4 ms·

> you might want to check the actual history I think the primary example that's going to come to mind for all Americans is the American Revolution, which was s

by troad 3y ago

> you might want to check the actual history I think the primary example that's going to come to mind for all Americans is the American Revolution, which was successful, if I recall correctly. I don't really like this tone of 'lecturing' people, as though they don't understand and you do. Well-informed people have legitimate differences of opinion on these questions.

ethanbond 3y ago
I sure hope they don’t. That’s a terrible example. The British homeland was 1) an ocean away in the 1700s and 2) extremely distracted by numerous other conflicts and 3) had pretty much the same firepower that a civilian and privateers would have. None of those things apply now. IMO the Taliban is a much better analog. And you of course have to mix in the horror of a true civil war which in America’s case pretty much everyone came out of thinking no one won.
- troad 3y ago
  I honestly don't understand in which part of my comment you think I'm in favour of civil war. I'm merely pointing out that attempting to argue against guns from the perspective of 'popular resistance against tyranny never going to be successful' is far from the best way to argue against guns. It has been successful before, and the country's entire foundation myth rests on one of those instances. There's many ways to argue against gun proliferation. This is a bad one. It's particularly bad one to use on right-of-centre Americans. But people on the Internet disagree, love using it, and they've been incredibly successful in using it to win over suppo- oh, wait.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    I didn't suggest that you're in favor of it? Was not my intention so sorry if it came off that way! I agree with the overall thrust though: this is not a winning line of argument. But I'm not sure what is, to be honest, given that this issue has become quasi-religious. Eventually we'll have enough dead kids (and enough dead old people) to start questioning this religious conviction, but yeah, logic or history won't get us there.
    - troad 3y ago
      I appreciate your reply and I hear what you're saying. So much of life has become political, and so much of the political has become pseudo-religious. People no longer have positions on policies, they have articles of faith on politics. It's not a great basis for a dialogue, unfortunately.
bell-cot 3y ago
"going to come to mind", yes. But much of what Americans "know" about the American Revolution is popular myth. In actual history, it was one of the western theaters in the Anglo-French War - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%931783) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%9.... Spain was also fighting against Britain, and there was a serious threat of a combined French/Spanish invasion of England. Britain had to make some hard choices about priorities, and decided to focus its efforts in places that weren't the 13 Colonies.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by troad 3y ago

ethanbond 3y ago

I sure hope they don’t. That’s a terrible example. The British homeland was 1) an ocean away in the 1700s and 2) extremely distracted by numerous other conflicts and 3) had pretty much the same firepower that a civilian and privateers would have. None of those things apply now. IMO the Taliban is a much better analog. And you of course have to mix in the horror of a true civil war which in America’s case pretty much everyone came out of thinking no one won.

troad 3y ago
I honestly don't understand in which part of my comment you think I'm in favour of civil war. I'm merely pointing out that attempting to argue against guns from the perspective of 'popular resistance against tyranny never going to be successful' is far from the best way to argue against guns. It has been successful before, and the country's entire foundation myth rests on one of those instances. There's many ways to argue against gun proliferation. This is a bad one. It's particularly bad one to use on right-of-centre Americans. But people on the Internet disagree, love using it, and they've been incredibly successful in using it to win over suppo- oh, wait.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  I didn't suggest that you're in favor of it? Was not my intention so sorry if it came off that way! I agree with the overall thrust though: this is not a winning line of argument. But I'm not sure what is, to be honest, given that this issue has become quasi-religious. Eventually we'll have enough dead kids (and enough dead old people) to start questioning this religious conviction, but yeah, logic or history won't get us there.
  - troad 3y ago
    I appreciate your reply and I hear what you're saying. So much of life has become political, and so much of the political has become pseudo-religious. People no longer have positions on policies, they have articles of faith on politics. It's not a great basis for a dialogue, unfortunately.

bell-cot 3y ago

"going to come to mind", yes. But much of what Americans "know" about the American Revolution is popular myth. In actual history, it was one of the western theaters in the Anglo-French War - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%931783) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%9.... Spain was also fighting against Britain, and there was a serious threat of a combined French/Spanish invasion of England. Britain had to make some hard choices about priorities, and decided to focus its efforts in places that weren't the 13 Colonies.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]