and leave the violent fascists in red states and the government to have a monopoly on violence? get fucked.
Comment on Anon breaks up
Olap@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This is so American. Just give up the damn guns!
possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 month ago
What kind of gun do you have for you to take on the government with it?
ahornsirup@feddit.org 1 month ago
So you think your 9mm is going to defend you from a government tank when it actually comes down to violence? You’re fucked, gun or no gun.
lmdnw@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The concept of an armed populace facing the government doesn’t usually involve a direct head on opposition. Armed resistance to a corrupt government would take a more guerrilla warfare approach. A real world example could be the anti-junta rebellion happening in Myanmar.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
You’re forgetting that the US lost 3 wars to guerilla tactics, 2 of those in the last decade
Honytawk@feddit.nl 1 month ago
Guerilla tactics in foreign countries on the other side of the planet, where they needed to overcome giant logistics problems.
Fighting on their own territory where they already have all their bases and equipment is not going to end the same way.
ahornsirup@feddit.org 1 month ago
The US lost because of domestic pressure to end those wars. Militarily the US was never in danger of defeat. Do you think that the current US administration is going to give a singular shit about domestic pressure once the shooting starts? If the military sides with the government, the government wins. If the military sides against the government the government loses.
SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Tanks need parts, tanks need fuel, tanks need constant maintenance. I’m not advocating for violence but the truth is an Abrams might have machine guns and ERA, but a factory doesn’t. And look how drone warfare has changed the game, small groups of people can take on tanks without even being in line of sight
ahornsirup@feddit.org 1 month ago
You don’t need to be in line of sight, your family needs to be. Are you still going to risk it if you know that the government will throw your family into a concentration camp in response?
Assume that the fascists in this fight have zero respect for human rights or human lives. Because they’ve already proven that they don’t.
possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
I’m not worried about the tank, I’m worried about Tim, the guy from two doors down who has seventeen firearms and an F350 and walks around yelling homophobic slurs.
ahornsirup@feddit.org 1 month ago
Tim shouldn’t be allowed guns either.
SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Because we should totally trust our government with our protection…
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I’m tending to side with her, but they were legally purchased and probably expensive, it would be nice if he could at least get a tax write-off or something.
Olap@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sometimes you gotta pick your battles. What’s gonna be easier long term, giving up your guns or fighting this in the courts?
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Nah, let the gun but reflect on their idiocy.
JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
That is a very controversial take for Americans, and not just from a gun-toter’s perspective. The US has a long history of gun violence, yes, but the US also has a long history of state corruption which only ended by guns driving that corruption back.
In 1946, Veterans in the town of Athens used their firearms to fight against a corrupt police department helping the standing state rig the elections.
In 1921 The Battle of Blair Mountain occurred, where West Virginia miners who’d been stuck in the exploitive company town employment model, battled along the ridges of Blair Mountain against Police. In the company towns you could be fired from your job and evicted from your home without trial - since the mining company owned the houses and only let employees use them - and being in a Union was a fireable offense. This was the largest labor uprising in US history, mine workers fighting deputy sheriffs and strike breakers, with the police actually using biplanes to drop bombs overtop the heads of the miners. This was apart of the Coal Wars of the US, and apart of the broader Labor Wars in the US, which eventually led to the pro-labor regulations we now have in place within the US (which are now being dismantled despite a massive rise in peaceful protests).
In 1968, the Holy Week Uprising occurred in response to Rev. Martin Luther King Junior’s assassination, and fueled by the massive inequality that the black community still faced.
All of these were cases of a overhead government, whether state, town, or federal, failing to provide for it citizens, and those citizens helping change that governments’ behaviour through violent armed uprising. It is a regular occurrence in American history for us to have corrupt officials who start setting inhumane policies, and it’s also been a regular occurrence for that corruption to need violent intervention in order for changes for the better to occur.
Texas_Hangover@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Make me.
Oh wait. You can’t🤣
Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 1 month ago
Gets tomahawked
Saleh@feddit.org 1 month ago
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
-Karl Marx
Olap@lemmy.world 1 month ago
See, I can quote things too
Saleh@feddit.org 1 month ago
You say people should just give up their weapons. I used to be strictly against private weapon ownership too. Over the years, especially the last few years i see more and more of a necessity for people to be able to fight back against an overreaching government, as we have seen more and more authoritarian developments all across the “Western” nations.
This is what Marx referred to.
There is a political case for private weapon ownership. The obvious counter-argument is that people like MAGA also have weapons then and can use them. As we have seen with previous and current dictatorships, when push comes to shove the regime will quickly supply its paramilitary wings with guns, so i don’t see the benefit of preventing normal people from owning weapons in such a situation.
None of this is a judgement on the green-text, as we lack the whole picture, on whether taking the weapons from anon was justified or not. However the default assertion that people should just give up their weapons is not as obvious as you make it out to be.
glimse@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Gun ownership isn’t the problem. Gun culture is the problem.
I’ve been the victim of more than one violent crime but it’s only been recently that I’m considering acquiring a firearm. For the exact reasons you’re describing.
JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Gandhi was a piece of shit. I wouldn’t quote him for the most part.
TheBat@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Hmm whom to believe, MLK or some random lemming?
TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 1 month ago
Gun people are suddely literate when someone agrees with them.