|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Expect expecting a group of civilians in era of tanks, drones, radios, cruise missiles, airplanes, etc. to defeat an army it is a guarantee the army will win. There's a lot more to war than just weapons. Believe it or not but U.S. history actually has examples of the military being called in and then refusing to do anything. During some of the biggest labor strikes the national guard would sometimes get called in to restore order and force people back to work. What they usually did was stack their arms and go home.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
What's the point of this exactly? The United States armed forces in Vietnam were never defeated aside from smaller tactical battles. The US lost due to political pressure back home. Not to mention, North Vietnam was supported by China. A better example is Syrian Civil War or the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. ToxicSlurpee posted:There's a lot more to war than just weapons. Believe it or not but U.S. history actually has examples of the military being called in and then refusing to do anything. During some of the biggest labor strikes the national guard would sometimes get called in to restore order and force people back to work. Sure, but that's far from the scenario presented by 2A advocates. The scenario presented is civilian need weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Not that, "Oh, the soldiers in the tyrannical are going to refuse to fight because they'll see we have guns too."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:What's the point of this exactly? How bout the Afghanis, who also won.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Yea, this claim is just completely incorrect too. The extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was a result of the Civil Rights Movement. Sorry, but I don't follow. My claim is the reason that the 2nd amendment exists, carrying all of the "gun rights" arguments, was because of racism. Not the later interpretation of it. Unfortunately, that article is paywalled to me, so I'm unsure of if you're claiming that the 2nd amendment wasn't steeped in racism up to that point or what you're referencing. For a source about the 2nd amendment existing solely because of slave owners: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-slave-owners-dictated-the-language-of-the-2nd-amendment Jaxyon posted:But you didn't do this when someone posted an example.... What example? I asked for an exact statute number and wasn't supplied one for the generalized statement that the poster made. I'm not going to hunt down what law they're insinuating with a lazy, broad generalization. Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jun 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:How bout the Afghanis, who also won. And? Why do you think the Afgans won while the Syrian rebels just lost in the Syrian Civil War? Why did the Nazis win in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Kalit posted:Sorry, but I don't follow. My claim is the reason that the 2nd amendment exists, carrying all of the "gun rights" arguments, was because of racism. Not the later interpretation of it. Unfortunately, that article is paywalled to me, so I'm unsure of if you're claiming that the 2nd amendment wasn't steeped in racism up to that point or what you're referencing. I think I am agreeing with you. Sometimes it is true that gun control has been done for racism but it is also true that gun control has also been removed/weaken for racism too. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jun 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:How bout the Afghanis, who also won. I think you'll find the tactic of "simply continue to exist between rear end whoopings until the invader gets tired and goes home" won't work in a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I think you'll find the tactic of "simply continue to exist between rear end whoopings until the invader gets tired and goes home" won't work in a civil war. But it seems like political discontent and the unwillingness of an american army to fight would be greater, no? And I'm told that's what won Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
The "disarming the populace so they can't fight the government oppression" conversation is a pointless derail because of many reasons 1) Plenty of countries have strict gun control but aren't specifically any more oppressive than current US 2) Nobody is talking about disarming the population, just some gun regulation 3) The fascists in the US are the ones most virulently against even the most minor gun control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I think I am agreeing with you. Sometimes it is true that gun control has been done for racism but it is also true that gun control has also been removed/weaken for racism too. Gotcha, this is true and thanks for the clarification.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The "disarming the populace so they can't fight the government oppression" conversation is a pointless derail because of many reasons 4) the populace is functionally disarmed already and any inclination otherwise is wishful thinking
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
"Oppressive governments disarm the populace" and "all gun control is preparation for oppression" are not the same statement, and the latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Yes, oppressive governments often disarm the populace, but lots of non-oppressive governments have disarmed the populace too, because having a heavily-armed populace tends to interfere with having a strong, stable central government. That's not always shorthand for brutal government oppression! For example, disarmament is often extremely helpful in allowing a national government to assert control over overly powerful and belligerent local power-holders (such as warlords or organized crime). Ultimately, the role of gun policy is to define the relationship between local, lower-level power-holders and the more distant higher-level power holders. Gun control would tend to shift the monopoly on violence more toward the latter, while permissive gun policy would tend to empower the former at the expense of the latter. Which