I think we're talking two different things. I'm not saying to buy a giant handgun and wait for robbers to come into your house so you can blast them away.
I've known people who fantasize about that. They are gross.
What I'm saying is that the police in the United States have a history of shooting dogs, so they do absolutely nothing for you anti-fascist security. They would absolutely help against theft and robbery because most robbers want to be quick and quiet. Police don't care.
But so a gun doesn't help either. It just means they call SWAT and take you down with superior numbers and firepower, doesn't it?
The only real place where a gun helps is in an actual civil war, or possibly against a single non-governmental bad guy (with risk of being shot yourself as well).
I have a dog. I'm also surrounded by fascists in the deep south. I'm keeping guns because I'd rather live than die for some abstract moral point you're trying to make about how we should live in a fantasy land where people in fascists states don't need guns.Â
By that logic, a gun won't either. Many gun owners are shot by police. If you shoot back at an unlawful entrance, they just bring more. They don't really care. Power disparity is too great already.
The fight was lost in the Supreme Court. 42 USC §1988 was explicitly set up to grant civil rights attorneys fees if they won their claim (and it costs a lot to prosecute a civil rights claim). But lawyers and firms would accept winnable civil rights cases on the basis that they would eventually get paid. That came to a halt in 2001 in 532 US 598, decided on May 2001, which talked about the rights of the "prevailing party" to be paid. In function, it killed civil rights litigation.
The police shooting people because they have or might have guns is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment right to carry. (ACLU never got involved because they don't take 2nd amendment cases).
"Winning" requires multiple fronts, from civil resistance and disobedience, to openly carrying protests, to voting, to boycotts, to lawsuits, to just simply speaking out when something isn't right. And proposing alternative solutions.
I don't see how the weapons will be useful honestly. Iran has a very well armed military and they're almost totally powerless before the US military. Military conflict is perhaps the singular thing fascists are best at. I'd rather attack my enemies where they are weak instead of where they are strong.
I mean I'm not opposed to people being armed but it really should be viewed as a last resort to hurt your enemies as much as possible before you're totally wiped out rather than a realistic path to political change.
I know that the second a gun is brought into a house the members of the household are significantly more likely to be shot. I believe it’s because of the number of gun related suicides as well as the risk of a negligent discharge.
This is true, but in a vacuum in a life-threatening situation a gun is better than a dog for defending yourself. And also does not require you to intentionally put an innocent creature in harm's way. And also does not require nearly as much upkeep as a dog.
But you are correct, the presence of a gun does statically increase your risk of being shot. And that is something worth considering.
Edit: and furthermore if you buy a guard dog, your risk of being mauled by a dog will likewise go up.
A claw hammer would be a better option than a gun. Why does everyone assume that a gun would be the best thing to defend yourself with in all situations.
I can grab it at a moments notice as it can safely be left out, you don’t have to load it or aim it so using it is fast and simple. If its my home they’re invading I know where to hide. I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure. Its just going to be easier and more reliable to hit someones head with a hammer than it will be to shoot them.
Unlike you, I actually train with my gun so we have very different concerns when under pressure. Mine relate more to not getting killed to make some kind of moral stand about how guns are bad in all contexts.
Honestly, I wouldn't leave hammers lying around where kids could get to them any more than guns. The hammer will be less deadly, sure, but a dumb kid will still cause a lot of damage with it.
you don’t have to load it
True
or aim it
False, lol. You out there protecting yourself with unaimed hammer swings?
I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure.
The only advantage I agree with is the ability to leave a hammer out versus a gun, and that's only in cases of having small children at home. If your gun is for self-defense, it would make more sense to keep it loaded and easily accessible.
I have to say it's a very strange stance to prefer to defend yourself within arm's reach of an assailant versus at a distance. I think you're also giving yourself a lot of credit when you say you'd be more confident swinging a hammer with enough accuracy and strength to incapacitate someone while panicking. Better hope you get them in one swing.
Conservatives want guns to protect themselves from a bunch of DEI boogymen that don't exist. The left is buying guns to protect themselves from the boogymen that are currently publicly stripping away/violating their rights while doing multiple genocides.
Trying to act like the two groups are the same makes you either a boldfaced liar or an idiot. But hey, at least you get to be smugly superior with your snappy little meme.
Right, the only people who should be armed are the christian nationalists who are already armed to the teeth and itching to use them. As we all know, nothing bad ever happens when people without guns confront people with guns. It worked out great for the native Americans!
The Cherokee were disarmed just prior to the Trail of Tears. They had to surrender their weapons as invaders broke into their homes, destroyed their crops, and split families apart. They were then reliant on the federal government's soldiers, who rounded them up into camps until they were marched to what was to be only their land forever, Indian Territory. Now Oklahoma. Where we still fight the state and governor Stitt for our treaty rights.
There are still Cherokee in North Carolina because one man, Tsali (pronounced like Charlie), fought back when his wife was being stabbed by a soldiers bayonet and killed him. He then led survivors to the mountains for a hard couple of years of starvation until the government relented. They worked with Yonaguska, a chief, to reach a diplomatic solution to allow the refugees to stay in their homelands. If they executed Tsali and all of his children so no one else would rise up.
