? So randos with guns should be able to just waltz in and kill or arrest officers of a foreign government because they think those guys are spies or something?
Sounds more like a "we told you so" for everyone who is against every morally unsound dumbass in the country being able to own a firearm.
And to be clear, I am with the other poster who said he wishes the Canadian government's response was stronger when it came to the Chinese "stations". That is of course the proper mechanism for handling this.
There is no doubt in my mind that if they tried to spread their influence beyond the Chinese immigrant communities you would definitely see 2nd amendment “events” at these things.
Depending on the exact sense of "immigrant" in use, the answer is either an unqualified "no" (if looking at the status of being present on an immigrant visa) or "in some but not all case" (if looking at "people who have immigrated", in which case some are naturalized US citizens, but many are not.)
Sure, some. But not all…and from my understanding the nature of these police stations is to try and police anti-CCP activity of the non-US citizen Chinese immigrants.
>Do you discriminate…
Bear in mind there is a considerable cultural difference between a freshly arrived Chinese immigrant in Chinatown NYC and Joe Bob McGill from Pahokee, Florida as it would relate to the submission to or tolerance of a foreign government’s expression of authority within their community. One is a person used to heavy handed action from their government, and the other is a guy driving around town with a Gadsen flag flying on a pole in their truck bed (which is stained with alligator blood that was shot and killed and pulled out of their momma’s pond for getting a little too frisky).
The thing I wonder is, what is the impact of a known armed populace on the willingness of foreign powers to set up operations like this? I.e. if you were able to re-roll the United States disarmed like the UK, would there be more Chinese police stations? I guess we'll never know.
None, which is why the 2nd Amendment is a joke at our own expense. The only people who fear the guns of Americans are women and children.
Even if I had material evidence that the house next door is a nest of Chinese spies, there is no cause, precedent or excuse for me to kick in the door and waste everyone inside. My doing so would instigate an international incident in their favor, and I would never see freedom again.
Guns pose no threat whatsoever to adversaries who treat human life as disposable, and who know our weapons can't be lawfully used against them on our own soil. It's literally win-win for them.
> None, which is why the 2nd Amendment is a joke at our own expense.
The second amendment (along with other aspects of the Constitution relating to the militia) is largely an attempt at protection against our own government setting up large dedicate internal and external security forces which would naturally become insular subcultures (the internal security forces being the most critical one, though external services were a threat because they have a history of being called on for internal security when the government feels particularly threatened), by instead protecting the capacity for and promoting the use of a small permanent cadre supplemented by the militia of the general citizenry for both purposes.
It completely failed both as to external and internal security, but it wasn't a bad idea. (Ironically, the people most hyped about the second amendment also tend to be rather aggressively in favor of giving more resources, responsibility, and leeway to permanent security forces, both internal and external, and are violently opposed to people who promote things like defunding the police.)
