What aspects of history are Americans violently passionate about?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What aspects of history are Americans violently passionate about?

«‹›6 »

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I think you're all really getting away from the OP's question. The proposition wasn't "what can you say that will piss of certain segments of Americans?" There are a thousand things you could list there. The question was, what historical narritives will cause otherwise not aggressive Americans* to fight you as a matter of national honor. I really don't think there are any of those that aren't entwined with the Civil War and slavery. Maybe poo poo-talking George Washington, or praising Custer in front of Native Americans. I could find more people in Northern California willing to throw hands because I said that the Raiders suck and are a terrible team for poo poo people than I could willing to fight me over whether or not our occupation of the Philippines constituted colonialism and/or genocide.

*because some people will fight you over the best Led Zeppelin album or Chevy vs Ford

RaySmuckles posted:

i'lll fight you.

the ussr stopped the german advance at moscow at the end of 41/beginning of 42 and then broke the back of the german army at the end of 42 and the beginning of 43. by that time, the lend lease act had sent barely any supplies (only 16.1% of the total by then end of 42- germany was on the retreat in february of 43). even though it was only months later, lend lease had a bigger impact on things like kursk because the trucks and logistical equipment provided from lend lease assisted in building the defensive zone which halted the last major german offensive on the eastern front.

basically, the supplies were nice, but not particularly necessary. the germans were defeated halfway through the 2nd wave (waves were not equal sizes) of 4 waves of supplies.

now, someone pointed out to me that the ussr benefitted greatly during the initial parts of barbarossa from the UK sending them supplies, but this was not a part of the US's lend lease act.

While most of the lend-lease supplies arrived after the German retreat from Moscow, it was during Barbarrosa that the Soviet logistical situation was arguably the most tenuous, and those resources absolutely helped them survive to turn the corner. Past that, American logistical support, especially trucks and rolling stock, were a vital component of the Soviet counter offensives. In addition, lend-lease equipment was vital for equipping the Soviet strategic reserves.

I can go source quotes from contemporaries of Zhukov and Stalin quoting them talking about how Western supplies were absolutely critical for the war effort, but this is one of those things like the atomic bomb vs the Soviet declaration of war where people form their views based on their politics and don't change their mind. No one seriously tries to argue that the Axis could have been defeated without Soviet manpower, but for some reason people get into this weird denial thing when you argue that the Axis also could not have been defeated without American industrial and logistical support.

# ? Feb 7, 2018 20:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 2, 2024 06:49

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Well that's true, you can't really call modern gun rights advocates non-aggressive reasonable people.

# ? Feb 7, 2018 20:25

signalnoise: Mar 7, 2008; i was told my old av was distracting

Kanine posted:

oh also when you're pro-gun but a leftist it makes both conservative and liberal americans absolutely lose their poo poo

What exactly do you mean by "pro-gun" though

# ? Feb 7, 2018 20:53

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

signalnoise posted:

What exactly do you mean by "pro-gun" though

Oh I'm sure s/he's in favor of reasonable compromises :munch:

# ? Feb 7, 2018 21:07

signalnoise: Mar 7, 2008; i was told my old av was distracting

Dead Reckoning posted:

Oh I'm sure s/he's in favor of reasonable compromises

I have made the argument that if we are going to use military equipment to pursue criminals, it should be done by the military, with military training. The response I get every time is "but that's not how our government works" and that's really the response I get for many many arguments, and I'm like yo maybe the way the government works isn't the best way it could work

# ? Feb 7, 2018 21:55

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

signalnoise posted:

I have made the argument that if we are going to use military equipment to pursue criminals, it should be done by the military, with military training. The response I get every time is "but that's not how our government works" and that's really the response I get for many many arguments, and I'm like yo maybe the way the government works isn't the best way it could work

I'm not really sure what that has to do with being for or against gun control.

It's also dumb from several angles. How are you defining military equipment? And why do you think that the military doing domestic law enforcement is at all a good idea?

