4 ms·

I do think the history of the Black Panthers is one of the more likely veins to yield gold, in my search, and intend to do some reading there. I'm entirely seri

I do think the history of the Black Panthers is one of the more likely veins to yield gold, in my search, and intend to do some reading there. I'm entirely serious that I could turn around on this position completely, if I found compelling evidence. > (3) Are American gun rights activists deluding themselves, that they'd stand a chance if the police and military decided they were gonna run shit? Or are they merely comfortable in the knowledge that the police and military are politically aligned with them? It's largely the latter, I think, which brings me to: Ultimately, I think the fatal flaw in the argument that private gun ownership is necessary to protect democracy, is in the fact that authoritarian turns by democracies tend to be fairly popular, when they happen, and that the pro-authoritarian citizens, whose position is likely, if not the majority, at least quite popular, will have guns, too... plus the police, and the army (if they don't have those, what's the problem? No private arms needed, authoritarian take-over is done before it can start if the police and the military aren't on its side, or at least damn close to being on its side). It's not just a lack of history of private firearms being an important pro-liberty and pro-democracy force in democratic states (so far as I can see! Again, I'd love examples)—it's that I have trouble imagining scenarios in which they likely would be, while remaining within the realm of the plausible. It's got to be some movement that's unpopular among the military and police, so they don't support it, but popular among enough of the rest of the populace that significant numbers would take up arms, and that almost none of them would be taking up arms in against liberty and democracy, rather than for them... and is that a remotely likely situation? I don't think it is. I think for practically the whole likely problem-space, if you will, private arms are one of 1) superfluous, 2) laughably insufficient, or 3) actively harmful to the very things they're allegedly there to preserve & protect.

anonfornoreason 5y ago
the smart people who talk about guns as a way to resist a tyranny talk about asymetric warfare, the larger crowd of warrior lifestyle people just talk about rising up. I don't think very many Western people will throw away a comfortable life for any given set of principals, but I know many people who would fight if they were in a bad situation and felt like there wasn't much to lose. this is why a slow erosion of rights is very effective, by the time you get to the point you are willing to resist, you have given up enough rights that it becomes difficult or impossible.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  This is a very unpopular example, but Timothy McV*gh is probably the most well known example of someone who fought for a cause that in his mind was liberty from government in the united states using asymmetric warfare (he was very troubled by Waco and Ruby Ridge.) Of course, even those who are troubled by those events typically believe it was wrong that innocents such as children died in his acts. But if you really want to know what asymmetric warfare looks like, unfortunately it looks very ugly. The populace doesn't appear to give any indication they endorse the results. I honestly think most people would be very much worried about the legacy their reputation would have; even if they fought for a cause they believed in and avoided collateral damage. The combination of nearly universal social shaming for taking violent action (except when police do it, then it is "valorous"), consolidation of federal power, and the complete ineffectiveness of voting in slowing erosion of rights has been a deadly trifecta for individual rights such as the erosion of fourth and second amendment protections.

anonfornoreason 5y ago

the smart people who talk about guns as a way to resist a tyranny talk about asymetric warfare, the larger crowd of warrior lifestyle people just talk about rising up. I don't think very many Western people will throw away a comfortable life for any given set of principals, but I know many people who would fight if they were in a bad situation and felt like there wasn't much to lose. this is why a slow erosion of rights is very effective, by the time you get to the point you are willing to resist, you have given up enough rights that it becomes difficult or impossible.

quantumBerry 5y ago
This is a very unpopular example, but Timothy McV*gh is probably the most well known example of someone who fought for a cause that in his mind was liberty from government in the united states using asymmetric warfare (he was very troubled by Waco and Ruby Ridge.) Of course, even those who are troubled by those events typically believe it was wrong that innocents such as children died in his acts. But if you really want to know what asymmetric warfare looks like, unfortunately it looks very ugly. The populace doesn't appear to give any indication they endorse the results. I honestly think most people would be very much worried about the legacy their reputation would have; even if they fought for a cause they believed in and avoided collateral damage. The combination of nearly universal social shaming for taking violent action (except when police do it, then it is "valorous"), consolidation of federal power, and the complete ineffectiveness of voting in slowing erosion of rights has been a deadly trifecta for individual rights such as the erosion of fourth and second amendment protections.