Comment by alsetmusic
8 hours ago
It'd be real cool if all the second amendment (guns) people cared as much about the first amendment (free speech and freedom of press).
"They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens.
But people are being targeted for what they say, for disagreeing publicly. That's real. And a lot of "patriots" don't seem to notice or care.
The guns haven't been taken away only because people do care so much about the 2nd amendment. Those people understand that the 2nd amendment is the only ultimate defense for the people against the government.
I too wish people also cared as much about the 1st amendment, but sadly I think the tide is turning on that. Too many on both the right and left seem okay with censorship and harassment.
Kind of ironic that there's a big overlap in the venn diagram between 2nd amendment enthusiasts and the crowd that is cheering on the government's authoritarian actions.
Because the visible 2A enthusiasts essentially trace a lineage to the KKK. Of course, they don't actually care about upholding the Constitution or fighting tyranny. That was just a convenient cover tactic and accusation to use against political opponents.
There isn't, it just appears that way. There is a subset of people that are cheering on the government in this situation and they are 2nd amendment supporters but the 2nd amendment supporters are much larger than that overlap.
Things like this is just another way of trying to drive a wedge.
> cheering on the government's authoritarian actions
Enforcing the law is not an authoritarian action.
Take for example the case of ICE agents arresting American citizens. Many complain that it's authoritarian. But it's just the law. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(5)(A) grants them the power to arrest anyone (including citizens) for any offense (not just crimes) committed in their presence.
If Democrats disagree with this they can just repeal it. They've had the majority several times since the law was passed in 1990. But instead of repealing it, they advise their constituents that it's "illegal for ICE to arrest Americans" or it's "illegal for Border Patrol to operate outside the border". Complete misinformation!
It's more authoritarian not to enforce the law. Instead of protesting to have the law changed, Democrats protest to harass ICE agents. A nation of laws seeks change in the legislature, not by vigilantism (what Renee Good was doing) in the streets.
1 reply →
With the government harassing, attacking, and now killing innocent American citizens, I'm not so sure if the second amendment is working out so well.
With the ridiculous leeway American law enforcement has when it comes to harming people ("qualified immunity"), I don't think that second amendment will be relevant until there's an outright civil war happening. And when it comes to that, one or both sides have access to predator drones and fighter jets.
Not civil war, but a revolution. The 2nd amendment isn't worth much except as a very last resort, when the vast majority of people are willing to die to overthrow a government, as we're seeing in Iran.
The people claiming that having guns won't save you against the weight of the army are only partly correct. Having a few guns won't save me personally. I would certainly be killed on my own. But no government can kill everyone, either as a practical matter, or simply because you still need folks to produce the food. When everybody is armed, the government simply cannot oppress them to the same degree.
Imagine every protestor you see on video was instead standing rank and file in the street with a rifle on their shoulder. I.e. a well regulated militia. That would sure send a very different message, wouldn't it?
5 replies →
> And a lot of "patriots" don't seem to notice or care.
They notice. They care. They just love it.
The "free speech absolutist" folks never were.
The “don’t tread on me” folks converted to “comply or die” shockingly quickly.
"Don't tread on me, tread on them"
it's a universal thing I think. in self-defense, when your life is at risk, you can use those guns, what do you have to lose. But in every other case, you have more to lose so guns are useless outside of use by aggressors.
They don't need to take your gun away, they just need to give you enough reasons to not use them. And even in 1779, it required lots of planning and coordination, and lots of loss to life and property to achieve change that way.
The focus should be more on elected politicians, and voters themselves and how they vote/not vote. If the mid-terms were being held today, how many people would vote? It's scary, who wants to risk their lives for a vote? not many.
I fear the governors of states will have to intervene, and the way that goes might lead to a conflict with the federal gov.
It feels like all of the "patriots" joined ICE.
>It feels like all of the "patriots" joined ICE.
That's certainly possible. Maybe even likely. Fortunately, we now have more information[0] to correlate whether or not that's true.
Perhaps soon we'll see a "Show HN" with a searchable database of those folks with links to known "patriot" groups. That would be interesting.
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/whistleblower-leaks-person...
The second amendment people are quite fine with the current administration. All you're learning is what real power means and sadly what performative opposition does (nothing).
