zlacker

>>robthe+(OP)
This is how you govern from a position of unpopularity.

The government knows they’re on the wrong side of many issues, to the point they know they can’t win an open debate.

So media control, regulation by enforcement, and institutional control becomes the focus of effort.

>>spaceb+ab
> So media control, regulation by enforcement, and institutional control becomes the focus of effort.

You forgot gun control. That's the first thing they took away. Thereafter, freedom after freedom has been made optional by the government [1].

When government becomes overreaching, and you don't have the means to protect yourself and your rights, that's where it goes.

[1] I said "government", but probably "regime" would be a more suitable term here.

>>mirolj+0f
The guns in the US don't seem to be helping people avoid getting shot by ICE.

(to the extent that armed revolution worked in the UK, the IRA were helped only slightly by US-backed supplies of Armalite rifles, and much more by a large supply of Libyan high explosives. Guns are a much less effective political weapon than the car or truck or hotel bomb)

>>pjc50+vh
Guns only help somewhat nebulously against tyranny. You need societal consensus to get to society using guns against the government, and there is no such consensus regarding ICE, which is why you're not going to see guns used against ICE. Many many people who hate ICE are armed to the teeth, and they are not using those guns because they know that currently that would lose them thee battle and the war.

But in general the better armed states in the U.S. had less restrictive covid rules. So perhaps there is a link between how armed the population is and how well it resists restrictions it doesn't like.