They killed him and his son for trying to defend his home and family. They killed many others in the camps and the trail itself. Many children were stolen and enslaved. But the Cherokee wanted a reasonable, diplomatic solution that didn't involve violence when the US government absolutely wanted all of those things.
Exactly. This idea that indigenous people are savages who will go up against an ar-15 with a bow and arrow is nonsense. Even going back to the 1600s there are MANY reports of going from "What is that scary noise maker" to "I want one... and I can get it off this dead fool".
And they used them to great effect. Often against even more heavily armed "whites".
Until the military rolled up.
Gun nuts just don't want to understand (probably because NRA TV doesn't talk about it...). If privately owned firearms were a threat to the government, they would be banned. That is WHY gun control happened (no, it is not all about those uppity Blacks buying glocks on their way to march with Dr King). Many of our modern day laws can be traced back to fears of another "wild west" or even 20s/30s where "gangsters" had literal machine guns and were better equipped than the national guard.
But now? A designated marksman will blow your head off while you are ranting about how you are a sovereign citizen. It doesn't take THAT many people to flank your compound and light you up. And if your militia DOES get your Wildcats on? Mortars and drones and tanks.
Privately owned firearms are only a threat to civilians.
But now? A designated marksman will blow your head off while you are ranting about how you are a sovereign citizen. It doesn’t take THAT many people to flank your compound and light you up. And if your militia DOES get your Wildcats on? Mortars and drones and tanks.
You are comparing a professional army to civilians. Like, hell, if other side has a gun and you don't - you will loose. If you have a gun but other side a tank - you will loose again. The point here is to make the confrontation more equal against people equipped with handguns and not anti-tank missiles.
But, there is 1 thing in what civilians have a leverage - they run most of economy and infrastructure. If we are talking about confrontation between government and civilians, civilians don't even have to use guns. They can simply gather resources and then stop doing anything except surviving for a few days. This means that no factories will be working, no commercial transporting, no offices are running. Yes, this is a very unlikely scenario but it will literally cause huge problems to the country without the violence. And what your army gonna do? Come to you home and force you to go to work?
The other thing is if we are dealing with other armed civilians, then having guns can benefit. But only if you can use them. And yes, you are right that having a gun in home without strict discipline leads to more casualties.
So, what I think is that owning guns has bad and good sides, but you don't even need them in most cases.
Amen to that. I've studied enough of my history to know that, whatever ignoble and unpleasant end awaits me at the end of a fascist's gun barrel will still be vastly preferable to whatever horrors await in a camp. I refuse to die in one outright, by any means necessary, even if that means dying on my front lawn instead.
When the black panthers started getting guns, they got gun reform laws up real quick.
Now imagine every LGBTetc individual getting a gun, it shows up in the Republican Excel sheets. They start getting scared and invent new laws to make it harder.
If/When you buy the gun, you disassemble it and store it in a certified gun safe. This way when they storm your apartment and kill your because “you had a gun” it’s a fuck lot harder for them to plant a gun on you.
Guns are literally an oppressive force. The second amendment people are ready to kill those who try to stop ICE or change the government in a way they don't like. Their threat is literally murder, but sure more guns will solve this problem.
Semantics. There are more guns in the US than people in the US. Guns are an oppressive force themselves in these extreme circumstances.
No different than having land mines all over at this point. People die needlessly due to proliferation thus creating an oppressive force without 2nd amendment gun nutters.
People aren't claiming that they love guns, or gun violence. The point is that gun reform is dead for the foreseeable future. And since we are all forced to live in a society with gun proliferation, it makes sense that fascist shouldn't be the only ones with guns.
Yeah, this is just learned helplessness wrapped up in a pretty bow.
What makes sense is dealing with the problem. We can't regulate guns, but we can regulate bathrooms!?
Yeah, I am not buying it. Also, people are claiming they love guns and plenty love war as well. My daughter's coworkers had a spirited conversation about how we should just rip off the bandaid and invade Canada and Mexico.
Clearly there is something wrong with our society and the proliferation of guns is just another symptom that needs to be managed as you would any disease.
Yeah, this is just learned helplessness wrapped up in a pretty bow.
Lol, arming yourself against fascist is totally learned helplessness.......
I just think you are either delusional, in denial, or completely ignorant of the state of current affairs in the US, if you think we have any chance of gun reform with the current supreme court.
What makes sense is dealing with the problem. We can't regulate guns, but we can regulate bathrooms!?
The people who want to protect fun laws currently hold the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court which also have a very conservative interpretation of the constituonal amendment that protects firearms. They are also the same people who want to regulate bathrooms.
How do you suppose we enact firearms regulations?
Also, people are claiming they love guns and plenty love war as well. My daughter's coworkers had a spirited conversation about how we should just rip off the bandaid and invade Canada and Mexico.
I was talking about the people in this current forum......