People care more about their guns because, in their minds, that's the last thing that stands between them and complete helplessness. They have fantasies of starting up an Idaho or Montana-style militia to protect themselves from the liberal and immigrant hoards.
It was never principled opposition to anything, just a power fantasy that the current admin lets them live even more viscerally.
The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment, limiting firearms ownership, and portraying gun owners as paranoid losers. That would drive many on-the-fence gun owners away from supporting them.
Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
Is there any surprise that there's a dearth of armed citizens ready to stand up for them?
"A rifle behind every blade of grass only works if you've been watering the lawn"
I don't know whether you've noticed, but being armed is simply giving the Federales more reasons to kill you first. The woman shot in Minneapolis was shot on the pretext of using her car as a weapon.
How do people really expect this to work? In detail? You show up with an armed militia at a school and the ICE guys just drive on past (and then raid someone else)? Or are they expecting more of an Amerimaidan situation? Jan 6th situation?
Just so we're clear, you're arguing that ICE is already murdering people on the street with impunity, but people shouldn't defend themselves or they'll just get murdered harder?
1 reply →
It’s a bunch of dudes who think they’re literally Rambo. Like, sure with enough firepower you can maybe take out two before they take you out but any sort of application of your second amendment rights is going to end quickly for you.
1 reply →
I'm gonna say the same thing I said the last time you trotted out this opinion (which is far more excusable now that you've outed yourself as a brit BTW). At a societal level the LARPers don't matter. They are a rounding error compared to all the people who have a single daily carry piece or purse gun or whatever. And those people affect the numbers and the risk calculations happening in offices far away.
ICE is thuggishly and sloppily prowling places like Minneapolis because statistically they can get away with it without causing too many bodies. Up the potential body number and their tactics are forced to change for the better.
If the statistical average door they kick in in Minneapolis had the same likelihood of "shit I ain't going back to prison <bang> <bang> <bang> <dives out bathroom window and hops neighbors fence>" behind it as the statistical average door in St. Louis ICE wouldn't be behaving the way they are in MN. They would have specific targets, specific places and times to pick them up, etc, etc. (i.e. operating like the local professional police do) because the risk calculation with even a tiny change you might get shot back at, even if only ineffectively, makes that (much higher) resource expenditure pencil out, with consequences in terms of how much they can get done.
Personal ability to credibly threaten lethal violence if cornered (note: I did not say "firearms") acts much like an ATGM or MANPADS for an infantry squad. You're not gonna take a squad with TOWs on the offensive against a bunch of tanks, but if attacked you've at least got a prayer. The same math holds on the individual level. Making any potential target substantially more prickly to a potentially superior force and doing so for little cost is a huge boon for the little guy. A firearm is a force multiplier same as a bomb carrying drone or a cell phone that records things the government does not like or a media platform that puts those things in front of the eyes of the masses. It forces the superior force to still be much more careful and expend far more resources when engaging. When it comes to domestic policing what this means is that ICE would be under more pressure to "be careful and professional" in every city like the DEA did during the war on drugs we wouldn't even be having this discussion because they wouldn't be employing the tactics that everyone hates.
This math is a large part of why drugs won the war on drugs. There were enough glawk fawtys wit da switch kicking around on the "wrong" side of the law that the cops needed to adopt militarized tactics, the public didn't wanna pay for that shit (monetarily or politically) over weed, and thus drugs won the war on drugs. If they could've rolled up on just about anyone "cheaply" with just a few cheaply (poorly) trained cops, minimal equipment and support, minimal planning and surveillance, etc. it would've gone on way longer (but they couldn't, because that would have yielded too many bodies and cost too much political capital).
4 replies →
[flagged]
9 replies →
>Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
One dude in his home with a gun or two versus a 50 billion dollar ICE force that has complete immunity and a massive media and political empire ready to spin any bad incident into an us-versus-them narrative.....
Yeah, it is a fantasy. Oh, and if anything really gets out of hand, that political empire also has nuclear weapons.
Are you familiar with Chris Dorner?
>One dude in his home with a gun or two versus a 50 billion dollar ICE force that has complete immunity and a massive media and political empire ready to spin any bad incident into an us-versus-them narrative.....
How does legal immunity or a media empire affect a dead man?