is better depends on their relative political positions. For example, the lack of any serious effort to disarm the South after the Civil War was a key factor in the failure of Reconstruction, as the well-armed Southern whites could quickly retake local dominance by force whenever the federal troops weren't around. On the other hand, just fifty years later, those same well-armed Southern whites were happy to impose discretionary gun control laws that allowed local authorities to control who could own guns (just as they were happy to impose discretionary voting laws that allowed local authorities to decide who could vote). ToxicSlurpee posted:When the Nazis took power Hitler disarmed sectors of the population especially the Jews. They also disarmed the countries they conquered. Himmler specifically said "Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as having guns doesn’t serve the State." Before that the Weimar Republic began gun registry which was then used by those in power against political opponents pretty specifically. We know what happened after that. When the Nazis took power, Hitler didn't really do anything about gun laws. The Nazis didn't pass gun laws until five years after Hitler took power, and when they did, they're generally considered to have loosened control of guns. The Nazi gun laws reduced the number of guns that required licenses, expanded the number of groups that were exempt from the gun licensing requirements (for example, being a Nazi Party member automatically entitled you to acquire a handgun without needing to get a permit first), loosened the age limit, and so on. Eight months later, they issued an order banning Jews from having any deadly weapons (including not just guns, but knives or clubs as well). But this was in late 1938, after Kristallnacht, and therefore was clearly not a necessary factor to enable oppression of Jews. Rather, historical takes I've seen (there aren't a ton, because the idea that the Nazis were pro-gun control was invented by a NRA lawyer in 2000) generally seem to consider this measure to have been part of a larger propaganda campaign to convince the larger German public that Jews were dangerous and needed to be further oppressed. The Viet Cong were a lot better armed than your local gun store. Between captured weapons from the French military and ongoing supplies from the Soviets and China, they had plenty of military-grade equipment. The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was won with heavy artillery and anti-aircraft guns, not handguns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Even if the police did have a legal duty to protect people they aren't everywhere. They can't be everywhere and I don't think anybody would want to live in a society where they are as that's a sure sign of an oppressive government. Chances are if you get attacked the police aren't there. But who is there? You are. Historically speaking, the way to beat the US Army is to be difficult to occupy for long enough that popular opinion at home turns against the conflict. Being armed makes that easier. Especially when one remembers the entire US armed forces are less than 1% of the population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:But it seems like political discontent and the unwillingness of an american army to fight would be greater, no? And I'm told that's what won Vietnam. You're not going to get to fight the Army. The police have tanks. The National Guard has jets. The FBI will simply arrest you before you ever get the chance to try pea shooters against any of it. Resistance to the US government on US soil exists only as long as they're willing to put up with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:4) the populace is functionally disarmed already and any inclination otherwise is wishful thinking One theme that tends to follow these discussions is the doublethink that the populace has so many arms that terrible violence is inevitable, but simultaneously so poorly armed that any thought of self-defense against right wing militias or a tyrannical government would be a fools errand. It’s a round-about way to argue that the state should hold a monopoly on violence, which probably isn’t a great thing to argue considering the US government’s track record and that the GOP will enjoy a permanent majority very soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:One theme that tends to follow these discussions is the doublethink that the populace has so many arms that terrible violence is inevitable, but simultaneously so poorly armed that any thought of self-defense against right wing militias or a tyrannical government would be a fools errand. How in the hell is this "doublethink"? Terrible violence isn't a synonym for self-defense. Going down in a hail of bullets is terrible violence but not "self-defense". quote:It’s a round-about way to argue that the state should hold a monopoly on violence, which probably isn’t a great thing to argue considering the US government’s track record and that the GOP will enjoy a permanent majority very soon. The state does have a monopoly on violence. The state has tanks, fighter jets, and nukes. Owning a rifle doesn't impact the state's ability to do violence to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
Xombie posted:How in the hell is this "doublethink"? Terrible violence isn't a synonym for self-defense. Going down in a hail of bullets is terrible violence but not "self-defense". Violence is a pretty important component of self-defense. The state has a monopoly on violence *now*, you shouldn't be arguing that should be the case going forward unless you believe a GOP one-party state will be an ethical steward of that violence. The state has had tanks, fighter jets, and nukes in every conflict since the end of World War 2 and they've still fared pretty lovely in quite a few of them. First off, the idea that the US government would use nukes on its own soil is insane, and if you're talking about a traditional insurgency, they can't really go leveling entire cities with tanks or fighter jets either, unless they feel like doing free PR for the insurgents. Arguing the odds is just silly because if we find ourselves in armed conflict with the government, its because we already weighed our options and getting shot at was better than the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
