[ykler]

No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns, but the issue is not very relevant. Governments will always have way more force than private individuals. The important thing is to contain that force. And it is a very bad thing if just looking at what extremists have to say can get you arrested.

[mandelbrotwurst]

It's possible that having even a small capacity to use force could create a deterrent effect against those who would otherwise harm you, even if they are stronger than you are.

To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens in question know that they are likely to face armed resistance.

EDIT for clarity: I of course do not mean that any one individual would be able to defend their home against a powerful government dedicated to destroying them.

I'm just saying that all else equal, a government considering whether to attempt to wipe out some particular group is more likely to think twice if there are likely to be costs involved in doing so.

[codedokode]

That's wrong. You can kill several cops who were only doing their job but you cannot win against army forces. You cannot defend your rights from government with a weapon.

The weapon in USA (especially long range weapon like rifles) is mostly useful for mass shootings.

[koenigdavidmj]

The US army are nearly losing two wars to people with small arms and IEDs.

[seanmcdirmid]

So, ya, isn't this post about making terrorism illegal? I feel like we've come full circle at this post.

[koenigdavidmj]

This whole subthread is about states being heavyhanded and our options in responding.

Also, terrorism is kind of illegal already.

[seanmcdirmid]

In a thread about prosecuting people for watching terrorism videos, we have gone on about how the 2nd amendment gives Americans the tools to fight against the therapy of their government, and then it was pointed out the USA military is much better armed than civilians can be. Finally, the comment was made that the military could be faught with ambushes and IEDs, probably just as explained in those terrorism videos.

I just think it is really ironic.

[hodjifhg]

Exactly, do people even engage in critical thought or is all their thinking done for them via identity politics and media.

[mandelbrotwurst]

Please see my comment in response to TheSpiceIsLife.

Of course you are correct that any one individual person could not effectively defend their home against a more well armed government dedicated to defeating them, but that in no way refutes my point.

[codedokode]

If there will be a group of armed people actively opposing government agents, then it will become a band of criminals. And if there will be larger united group of people (a whole state or region for example) then there will be a civil war.

[codedokode]

I can say even more: if an armed group of people can influence the decisions of the government or Congress or any other institution then something is very wrong (or you are living in Somalia). There cannot be two authorities.

You can remember American Civil War for example. There were people opposing the government, they had weapons but it didn't help them.

There may be cases when weapon can be necessary: for example if you live in a remote uninhabited area. But I don't think people should have a long range weapon when they are in a densely populated city.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Nope. They'll just set up around the building, peer in through the windows with binoculars, and if you appear armed snipe you from afar.

Regardless, they don't care: if you take out a few agents they'll just send in more.

[mandelbrotwurst]

I didn't say or imply that an individual person would be able to fend off a government dedicating its entire resources to invading their home.

[snerbles]

Having more force is irrelevant if it can't be properly applied. Easy when a few yahoos take over an abandoned building on federal land, a little harder when an insurgency of thousands has metastasized throughout a society.

See the outcomes of asymmetrical warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

[seorphates]

pp is not on the wrong track. The first is clearly under assault from several quarters. Without the first we cannot even question authority much less dig in and speak about it. The second seems meant to shore up the first. I guess you have to try to think a little like a man that has only just gained his freedom and whose aim is hold and maintain that freedom for all of his and on equal footing. How would you proceed?

Either way, the costs are only ours to bear and Ms. Rudd's fantastically dystopic sales pitch seems to be selling tickets like hotcakes for a fast moving train.

The blatant assaults have become vicious. There is no authority over minds. We mustn't allow the mere access to information the means to determine or contain the freedom of the mind much less our bodies.

First they came for the children and then they came for the drugs. They are currently coming for "terror" and ache to expand that access without burdens or bounds. They will not stop until they have everything, which we must not permit.

[ColanR]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

-- probably Isoroku Yamamoto