3 ms·
Unfortunately we've seen protests like this before in Iran (perhaps not this widespread, however). Shouting in the streets won't end the regime. The regime wil
by Alupis 9mo ago
Unfortunately we've seen protests like this before in Iran (perhaps not this widespread, however).
Shouting in the streets won't end the regime. The regime will either just wait it out, or clamp down with violence. The people will need to take more direct action if they hope for any change to come out of this - which unfortunately likely means more death.
Without weapons, the people of Iran will have a difficult time overthrowing the regime. This may highlight to some folks abroad the importance of the US's 2nd Amendment, and an armed civilian population - things we take for granted in the US, and some wish to abolish.
It's a nasty, depressing situation. The regime needs to end. The people of Iran, and the people of the world will be far better off without this regime.
I hope the best for the people of Iran.
- embedding-shape 9mo ago> This may highlight to some folks abroad the importance of the US's 2nd Amendment, and an armed civilian population I don't think this highlight that at all. Judging by what has happened so far, the people who have the guns join the tyranny rather than oppose it. Why would it be any different in Iran?
- Alupis 9mo agoYou can look at historical revolutions - going back to the beginning of time - to see your statement is obviously false. An armed civilian population is one that can enact revolution. A disarmed population is one that gets killed, beaten and controlled.
- hannasanarion 9mo agoNo rebellion or revolt had ever been successful without arms supplied from outside sponsors. Random personal small arms that a bunch of people just happen to have at home are not enough to win a revolutionary war against a professional military. Self defense pistols and hunting rifles don't win wars, artillery does.
- zozbot234 9mo ago> Random personal small arms that a bunch of people just happen to have at home are not enough to win a revolutionary war against a professional military. They're absolutely enough to tip the scales in favor of those within that professional military who would rather support the prospective revolution. Such people will definitely exist given a widespread revolt against a violently oppressive regime.
- WillPostForFood 9mo agoRussian Revolution? French Revolution?
- hannasanarion 9mo ago* or mass-scale mutinies from the military itself giving the revolutionaries access to artillery, tanks, planes, and ships while the regime has none.
- keketi 9mo agoHow about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Nepalese_Gen_Z_protests#9_September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Nepalese_Gen_Z_protests#9... September 9, 2025 - Protesters storm the Nepalese parliament, ransacking it and setting it on fire. Homes of leading politicians are also torched and the politicians themselves attacked. Soon thereafter, the prime minister resigned along with other ministers and the president dissolved the parliament and scheduled a new election. I think that counts as a successful rebellion or revolt.
- hannasanarion 9mo agoThe Gen Z revolution would have gone nowhere had the Nepalese Military not launched a coup, removed the existing government from power at gunpoint, and asked the protesters who to replace them with. So, fine, there's a third condition: when the entire military mutinies, leaving the regime with no armed defenders.
- runlaszlorun 9mo ago
- rfrey 9mo agoBut what do you do when the most vocal proponents of an armed populace support the tyrant?
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- esseph 9mo agoThen it's good to be a Gray Man/Woman.
- Esophagus4 9mo agoI worry the same - a weak regime is a dangerous one, and I fear this will involve a lot of suffering either way for the people of Iran.
- avar 9mo ago> This may highlight to some folks abroad > the importance of the US's 2nd Amendment, > and an armed civilian population British India, the USSR, East Germany, Francoist Spain, Apartheid South Africa, Communist Romania etc. etc. The 20th century is full of repressive regimes with even more repressive gun laws that fell due to protests etc. The idea that everyone can show up at the protest with their AR-15, somehow defeat the state's security forces in armed combat, and that the result will be some enlightened republic is an American fantasy, informed by what's at best a selective reading of American history. If it comes to that you're much more likely to end up under some warlord. Afghanistan and especially Africa are full of people who are well armed and where exactly that's happened more often than not.
- zozbot234 9mo agoThe actual idea is that this will give individual members of the "security forces" a plausible excuse to not repress the protests violently - which can be very helpful in shifting the overall incentives towards a peaceful transition of power.
- blell 9mo agoFrancoist Spain never fell, fyi. It was a much more popular regime than the rest you mentioned though.
- mmasu 9mo agoI disagree with this - there have been overthrowings that did not require weapons in the field (i.e. Egypt, Tunisia), while widespread weapons were likely to cause civil wars (Lybia, Syria). In these cases however the role of the army was key in forcing the rulers out (and in Egypt to replace them), which might be unlikely in the case of Iran.
- delfinom 9mo agoExcept authoritarians can only clamp down in protests so much, working against them is economic and even regional social collapse due to running out of water. There's a lot building against them. I actually hope western countries stay out, lest it gives support for nationalists to rally
- the_gipsy 9mo agoHow is that working out for America? Some lady got shot the other day by some out-of-control cosplay militia.