I'm strongly in favor of gun control, to make my position clear from the start. But I did read some of TFR's gun control thread, and while I disagree with a lot of it, a question that did make sense to me as a practical concern is enforcement. Namely, that enforcement would pretty inevitably be in the hands of the police. Who are... well, the police. Not that I think that owning a gun is any kind of protection against cops (and neither is not owning a gun). And it's not like cops don't already indiscriminately harass the poor and minorities. But at the same time, it's hard to have faith that any kind of gun control measure doesn't just get turned into the war on drugs all over again. It's tempting to say that poo poo already sucks in that department, gun control can't make it suck worse, but that's a declaration I really don't want to be boldly making from a position of unaffected privilege. Is this something that's blown out of proportion? Is it something that's been thought through already? Or is it just "yeah, poo poo sucks but we have to do something"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 05:26
|
|
|
I think self-defense is a poor term to use when talking about fighting governments. At that point it's an insurgency, and "defense" is not really the aim in most cases, even if it's to theoretically "preserve" an ideal or some such. This is separate from the idea of the right to self-defense. To be clear: There is often a conflation between the two, due to how the 2nd Amendment impacts the laws in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:I'm strongly in favor of gun control, to make my position clear from the start. So…I think connecting laws with the current police state is a bad thing. It’s so easy to connect the dots of X is the law, law is enforced by police, ergo….. But that misses the nuance of laws. If that held true to the absolute limit, than all laws are fallible, therefore anarchism is the only true answer. Maybe you agree with that. But I do not. There’s also the flip side, such as who is enforcing the gun rights laws for white people to kill minorities that they view as a theat In my opinion, laws are much more than the current police state. I think it’s important to take in the entire context. Such as who is more often killed by guns. How are those guns more often acquired. Who benefits from lax gun laws. What is the history of gun rights and gun control laws. Etc, etc, etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 05:40
|
|
|
Law doesn't exist in an academically approved vacuum. As amply demonstrated by the existence of judicially invented concepts like qualified immunity. Who interprets the law, and who enforces it are as important as the actual text. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Jun 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 06:58
|
|
|
North Vietnam was supplied by the USSR and the PRC. The US was not repelled by weapons that already existed within the civilian population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 08:05
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:One theme that tends to follow these discussions is the doublethink that the populace has so many arms that terrible violence is inevitable, but simultaneously so poorly armed that any thought of self-defense against right wing militias or a tyrannical government would be a fools errand. There are so many arms that terrible violence is inevitable between members of the populace, but that same armed populace has no chance against the might of the state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 11:42
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:One theme that tends to follow these discussions is the doublethink that the populace has so many arms that terrible violence is inevitable, but simultaneously so poorly armed that any thought of self-defense against right wing militias or a tyrannical government would be a fools errand. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Jun 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 13:14
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Law doesn't exist in an academically approved vacuum. But in addition to the main point of my post, which you handwaved away, you seem to be ignoring that I also mentioned that enforcement is done by the same people on both sides of gun rights/gun control. If who enforces the law is as important as the text itself, how can you make that argument against one side (gun control) and not the other (gun rights)? Even if we magically had 100% no gun control, you'll still have the enforcement issues as long as those enforcers exist [and have power] (e.g. Philando Castile) Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Jun 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
"We need guns to protect ourselves from government overreach and tyranny!" says the country with the most prisoners, disenfranchised citizens and police killings. "We need guns to hold the government accountable!" even as the corruption index gets worse every year. "We need good guys with guns to protect us from the bad guys with guns!" says the country with the most mass shootings, where any violent crime is way more likely to be deadly than anywhere else in the industrialized world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:There are so many arms that terrible violence is inevitable between members of the populace, but that same armed populace has no chance against the might of the state. These can't simultaneously be true, sorry. The US government is not some unstoppable juggernaut and the US military has always fared poorly against insurgencies. The odds are even more dire for the government if the insurgents have the backing of a foreign power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:These can't simultaneously be true, sorry. The US government is not some unstoppable juggernaut and the US military has always fared poorly against insurgencies. The odds are even more dire for the government if the insurgents have the backing of a foreign power. When's the last time that the US military fared poorly against an internal insurgency? How has weapons technology beyond firearms changed since then? What foreign power would back an internal insurgency against the US government when it's guaranteed they would need to also fight all the other countries in NATO (and most likely some other allies of the US/NATO countries)? E: From a previous post that I want to point out: Bishyaler posted:First off, the idea that the US government would use nukes on its own soil is insane, and if you're talking about a traditional insurgency, they can't really go leveling entire cities with tanks or fighter jets either, unless they feel like doing free PR for the insurgents. Even though it wasn't a nuke, remember what the government did to MOVE in Philly? That was a tiny sampling of what the government is willing to do to squash who they perceive as a threat. Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Violence is a pretty important component of self-defense. Not dying is a pretty important component of "self-defense". It is in fact the primary component. quote:The state has a monopoly on violence *now*, you shouldn't be arguing that should be the case going forward unless you believe a GOP one-party state will be an ethical steward of that violence. This is a strawman. No where did I argue about what the state should or shouldn't have. I said that the state does have a monopoly on violence. The state has a military. The state has intelligence services. You having an assault rifle doesn't give you an ounce of equal power to the state. It doesn't even square you up with the firepower of your local municipality. quote:The state has had tanks, fighter jets, and nukes in every conflict since the end of World War 2 and they've still fared pretty lovely in quite a few of them. Once again, "fared pretty lovely" in these cases consist of the US winning nearly every battle but then leaving because long-term occupation is too politically inconvenient. You don't get this benefit in a civil war. quote:First off, the idea that the US government would use nukes on its own soil is insane, and if you're talking about a traditional insurgency, they can't really go leveling entire cities with tanks or fighter jets either, unless they feel like doing free PR for the insurgents. The thing is that they don't need to. You will never get that far. The local police has enough firepower to put down an insurgency. Failing that, the National Guard can do it with just their basic infantry. That's assuming you don't get the FBI to arrest you long before it gets that far. quote:Arguing the odds is just silly because if we find ourselves in armed conflict with the government, its because we already weighed our options and getting shot at was better than the alternative. It's not "silly" that reality doesn't fit your fantasy civil war scenario. You're talking like no one has come into armed conflict with the US government on US soil. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Bundy standoff just to name a few. The ATF and FBI didn't even need the military for any of these.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:These can't simultaneously be true, sorry. The US government is not some unstoppable juggernaut and the US military has always fared poorly against insurgencies. The odds are even more dire for the government if the insurgents have the backing of a foreign power. The US government absolutely is an unstoppable juggernaut within the US. If you're doing it within the US, you aren't a scrappy insurgency, you're just a person breaking the law, and get to be treated like someone breaking the law. Please look up the record for groups getting into standoffs with the US government in the past 30 years. The fact that you have to continually insist that this argument be framed in your personal civil war fantasy and not in reality is just a testament to how absurd it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Not dying is a pretty important component of "self-defense". It is in fact the primary component. "Not dying" isn't a certainty when you drive to the store for groceries, much less any conflict in the history of forever. The local police can put down an insurgency? The local police here couldn't handle a ragtag band of the local right-wing militia, and chances are the militia and the police are the same people. Same for more than a few of the national guard. Waco was a PR nightmare that changed the entire way the ATF does business, Ruby Ridge was ONE MAN holding off 6 US Marshalls, and during the Bundy Standoff the government was reluctant to even engage and most of them walked away with a slap on the wrist. Regardless I'm not talking about a scenario where 10-20 of the local wing nuts decide to make a statement. I'm talking about large uprisings or secessions. Xombie posted:The US government absolutely is an unstoppable juggernaut within the US. If you're doing it within the US, you aren't a scrappy insurgency, you're just a person breaking the law, and get to be treated like someone breaking the law. Please look up the record for groups getting into standoffs with the US government in the past 30 years. You are aware that the GOP is about to permanently takeover your government, right? And that they'll be busy collapsing human rights during the next few years? Leftists often say that liberals will attempt to preserve their comfortable lives in the face of a fascist takeover, but I didn't think anyone would come out and admit that they'd never consider fighting back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Xombie posted:The US government absolutely is an unstoppable juggernaut within the US. If you're doing it within the US, you aren't a scrappy insurgency, you're just a person breaking the law, and get to be treated like someone breaking the law. Please look up the record for groups getting into standoffs with the US government in the past 30 years. You might want to update your understanding there. Between Cliven Bundy and company's little standoff out west and the Jan 6 insurrection, the will of the US government to crack down seems to have softened immensely. I wonder what these two groups have in common that would make that the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:"Not dying" isn't a certainty when you drive to the store for groceries, much less any conflict in the history of forever. I'm