3 ms·

According to [1] law enforcement went door to door after Hurricane Katrina and collected all the guns. So, here is your line in the sand: there is no way you yo

According to [1] law enforcement went door to door after Hurricane Katrina and collected all the guns. So, here is your line in the sand: there is no way you you can make a meaningful stand against the government with guns: - police cannot ever lose, especially not in the US - there is no organized resistance that decides when to resist, and what to (potentially) die for - the current system is entrenched and standing on an enormous foundation, politics, economic interest, institutions, the media etc. will not easily yield TODO: - reorganize military and law enforcement, introduce the concept of "citizen in uniform", focus on deescalation etc; the military would have to be on the side of a hypothetical revolution for it to work, obviously? - develop an actual alternative political concept and start from the ground up: Instead of trying to run for president or deface websites, try running for mayor or do some honest journalism - don't hold on to your guns for hope - you could gradually lose ground without ever getting to that confrontation (which you'd surely lose anyway). Instead address injustice immediately, be prepared to take tiny steps. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
>- there is no organized resistance that decides when to resist, and what to (potentially) die for This will easily form if government begins doing too much that people disagree with. >- police cannot ever lose, especially not in the US Police will lose if people did organize a resistance movement. >- the current system is entrenched and standing on an enormous foundation, politics, economic interest, institutions, the media etc. will not easily yield Of course, that is the point of violent overthrow. I feel like the point has been missed. Organized people with guns stood up to the US government in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I would say that those were "meaningful stands" (in terms of effectiveness, I don't condone those beliefs). The first amendment is there to prevent tyrannical government, and the second is there to address that issue if the first fails. EDIT: Furthermore, I would say, is your opposition really due to effectiveness? Let's say hypothetically we live in a world where guns do allow you to match the combat ability of government. Do you support it then? It seems to me that when I make this argument I run into people saying, "but you can't win anyway" when what really bothers them is some deeper political belief. What is that? What bothers you about the way I've framed the debate?
- UweSchmidt 10y ago
  A revolution is not going to happen in western countries: It's easy to appease the masses and provide for basic needs and entertainment, birthrates are too low to really fill the streets with angry people, surveillance enables the powers that be to identify and isolate agitators and monitor movements. At the same time western countries are still democratic enough so that things can be changed.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    This is just another twist of an effectiveness argument, it does nothing to address the real issue here, so I'm just going to repeat this because I'd really like an answer. >It seems to me that when I make this argument I run into people saying, "but you can't win anyway" when what really bothers them is some deeper political belief. What is that? What bothers you about the way I've framed the debate?
    - UweSchmidt 10y ago
      Most people wouldn't want to fight and die. Sucks. Also you could end up with some dictator when the dust settles.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
        This is just more effectiveness stuff... Here let me pose a situation: The year is 2011, the Arab Spring is starting up and by some weird quirk of history or legal loophole, the Syrians will be having a referendum on gun control. They are debating about whether they should have gun control. One side says they need guns in order to oppose their tyrannical government, the other that they need to ban guns so as to prevent violence from spreading through city streets. You are called in as an advisor, what do you say?

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

>- there is no organized resistance that decides when to resist, and what to (potentially) die for This will easily form if government begins doing too much that people disagree with. >- police cannot ever lose, especially not in the US Police will lose if people did organize a resistance movement. >- the current system is entrenched and standing on an enormous foundation, politics, economic interest, institutions, the media etc. will not easily yield Of course, that is the point of violent overthrow. I feel like the point has been missed. Organized people with guns stood up to the US government in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I would say that those were "meaningful stands" (in terms of effectiveness, I don't condone those beliefs). The first amendment is there to prevent tyrannical government, and the second is there to address that issue if the first fails. EDIT: Furthermore, I would say, is your opposition really due to effectiveness? Let's say hypothetically we live in a world where guns do allow you to match the combat ability of government. Do you support it then? It seems to me that when I make this argument I run into people saying, "but you can't win anyway" when what really bothers them is some deeper political belief. What is that? What bothers you about the way I've framed the debate?

UweSchmidt 10y ago
A revolution is not going to happen in western countries: It's easy to appease the masses and provide for basic needs and entertainment, birthrates are too low to really fill the streets with angry people, surveillance enables the powers that be to identify and isolate agitators and monitor movements. At the same time western countries are still democratic enough so that things can be changed.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  This is just another twist of an effectiveness argument, it does nothing to address the real issue here, so I'm just going to repeat this because I'd really like an answer. >It seems to me that when I make this argument I run into people saying, "but you can't win anyway" when what really bothers them is some deeper political belief. What is that? What bothers you about the way I've framed the debate?
  - UweSchmidt 10y ago
    Most people wouldn't want to fight and die. Sucks. Also you could end up with some dictator when the dust settles.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
      This is just more effectiveness stuff... Here let me pose a situation: The year is 2011, the Arab Spring is starting up and by some weird quirk of history or legal loophole, the Syrians will be having a referendum on gun control. They are debating about whether they should have gun control. One side says they need guns in order to oppose their tyrannical government, the other that they need to ban guns so as to prevent violence from spreading through city streets. You are called in as an advisor, what do you say?