3 ms·

> lack of historical awareness to imagine that gun ownership in private hands will be default mobilized "against tyranny" Why is it so hard to believe? You rea

by proc0 5y ago

> lack of historical awareness to imagine that gun ownership in private hands will be default mobilized "against tyranny" Why is it so hard to believe? You really think the military would drop bombs on cities and destroy infrastructure just to control the populace? The nature of tyranny is about instilling fear in the populace in order to control them. If you destroy your own cities it defeats the purpose of being in power as a dictator. The end goal is CONTROL, and you cannot control an armed populace. There aren't enough police and military to take on a city where a good portion of the people are armed. There are millions upon millions of armed civilians, and even the military wouldn't stand a chance. Not to mention that in history, taking guns away is exactly what dictatorships have done.

glangdale 5y ago
It's remarkable how little you engaged with what I actually wrote, in your haste to deploy the usual LARPing tropes about freedom fighters and "armed civilians" and such nonsense. Once again, for the slow kids with reading comprehension problems: Armed civilians are not a reliable source of resistance against certain types of tyranny - notably right-wing authoritarian tyranny. They are, in fact, more likely to crop up in pro-government paramilitaries who are willing to do the dirty work that a tyranny doesn't want to get around to. In short, for every gun in the hands of a genuine libertarian, there are 2-3 guns in the hands of hard right authoritarians whose embrace of 'libertarianism' only extends as far as "government letting people exactly like me do whatever they want".
- proc0 5y ago
  I quoted the part I was responding to. The other part seems not true to me. Trump was extremely overblown by media and many believed it. He stepped down... that's not what dictators do, and it was Trump that as LARPing as a dictator just to get reactions. The evidence is that he was an entertainer and had a TV show. How many dictators in history had TV shows? He played the media, and then everyone went insane. Sure, he's an idiot, but thinking he's a dictator? That is also LARPing. As far as guns, unlike your suggestion of right-wing authoritarian citizens enforcing government, there are many instances in history like Cuba, where the first thing a dictator does is take away civilian guns. The point of the 2nd amendment, is for anyone and everyone to own guns. We can see this post and also last year during the riots (BLM, left-wing rallies arming themselves) that everyone goes against gun control once they realize they need to defend themselves.
orestarod 5y ago
I'd be interested to know how you concludes the military would have no luck against armed civilians.
- proc0 5y ago
  First, the military would need to have its own fight, which would probably reduce its numbers, and then it's a matter of sheer numbers which is on the civilian side. Again, I'm assuming cities won't get bombed, what's the point of destroying your own country. On the ground, there are potentially many strategies that could defeat the military if there are way more armed civilians.

by proc0 5y ago

glangdale 5y ago

It's remarkable how little you engaged with what I actually wrote, in your haste to deploy the usual LARPing tropes about freedom fighters and "armed civilians" and such nonsense. Once again, for the slow kids with reading comprehension problems: Armed civilians are not a reliable source of resistance against certain types of tyranny - notably right-wing authoritarian tyranny. They are, in fact, more likely to crop up in pro-government paramilitaries who are willing to do the dirty work that a tyranny doesn't want to get around to. In short, for every gun in the hands of a genuine libertarian, there are 2-3 guns in the hands of hard right authoritarians whose embrace of 'libertarianism' only extends as far as "government letting people exactly like me do whatever they want".

proc0 5y ago
I quoted the part I was responding to. The other part seems not true to me. Trump was extremely overblown by media and many believed it. He stepped down... that's not what dictators do, and it was Trump that as LARPing as a dictator just to get reactions. The evidence is that he was an entertainer and had a TV show. How many dictators in history had TV shows? He played the media, and then everyone went insane. Sure, he's an idiot, but thinking he's a dictator? That is also LARPing. As far as guns, unlike your suggestion of right-wing authoritarian citizens enforcing government, there are many instances in history like Cuba, where the first thing a dictator does is take away civilian guns. The point of the 2nd amendment, is for anyone and everyone to own guns. We can see this post and also last year during the riots (BLM, left-wing rallies arming themselves) that everyone goes against gun control once they realize they need to defend themselves.

orestarod 5y ago

I'd be interested to know how you concludes the military would have no luck against armed civilians.

proc0 5y ago
First, the military would need to have its own fight, which would probably reduce its numbers, and then it's a matter of sheer numbers which is on the civilian side. Again, I'm assuming cities won't get bombed, what's the point of destroying your own country. On the ground, there are potentially many strategies that could defeat the military if there are way more armed civilians.