3 ms·

I know they were occupied. Read my post. I'm proud of my grandfather and the Natzies he killed and the people he saved as part of the resistance (I have stories

I know they were occupied. Read my post. I'm proud of my grandfather and the Natzies he killed and the people he saved as part of the resistance (I have stories passed down of prisoners being saved, people whose grandchildren are alive today and wouldn't be otherwise). You might want to make it seem like it was inconsequential by highlighting the fact that they were occupied. But I have to say, it seems a little keyboard warrior to minimize Danish resistance. Russia had an actual army, but local guerrilla resistance played an important part. I've read about the bravery of the Russian resistance with awe. For the US, yes we received support from France. I'm pretty well acquainted. But if you are going to say that George Washington and his men had nothing to do with our struggle for freedom, that's on you. Using words like 'peashooters' makes the anti-gun lobby seem out of touch, just like people who would say Obama is Muslim/Communist. There's a certain nasty arrogance of showing huge disrespect towards those who have achieve more than you ever will.

watwut 7y ago
The parent where thread started claims that the small time resistance with small guns is what will stop the governmental tyranny and army. Which is not what stops the governmental tyranny, no matter how brave those people are. The argument is about whether it can protect the freedom, not whether resistance (or refusal to cooperate) with whatever tools available deserve celebration. The bravery alone does not stop armies and did not stopped the armies. Power, actual power did it in all those cases. (And for that matter, bad guys were brave too, sacrificed a lot too, just for the bad cause.)
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  When one goal post is meet, you move the goal posts, sneaky and dishonest. I was answering a comment that specifically said: > And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? I think my comment quite clearly answered this question. > bravery alone does not stop armies and did not stopped the armies. Power Like the POWER AND BRAVERY of the ARMED local militias in the US which HELPED drive out the world's most powerful army. I'm sure glad they didn't get disarmed. Notice though, I said help. I'll admit my wording in regards to Russia was poor. All or nothing arguments that remove the nuance (like saying 'it does' or 'it doesn't') are generally employed by people who aren't well positioned to understanding the complexities of reality. Any intelligent review includes more nuanced words. And any review that completely dismisses the power of armed local populations resisting oppression is simply going to be detached from reality and history. The use of the derogatory term 'pea shooter' is the perfect example of this dismissive, arrogant and ignorant take on history. The Nazis my grandfather killed by putting lead through their skull certainly didn't think those were 'pea shooters', it takes a certain type of keyboard warrior to see a gun that way. Even a little .22 purse gun is no trivial matter. > The argument is about whether it can protect the freedom The people my grandfather saved I'm pretty would agreed that they 'obtained freedom/had their freedom protected thanks in great measure to the small arms' my grandfather had. Which kinda covers both the original goal posts and the new ones you created.

watwut 7y ago

The parent where thread started claims that the small time resistance with small guns is what will stop the governmental tyranny and army. Which is not what stops the governmental tyranny, no matter how brave those people are. The argument is about whether it can protect the freedom, not whether resistance (or refusal to cooperate) with whatever tools available deserve celebration. The bravery alone does not stop armies and did not stopped the armies. Power, actual power did it in all those cases. (And for that matter, bad guys were brave too, sacrificed a lot too, just for the bad cause.)

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
When one goal post is meet, you move the goal posts, sneaky and dishonest. I was answering a comment that specifically said: > And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? I think my comment quite clearly answered this question. > bravery alone does not stop armies and did not stopped the armies. Power Like the POWER AND BRAVERY of the ARMED local militias in the US which HELPED drive out the world's most powerful army. I'm sure glad they didn't get disarmed. Notice though, I said help. I'll admit my wording in regards to Russia was poor. All or nothing arguments that remove the nuance (like saying 'it does' or 'it doesn't') are generally employed by people who aren't well positioned to understanding the complexities of reality. Any intelligent review includes more nuanced words. And any review that completely dismisses the power of armed local populations resisting oppression is simply going to be detached from reality and history. The use of the derogatory term 'pea shooter' is the perfect example of this dismissive, arrogant and ignorant take on history. The Nazis my grandfather killed by putting lead through their skull certainly didn't think those were 'pea shooters', it takes a certain type of keyboard warrior to see a gun that way. Even a little .22 purse gun is no trivial matter. > The argument is about whether it can protect the freedom The people my grandfather saved I'm pretty would agreed that they 'obtained freedom/had their freedom protected thanks in great measure to the small arms' my grandfather had. Which kinda covers both the original goal posts and the new ones you created.