Clearly there is something wrong with our society and the proliferation of guns is just another symptom that needs to be managed as you would any disease.
Yeah..... No shit. There are literallly fascist running the government.
I would love to live in a society where I don't have to think about gun violence, that would be rad. It's just clearly not the society we currently inhabit, and ignoring that fact does not make you any safer.
You might have the privilege of living in a more civil part of the country. I on the other hand am in an interracial marriage in the most violent and racist state in the union. So excuse me if I teach my friends and family how to defend themselves and build a mutual defence network among other minorities and the queer community.
Pretending you are not engaging in learned helpless is pretty silly as it is obvious you are. Clearly you don't understand what is really going on, and that is okay. Fascism is not new, not even a little bit.
There are so many good solutions to our issues and the fact that you haven't even spent time thinking about them is very telling. Instead you are a reactionary. Guns will never make our society safer, if they did we would be the safest society in the world already.
I have seen the damage gun culture does to the minority and queer community. The needless deaths and violence. Pushed by those who are mentally ill professing perverse defense fantasies created by the marketing department of gun manufacturers.
Just another fascist cog doing exactly what your are supposed to.
Really a question of whether you still trust the state apparatus to protect you and your loved ones from physical violence. For the right, the need to protect themselves was never anything but a bogeyman dreamt up by gun manufacturers and racist opportunists. The calculus may well differ for other folks given the current state of things and the lessons one might draw from history.
I was going to say that in a country where the rule of law is practised I wouldn't feel inclined to own a firearm and I would argue no one else should.
On the other hand, watching how the US is on cusps of going full fascist, rounding up leftists, socialists, LGBTQ and people of all ethnicities, well fuck I would be arming the fuck up. I would be going full prepper. Shit I would be digging going full VC and digging tunnels in my back yard.
I'm a liberal and I'm getting one because the writing on the wall indicates our democracy is coming to an end and things are about to get a whole lot less safe.
This meme assumes liberals, or the left broadly construed, view guns in the same way.
Conservatives want to bring their AR-15 into Burger King, because they view guns as a sort of magic totem of protection.
Of the left gun owners I know, liberals, Anarchists, Marxists, etc. They have a far more grounded view of guns, and see them much more for the tool that they are.
Well history says the states started to have more gun laws after the black panthers, so maybe this is the way to get gun control in pacific non violent way.
We wouldn't be in this mess if the left weren't so damned anti 2nd amendment. Like, the amount of people I know in the Midwest that simply refuse to ever vote Democrat solely because of guns is insane.
That, and the DNC trying to make Hillary president. Then not having Biden step down due to health in like year 2. The left could win some things if they didn't suck at it and weren't also corrupt as hell.
I’m not against people owning guns. God knows, we need a big crowd of hunters to thin turkey populations in New England. But by the same rules, there are some dumb absolutists against any form of gun regulation.
A child shot his brother from an unsecured firearm? We must send a pamphlet advertising gun safes to the parent sometime in the course of the year!
Traditional gun enthusiasts have "their scenario". That is, the thing they think they will need their cache of ARs and survival gear and 10k rounds. SHTF, end of the world as we know it, meth addled home intruder, zombie apocalypse, whatever.
I think folks on the left never had "their scenario" and correctly assessed the odds of those scenarios happening was low. So, logically, no need to arm themselves.
Those odds have changed and we've been watching those scenarios play out live on social media. Leftists have taken notice and are adjusting their relationship with firearms appropriately.
Yeah, well said. I’m a pro gun progressive but there limits to gun ownership. Sometimes the Calvary is not coming and the only way to protect ourselves is to buy and use guns
yeah its amazing to me that the country with more guns than people is as of late surging to get more guns. the craziest part is, its really hard to blame the leftists for this conclusion, given the context.
The thing is, the guns are largely concentrated in the hands of people that make the left feel unsafe - and recent events have caused the left to feel even less safe about the situation. Now the liberals are arming up to balance out the equation a bit, and that's driving a big part of the surge.
Yeah, sorry - I spent too many years hearing the right complain about libruls as if the term encompassed everything to their left, and I still haven't completely untangled that knot in my brain.
I've always been of the belief that more guns cause more death, and I still hold that belief.
However, the last decade has proven to me that this country is far too stupid to maintain a democracy so, unfortunately, the guns are necessary, because things are about to get a whole lot sketchier in this nation. And as things degrade, I need protection, particularly from low IQ aggressive conservatives.
foreign military sales have quintupled or so since 2000, depending on who you want to use as a source.
Last time I checked, US has as much military spending as the top 10 spenders combined, including China and Russia. Sources disagree somewhat depending on what you consider to be military spending.
I remember when the world entered the information age and wars started being fought by information instead of bullets but people still want you to believe gun ownership is going to keep you safe somehow against misinformation in the information age we now live in
209 Comments
butwhyishischinabook@piefed.social · 139 pts · 160d
Yeah you're right, instead I should trust that the police will use restraint, arrive instantly, and do the right thing 🤡
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 160d
You white and rich? Then yeah. You black and poor? Then FUCK no.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · -17 pts · 160d
A dog is much better protection than a gun.