# ? Feb 7, 2018 22:10

signalnoise: Mar 7, 2008; i was told my old av was distracting

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm not really sure what that has to do with being for or against gun control.

It's also dumb from several angles. How are you defining military equipment? And why do you think that the military doing domestic law enforcement is at all a good idea?

Is your counterargument that it would be dumb to use military equipment for operations against domestic criminals even if we reserved that equipment for our nation's most trained military equipment users, and that even in the case of using such equipment, we would first need to categorize which equipment is beyond the scope of local police?

# ? Feb 7, 2018 22:59

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I'm not sure how to parse that.

I'm saying that the term "military equipment" is a scary-sounding and uselessly broad description, because there is no categorical rule that neatly separates "military" and "civilian" equipment. I'm wearing a fleece jacket today that is military equipment. It also doesn't help me understand what you think the problem is, other than maybe "it makes me uncomfortable when I see the Sheriff's deputies wearing MOLLE gear and camo."

Also I think letting the military enforce domestic law is a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 02:07

signalnoise: Mar 7, 2008; i was told my old av was distracting

I gave you one aspect of a definition, that these items would be outside the scope of local law enforcement. It would be part of a functional definition, not fully detailed, which is good because I do not have a catalog of equipment to rattle off. The core of this rests on whether or not you believe there is equipment that the military should have access to, but local law enforcement should not have access to. If you can agree that such equipment exists, then we can agree or disagree on prohibiting police use of equipment that is beyond police scope.

Honestly I think the misunderstanding here is based on a false presupposition that I think the military should be used for domestic crime. It could also have something to do with you preferring not to consider context to find intentions that make sense, but I will accept that it's possible that you tried.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 02:47

Buried alive: Jun 8, 2009

Signal's whole point seems to be that if you think civilians should have access to military equipment (whatever that is) and that policing should also be done with, or is at least acceptable to be done with, military equipment (whatever that is) then it seems like that would be best done with the people who are most proficient with military equipment (whatever that is) which is the military. If you think the military engaging in domestic police work is a bad idea, then you'll have to explain why it's okay for police, who do not have as great an understanding of said equipment, to do police work with that type of equipment. Also since this was brought up in the context of gun control it's safe enough to keep it to guns without drifting into police acquiring APC's and Tanks and such.

I mean, I'm not sure it's a terribly great argument, but it would hopefully at least get someone thinking. It's also not really what the thread is for, but I think there's a couple that can work.

1)Point out the origins of Thanks Giving day (thank god we killed all those Indians)
2)Point out that Christopher Columbus was a slaver and generally terrible person once he came to America.
3)IBM and Coca-Cola did business with the Nazis.

Buried alive fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Feb 8, 2018

# ? Feb 8, 2018 03:11

signalnoise: Mar 7, 2008; i was told my old av was distracting

But here you go anyway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_technology

quote:

Military technology is the application of technology for use in warfare. It comprises the kinds of technology that are distinctly military in nature and not civilian in application, usually because they lack useful or legal civilian applications, or are dangerous to use without appropriate military training.

That's a good one. Oh, what's this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program

quote:

Material donated
From 1997 until 2014, $5.1 billion in military hardware were transferred from the Department of Defense to local American law enforcement agencies, according to DLA's "Law Enforcement Support Office" (LESO) and material worth $449 million was transferred in 2013 alone.[6][13] About a third of the equipment is new.[14] The most commonly obtained item from the 1033 program is ammunition. Other most commonly requested items include cold weather clothing, sand bags, medical supplies, sleeping bags, flashlights and electrical wiring.[15] The 1033 program also transfers office equipment such as fax machines, which many smaller police departments are unable to afford. The DLA also offers tactical armored vehicles, weapons, including grenade launchers, watercraft, and aircraft.[9][16]

quote:

