zlacker

Because you militarised them.

I'm sure walking 2 steps further down the wrong road will eventually get you to the right place.

Also i thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so you could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. Go shoot some cops and let me know how that works out. I'll wait.

>>swarni+(OP)
Well, it kind of already has happened, at least on a small scale. A number of police have been shot since this started, but not in enough numbers to really make a difference.

>>swarni+(OP)
Also i thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so you could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. Go shoot some cops and let me know how that works out. I'll wait.

It turns out that you don't need to shoot any cops. You just show up armed to the teeth, and they leave you alone. They'll even stand aside while you muscle your way into state and Federal government buildings. (Of course, this only works if you're white, but never mind that.)

>>swarni+(OP)
US uniformed police services started out as ethnic gangs made into paramilitary forces to suppress other ethnic gangs in the urban north and slave patrols in the rural south. The problem does not have its roots in recent militarization, and has been constant for the whole history of police forces in this country.

Shifting political preferences among the enfranchised have caused it to be a source of greater tension in the electorate, and changes in media have made it more visible, but it's not a new problem.

> Also i thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so you could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government

The point of the 2nd Amendment was so that the people could be the security services and there would not be a need for standing military and paramilitary external and internal services (beyond small cadres to form a nucleus for the mobilized militia) which, in the founders view, inevitably led to tyranny. It was for prevention on a model that was abandoned though the amendment remains, not for response.

>>irrati+t
Unfortunately, I doubt we've made it 10% through this particular historical chapter so far. Certain people will see things like this [1], and they will start taking potshots at random cops who had nothing to do with it.

And no, it won't help.

[1] https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-police-beating-te...

>>Camper+z
Bad idea IMO. Really prefer not to see more militias dressed in civil clothes because thats what they become

>>Camper+n2
I like how you’ve added “at random cops” as if to delegitimize any reaction against an oppressive state. I think what’s more likely is that instead of just filming police brutality, people will start shooting police officers who are caught abusing citizens.

>>Camper+z
That works a lot better if you are in a political faction overrepreesented in law enforcement.

Other armed (or even merely suspected to be armed) people see a more violent, not less violent, response by police.

>>NoahTh+14
I like how you’ve added “at random cops” as if to delegitimize any reaction against an oppressive state.

No, I did that to delegitimize (sic) reactions against random individuals.

Aside from the obvious moral issue, every cop killed will probably result in a dozen more being hired, and a hundred more votes for the people doing the hiring.

>>dragon+yu
Other armed (or even merely suspected to be armed) people see a more violent, not less violent, response by police.

Correct, and we're being told that the solution to that is to take away their arms. This is, of course, perfectly consistent with the original political motivation behind gun control.

Statistically speaking, if your death has a violent cause, it will happen at the hands of your own country's police or military forces. That's not a concern here in the modern-day US, but this is a historical aberration, one that may not prevail for much longer. Unilateral disarmament probably isn't the best strategy.