>Oh, and if anything really gets out of hand, that political empire also has nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are not very useful in a civil conflict... Or pretty much any conflict
1 reply →
Thew whiplash from "Why isn't anyone fighting ICE???" to "the government will nuke us if we fight back" is frankly stunning
3 replies →
It took me 15 minutes to buy an AR-15 and a pistol in 2025, how did the left do this?
OK, now what happens when you show up in front of an ICE agent while carrying an AR-15? How, specifically, do you use the gun to effect political change?
5 replies →
Well done! Step one is getting armed, and step two is training. There are a lot of good resources out there for non-right-wing shooters, such as InRangeTV.
1 reply →
You'd have to be pretty insane to see opposing raids on journalists as supporting "The American Left".
At this point, unfortunately, that appears to be where the Overton window is resting. I didn't intend any sideswipes or sarcasm in my comment, I was just trying to characterize the opposition to the 2nd Amendment in broad terms.
Adding this on as a separate thought:
If you genuinely think we're at the point that we need to start shooting, the onus is on YOU to get armed, get trained, and take action. Don't expect anyone else to come and fight for you, especially those you perceive as your political enemies.
> Is there any surprise that there's a dearth of armed citizens ready to stand up for them?
We may have the most armed citizenry in the world. If the second amendment advocates cared as much about our protected rights as they claim, they’d be all over this. All you’re saying is that our liberties only matter to them as regards people who agree with them politically. Which is absolutely true.
> If the second amendment advocates cared as much about our protected rights as they claim, they’d be all over this.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment, and all intersections with other civil rights are seen through our respective lenses.
There is a lot of attention being paid to this within that community, but it's largely supportive. Everything the left is upset about falls into two categories: it's either something with broad support (deportation of those not legally present) or there's more to the story that significantly changes the situation, at least from their perspective (Renee Good).
To be clear, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or even state my own views with this comment; I'd just like the various sides to understand each other a bit better.
> All you’re saying is that our liberties only matter to them as regards people who agree with them politically. Which is absolutely true.
What I'm saying is that "Gun owner" shouldn't be a political statement, and we'd be a lot better off if more Democrats owned and trained with guns.
> Is there any surprise that there's a dearth of armed citizens ready to stand up for them?
Forget the left. Why don't they stand up for themselves?
You’re right, owning a hand gun will be effective means to rebel against the most militarized government in the world.
Vietnamese farmers would agree with you.
1 reply →
> The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment, limiting firearms ownership, and portraying gun owners as paranoid losers. That would drive many on-the-fence gun owners away from supporting them.
No we didn't. Promoting safe and conscientious gun ownership is a good thing, and it's the right thing for society. It's actually a pretty common feeling among gun owners. But gun lobbies has polluted people's minds into believing that the "left hates guns." Which isn't really true.
For sure, there are people whose opinion is colored by the frequency of mass shootings and having their kids deal with active shooter drills, etc. But this isn't always a political issue - my hard right-wing grandma hated guns and forbade their ownership in her house.
I frequent a gun club with a bunch of the leftest, gayest, socialistest, DEIest people you could meet, and we always find like-minded people to chat with. We are a minority, sure, but not a small one.
> Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
And I still believe this - more than ever. You'd have to be insane to stand up to the current government right now. They will disappear people to gulags or just shoot them in the face for practically no reason. Imagine what they do to people they genuinely believe are threats.
"Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47"
The words of the last Democrat that seemed to really have a chance to win a senator seat in my state. His support really dropped after such a statement in this state.
> We are a minority, sure, but not a small one.
So you are actually supporting my point. Conscientious, civically-minded people who own guns are unfortunately a minority on the (American) Left.
> And I still believe this - more than ever. You'd have to be insane to stand up to the current government right now.
Then you should be quibbling with my parent commenter who is smugly asking why the "gun people" aren't shooting back, not me.
> The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment
That's doing a lot of heavy lifting. I know Republicans who unironically say shit like "We can't do background checks. What if I'm trying to buy a gun really quick for a hunting trip?" I would imagine your idea of "attacking" the second amendment is just common sense laws.
> Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
In your heart of hearts, do you really believe this has anything to do with it? If we were to take your comment seriously, it just illustrates the right never actually cared about standing up to oppressive governments, they just wanted to be the oppressive government. That is actually pretty consistent with how the left clocked them.