Police departments
As of 2014, 8,000 local law enforcement agencies participate in the reutilization program.[6] Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation. The largest number of requests for material comes from small to mid-sized police departments who are unable to afford extra clothing, vehicles and weapons. The program gives smaller police departments access to material that larger police departments are usually able to afford without federal assistance.[17] A memorandum of agreement between the DLA and the states participating in 1033 requires that local police forces either utilize the military equipment within one year or return it.[8] The rules allow police to dispose of or sell some goods after at least one year of usage.[18]

So basically the argument is if we are going to use military equipment, as in stuff that you should have military training to utilize "safely" then the people who use it should have military training. This can be done in a controlled way by working alongside the military, and having the military handle such equipment. Since using the military for police matters is hosed up to begin with, let's not use military equipment for police matters. It's not safe, and it is not controlled. What's more, the program we currently have in place gives police military equipment with a "use it or lose it" policy, and if you do use it, it becomes a source of funding. If you don't buy the fact that drawing prescriptive conclusions from descriptive premises is bad, well, that goes deeper than I'm willing to derail.

Gun control is absolutely an issue that should involve talking about the police.

edit: Buried alive gets it

signalnoise fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Feb 8, 2018

# ? Feb 8, 2018 03:13

signalnoise: Mar 7, 2008; i was told my old av was distracting

Thread-relevant content

Walt Disney (or take your pick of many many people famous for wholesome family stuff) was a racist

# ? Feb 8, 2018 03:27

Big Hubris: Mar 8, 2011

Rasputin was not a communist.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 03:49

Captain Oblivious: Oct 12, 2007; I'm not like other posters

Snowman_McK posted:

I read quite a few histories of the pacific war recently, and all of them were pretty down on him. Allan Schom especially. Hastings and Beevor, too. They all acknowledge that he was a brave man in his youth, but was a posturing blowhard by the time he was posted to the Phillipines. Hastings is the softest, saying that even if Macarthur had prepared the Phillipines it wouldn't have made a difference (probably wrong) but still acknowledging his neglect and his astonishing, destructive ego. These are all popular historians, so I'm surprised to hear you say that.

One that only works on a certain group, but works really reliably, is suggesting that Bruce Lee was almost definitely on a shitload of steroids. It only works on martial arts nerds, and a small subset that give in to that particular brand of hero worship, but gently caress it works.

I think you misread my post, I was saying precisely because I've been primarily exposed to the kind of historiography you're describing I forget that normal white Americans don't think of MacArthur as a Giant Fuckup.

Captain Oblivious fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Feb 8, 2018

# ? Feb 8, 2018 04:25

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

RaySmuckles posted:

the moral high ground of modernity is fickle and functionally useless. it does not signal virtue to rail against democracy because it was created by slave owning, classist, war-mongering pedophiles but, rather, to celebrate democracy because it arose and survived in spite of the horrific nature of its creators.

A couple of pages back, but I think this gets to the heart of why moral relativism and associated white-washing of history and the removal of critical historical context is damaging to learning important lessons about history and the evolution of various socio-political philosophies that now form the backbone of the various prevailing schools of thought. While I am somewhat sympathetic with what you are overall trying to convey, I feel that you might be underplaying the impact moral context has on the formation and spread of philosophy and ideology. For instance, I challenge the premise above and assert that democracy can equally be said to have arisen, survived, and spread because of the ability for social/cultural power structures to exert disproportionate influence and control from within. Looking at the historical spread of democracy, it was often a shift of power from one group to another rather than a cultural awakening to true equality and equitable distribution of influence. In revolutionary times, it served as the fig leaf of moral righteousness for powerful elite seeking to throw off the yoke of monarchistic control only to seize power for themselves (and provided a convenient narrative to liken the plight of social elite with underclasses). In modern times, democracy is often subverted for the purposes of influence and control, both within (disenfranchisement, unequal access/influence, creation of undemocratic systems like gerrymandered districts) and without (election tampering, installing puppet states, outright rejection of democratic processes when faced with unfavorable outcomes). I doubt democracy would have taken root at all if the slave owners, classist, war mongering pedophiles did not recognize it as a means to exert influence; just like you would see a shift in the way democracy is referenced among many Americans should we finally address the rampant disenfranchisement of minorities and underprivileged groups.