Protoknuckles@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 160d
Dogs get shot.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · -9 pts · 160d
Life isn't a video game.
Ask a real world security professional and they'll tell you to get a dog.
A gun salesman will tell you that if you buy a gun you automatically become Annie Oakley
Protoknuckles@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 160d
I think we're talking two different things. I'm not saying to buy a giant handgun and wait for robbers to come into your house so you can blast them away.
I've known people who fantasize about that. They are gross.
What I'm saying is that the police in the United States have a history of shooting dogs, so they do absolutely nothing for you anti-fascist security. They would absolutely help against theft and robbery because most robbers want to be quick and quiet. Police don't care.
Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -8 pts · 160d
But so a gun doesn't help either. It just means they call SWAT and take you down with superior numbers and firepower, doesn't it?
The only real place where a gun helps is in an actual civil war, or possibly against a single non-governmental bad guy (with risk of being shot yourself as well).
butwhyishischinabook@piefed.social · 25 pts · 160d
I have a dog. I'm also surrounded by fascists in the deep south. I'm keeping guns because I'd rather live than die for some abstract moral point you're trying to make about how we should live in a fantasy land where people in fascists states don't need guns.Â
ameancow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 22 pts · 160d
I am a (former) real world security professional.
And I'll say that a gun is much easier to carry around with you than a dog.
Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 160d
I taught my gun to walk, now I don't have to carry it anymore :D
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 5 pts · 160d
Good boy!
Triumph@fedia.io · 22 pts · 160d
No they will fucking not.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 160d
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · -4 pts · 160d
Look up MOVE.
Philadelphia police bombed a house in the middle of the city.
If it comes to an armed conflict, I really doubt that the folks who couldn't get Bernie nominated are going to win a firefight.
Stop living in videogame land.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 159d
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · -4 pts · 159d
Nothing your wrote makes me think you could handle an actual gunfight.
Lexam@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
We don't know that. It might be, and unfortunately I think who ever is playing has gotten bored.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 160d
lennybird@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 160d
By that logic, a gun won't either. Many gun owners are shot by police. If you shoot back at an unlawful entrance, they just bring more. They don't really care. Power disparity is too great already.
This fight is won elsewhere.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 160d
The_Lurker@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 160d
The fight was lost in the Supreme Court. 42 USC §1988 was explicitly set up to grant civil rights attorneys fees if they won their claim (and it costs a lot to prosecute a civil rights claim). But lawyers and firms would accept winnable civil rights cases on the basis that they would eventually get paid. That came to a halt in 2001 in 532 US 598, decided on May 2001, which talked about the rights of the "prevailing party" to be paid. In function, it killed civil rights litigation.
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1848
The police shooting people because they have or might have guns is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment right to carry. (ACLU never got involved because they don't take 2nd amendment cases).
But here's the thing. Cops don't arrest right wing armed protesters. Why do you think that is? Cops are willing to shoot unarmed protesters in wheelchairs, but fail to move on a fat out of shape protestor with an AR-15. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/protests-houston-police-shoot-unarmed-man-wheelchair
"Winning" requires multiple fronts, from civil resistance and disobedience, to openly carrying protests, to voting, to boycotts, to lawsuits, to just simply speaking out when something isn't right. And proposing alternative solutions.
lennybird@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 160d
Oh I know exactly why that is.
femtek@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 160d
Against random criminals, not occupying forces with an itchy trigger finger.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · -12 pts · 160d
Good thing Alex Pretti was armed. Oh wait.
0ops@piefed.zip · 11 pts · 160d
If only he had a dog with him...
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 0 pts · 160d
Yeah the dog thing is silly too.
An organized and effective political movement is what will protect us, not weapons.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 9 pts · 160d
An organized and effective political movement with weapons.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · -3 pts · 160d
I don't see how the weapons will be useful honestly. Iran has a very well armed military and they're almost totally powerless before the US military. Military conflict is perhaps the singular thing fascists are best at. I'd rather attack my enemies where they are weak instead of where they are strong.
I mean I'm not opposed to people being armed but it really should be viewed as a last resort to hurt your enemies as much as possible before you're totally wiped out rather than a realistic path to political change.
RaoulDuke85@piefed.social · 6 pts · 160d
Cops love to shoot dogs.
Bazell@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 160d
Even chihuahua?
Triumph@fedia.io · 4 pts · 160d
They're smaller and harder to hit.
Bazell@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 160d
Smaller hitbox. Fair argument.
socsa@piefed.social · 3 pts · 160d
They distract the invaders while I load my crossbow.
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
Elaborate.
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 160d
I know that the second a gun is brought into a house the members of the household are significantly more likely to be shot. I believe it’s because of the number of gun related suicides as well as the risk of a negligent discharge.
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 160d
This is true, but in a vacuum in a life-threatening situation a gun is better than a dog for defending yourself. And also does not require you to intentionally put an innocent creature in harm's way. And also does not require nearly as much upkeep as a dog.