But in reality, it has nothing to do with what you wrote. The biggest 2A fanatics, as someone related to quite a few of them, just have a fantasy of shooting people. They are openly celebrating the death of Renee Nicole Good because that's the kind of thing they want to do.
> I would imagine your idea of "attacking" the second amendment is just common sense laws.
I would imagine your idea of "Common Sense laws" is actually just petty attacks on law-abiding citizens that do nothing to stop crime, so I guess we're even.
> it just illustrates the right never actually cared about standing up to oppressive governments,
My comment was not trying to argue that the Right did or does care. My comment was saying "This is the reason there are comparatively so few gun owners on the (American) Left". Because the American Left (speaking broadly) discouraged it for almost a century.
The American left is very much in favor of the second amendment. You seem to confusing it with liberal centrists, the sort of people who say 'violence is never the solution' and wrings their hands wondering why someone doesn't arrest bad actors in government.
I specifically used the phrase "American Left" to try and head off this trite quip.
I was referring, in general terms, to the left wing of mainstream American political discourse without narrowing it down to just "Democrats". I was trying not to trigger the waves of "Ackshyually karl marx says under no pretext" comments that one usually gets.
2 replies →
> "They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens
That never happens because the parties vested in that right resist every single time. Effectively. With real numbers. Not media campaigns or propaganda social media mechanisms. Largely without protesting, with no need to get into degrees of legality in doing so.
You don’t get to say “that never happens” as if it isn’t the explicit goal of an entire political party. You get to realize “we don’t let that happen”.
As to current events… the mass deportation guy won elections, why is it you expect armed resistance to federal officers carrying out the exact thing the majority of voters wanted?
You can disagree on anything you like, but, I find the “why aren’t people shooting federal officers who are enforcing immigration law!?” posts to be extreme affirmations of echo chamber. If you don’t like it, get your reps to change the laws, not suggest murdering people who you don’t like.
Not asking adversarially at all here: what do you mean by resisting with "real numbers" without media campaigns, social media, or protesting? What do the vested parties actually do to secure their second amendment rights? Do you just mean having large voting blocs?
No matter how many people vote for something, congress and the president do not have the right to infringe upon peoples’ fourth (searches & seizures) and 14th amendment (due process) rights. Federal agents are systematically violating those rights and not being held accountable due to a blatantly partisan supreme court. With no other alternative, it will be up to everyday citizens to stop those offenses and seek justice.
Take it for whats its worth but I been good friends with someone who works in Newsom camp, and constantly goes for a bite with his team. They talk alot. The main theme now is how to use illegal immigration situation to their benefit. If Newsom is elected President, he wants to go door to door in search for illegal guns that illegals are harboring. Of course all this is BS, or in such insignificant amount that its rather irrelevant. But they want to use Republican's hate for immigrants to help them catalog all serials numbers and ownership of us-owned guns. To some degree it will be fun to watch the "all she had to do is comply with Federal law not to get killed while running away in her car" people rounded up and having their guns cataloged in the name of fight with illegal immigration, and in accordance with Federal law :)
Huh? Are you saying that if Gavin Newsom is elected, rather than turning down the rhetoric, restoring the rule of law, and taking the pressure off of the immigrants and brown people who are scapegoats of the current administration, he instead wants to commit violations of the 4th amendment under the color of searching for immigrants but _actually_ in order to find firearms that are legally owned by US citizens? Presumably in preparation for a mass violation of the 2nd amendment (aka "round 'em up boys")? And your source for this is ... you're friends with someone who works "in the Newsom camp" and you go out for lunch with them?
I'll be honest, this sounds like some crazy conspiracy theory, so I'm gonna take it for what it's worth ... nothing.
He's saying his friend and his friend's coworkers who somehow work for Newsom wants Newsom to do that. Not that Newsome wants to do that.
Of course the actual implementation is much easier. Just repeal the laws that prevent digitizing the existing records and building a database. That will cover the majority of individuals even if there is a long tail of untracked firearms.
In your “it would be fun to see people I don’t like being killed” you have conflated legal gun ownership that you don’t like to illegally crossing the remaining the borders of a country… and you can’t see it huh?
You're misquoting them. They said "it would be fun to see [people I don't like] have their guns cataloged."