This is in no way intended as an argument to disparage the positive outcomes that can be attributed to the spread and evolution of democracy or to downplay the negatives associated with other institutional systems. Also, "democracy" itself is now an expansive term beyond the bounds of its original inception. But I am offering the idea that because it was conceived and shaped throughout history by fallible people with historically contextual beliefs and biases, that its assumptions and foundations (much like classic liberalism and many many many other social/cultural philosophical concepts) were influenced heavily by these factors. Much like how literal translation between two languages strips context that inhibits perfect communication, analyzing history through a lens of modern language and constructs leaves us blind to differences in application of otherwise identical language (similar to the debate around the meaning of a "well-regulated" militia or many other parts of the US Constitution that can potentially yield different interpretations). And that as we continue to evolve our thought, we must account for these influences and challenge our acceptance of what may seem to be inherent truths. A future version of democratic (or other) social organization that is designed to be free of undue influence or discrimination may be founded on different, even competing/incompatible, ideals as our current understanding. That is, if we truly desire to escape weakness imposed by bias (we are humans, so we probably don't and won't, but we should definitely try!).

archangelwar fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Feb 8, 2018

# ? Feb 8, 2018 05:08

mandatory lesbian: Dec 18, 2012

stone cold posted:

so does �Patton was a huge anti-semite� or �MacArthur was a moron�

One of my favorite memories of high school is my history teacher going on a period long rant about how stupid MacArthur was, triggered by the textbook glossing over his solution to literally any military engagement being to nuke them

# ? Feb 8, 2018 05:27

SwingShift: Apr 27, 2013

Pointing out or even implying that enslaving black people, committing genocide against the natives, and harassing and killing mexican people until they were forced off of their land so white people could steal it has long lasting repercussions and still impacts those people today will get you a less than graceful response from most white people. You can kind of get some positive reactions when talking about atrocities in a historical sense, like yeah of course slavery was bad and yeah stealing native american land and trying to murder all of them was bad (though most people don't even think to mention Mexican people and what was done to them) but the second you bring up that it hosed a lot of people and they're still paying for it today people start getting defense. Well I didn't have any slaves or kill any natives so why are you trying to make me feel bad about it? and Well what am I supposed to do about it now? are usual responses.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 05:40

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

signalnoise posted:

Thread-relevant content

Walt Disney (or take your pick of many many people famous for wholesome family stuff) was a racist

i am not a big fan of disney(as interesting/imagantive as he was but he was giant conservative rear end in a top hat) i have tried finding direct sources of him being a giant anti semite and a giant bigot and i havent really found any outside the lovely of the time art. like i am sure he had the bigotries of the times but i seen any Lovecraft level stuff.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 05:41

Snowman_McK: Jan 31, 2010

Captain Oblivious posted:

I think you misread my post, I was saying precisely because I've been primarily exposed to the kind of historiography you're describing I forget that normal white Americans don't think of MacArthur as a Giant Fuckup.

Oh, I got that. I was just surprsied, since even popular histories of the war acknowledge that he falls far short of the legend, to put it lightly.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 07:01

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

signalnoise posted:

But here you go anyway

That's a good one. Oh, what's this?

So basically the argument is if we are going to use military equipment, as in stuff that you should have military training to utilize "safely" then the people who use it should have military training. This can be done in a controlled way by working alongside the military, and having the military handle such equipment. Since using the military for police matters is hosed up to begin with, let's not use military equipment for police matters. It's not safe, and it is not controlled. What's more, the program we currently have in place gives police military equipment with a "use it or lose it" policy, and if you do use it, it becomes a source of funding. If you don't buy the fact that drawing prescriptive conclusions from descriptive premises is bad, well, that goes deeper than I'm willing to derail.