But you are correct, the presence of a gun does statically increase your risk of being shot. And that is something worth considering.
Edit: and furthermore if you buy a guard dog, your risk of being mauled by a dog will likewise go up.
lefaucet@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 159d
ÂżPor que no los dos?
Elting@piefed.social · -3 pts · 160d
A claw hammer would be a better option than a gun. Why does everyone assume that a gun would be the best thing to defend yourself with in all situations.
Wakmrow@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 160d
Ok you bring a claw hammer and I'll bring a rifle we'll test your theory out
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 160d
Think to yourself for two seconds why a gun would be better for self-defense than a hammer.
RaoulDook@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
"Oh no, now everything looks like a nail! Guess it's Hammer Time."
ameancow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
Elting@piefed.social · 2 pts · 160d
Are we shooting eachother across a field or are you invading my house?
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
What advantage does a hammer have over a gun in a moment of self-defense?
Elting@piefed.social · -6 pts · 160d
I can grab it at a moments notice as it can safely be left out, you don’t have to load it or aim it so using it is fast and simple. If its my home they’re invading I know where to hide. I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure. Its just going to be easier and more reliable to hit someones head with a hammer than it will be to shoot them.
butwhyishischinabook@piefed.social · 11 pts · 160d
Unlike you, I actually train with my gun so we have very different concerns when under pressure. Mine relate more to not getting killed to make some kind of moral stand about how guns are bad in all contexts.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 5 pts · 160d
Honestly, I wouldn't leave hammers lying around where kids could get to them any more than guns. The hammer will be less deadly, sure, but a dumb kid will still cause a lot of damage with it.
True
False, lol. You out there protecting yourself with unaimed hammer swings?
Skill issue. Requires training time.
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
The only advantage I agree with is the ability to leave a hammer out versus a gun, and that's only in cases of having small children at home. If your gun is for self-defense, it would make more sense to keep it loaded and easily accessible.
I have to say it's a very strange stance to prefer to defend yourself within arm's reach of an assailant versus at a distance. I think you're also giving yourself a lot of credit when you say you'd be more confident swinging a hammer with enough accuracy and strength to incapacitate someone while panicking. Better hope you get them in one swing.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 6 pts · 160d
Unless you're fighting nails, a claw hammer is not not the best thing to defend yourself with in any situation.
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 110 pts · 160d
Conservatives want guns to protect themselves from a bunch of DEI boogymen that don't exist. The left is buying guns to protect themselves from the boogymen that are currently publicly stripping away/violating their rights while doing multiple genocides.
Trying to act like the two groups are the same makes you either a boldfaced liar or an idiot. But hey, at least you get to be smugly superior with your snappy little meme.
sudo@lemmy.today · 38 pts · 160d
Get to feel smugly superior. Because they certainly aren't.
Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world · 68 pts · 160d
archonet@lemy.lol · 62 pts · 160d
Right, the only people who should be armed are the christian nationalists who are already armed to the teeth and itching to use them. As we all know, nothing bad ever happens when people without guns confront people with guns. It worked out great for the native Americans!
Montagge@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 160d
The native tribes had guns
ArgentRaven@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 160d
The Cherokee were disarmed just prior to the Trail of Tears. They had to surrender their weapons as invaders broke into their homes, destroyed their crops, and split families apart. They were then reliant on the federal government's soldiers, who rounded them up into camps until they were marched to what was to be only their land forever, Indian Territory. Now Oklahoma. Where we still fight the state and governor Stitt for our treaty rights.
There are still Cherokee in North Carolina because one man, Tsali (pronounced like Charlie), fought back when his wife was being stabbed by a soldiers bayonet and killed him. He then led survivors to the mountains for a hard couple of years of starvation until the government relented. They worked with Yonaguska, a chief, to reach a diplomatic solution to allow the refugees to stay in their homelands. If they executed Tsali and all of his children so no one else would rise up.
They killed him and his son for trying to defend his home and family. They killed many others in the camps and the trail itself. Many children were stolen and enslaved. But the Cherokee wanted a reasonable, diplomatic solution that didn't involve violence when the US government absolutely wanted all of those things.
I'll keep my guns.
Montagge@lemmy.zip · -19 pts · 160d
You do that, and let me know when you actually do something useful with them
ArgentRaven@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 160d
I think I will be dead by that point. Not sure if you read my previous comment or not.
Montagge@lemmy.zip · -14 pts · 160d
Probably should have organized into a militia then
ameancow@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 160d
ameancow@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 160d
Exactly. This idea that indigenous people are savages who will go up against an ar-15 with a bow and arrow is nonsense. Even going back to the 1600s there are MANY reports of going from "What is that scary noise maker" to "I want one... and I can get it off this dead fool".
And they used them to great effect. Often against even more heavily armed "whites".
Until the military rolled up.
