with zero record or due process whatsoever...

if that's not worth fighting over then nothing in this country is. rome collapsed 20+ years ago, people just took their sweet time waking up to that fact.

shit isnt "going back to normal" when trump croaks...i hope everyone coping on that idea has a plan for when "normal" doesn't manifest itself.

Yeah. It's generally a better idea to keep gunfire out of it, simply because that gives a good pretext for them to do gunfire back. It's like starting a fistfight with your abusive spouse: I mean, morally it's fine, but they already have abilities within that domain. That's the whole problem. That's where they are comfortable, that's where they can win.

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/126900/8008_FDTD.pdf

What is to be done in such circumstances? The obvious possibilities seem useless. Constitutional and legal barriers, judicial decisions, and public opinion are normally ignored by dictators. Understandably, reacting to the brutalities, torture, disappearances, and killings, people often have concluded that only violence can end a dictatorship. Angry victims have sometimes organized to fight the brutal dictators with whatever violent and military capacity they could muster, despite the odds being against them. These people have often fought bravely, at great cost in suffering and lives. Their accomplishments have sometimes been remarkable, but they rarely have won freedom. Violent rebellions can trigger brutal repression that frequently leaves the populace more helpless than before.

Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.

When conventional military rebellion is recognized as unrealistic, some dissidents then favor guerrilla warfare. However, guerrilla warfare rarely, if ever, benefits the oppressed population or ushers in a democracy. Guerrilla warfare is no obvious solution, particularly given the very strong tendency toward immense casualties among one’s own people. The technique is no guarantor against failure, despite supporting theory and strategic analyses, and sometimes international backing. Guerrilla struggles often last a very long time. Civilian populations are often displaced by the ruling government, with immense human suffering and social dislocation.

Even when successful, guerrilla struggles often have significant long-term negative structural consequences. Immediately, the attacked regime becomes more dictatorial as a result of its countermeasures. If the guerrillas should finally succeed, the resulting new regime is often more dictatorial than its predecessor due to the centralizing impact of the expanded military forces and the weakening or destruction of the society’s independent groups and institutions during the struggle — bodies that are vital in establishing and maintaining a democratic society.

CBP's operation zone is ridiculous too. They're "border patrol" but they can work deep into the country.

I doubt it's legal, but SCOTUS would say it is.

Be careful. Lying to police can get you sent to prison for a long time.

Saying nothing is a better option.

Dude I've seen shadow people out by Santa Cruz, CA and I was California sober back then

The linked documentary offers a strong critique of the reformist attempts from local Chileans who were there on the ground (starting at around one hour in). I can only offer my own criticisms as a non-Chilean looking in from the outside.

Historically liberal reform either kicks the can of capitalism's problems down the road (FDR in the 1930's), or fails to even kick the can due to so much corporate capture of the government, that it actually accelerates a turn toward right-wing authoritarianism.

In the case of Chile, the latter case seems to be happening. The proposed progressive constitution to replace Pinochet's constitution likely failed due to the deep corporate pockets available to right-wing institutions, who are able to effectively trick under-educated citizens into voting against their own interests through massive propaganda campaigns (the same thing happened in the US thanks to Fox news, hence why they are now in a power struggle against literal fascists).

The right-wing then mobilized to create a new right-wing pro corporate constitution, which was only narrowly avoided despite their propaganda efforts.

The new leftist president Gabriel Boric, as most leftist politicians do after reaching political office, began to become more moderate, all the while congress, who are corporate captured, continued to vote down his reformist taxation policies. It's a classic tactic of letting the left spin their wheels and burnout in congress/parliament for years to stall direct action. All the while regular people continue to suffer under capital, and become more and more enchanted by the easy solutions fascists can offer.

History has generally shown that the olive branch of reform is a tool used by the elites and capital to quell a growing movement to overthrow them. It's their last option before using more brutal authoritarian control to maintain their grasp on power.