Here's the third paragraph of that Wikipedia article you linked:

quote:

The line is porous; military inventions have been brought into civilian use throughout history, with sometimes minor modification if any, and civilian innovations have similarly been put to military use.

Gun control is absolutely an issue that should involve talking about the police.

Nothing on your list is something that can only be handled by trained military personnel; civilians do not suddenly become unable to safely operate a motor vehicle when you attach armor to it or paint it green. There is no special military training one needs to operate a boat. Going through nine weeks of boot camp does not somehow instill a special knowledge of how to use dangerous things, or that vehicles with a high center of gravity can roll easily.

The reason the military shouldn't be used for domestic peacekeeping isn't because they have access to forbidden, deadly Military Technology; it's because the purpose, training, and culture of the military is not intended for civil policing, no more than a police department is prepared to conduct a combined arms offensive. I get that you don't like police militarization, but the problem with it is the mindset, not the hardware. Has there been any demonstrated correlation between the dollar value of DRMO equipment accepted and the number of suits brought against a department?

And I still don't see what this has to do with the cops, because no gun control proponent of note has suggested equalizing the force available to the public and the enforcers of state power. It isn't a realistic possibility.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 08:43

Flowers For Algeria: Dec 3, 2005; I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.

How about this: not even the police should be armed, the military should be disbanded, and nothing in this discussion pertains to "aspects of history".

# ? Feb 8, 2018 09:08

signalnoise: Mar 7, 2008; i was told my old av was distracting

It's like I'm watching the tin man refuse to stop arguing with a giant floating head when everyone else has already pulled back the curtain

# ? Feb 8, 2018 10:18

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Flowers For Algeria posted:

How about this: not even the police should be armed, the military should be disbanded, and nothing in this discussion pertains to "aspects of history".

I for one would welcome our new North Hollywood shootout overlords.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 10:25

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

signalnoise posted:

What exactly do you mean by "pro-gun" though

being for the idea of arming marginalized communites/anarchists/communists because we need collective self defense against fascists. look at trigger warning gun club, redneck revolt or (historically) the black panthers if you want to know more about this line of thinking.

myself and a lot of my comrades routinely get threats from the far right and police refuse to help us because of our identities/politics so owning firearms is crucial to our safety and ability to organize.

also here's a more specific version of what i meant, both liberal and conservative americans get really pissy at this quote

Kanine fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Feb 8, 2018

# ? Feb 8, 2018 20:15

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Ahahaha

# ? Feb 8, 2018 20:32

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

i mean if you want specific examples of actual neo-nazis showing up outside activists homes brandishing guns where the cops refused to actually do anything about. (https://theconjurehouse.com/2017/02/28/its-time-for-anarchists-to-pick-up-a-gun/) I can even provide personal examples if you want lol. or examples of how a lot of gun laws are applied in heavily racialized ways similar to drug laws.(http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/30/is-a-court-case-in-texas-the-first-prosecution-of-a-black-identity-extremist/)

it's also worth noting that the majority of labor rights that exist in the united states (and most of the world) were won by armed labor unions/organizations, and that if american unions were armed again we wouldn't be seeing such a massive death of rights for workers like we've seen over the last 40 years.

Kanine fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Feb 8, 2018

# ? Feb 8, 2018 20:41

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

oh another thing that realllllly pisses off most americans is when you point out that policing in america started out as runaway slave patrols. http://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-origins-american-policing

# ? Feb 8, 2018 21:03

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

"We could have won the Vietnam War if our government let OUR TROOP win"

"We could have won the Vietnam War if we haven't' being stabbed in the back by the protesters and liberals"

"We were too careful about bombing Vietnam, if only we had bombed a few days more we would have won"

# ? Feb 8, 2018 21:08

SimonCat: Aug 12, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo; College Slice

