3 ms·
You're regurgitating the pro-gun fantasy of a bunch of pea shooter firearms resisting "the gubberment". If there are firearms, the government has bigger firear
by AtlasBarfed 4y ago
You're regurgitating the pro-gun fantasy of a bunch of pea shooter firearms resisting "the gubberment".
If there are firearms, the government has bigger firearms. Artillery, explosives, tanks/cavalry, air power. At least medieval peasantry required raising, transporting an army, and sometimes losing on the battlefield. Modern militaries would just dispatch a cruise missile or worse, 100% success.
Modern peasantry doesn't get slaughtered by modern armies in the same manner because modern armies and technology need modern society and values to sustain a large enough civilization to produce those products of war. Modern restraint on slaughter enables guerilla warfare to be effective, not modern technology or some fundamental weakness of modern militaries.
- retrac 4y agoYou've got me right backwards. My point was that the firearm made the state's absolute monopoly on violence (which you note) far more feasible, by substantially negating physical strength as a factor in deciding who has the monopoly on violence. That's probably a good thing.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]