Comment by jQueryIsAwesome | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jQueryIsAwesome | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jQueryIsAwesome

I was just answering to OP who talked like the fact that it is on the constitution is somehow a valid reason not to change the law.

>Finally, I'm sorry to say this and I know it gets old, but the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms.

But ok; I am going to pile on the other hundreds of comments making noise and tell you what I think America should do.

Decriminalize all drugs first (or at the same time). Then change the constitution and proclaim nobody should have guns except the police/military and some special cases (some bodyguards, bank guards); despite the popularity of "guns don't kill people" is pretty clear that where guns are the number of gunshot victims are always higher. Anyone who thinks they can overthrow the USA government from inside is delusional, before there is even 1000 people organized all forms of communication would be shout down; even internet. Your only hope to overthrow the USA government if such thing ever is required is that some generals and soldiers of the USA army itself revel.

Obviously this change would need to happen gradually; first the high caliber guns and then progressively the others; the government should pay for the guns so citizens have one more incentive to give them away.

> Anyone who thinks they can overthrow the USA government from inside is delusional, before there is even 1000 people organized all forms of communication would be shout down; even internet.

"Overthrowing the government" makes it sound like an offensive operation, which is indeed fairly impractical. However, the real value of a large armed population is that it makes martial law and military occupation extremely difficult. It's a defensive advantage against an oppressive government. Look at the difficulty the US military has faced in its attempts to occupy Iraq, with a much smaller, poorer, and less sophisticated armed population. If the US government wanted to simply commit genocide against its population, sure, it could use chemical or nuclear weapons with little chance of civilian resistance, but there's not a huge advantage for even the most insane oppressive regime to do that.

> Then change the constitution and proclaim nobody should have guns except the police/military and some special cases (some bodyguards, bank guards).

Constitution or not, this is a deeply disturbing recommendation for many reasons, the most obvious of which is the fact that many people use guns for subsistence or income supplementation.

Yes, boil that frog slowly, and drug him first so he really won't realize it's happening.

It isn't nice to pretend you could overthrow your government, yeah, is nice as "religion" nice, as "delusional but thankfully uncheckable" nice.

I don't see any reason why we couldn't overthrow our government. It happens all over the world on a regular basis. Don't confuse "don't want to overthrow the government" with "can't overthrow the government".

You see; the amount of surveillance and military resources exponentially exceeds the ones from the countries you are talking about.

So does the amount of resources available to potential rebels.

And you're making a classic mistake here. Revolutions don't succeed in the face of unified military opposition. In any country. The scenario in a successful US revolution would be a schism or complete mutiny of the armed forces.

I did mention that; anyway; nobody is asking to ban weapons for the military so what is your point?

With an armed citizenry you need less of the military on your side.

You are very naive; take a look around, unless somehow most Americans stop being fat slow ignorant arrogant elitist self-rightous fools you have a pretty incompetent guerrilla; wish most likely would use the guns just to kill other citizens who disagree with the revolution and many would die because those have guns too. The 2nd amendment was wrote in a time were the enemy was an external entity (Britain), now it would be pointless and more nasty... well, actually it already is.

I have to chuckle when you, of all people, call me naive. I can only think your opinion of Americans is formed solely by watching television, as you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, I don't expect someone to understand when he lives in a country full of drug traffickers and communists. Probably gun control is the right thing for you.

If you were still interested in having a fruitful conversation you could had ask what data do I have to confirm Americas wouldn't make successful revolutionaries; or at least you would try to explain me why citizens against and pro-government would't kill each other. But instead you decided to call me names.

Let me give you a history lesson; the people you call "drug traffickers" were actually formed as guerrilla and is still called a guerrilla today (FARC and ELN groups); to start a revolution against the government, unfortunately it didn't go so well so the years flied by and they slowly became a rural mafia that kidnap and kill anyone that gets in their way and had long forgot what their purpose is. Another situation that can happen in any country, including America. So yeah, you are very naive about the possible conclusions of an armed revolution.

>If you were still interested in having a fruitful conversation you could had ask what data do I have to confirm Americas wouldn't make successful revolutionaries; or at least you would try to explain me why citizens against and pro-government would't kill each other.

As if you could actually know something like that better than I.

>But instead you decided to call me names.

Which was entirely appropriate after your last comment.

And yes, I'm aware of the genesis of drug traffickers in Columbia. Your condescending attempt at a "history lesson" isn't required.

>As if you could actually know something like that better than I.

The level of arrogance is too damn high.

And you avoided many points, like civiliant against civilian violence in the scenary of a civil war.

>The level of arrogance is too damn high.

I don't think I'm being particularly arrogant by pointing out your knowledge of my country is of the primary school variety. Even if you had a more average grasp of US society and politics, you still wouldn't know as much as an American. That's just basic common sense, something which seems to be in short supply on your end.

>And you avoided many points, like civiliant against civilian violence in the scenary of a civil war.

That's not a "point" at all. How does it relate to the discussion?

Well; you say that guns are good because if a revolution is needed is better if the citizens have guns; the problem is that in revolutions the civilians who doesn't want it also have guns; so it gets really violent without affecting any "tyrant".

Of course it depends on the circumstances. Typically a tyrant maintains power by buying off a small portion of the total population. It can be as little as 10%. Somebody like Marcos in the Philippines comes to mind.

The frog is already being boiled. And it's drugged by FUD of media and propaganda.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com