Kanine posted:

i mean if you want specific examples of actual neo-nazis showing up outside activists homes brandishing guns where the cops refused to actually do anything about. (https://theconjurehouse.com/2017/02/28/its-time-for-anarchists-to-pick-up-a-gun/) I can even provide personal examples if you want lol. or examples of how a lot of gun laws are applied in heavily racialized ways similar to drug laws.(http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/30/is-a-court-case-in-texas-the-first-prosecution-of-a-black-identity-extremist/)

it's also worth noting that the majority of labor rights that exist in the united states (and most of the world) were won by armed labor unions/organizations, and that if american unions were armed again we wouldn't be seeing such a massive death of rights for workers like we've seen over the last 40 years.

There's also the Battle of Hayes Pond, where armed Native Americans ran off the KKK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond

# ? Feb 8, 2018 21:15

signalnoise: Mar 7, 2008; i was told my old av was distracting

So at this point the argument against arms reduction is that you need to legally be able to protect yourself because the police are against you? I don't think that corrupt police give a poo poo about whether or not the guns you have are legal, dude.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 22:14

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

signalnoise posted:

So at this point the argument against arms reduction is that you need to legally be able to protect yourself because the police are against you? I don't think that corrupt police give a poo poo about whether or not the guns you have are legal, dude.

Having a gun is most likely going to get your shot without warning by a scared racist cop.

Someone merely saying you have a gun can result in that.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 22:24

SimonCat: Aug 12, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo; College Slice

Jaxyon posted:

Having a gun is most likely going to get your shot without warning by a scared racist cop.

Someone merely saying you have a gun can result in that.

The cops don't care if you have a gun or not or if the gun is legal or not. So why not keep them legal for the times the cops don't protect you? Do I need to post the story about Detroit cops only coming to stores that pay them protection?

Here's an uncomfortable fact: Gun control in the United States has a long history of being used to disarm minorities and poor people and it continues to be that way.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 22:47

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

Or maybe you can address the police abuse problems rather than fostering tribal warfare. But I�m just spitballing here.

# ? Feb 8, 2018 22:50

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

archangelwar posted:

Or maybe you can address the police abuse problems rather than fostering tribal warfare. But I�m just spitballing here.

The past 400 years have been white tribal warfare on everyone else without retaliation. Makes me wonder why white liberals get so cagey about arming minorities :jihad:

# ? Feb 8, 2018 23:16

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

signalnoise posted:

So at this point the argument against arms reduction is that you need to legally be able to protect yourself because the police are against you? I don't think that corrupt police give a poo poo about whether or not the guns you have are legal, dude.

lol i never said i was pro-lax gun legislation. i literally just said pro-gun. as long as black people (and other marginalized groups/leftists in general) have guns they will be will try to take them away regardess. oppressed polities should arm themselves whether or not its legal.

Kanine fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Feb 8, 2018

# ? Feb 8, 2018 23:22

Kanine: Aug 5, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Peven Stan posted:

The past 400 years have been white tribal warfare on everyone else without retaliation. Makes me wonder why white liberals get so cagey about arming minorities

white liberals and conservatives came together supported gun legislation in the 60's because they were terrified of the black panthers lol, that's another thing most americans get real pissy about

# ? Feb 8, 2018 23:23

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

Peven Stan posted:

The past 400 years have been white tribal warfare on everyone else without retaliation. Makes me wonder why white liberals get so cagey about arming minorities

I have no problem arming minorities but maybe it is time to disarm the whites.

# ? Feb 9, 2018 04:35

signalnoise: Mar 7, 2008; i was told my old av was distracting

Kanine posted:

lol i never said i was pro-lax gun legislation. i literally just said pro-gun. as long as black people (and other marginalized groups/leftists in general) have guns they will be will try to take them away regardess. oppressed polities should arm themselves whether or not its legal.

Sounds like you're less pro-gun than you are pro-resistance

# ? Feb 9, 2018 04:51