Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j5z2p87 wrote



Holyvigil t1_j5zx5nd wrote

The unique thing about America is the right to bear arms. So weapons that are allowed as arms simultaneously protect the people and enforce the governments will in America.


James_Solomon t1_j60sea5 wrote

The weapons systems being discussed in the article are not guns, but things like armored vehicles, drones, crowd management devices, etc that act as substantial for e multipliers.


fail-deadly- t1_j6267e9 wrote

But America has banned nearly almost weapon that America itself has/does/will arm militias with around the world. Things like machine guns, grenades, mortars, light rocket launchers, recoilless rifles, anti-tank guided missiles, and occasionally shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles are all common weapons the U.S. government supplies to militias that fight against our enemies (even if the militia itself is not our friend). Those things are all strictly controlled in the U.S. If the average American citizen goes down to the nearest federal courthouse and asks the government to not just allow you to purchase a couple dozen stinger and Javelin missiles, but asks them for the form where U.S. government provides them to you and your local militia for free, they will either be arrested or laughed out of the building.

It's funny because in the Constitution and in the Federalist papers the framers thought it would be some extremely consequential and soul searching debates and votes about to authorized armies for more than two years at a time. Along with the local militia being about as capable as the standing Army, and in most cases they would do all the defending the country needed without even needing to raise a standing army.

Hamilton in Federalist in Federalist 26 makes two interesting points, basically that if Congress and the president conspire together for years to build a security apparatus capable of defeating liberty, then representative democracy should be replaced by getting as close to direct democracy with no delegation to representatives.

>An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

Also, he basically says that if a situation is so dangerous in the world that it requires the creation of a military capable of being a hazard to its liberty then you're screwed.

>Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion or resist an invasion; and if the defense of the community under such circumstances should make it necessary to have an army so numerous as to hazard its liberty, this is one of those calamities for which there is neither preventative nor cure.


AutomaticOrange4417 t1_j62mfqe wrote

Yea, your little gun is no match for the United States military and their dones.

The thing that has saved the United States is that the military cannot be used on American soil against American citizens. The military takes that very seriously and that's why they rejected Trump on multiple occasions when he told them to attack Americans.


crazyjkass t1_j5z2z78 wrote

Get people to stop voting republican then. They're pro war and pro military and anti healthcare.


_m0nk_ t1_j5zytnd wrote

Neither side will help you the system is rigged for the rich, left and right is used as distraction.


Flare_22 t1_j5zjpcg wrote

Though it makes an interesting point to consider regarding 2A. The more sophisticated weapons in the hands of the people, the less control the authoritarians would have from a relative standpoint at the expense of a more dangerous populace.


fitzroy95 t1_j5zn9dc wrote

Its those people with all the firearms who are the ones most likely to be imposing tyranny on the rest of the population.

Indeed, its those carrying firearms in public (esp those open carrying) who are deliberately threatening and intimdating all of those around them. None of them are spreading freedom, they are solely spreading fear, paranoia, intimidation and a threat of murder.


Flare_22 t1_j609dwa wrote

I was referring to the article which discusses the government's ability to suppress the populace, rather than the individuals within a population spreading any societal negatives.

Interestingly, however, if individuals are allowed to spread fear and paranoia unchecked via carrying arms then I would guess that the government is not effectively tyrannical as they would have put a stop to this.


Eyeless_Sid t1_j60ivsq wrote

Thats under the presumption that a government is inherently good or that it doesn't benefit the government to sow fear. Fear is profitable when put into campaigns and policy. Authoritarian governments can very well allow certain things to happen or to even provoke certain reactions to distract or instill fear.


Flare_22 t1_j60u6l7 wrote

I operate under the assumption that the government always wants two things: money and power. There may be individuals within the government that seek to limit this, of course, but as an entity the government always seeks money for the purposes of extending power and control. Very similar to corporations.


fitzroy95 t1_j60u1vs wrote

fearmongering is an incredibly useful tool to keep the population aligned behind your agenda, or at least more compliant, it is often just another form of propaganda and crowd control.


russokumo t1_j62f6b3 wrote

The fact that you can type this without being worried about being arrested in the USA.... Means it's probably freer than most countries


AutomaticOrange4417 t1_j62mng9 wrote

I don't really have a problem with military spending because it pays my bills.

I think the real problem is when military equipment is given to local police. That's the problem that is causing democracy in the US to fail.


TheHatori1 t1_j63wzfl wrote

What, you are not allowed to buy stuff like stealth bombers? That’s unreal.

Can you give me few examples of how is your freedom limited?


[deleted] t1_j63x8a6 wrote



TheHatori1 t1_j640aue wrote

So you are living in a land of free, if you can’t come up with atleast one example. Lucky you, most people don’t have that privilige.


[deleted] t1_j640kz3 wrote



TheHatori1 t1_j6413at wrote

Oh, I misunderstood you then, sorry.

Would you mind giving me examples though? I am trying to understand the situation better.