64
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
64 points (97.1% liked)
Asklemmy
52475 readers
302 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
There would be more violence. These thugs in riot gear want an excuse to slaughter people en-mass.
It’s so relieving to watch so many people change their stance on the second amendment. Trump has done the pro gun movement a huge favor.
I wont hold my breath. I thought Jan 6th 2021 would be that, but liberals continued to lust for gun control. Im sure if things ever become "normal" liberals will continue to pursue gun control.
Because what are you gonna do, vote republican? Classic hostage situation.
At the risk of dying themselves?
They think they're beyond consequences and "it can't happen to me, I'm the main character!"
I doubt they're worried about that. Protest implies that the gun is symbolic or defensive. ICE is there to shoot, and will shoot first.
If it turns into a gunfight, one side gets a gov pension when the smoke clears, and the other side gets prison if they live.
Fair but it’s hard to pin down who shot who if there are hundreds/thousands of shooters and all wearing masks.
I think the real issue would be having to deal with national guard.
That only applies if they fight with equal weapons. In a violent conflict, a government might use armored vehicles, tear gas, drones etc. I don't think the risk would be equal for both sides.
That's also why I think that the second amendmend is pointless in today's world. If it ever comes to a wider conflict between the general public and the government it's not guns against guns. It's guns against high-tech weapons.
It's worth acknowledging that superior firepower hasn't directly resulted in success for the US military. Guerilla armies like in Vietnam and in many countries in the Middle East such as Afghanistan have repelled US invasion, and wargame simulations (including US on US wargames!) have repeatedly shown this.
Add into the mix that there was a serious degree of military revolt (complemented by homeland revolt) in the Vietnam War (and other later wars too). While this was largely boosted by it being a conscription army at the time, I still believe an internal US war would make the military similarly vulnerable to internal conflict, and even external sabotage by citizens.
Good point, thanks for bringing that up. But I still think that recent developments, especially drones, would lead to very high losses in a real conflict. Also I'm not sure how supply chains would work in case of an intra US conflict. Wouldn't they run out of ammo immediately?
Pretty sure the USA lost the war in Afghanistan.
Yeah I’m only talking about ICE in their ford fusions and vans. But yes, once national guard is called in it’s game over.
bro they jumped and executed a person they don't think about risks anymore
Legal repercussions are totally different than thousands of masked people with guns. They all know that the law is slow and easy to get around.