Hacker News Reader

No one is imagining turning into Rambo and overthrowing their local sheriff. The idea is that there are limits to how far the American people can be pushed before we - as a group - simply refuse to go along anymore.

This stems directly from American history. The Constitution was written in a time when things like the Boston Massacre, Bunker Hill, and Col. Parker's stand in Concord and Lexington were fresh in the collective consciousness.

> Perhaps a little rational thought is required to comprehend that a document written ~227 years ago is probably out of date with modern reality when it comes to firearms.

I don't believe it is - and there are millions of others who agree with me. We're armed to the teeth, so good luck changing it. That's the whole point :)

> It's a combination of amusing, frustrating, and bewildering to witness a large number of Americans' behaviour whenever this topic resurfaces. Honestly, most of the rest of the world out here just can't understand how you people are so goddamn self-indoctrinated into keeping your guns. There is no reasoning that I can apply to even begin to validate the concept that guns in the hands of citizens is a good thing.

I understand that. Sitting here in Virginia, I cannot fathom how the Brits gave up their weapons without a fight less than a generation after they were literally asking the American public to donate firearms in preparation of a German invasion.

That's OK though, because I don't live under their rule. I'm happy to share my perspective and learn about theirs. I hold no ill will against people on the other side of an ocean that don't understand my political views.

> No one is imagining turning into Rambo and overthrowing their local sheriff.

When I finish laughing, I'll read the rest of your comment, but for now, have an up.

No one is imagining turning into Rambo and overthrowing their local sheriff.

I think people certainly do imagine that, although few of them put it into practice. What about those guys who occupied the wildlife refuge? Like a lonelier, more heavily armed Occupy?

Brits gave up their weapons without a fight .. German invasion

Funny thing this. The war looms large in UK national identity; our finest hour, Dunkirk, the Blitz, the Few, etc. However there's no English(+) tradition of anti-government armed struggle, and obviously WW2 we were fighting for the government. There is very little gun culture either. It's just not an important factor in politics. The idea of the government going rogue is just not something people think about - unless you're on the left, which has perhaps a few more wounds. Whereas in the US this particular kind of armed antigovernmentalism seems to be a right-wing thing.

(+) does not apply in Scotland and NI!

The UK history of violent confrontation with the state is mostly "left". Bloody Sunday. Orgreave. Hillsborough(++). Peterloo. Red Clydeside. Brixton.

(++) an accident made far worse by aggressive victim-blaming and systematic evidence forging by police and press.

The ways in which violence, crime, race, poverty, policing, politics, political violence and dissent are conceptualised are mostly entirely different. Ideas do constantly leak through from the US film industry though.

> It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose.

I think this isn't true if enough people decide to attack the government in concert, say 10% of the population, that's 30 million people. I'm not saying that will ever happen, but American police forces are already stretched to the limit and can be easily tied up.

But probably, knives would suffice for that purpose. Or just not showing up for work.

> American police forces are already stretched to the limit and can be easily tied up

Which is why state police and then the National Guard and then other branches of the military become involved in any serious unrest. E.g. Ferguson for an extremely recent example.

> say 10% of the population

Overwhlemingly dispersed throughout suburban and rural populations that are far more easily controlled than a large urban uprising. And also, it would take extraordinary circumstances to find 10% of the population willing to commit to an armed revolution. If you have that many people that angry, odds are that the democratic process would work far better anyways. That's the rub with this fantasy and why it hasn't happened in recent memory -- once that many people are that angry, they probably have a sympathetic majority anyways.

Keep in mind that the United States has 2mil+ prisoners and has absolutely no problem keeping the police. If we assume only a small fraction of people who could land in prison actually do, then it's entirely possible that 10% of the population is or was at one point at danger of being locked up and still would never commit to an armed insurrection.

Also, only ~60% of the US even votes. So 10% is a truly huge number.

Actually, the most ironic thing about this part of the gun debate is that the people who are least persecuted by actual systemic violence against subpopulations of the United States both 1) insist that this violence doesn't exist or is justified; and 2) worry about their own non-existent completely hypothetical persecution at some vague distant point in the future.

All the while, people who are in actually persecuted groups (poor, racial minorities who have double digit odds at incarceration) don't get involved in the gun debate because they know the "standing up to the man" fantasy is dangerous bullshit.

10% is absurdly high. That's beyond an insurgency, straight past an insurrection, and on into civil war.

> All the while, people who are in actually persecuted groups (poor, racial minorities who have double digit odds at incarceration) don't get involved in the gun debate because they know the "standing up to the man" fantasy is dangerous bullshit.

In my experience, racial minorities see firearms as a tool of a criminal and the oppressor, because they often grow up in a place where the only people they see with them are criminals and cops.

Meanwhile, I've personally introduced several individuals who are members of minority groups to firearms, and the message of self-reliance is something that really resonates with them. Consider that the motto of the Pink Pistols is "armed gays don't get bashed". It's not like it used to be, the gun community isn't just a bunch of old middle-class white dudes. Sure, I'm a member of the NRA - but I'm also a member of the Pink Pistols and the JPFO.

"Actually, the most ironic thing about this part of the gun debate is that the people who are least persecuted by actual systemic violence against subpopulations of the United States both 1) insist that this violence doesn't exist or is justified; and 2) worry about their own non-existent completely hypothetical persecution at some vague distant point in the future.

All the while, people who are in actually persecuted groups (poor, racial minorities who have double digit odds at incarceration) don't get involved in the gun debate because they know the "standing up to the man" fantasy is dangerous bullshit."

I regret that I have but one upvote to give for this.

> It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose.

You're thinking at the individual level. Of course the state is going to have far more firepower than anything an individual can muster.

Think in terms of asymmetrical warfare.

Why is the U.S. still in Afghanistan? Why did OIF go from a three-week invasion to over a decade of grueling counterinsurgency operations? Surely those scrappy little resistance fighters couldn't stand up to our might...they die in droves, yet they persist.

That document was written because people were able to fight their government and win.

Someone needs to read their history.