Re:The 2nd Amendment should protect the Internet, not your AK47
by cpr on Friday December 21, 2012 @12:29PM
(#4953587)
The author is overlooking the point that, even with all the military might of the US, if it truly becomes tyrannical and rolls into parts of the country it deems "rebellious," there's a lot of firepower out there (ca. 300M guns) to overcome, and a lot of loss of life involved.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The 2nd Amendment should protect the Internet, not your AK47
by astrodust on Friday December 21, 2012 @12:39PM
(#4953624)
As Iraq and Afghanistan have surely proven, guns are not the primary weapons of a revolutionary force. It's improvised explosives and plain old sabotage that will make an occupier's life exceedingly difficult.
People with guns are just convenient targets. They're the ones that get shot first.
Re:The 2nd Amendment should protect the Internet, not your AK47
by beatgammit on Friday December 21, 2012 @12:47PM
(#4953663)
I agree 100%. If needed, I'm sure the NRA could get 500 million or so to start a militia. They may not be in the best state physically, but that's not needed for guerilla-style warfare. But I think we're a long way off before that happens (even though the gov't is already pretty corrupt).
I agree with the author that the Internet is a much more powerful tool in terms of affecting policy in Congress. We saw that with SOPA/PIPA, and I bet we'll see it again if there's another bill that similarly tries to restrict our freedoms. It's not perfect, but it effectively amplifies a single voice and can even replace physical organization.
Re:The 2nd Amendment should protect the Internet, not your AK47
by ef4 on Friday December 21, 2012 @12:51PM
(#4953682)
> If needed, I'm sure the NRA could get 500 million or so to start a militia.
There are only 309 million people in the United States, so that would be quite a feat.
Re:The 2nd Amendment should protect the Internet, not your AK47
by beatgammit on Saturday December 22, 2012 @12:41AM
(#4955880)
Type-o, I meant 500 thousand...