Gun nuts just don't want to understand (probably because NRA TV doesn't talk about it...). If privately owned firearms were a threat to the government, they would be banned. That is WHY gun control happened (no, it is not all about those uppity Blacks buying glocks on their way to march with Dr King). Many of our modern day laws can be traced back to fears of another "wild west" or even 20s/30s where "gangsters" had literal machine guns and were better equipped than the national guard.
But now? A designated marksman will blow your head off while you are ranting about how you are a sovereign citizen. It doesn't take THAT many people to flank your compound and light you up. And if your militia DOES get your Wildcats on? Mortars and drones and tanks.
Privately owned firearms are only a threat to civilians.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 2 pts · 160d
Tell that to Afghanistan.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
The "1600s" could be 200 years after the Spanish arrived.
5wim@infosec.pub · 0 pts · 160d
Lol, liberal
Bazell@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 160d
You are comparing a professional army to civilians. Like, hell, if other side has a gun and you don't - you will loose. If you have a gun but other side a tank - you will loose again. The point here is to make the confrontation more equal against people equipped with handguns and not anti-tank missiles.
But, there is 1 thing in what civilians have a leverage - they run most of economy and infrastructure. If we are talking about confrontation between government and civilians, civilians don't even have to use guns. They can simply gather resources and then stop doing anything except surviving for a few days. This means that no factories will be working, no commercial transporting, no offices are running. Yes, this is a very unlikely scenario but it will literally cause huge problems to the country without the violence. And what your army gonna do? Come to you home and force you to go to work?
The other thing is if we are dealing with other armed civilians, then having guns can benefit. But only if you can use them. And yes, you are right that having a gun in home without strict discipline leads to more casualties.
So, what I think is that owning guns has bad and good sides, but you don't even need them in most cases.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 160d
And who do you think is going to be coming after you if you build up a militia and start screaming "Wildcats"?
And who do we see, time and time again, side with the fat white kids who crossed state lines to murder some n****rs?
So you might even say
rljkeimig@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 160d
L take. Also Glock didn't make a gun until nearly 10 years after MLK was killed by the FBI.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
They didn’t have 55% of the population of the country though. Or immunity to the common cold. Or money and clout.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 159d
paultimate14@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
This is not a question of whether someone should or not, but a question of whether doing so will make them feel safer.
The answer to the first question is usually "yes", but the answer to the second question is usually "no".
If the state wants you dead, a gun and a couple boxes of ammo aren't going to be more than a minor inconvenience to the state.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 160d
Actually, I'm more concerned about how cool Nazis are again, than the actual government.
rljkeimig@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 160d
This is why you organize, the real trick is that they make you think you should be doing it alone.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 3 pts · 160d
I'd rather inconvenience the state than march quietly into the concentration camp, thank you.
archonet@lemy.lol · 2 pts · 159d
Amen to that. I've studied enough of my history to know that, whatever ignoble and unpleasant end awaits me at the end of a fascist's gun barrel will still be vastly preferable to whatever horrors await in a camp. I refuse to die in one outright, by any means necessary, even if that means dying on my front lawn instead.
The_Lurker@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 160d
Armed minorities are harder to suppress.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 160d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 3 pts · 160d
A lot of people on Lemmy would call you a turbolib for saying something so radical
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 4 pts · 160d
What? No they won't. I have never seen anyone being accused of being a liberal for being pro-gun around here.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 2 pts · 160d
I'm talking about the other thing conservatives want to take away from minorities
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 4 pts · 160d
What? Rights? Representation? Not ringing any bells.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 0 pts · 159d
Starts with a V, many Lemmy users don't want to have one...
njm1314@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 158d
Varicose veins?
ameancow@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 3 pts · 160d
I agree, and they get so mad when a leftist actually does something to try and improve the world
ameancow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 160d
Ha, I just recently wrote a blog post about the fact that communicating effectively with your vote is a skill, you might like it
ameancow@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 160d
Forester@pawb.social · 45 pts · 160d
Okay. Governor Reagan
ameancow@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 160d
lepinkainen@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
No no. You do it for the statistics.
When the black panthers started getting guns, they got gun reform laws up real quick.
Now imagine every LGBTetc individual getting a gun, it shows up in the Republican Excel sheets. They start getting scared and invent new laws to make it harder.
If/When you buy the gun, you disassemble it and store it in a certified gun safe. This way when they storm your apartment and kill your because “you had a gun” it’s a fuck lot harder for them to plant a gun on you.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · -9 pts · 160d
"I have some qualms shooting people." Aka "just as bad as Maga" Lol you need to go have your brain checked, it don't work so good.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 160d
Wataba@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 160d
Take your own advice you twerp.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 160d
It's not going to make you safer. Best you can hope for is to take some of the motherfuckers with you when they come for you.
just2look@lemmy.zip · 26 pts · 160d
If you take enough of them then everyone is safer.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 11 pts · 160d
There's a lot more of us than there are of them.
If even 10% of us take one of them down with us, they'll run out of door-kickers very quickly.
(Even more so because a lot of their door-kickers are cowards and would quickly abandon the fight if they thought they were actually in danger.)
