4 ms·

Prayer mostly. Or actually fixing the congress.

ceejayoz 1y ago
Trump did once note an additional option. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-...
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Liberals really should arm themselves before these people finally classify "disagreeing with daddy" as a mental disorder. [0] It is obviously hilarious to think the "conservatives" and "2A enthusiasts" would possibly help defend lefties' right to bear arms at this point, as they've shown themselves to be utterly devoid of actual values. People across the political spectrum have an obscene amount of faith in "can't happen here" beliefs being an actual impediment to authoritarianism. [0]: https://davidson.house.gov/2025/5/rep-warren-davidson-introduces-the-trump-derangement-syndrome-tds-research-act-of-2025 https://davidson.house.gov/2025/5/rep-warren-davidson-introd...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    If you’re not armed yet, you’re already behind the curve. No one is going to protect you except you and potentially your sphere/community.
    - bdangubic 1y ago
      unless you can arm yourself with a nuke, “arming” yourself for a fight against US government is laughable :)
      - ndiddy 1y ago
        Worked pretty well for the Vietnamese and the Afghans
        tshaddox 1y ago
        It didn't though. It was really really bad for them.
        majormajor 1y ago
        Even beyond the lives lost on the side of the anti-US fighters in those places, who wants to bet on if the US would give up and walk away and just let any random local armed community in its own territory ignore it? Will you see eventual retreat, or will you see eventual overwhelming force? The US didn't want to bulldoze these other countries and jail or kill everyone and set up a new state; very different than how the US would handle more Wacos.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Waco wasn’t a problem due to any separatism or resistance to law enforcement. It’s because they were raising children to rape them. So tired of this equivocating on what those people were about.
        bearburger 1y ago
        Well, for a country that's faced attempts to be "tamed" by three superpowers over 200 years, Afghanistan's holding up pretty well. It exists and independent! By the way, it crossed my mind that all the superpowers that tried their luck are no longer superpowers. Britain's just a weak shadow of itself, the USSR completely collapsed. What fate awaits the USA?
        bdangubic 1y ago
        same
        1y ago
  - majormajor 1y ago
    Using private weapons to fight against the government to protect your rights is a laughably-low-probability-of-success scenario. Even when insurrections or rebellions succeed they often end up... not so great. We have seen what you get when you have an armed populace. Highly armed cops. Highly armed federal agents. Military equipment for civilian forces. All necessary in order to compete in the arms race against the "bad guys." All cheered for by conservatives, of course! All that make it that much more easy to start cracking down. Maybe as a first step, issuing pardons for the rebels on your side while increasing the use of force against those protesting you. Guns are not defensive tools. If you have a gun, but the government shoots first, you still lose.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      Either way, so long as it's legal to have guns, but they are disproportionally distributed along political lines, it makes sense to try to counterbalance that. As it is, with gun ownership leaning firmly right, Trump has a massive number of armed paramilitaries that he could lean on. In any large-scale suppression of political dissent, those would be the people breaking your door at night, not uniformed feds (there simply isn't enough of the latter). Thus even if you're anti-gun in principle, it still makes sense for left-leaning people in this country to arm given the overall political climate.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        If for no other reason than to disabuse right wingers of the notion, as much as possible, that the left wing isn't armed. Which FWIW I think left-wingers are actually quite a bit more armed than the ammosexuals would presume.
        int_19h 1y ago
        There's more of us than conventional wisdom would have you believe, but the disparity is still very large.
      - majormajor 1y ago
        You're gonna have better luck leaving the country before the civil war than you are shooting the people trying to break into your house in that scenario. There are at least a couple million "regular" US soldiers + feds; if we're worried about millions more private citizens on top of that, what exactly is the gameplan to win in any meaningful sense regardless?
  - sterlind 1y ago
    that was in May? Jesus, every fucking month has felt like a year.

Trump did once note an additional option. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-...

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Liberals really should arm themselves before these people finally classify "disagreeing with daddy" as a mental disorder. [0] It is obviously hilarious to think the "conservatives" and "2A enthusiasts" would possibly help defend lefties' right to bear arms at this point, as they've shown themselves to be utterly devoid of actual values. People across the political spectrum have an obscene amount of faith in "can't happen here" beliefs being an actual impediment to authoritarianism. [0]: https://davidson.house.gov/2025/5/rep-warren-davidson-introduces-the-trump-derangement-syndrome-tds-research-act-of-2025 https://davidson.house.gov/2025/5/rep-warren-davidson-introd...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  If you’re not armed yet, you’re already behind the curve. No one is going to protect you except you and potentially your sphere/community.
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    unless you can arm yourself with a nuke, “arming” yourself for a fight against US government is laughable :)
    - ndiddy 1y ago
      Worked pretty well for the Vietnamese and the Afghans
      - tshaddox 1y ago
        It didn't though. It was really really bad for them.
        majormajor 1y ago
        Even beyond the lives lost on the side of the anti-US fighters in those places, who wants to bet on if the US would give up and walk away and just let any random local armed community in its own territory ignore it? Will you see eventual retreat, or will you see eventual overwhelming force? The US didn't want to bulldoze these other countries and jail or kill everyone and set up a new state; very different than how the US would handle more Wacos.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Waco wasn’t a problem due to any separatism or resistance to law enforcement. It’s because they were raising children to rape them. So tired of this equivocating on what those people were about.
        bearburger 1y ago
        Well, for a country that's faced attempts to be "tamed" by three superpowers over 200 years, Afghanistan's holding up pretty well. It exists and independent! By the way, it crossed my mind that all the superpowers that tried their luck are no longer superpowers. Britain's just a weak shadow of itself, the USSR completely collapsed. What fate awaits the USA?
        bdangubic 1y ago
        same
      - 1y ago
- majormajor 1y ago
  Using private weapons to fight against the government to protect your rights is a laughably-low-probability-of-success scenario. Even when insurrections or rebellions succeed they often end up... not so great. We have seen what you get when you have an armed populace. Highly armed cops. Highly armed federal agents. Military equipment for civilian forces. All necessary in order to compete in the arms race against the "bad guys." All cheered for by conservatives, of course! All that make it that much more easy to start cracking down. Maybe as a first step, issuing pardons for the rebels on your side while increasing the use of force against those protesting you. Guns are not defensive tools. If you have a gun, but the government shoots first, you still lose.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    Either way, so long as it's legal to have guns, but they are disproportionally distributed along political lines, it makes sense to try to counterbalance that. As it is, with gun ownership leaning firmly right, Trump has a massive number of armed paramilitaries that he could lean on. In any large-scale suppression of political dissent, those would be the people breaking your door at night, not uniformed feds (there simply isn't enough of the latter). Thus even if you're anti-gun in principle, it still makes sense for left-leaning people in this country to arm given the overall political climate.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      If for no other reason than to disabuse right wingers of the notion, as much as possible, that the left wing isn't armed. Which FWIW I think left-wingers are actually quite a bit more armed than the ammosexuals would presume.
      - int_19h 1y ago
        There's more of us than conventional wisdom would have you believe, but the disparity is still very large.
    - majormajor 1y ago
      You're gonna have better luck leaving the country before the civil war than you are shooting the people trying to break into your house in that scenario. There are at least a couple million "regular" US soldiers + feds; if we're worried about millions more private citizens on top of that, what exactly is the gameplan to win in any meaningful sense regardless?
- sterlind 1y ago
  that was in May? Jesus, every fucking month has felt like a year.