sorry but you have completely lost track of your own point here with all the red herrings you are trying to throw out. You were criticizing people for saying that too many guns means inevitable violence but that self-defense against the government is impossible. I stated that these two things are not equivalent, because getting into a violent interaction is not necessarily "self-defense". Now you're talking about how dangerous it is to get groceries? quote:The local police can put down an insurgency? The local police here couldn't handle a ragtag band of the local right-wing militia, and chances are the militia and the police are the same people. You and a few buddies rifles are not even remotely a "local militia". Yes SWAT teams are fully capable of stopping you. quote:Waco was a PR nightmare that changed the entire way the ATF does business, Ruby Ridge was ONE MAN holding off 6 US Marshalls, and during the Bundy Standoff the government was reluctant to even engage and most of them walked away with a slap on the wrist. All of these people lost to the US government and are either dead or were arrested. If being dead or arrested is the goal of what you think an insurgency is, then I guess yeah you'll have a chance to succeed at it. If your goal is to actually win a firefight with US Marshalls, the ATF, the FBI, or the National Guard, holding them off indefinitely, then no, you're delusional. quote:Regardless I'm not talking about a scenario where 10-20 of the local wing nuts decide to make a statement. I'm talking about large uprisings or secessions. You don't seem to comprehend that the US government has no interest in letting you get that far and no one has ever gotten that far because the US government puts a stop to it. The US government is undefeated against both uprising and secessions. There is no material difference between "local wing nuts" and "uprisings". You're not going to launch an uprising against the US government with rifles. The FBI will infiltrate and arrest you, or they will come and fight you and arrest you. If you don't get killed in the process. That's how these things go down. quote:You are aware that the GOP is about to permanently takeover your government, right? And that they'll be busy collapsing human rights during the next few years? Leftists often say that liberals will attempt to preserve their comfortable lives in the face of a fascist takeover, but I didn't think anyone would come out and admit that they'd never consider fighting back. I have zero interest in reframing arguments in your fantasy scenarios, but there is no world in which you win a firefight with the US government. It doesn't matter if it's a permanent fascist state or the 1000 year reign of Joe Biden's disembodied head in a jar. "Considering fighting back" doesn't mean "winning". Your will is not bulletproof. Every level of the US government has more firepower than you can, in any real world scenario, remotely compete against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You might want to update your understanding there. Between Cliven Bundy and company's little standoff out west and the Jan 6 insurrection, the will of the US government to crack down seems to have softened immensely. Last I checked, both of these groups literally lost, being arrested by the FBI and driven off by the National Guard (and then also arrested by the FBI), respectively. Neither actually achieved the goal of their confrontation with the US government. Once again: Resistance to the US government exists only so far as they're willing to tolerate it. This level of tolerance stops far short of you winning. Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Jun 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Last I checked, both of these groups literally lost, being arrested by the FBI and driven off by the National Guard (and then also arrested by the FBI), respectively. Neither actually achieved the goal of their confrontation with the US government. That's because they are entitled white people that weren't really trying very hard. The response to them rambling around was so anemic that any given level of school shooter level intensity from like....3 people at the insurrection? And we have a lot of dead senators. It was that close for awhile there. And there is literally no way for the authorities to know it was going to go that way. With the level of response they put forth there was no way for them to instantly put themselves on a more aggressive footing. If that bunch of entitled dipshits really decided they wanted things to get violent, they wouldn't have been stopped. How does that factor into your metric? The fact that entitled white people can literally get away with treason if it's framed the right way? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I'm sorry but you have completely lost track of your own point here with all the red herrings you are trying to throw out. You were criticizing people for saying that too many guns means inevitable violence but that self-defense against the government is impossible. I stated that these two things are not equivalent, because getting into a violent interaction is not necessarily "self-defense". Now you're talking about how dangerous it is to get groceries? The point is when conflicts happen, and especially in self-defense situations, people aren't looking at the fight and saying to themselves "Unless I have a 100% chance of surviving this, I'm not going to bother". When did I say that me and my buddies rifles were a local militia? For one, I'm not part of right-wing anything. Secondly, there are actual local militias and they vastly outnumber the active SWAT teams. I don't think you fully appreciate how well armed the right-wing is in this country and how law enforcement and Trumpers talking about insurrection are the exact same people. "The government would never let you do it" rings a bit hollow if you're right-wing. A little over a year ago we watched the far right in this country walk right into the Capitol with the cops' help while they ransacked the place. Only one person was shot, and most got a slap on the wrist. No organizers have been held responsible. How many empires throughout history got high on their own supply until hubris caught up with them and they collapsed under their own weight? Considering that we're on a speed run to economic collapse, climate disaster, and a fascist coup; you'll likely get to see massive shifts in how this country looks and operates within the next 10-20 years. What you were taught in school is a lie, we do not have the perfect method of government and our institutions are crumbling before our very eyes. Anyone still preaching "it can't happen here" after witnessing the last 2 years should be laughed out of the room.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
