7 ms·

Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided. So did our Deep State as th

Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided. So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul. not even counting accidents and suicides which are also made worse by the high availability of guns for everyone The suicide statistics from some countries with effective total bans on civilian gun ownership do not support your claim for those, and for accidents we're at 500/year out of a population of 330 million people. There were years when more very young kids were accidentally drowning themselves by getting stuck upside down in 5 gallon (19 L) plastic buckets that are are ubiquitous here. If Americans didn't fight against the Patriot act, wars, torture, what will they fight for? Mask mandates? Are any of these, the middle ones not directly affecting us, worth starting a civil war that would take hundreds of thousands to millions of lives? (I might argue yes for the wars, but it's not the sort of thing I suspect has ever happened in human history.)

sofixa 5y ago
> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation. And there's no need for them to do that, realistically.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation. Why are you talking about the "average first world person"? IIRC, Afghanistan is a country of ~30 million people, and the most recent estimates I saw said the Taliban only had ~75 thousand fighters. That's 0.25%. So not even the average Afghan did that. Also, guerilla warfare isn't so much about living in caves as melting into the population.
  - anonAndOn 5y ago
    >melting into the population. Or, as in Afghanistan, actively supported by the population who hated both the occupiers and the VICE (Vertically Integrated Criminal Enterprise) known as the government.
- clon 5y ago
  Still, one of the first signs of a society approaching tyranny is the government cracking down on guns. So if nothing else, it serves as a great canary in the mine.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > Still, one of the first signs of a society approaching tyranny is the government cracking down on guns In a dictatorship, yes.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Australia?
      - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        Do Australians have Freedom of Movement back yet?
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Exactly how do you think you wind up in a dictatorship?
  - watwut 5y ago
    That is not actually true historically. That is popular talking point. On the other hand, quite a few authoritarian tyrannical movements started by arming themselves and taking it on themselves to get power. Both nazi and communists started as private citizens arming themselves and causing fights in the streets or robbing people.
    - clon 5y ago
      One example close from home, Belarus and Russian governments have gone to lengths in order to limit gun ownership. It is actually very difficult, at least legally. Perhaps when you are trying to stir a revolution you might speak to the nation arming itself. Once you have taken power, peacefully or otherwise, your next steps regarding gun control are still highly illuminating.
- thebean11 5y ago
  Sure, it won't happen if everyone's life is still comfortable, that's the point. It's a safeguard against life becoming so extremely uncomfortable that the people started fighting.
- clipradiowallet 5y ago
  > I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation. I think the people seizing those weapons should be less concerned about "average" gun owners, and more worried about fringe citizens willing to die to detonate a high yield explosive in the centers of power.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The crazies are always the first off the porch. They're a canary.
- ctdonath 5y ago
  I sincerely doubt the average first world government has what it takes to sacrifice its comfortable bureaucracy and inspire even a tiny fraction of 330,000,000 citizens to fight back against tyranny. That’s why federal legislators freaked out when a few thousand pissed off voters simply walked into the Capitol without permission - and without weapons. Every one of those mostly peaceful demonstrators represented a thousand equally angry, and well-armed, citizens not visible on security cameras.
watwut 5y ago
Comparing Taliban to individual gun owners is next level absurd.
- tengbretson 5y ago
  Our F-150 driving rednecks would never be caught dead in those Toyota Hiluxs the taliban uses
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    That's true, the F-150 is significantly more capable.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      I'd encourage the fanboys who are inevitably triggered by this assertion to just compare dimensions and shipping weights on key components. The F150 is a much heavier vehicle all around.
- ghufran_syed 5y ago
  why? The taliban is not like a nation state army, more like a bunch or militias and tribes, each of which is a “bunch of local guys with guns”. As the war has progressed, I imagine they have got more professional, but I’m guessing around 80-90% of their strength are non ideological tribal militias who are very good at figuring out which way the wind is blowing and changing sides. That worked in the US favor in 2001-2 when the northern alliance was winning, and against US interests now, that’s why resistance collapsed so quickly back in 2001 and now.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    Supported by military arms from Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
    - thisiscorrect 5y ago
thebooktocome 5y ago
Blaming the Afghanistan War on the "Deep State" is a very odd choice to me. Does the Deep State ratify authorizations for the use of military force and approve military spending budgets?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >>> Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided. >> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul. > Blaming the Afghanistan War on the "Deep State" is a very odd choice to me. Does the Deep State ratify authorizations for the use of military force and approve military spending budgets? You missed the point, which was the kind of thinking that says armed civilians stand no chance against a modern military also says the US should have prevailed in Afghanistan. I believe "deep state" here is a tendentious term that refers to the permanent, unelected parts of the executive branch. Their expert analysis said the US was just about to "turn the corner" for 20 years. It's not about the decision to go in the first place.
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    I believe "deep state" here is a tendentious term that refers to the permanent, unelected parts of the executive branch. Their expert analysis said the US was just about to "turn the corner" for 20 years. Exactly. See but the most recent controversy about Gen. Mark Milley, a complete abrogation of the principle of civilian control over the military, something that goes back to George Washington and one of the reasons we have so many places named after Cincinnatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
panopticon 5y ago
> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. It takes a lot more than a Glock and a few boxes of ammunition from the sporting goods store to befuddle the US military. It takes fuel, food, medicine, training camps, and other infrastructure necessary to survive and fight back. You’re not going to get that in appreciable quantities in the middle of the US without Uncle Sam and several three letter agencies noticing. You would need the help of a foreign power and/or seizing land to tax... at which point the Second Amendment is moot. Might save you a few bucks to have all these small arms laying around, but it’s only a small piece of the puzzle.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  > It takes a lot more than a Glock and a few boxes of ammunition from the sporting goods store to befuddle the US military Which is exactly why we resist laws that ban rifles. > You’re not going to get that in appreciable quantities in the middle of the US without Uncle Sam and several three letter agencies noticing. I don't think you fully grasp the extent to which the US population is armed.
  - panopticon 5y ago
    > Which is exactly why we resist laws that ban rifles. s/Glock/AR-15/, point still stands regardless of what common legal firearm you want to replace Glock with. > I don't think you fully grasp the extent to which the US population is armed. You have entirely missed the point. The existence of small arms is not what lead the Taliban to success against the US. They had billions of dollars from the opium trade, donations, and foreign aid. This money was not just spent to purchase weapons; it was used to fund training camps, fund recruiting operations, buy off politicians and local warlords, maintain supply lines, and the other infrastructure you need to wage war. These are the things the three letter agencies would take note of. tl;dr: Small arms (in any quantity) are a small piece of what you would need to wage an effective insurgency against ol' Uncle Sam.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago

sofixa 5y ago

> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation. And there's no need for them to do that, realistically.

tablespoon 5y ago
> I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation. Why are you talking about the "average first world person"? IIRC, Afghanistan is a country of ~30 million people, and the most recent estimates I saw said the Taliban only had ~75 thousand fighters. That's 0.25%. So not even the average Afghan did that. Also, guerilla warfare isn't so much about living in caves as melting into the population.
- anonAndOn 5y ago
  >melting into the population. Or, as in Afghanistan, actively supported by the population who hated both the occupiers and the VICE (Vertically Integrated Criminal Enterprise) known as the government.
clon 5y ago
Still, one of the first signs of a society approaching tyranny is the government cracking down on guns. So if nothing else, it serves as a great canary in the mine.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > Still, one of the first signs of a society approaching tyranny is the government cracking down on guns In a dictatorship, yes.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Australia?
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      Do Australians have Freedom of Movement back yet?
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Exactly how do you think you wind up in a dictatorship?
- watwut 5y ago
  That is not actually true historically. That is popular talking point. On the other hand, quite a few authoritarian tyrannical movements started by arming themselves and taking it on themselves to get power. Both nazi and communists started as private citizens arming themselves and causing fights in the streets or robbing people.
  - clon 5y ago
    One example close from home, Belarus and Russian governments have gone to lengths in order to limit gun ownership. It is actually very difficult, at least legally. Perhaps when you are trying to stir a revolution you might speak to the nation arming itself. Once you have taken power, peacefully or otherwise, your next steps regarding gun control are still highly illuminating.
thebean11 5y ago
Sure, it won't happen if everyone's life is still comfortable, that's the point. It's a safeguard against life becoming so extremely uncomfortable that the people started fighting.
clipradiowallet 5y ago
> I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation. I think the people seizing those weapons should be less concerned about "average" gun owners, and more worried about fringe citizens willing to die to detonate a high yield explosive in the centers of power.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The crazies are always the first off the porch. They're a canary.
ctdonath 5y ago
I sincerely doubt the average first world government has what it takes to sacrifice its comfortable bureaucracy and inspire even a tiny fraction of 330,000,000 citizens to fight back against tyranny. That’s why federal legislators freaked out when a few thousand pissed off voters simply walked into the Capitol without permission - and without weapons. Every one of those mostly peaceful demonstrators represented a thousand equally angry, and well-armed, citizens not visible on security cameras.

