zlacker

> unchecked power is bad

Are you pro individual gun ownership?

The second amendment exists in the US Constitution, first and foremost to balance the power between a populous and would-be tyrants.

>>gonati+(OP)
Funny though how the usual fervant supporters seem to instead cheering tyrant like action.

>>gonati+(OP)
Maybe a 100 years ago. The government has invested high tens to low hundreds of trillions of our dollars into the military at this point. Guerrilla warfare on peoples own land is almost impossible to snuff out but the people also can't possibly "win".

>>redism+93
... but the tyrants also can’t possibly “win”.

There is little incentive to attempt tyranny when the result can be predicted so easily.

Also, don’t underestimate the power of 100 million people wielding guns. The world has yet to ever witness a force 1/10th as great and well-armed as the American populous.

>>non-en+S
Not everyone.

Just like vocal anarchists make the left look bad, the freedom-loving libertarian side is marred by the vocal authoritarians; esp when they feel threatened.

>>gonati+(OP)
> The second amendment exists in the US Constitution, first and foremost to balance the power between a populous and would-be tyrants.

So the solution for police not being regulated enough, is for the people to take up arms against them?

Rather than fixing the regulations?

>>redism+93
The purpose of an armed populace isn't to "win" tactically, it's to win strategically and psychologically. It's basically like a poison pill clause, you want to make totalitarian takeover so unpallatable that every victory is a pyrrhic one. You want to force the occupiers to have to choose between killing your own countrymen or defecting, setting up more of a resistance. All the while, you shine light on all the atrocities.

With a sparsely-armed populace, it's easy for the occupying force to roll through without much conflict or challenging decisions.

Winning occurs through attrition of the occupiers, which, unlike Vietnam, can't just "back out".

>>Nursie+Bl
It seems like folks have been demanding the regulations be fixed for some time now to no avail. Moreover, it isn't always so easy to just 'fix' a regulation. Qualified Immunity isn't a regulation in the traditional sense, it's jurisprudence. Sure, it's possible that legislation can resolve it (and hopefully it does so in a meaningful way) but "just asking" hasn't been working for some time now.

What CHAZ shows us is that there is perhaps a middle ground between "asking" and "taking up arms," but if none of the demands are met, I don't know that there are many other steps left.

>>bmelto+XK
Sure, I agree "just asking" clearly hasn't worked, but "the ballot box" hasn't been exhausted as an option yet, in fact I would say that we're gearing up now to see how effective both the soap box and the ballot box can be, as protest action finally seems to be getting through to both the public and (at least part of) the political class.

In fact it looks like in some places the cries to defund the police are finally being heard and actioned. I hope there are more, as this is a radical act and not just a legislative tweak. It's clear that a fundamental rebalancing of the relationship between police and society is needed, starting with talking away their weapons, and total de-escalation of police violence and their effective immunity to the consequences of their racist actions.

I hope "CHAZ" isn't a last step before open, armed conflict, because if it does go that way the public mood is going to shift in a millisecond to enforcement. Just like I hope here in the UK we don't see people pull down statues of Churchill - he was a racist asshole, but he was also the leader that brought us through WWII, and the population of this country aren't ready to stop venerating the latter because of the former yet.

I'm also not sure what "winning" looks like for either side when that starts.

>>Nursie+Bl
Firstly, I never said anything about taking up arms against anyone. I am simply stating the fact that “unchecked power” is impossible when a monopoly of power (force... aka weapons) is held by the state.

History has shown us over and over and over that an unarmed populace will either A) be subject to unchecked violence by its overlords, or B) be successfully invaded by new and less desirable overlords.

Secondly, “fixing the regulations” is not necessary; what is necessary is enforcing the already existing regulations.

>>gonati+V61
> History has shown us over and over and over that an unarmed populace will either A) be subject to unchecked violence by its overlords, or B) be successfully invaded by new and less desirable overlords.

Which is why the UK gets invaded every other week?

Seems an overly reductive viewpoint.