Triumph@fedia.io · 11 pts · 160d
I'm okay with that.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 160d
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 40 pts · 160d
Don't buy a gun because it'll make you feel safe. Buy a gun to piss off OP.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 160d
starman2112@sh.itjust.works · 37 pts · 160d
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works · 33 pts · 159d
I didnt think feeling safe was why liberals where buying guns. I thought it was to make oppressors and aggressors feel less safe.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 159d
Doomsider@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 159d
Guns are literally an oppressive force. The second amendment people are ready to kill those who try to stop ICE or change the government in a way they don't like. Their threat is literally murder, but sure more guns will solve this problem.
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 158d
"The second amendment people" are the oppressive force. The guns are tools used by said force to oppress.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 158d
Semantics. There are more guns in the US than people in the US. Guns are an oppressive force themselves in these extreme circumstances.
No different than having land mines all over at this point. People die needlessly due to proliferation thus creating an oppressive force without 2nd amendment gun nutters.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 158d
People aren't claiming that they love guns, or gun violence. The point is that gun reform is dead for the foreseeable future. And since we are all forced to live in a society with gun proliferation, it makes sense that fascist shouldn't be the only ones with guns.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 158d
Yeah, this is just learned helplessness wrapped up in a pretty bow.
What makes sense is dealing with the problem. We can't regulate guns, but we can regulate bathrooms!?
Yeah, I am not buying it. Also, people are claiming they love guns and plenty love war as well. My daughter's coworkers had a spirited conversation about how we should just rip off the bandaid and invade Canada and Mexico.
Clearly there is something wrong with our society and the proliferation of guns is just another symptom that needs to be managed as you would any disease.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 157d
Lol, arming yourself against fascist is totally learned helplessness.......
I just think you are either delusional, in denial, or completely ignorant of the state of current affairs in the US, if you think we have any chance of gun reform with the current supreme court.
The people who want to protect fun laws currently hold the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court which also have a very conservative interpretation of the constituonal amendment that protects firearms. They are also the same people who want to regulate bathrooms.
How do you suppose we enact firearms regulations?
I was talking about the people in this current forum......
Yeah..... No shit. There are literallly fascist running the government.
I would love to live in a society where I don't have to think about gun violence, that would be rad. It's just clearly not the society we currently inhabit, and ignoring that fact does not make you any safer.
You might have the privilege of living in a more civil part of the country. I on the other hand am in an interracial marriage in the most violent and racist state in the union. So excuse me if I teach my friends and family how to defend themselves and build a mutual defence network among other minorities and the queer community.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 157d
Pretending you are not engaging in learned helpless is pretty silly as it is obvious you are. Clearly you don't understand what is really going on, and that is okay. Fascism is not new, not even a little bit.
There are so many good solutions to our issues and the fact that you haven't even spent time thinking about them is very telling. Instead you are a reactionary. Guns will never make our society safer, if they did we would be the safest society in the world already.
I have seen the damage gun culture does to the minority and queer community. The needless deaths and violence. Pushed by those who are mentally ill professing perverse defense fantasies created by the marketing department of gun manufacturers.
Just another fascist cog doing exactly what your are supposed to.
Witchfire@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 152d
I'm sure a politely worded letter will work this time
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 152d
I am sure more guns will solve your made-up problems with the added bonus of getting more innocent people killed.
Witchfire@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 152d
Yeah that tells me everything I need to know about you. Fuck off Nazi.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 152d
Is that what fascists call people who don't like to see innocents die? Go satiated your bloodlust somewhere else.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 31 pts · 160d
Feeling safe isn't the point of having guns.
The point is to make your oppressors feel unsafe.
Shnog@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 160d
Idk...venison is a good reason too.
kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 160d
Yeah, but then I have to take part in the killing instead of passively benefiting from it :(
ameancow@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 160d
thethrilloftime69@feddit.online · 31 pts · 160d
Marx said the proletariat must never be disarmed.
socsa@piefed.social · 0 pts · 160d
To be fair, Marx also said that the savages in Africa needed to be tamed by European influence.
thethrilloftime69@feddit.online · 5 pts · 160d
That's interesting. Where did you read that?
socsa@piefed.social · 2 pts · 160d
It's the "Noble savage" thing. Fairly common at the time but inherently racist.
Quadhammer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 160d
Kinda like GW owning slaves. Context of the time
ameancow@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 160d
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 28 pts · 160d
Liberals never want leftists owning guns cause when liberals send Pinkertons to murder us they don't want us fighting back.
Quadhammer@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
You sound like a liberal wanting rights nshit
chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 159d
Saying "liberals" is incorrect. NEO-liberal is the correct word. Liberal progressives/socialists are not the same thing.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 159d
This is the stupidest comment I've seen on here in a while, and there's a lot of dumb stuff on here.
Quill7513@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 159d
Tell that to the miners Baldwin-Felts shot
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 159d
Yeah, that was in the 1890s...last time that was a problem was 1937.