Mulva posted:That's because they are entitled white people that weren't really trying very hard. The response to them rambling around was so anemic that any given level of school shooter level intensity from like....3 people at the insurrection? And we have a lot of dead senators. It was that close for awhile there. Once again, these arguments that an insurgency against the US government could definitely be successful all seem to rely on complete fantasy. "Oh it would have worked if they really tried". This is a scenario that exists solely in your head. Here, in real life, actual armed conflicts against the US government on US soil have given the US government an undefeated record, using only an ounce of their actual firepower. quote:How does that factor into your metric? The fact that entitled white people can literally get away with treason if it's framed the right way? What did they "get away with"? Boatloads of them were arrested, they were all driven off, and they achieved none of their stated goals. Is this your victory scenario in an insurgency you want to be part of?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Last I checked, both of these groups literally lost, being arrested by the FBI and driven off by the National Guard (and then also arrested by the FBI), respectively. Neither actually achieved the goal of their confrontation with the US government. Bundy, his kids, and their closest associates had their charges thrown out with prejudice and are back at their long-time activities of running the BLM and other users off public lands they feel should be theirs for grazing with threats of violence. Of the rest of the 26, nine did time, only two over 366 days. Of the Capitol insurrectionists, there have been very few serious prosecutions. The vast majority of the pleas so far entered have pled to a misdemeanor 'parading within the Capitol' charge and left it at that. As of the easiest trustworthy source I can find offhand is from this January, when only 31 had been sentenced to jail time with a median stay of 45 days. The ideology they championed is still going strong and pushing midterm campaigns this year. They have accomplished plenty, and exactly what the organizers expected them to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:The point is when conflicts happen, and especially in self-defense situations, people aren't looking at the fight and saying to themselves "Unless I have a 100% chance of surviving this, I'm not going to bother". If you don't survive, you didn't defend yourself. You lost. quote:When did I say that me and my buddies rifles were a local militia? For one, I'm not part of right-wing anything. Secondly, there are actual local militias and they vastly outnumber the active SWAT teams. I don't think you fully appreciate how well armed the right-wing is in this country and how law enforcement and Trumpers talking about insurrection are the exact same people. How many of them have won? Because in recorded history, when they outgun the SWAT, they get to face the FBI and ATF. If they outgun them, they get to face the National Guard. No one outguns the National Guard. The answer to how many of them have actually withstood even federal law enforcement is zero. quote:"The government would never let you do it" rings a bit hollow if you're right-wing. A little over a year ago we watched the far right in this country walk right into the Capitol with the cops' help while they ransacked the place. Only one person was shot, and most got a slap on the wrist. No organizers have been held responsible. 846 people have been charged. Is "getting arrested, or possibly being killed, while not achieving any of your goals" the victory scenario in your fantasy civil war? quote:How many empires throughout history got high on their own supply until hubris caught up with them and they collapsed under their own weight? Considering that we're on a speed run to economic collapse, climate disaster, and a fascist coup; you'll likely get to see massive shifts in how this country looks and operates within the next 10-20 years. What you were taught in school is a lie, we do not have the perfect method of government and our institutions are crumbling before our very eyes. Your fantasy scenario is getting beyond out of control. Yet here in real life the US government still has an undefeated record on US soil against people violently standing up against it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Bundy, his kids, and their closest associates had their charges thrown out with prejudice and are back at their long-time activities of running the BLM and other users off public lands they feel should be theirs for grazing with threats of violence. Of the rest of the 26, nine did time, only two over 366 days. I'll ask you the same as everyone else: is losing but possibly getting out of jail after losing your "victory" scenario in a civil war?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Xombie posted:If you don't survive, you didn't defend yourself. You lost. If a community of 100 people are being attacked, one dies, the other 99 who survived aren't throwing up their hands and saying "Aw shucks we lost!". I like how you're discussing how nobody can slip by the governments' defenses as we're hearing reports on 1/6 how the national guard was ordered to stand down and the Capitol police were actually helping the rioters. Regardless of how often you want to call government fallibility a "fantasy", its very much a real thing and recent events have done nothing but highlight that fact. Frankly its impressive you're trying to argue this in the face of a Supreme Court takeover and the future Congress takeover due to compromised voting rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 17:01
|
|