watwut 5y ago

Comparing Taliban to individual gun owners is next level absurd.

tengbretson 5y ago
Our F-150 driving rednecks would never be caught dead in those Toyota Hiluxs the taliban uses
- rpmisms 5y ago
  That's true, the F-150 is significantly more capable.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    I'd encourage the fanboys who are inevitably triggered by this assertion to just compare dimensions and shipping weights on key components. The F150 is a much heavier vehicle all around.
ghufran_syed 5y ago
why? The taliban is not like a nation state army, more like a bunch or militias and tribes, each of which is a “bunch of local guys with guns”. As the war has progressed, I imagine they have got more professional, but I’m guessing around 80-90% of their strength are non ideological tribal militias who are very good at figuring out which way the wind is blowing and changing sides. That worked in the US favor in 2001-2 when the northern alliance was winning, and against US interests now, that’s why resistance collapsed so quickly back in 2001 and now.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  Supported by military arms from Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
  - thisiscorrect 5y ago

thebooktocome 5y ago

Blaming the Afghanistan War on the "Deep State" is a very odd choice to me. Does the Deep State ratify authorizations for the use of military force and approve military spending budgets?

tablespoon 5y ago
>>> Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided. >> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul. > Blaming the Afghanistan War on the "Deep State" is a very odd choice to me. Does the Deep State ratify authorizations for the use of military force and approve military spending budgets? You missed the point, which was the kind of thinking that says armed civilians stand no chance against a modern military also says the US should have prevailed in Afghanistan. I believe "deep state" here is a tendentious term that refers to the permanent, unelected parts of the executive branch. Their expert analysis said the US was just about to "turn the corner" for 20 years. It's not about the decision to go in the first place.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  I believe "deep state" here is a tendentious term that refers to the permanent, unelected parts of the executive branch. Their expert analysis said the US was just about to "turn the corner" for 20 years. Exactly. See but the most recent controversy about Gen. Mark Milley, a complete abrogation of the principle of civilian control over the military, something that goes back to George Washington and one of the reasons we have so many places named after Cincinnatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus

panopticon 5y ago

> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. It takes a lot more than a Glock and a few boxes of ammunition from the sporting goods store to befuddle the US military. It takes fuel, food, medicine, training camps, and other infrastructure necessary to survive and fight back. You’re not going to get that in appreciable quantities in the middle of the US without Uncle Sam and several three letter agencies noticing. You would need the help of a foreign power and/or seizing land to tax... at which point the Second Amendment is moot. Might save you a few bucks to have all these small arms laying around, but it’s only a small piece of the puzzle.

betwixthewires 5y ago
> It takes a lot more than a Glock and a few boxes of ammunition from the sporting goods store to befuddle the US military Which is exactly why we resist laws that ban rifles. > You’re not going to get that in appreciable quantities in the middle of the US without Uncle Sam and several three letter agencies noticing. I don't think you fully grasp the extent to which the US population is armed.
- panopticon 5y ago
  > Which is exactly why we resist laws that ban rifles. s/Glock/AR-15/, point still stands regardless of what common legal firearm you want to replace Glock with. > I don't think you fully grasp the extent to which the US population is armed. You have entirely missed the point. The existence of small arms is not what lead the Taliban to success against the US. They had billions of dollars from the opium trade, donations, and foreign aid. This money was not just spent to purchase weapons; it was used to fund training camps, fund recruiting operations, buy off politicians and local warlords, maintain supply lines, and the other infrastructure you need to wage war. These are the things the three letter agencies would take note of. tl;dr: Small arms (in any quantity) are a small piece of what you would need to wage an effective insurgency against ol' Uncle Sam.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago