To more directly respond, perhaps the second amendment is about preventing change, rather than effecting it?

> So, the 2nd amendment is preemptive. By disincentivizing oppressive ambitions, government overthrow is not necessary in the first place. The US concentrated 120,000 Japanese descendants (mostly citizens) in camps during WWII. Apparently the disincentive is not very strong. More guided research (cheating?) from the bot below. Regarding the Velvet Revolution, communism was already in decline and, crucially, Gorbachev had signaled that it would no longer use military force to keep satellite states in line. So, the Czechoslovak Communist Party knew Moscow wouldn’t send tanks like in 1968 (Prague Spring). Without that backing, their willingness to violently crack down was weaker. So peaceful worked but, at least partially, by coincidence. Also read that during Prague Spring a 20 year old named, Jan Palach, committed suicide by setting himself on fire in protest.

Wow, really enjoyed this. Thanks. Reminded me off this: https://primal.net/e/

Just finished questioning the bot and it gave me this: • James Madison (Federalist No. 46): “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” So, the 2nd amendment is preemptive. By disincentivizing oppressive ambitions, government overthrow is not necessary in the first place.

Ah, thanks for the correction. Also just read that some cops later committed suicide. I find it hard to believe that social media algorithms don’t put people on the right in a bubble. Since learning about Bitcoin and using nostr, my YouTube feed has definitely shifted. I expect most people in the right bubble avoid late night talk shows like left bubble avoids Fox News or whatever. And neither gets served that info as time goes on. I agree that it’s probably harder for the left to inadvertently see the edge of their bubble. Especially the academic portion of it. “But the studies show” is a common refrain I hear, and explaining that money can easily influence research outcomes is not accepted. There must be a refuting study. Anyway, I’m thinking out loud and trying to get my head around things. Thanks for engaging.

Some cops, right? Six of them, I think. Also, I recall a video of a woman being shot by a cop after being the first through a door. Not sure. I doubt anyone on the left thought the election was rigged, but many were convinced on the right. Seems like a bubble there. Or perhaps instead of a bubble, as you say, they were exposed to both sides. But, in that case, the dissonance didn’t temper the violence.

> People on the right the last few decades were constantly told they were bad and wrong by the media. It was almost impossible for them to live in a bubble. When you don’t live in a bubble, you are exposed to cognitive dissonance all the time, and you have less absolutism and fundamentalism. Less existential dread when someone disagrees with you, more rigor in formulating your worldview. I was trying to think of examples of violence, and January 6th came to mind, how do you think about that? Thanks.

Any ideas who they might be?