Quill7513@slrpnk.net · 10 pts · 159d
The event I was referencing was 1921, and the last time a picketer was shot was 2023, but whatever I guess...
Why look at recent history when you can make declarations about how this is all ancient history
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 159d
Yeah because we don't have unions or labor movements anymore. Thanks libtards.
favoredponcho@lemmy.zip · 28 pts · 160d
ameancow@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 160d
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 4 pts · 160d
Get some proper militias up in that
sulfidedisburseangledafternoontipper@piefed.blahaj.zone · 23 pts · 160d
Really a question of whether you still trust the state apparatus to protect you and your loved ones from physical violence. For the right, the need to protect themselves was never anything but a bogeyman dreamt up by gun manufacturers and racist opportunists. The calculus may well differ for other folks given the current state of things and the lessons one might draw from history.
how_we_burned@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 159d
Indeed.
I was going to say that in a country where the rule of law is practised I wouldn't feel inclined to own a firearm and I would argue no one else should.
On the other hand, watching how the US is on cusps of going full fascist, rounding up leftists, socialists, LGBTQ and people of all ethnicities, well fuck I would be arming the fuck up. I would be going full prepper. Shit I would be digging going full VC and digging tunnels in my back yard.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 160d
Eh.
I'm a liberal and I'm getting one because the writing on the wall indicates our democracy is coming to an end and things are about to get a whole lot less safe.
Triumph@fedia.io · 14 pts · 160d
FYI, it took me around six months of regular range time and a class to feel comfortable carrying.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 7 pts · 160d
The best time to get a gun and start training with it is 6 months ago.
The 2nd best time is now.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml · 20 pts · 159d
This meme assumes liberals, or the left broadly construed, view guns in the same way.
Conservatives want to bring their AR-15 into Burger King, because they view guns as a sort of magic totem of protection.
Of the left gun owners I know, liberals, Anarchists, Marxists, etc. They have a far more grounded view of guns, and see them much more for the tool that they are.
FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 157d
Yeah, well said. I’m a pro gun progressive but there limits to gun ownership
PointyFluff@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 160d
Yeah -- this be dumb AF.
DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 160d
Well history says the states started to have more gun laws after the black panthers, so maybe this is the way to get gun control in pacific non violent way.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 13 pts · 160d
Except conservatives carry guns to demonstrations and nobody fucks with them, so clearly there's some merit to the idea.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 160d
culprit@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 160d
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de · 11 pts · 160d
We wouldn't be in this mess if the left weren't so damned anti 2nd amendment. Like, the amount of people I know in the Midwest that simply refuse to ever vote Democrat solely because of guns is insane.
That, and the DNC trying to make Hillary president. Then not having Biden step down due to health in like year 2. The left could win some things if they didn't suck at it and weren't also corrupt as hell.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 160d
Katana314@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
I’m not against people owning guns. God knows, we need a big crowd of hunters to thin turkey populations in New England. But by the same rules, there are some dumb absolutists against any form of gun regulation.
A child shot his brother from an unsecured firearm? We must send a pamphlet advertising gun safes to the parent sometime in the course of the year!
laranis@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 158d
Traditional gun enthusiasts have "their scenario". That is, the thing they think they will need their cache of ARs and survival gear and 10k rounds. SHTF, end of the world as we know it, meth addled home intruder, zombie apocalypse, whatever.
I think folks on the left never had "their scenario" and correctly assessed the odds of those scenarios happening was low. So, logically, no need to arm themselves.
Those odds have changed and we've been watching those scenarios play out live on social media. Leftists have taken notice and are adjusting their relationship with firearms appropriately.
FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 156d
Yeah, well said. I’m a pro gun progressive but there limits to gun ownership. Sometimes the Calvary is not coming and the only way to protect ourselves is to buy and use guns
texture@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 159d
yeah its amazing to me that the country with more guns than people is as of late surging to get more guns. the craziest part is, its really hard to blame the leftists for this conclusion, given the context.
SparroHawc@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 159d
The thing is, the guns are largely concentrated in the hands of people that make the left feel unsafe - and recent events have caused the left to feel even less safe about the situation. Now the liberals are arming up to balance out the equation a bit, and that's driving a big part of the surge.
texture@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 159d
thats basically how i understand it, yes.
i dont feel comfortable conflating leftism with liberalism, but thats another can of semantic worms.
SparroHawc@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 158d
Yeah, sorry - I spent too many years hearing the right complain about libruls as if the term encompassed everything to their left, and I still haven't completely untangled that knot in my brain.
texture@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 158d
extremely cool reply. cheers.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 159d
GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 159d
Propaganda posts have backings
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 158d
People who agree are more likely to upvote and move on, I'd guess.
But that's just a part of it.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 159d
Purchasing a firearm is one thing, but if you fail to practice consistently, you will fuck up.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 158d
I've always been of the belief that more guns cause more death, and I still hold that belief.
However, the last decade has proven to me that this country is far too stupid to maintain a democracy so, unfortunately, the guns are necessary, because things are about to get a whole lot sketchier in this nation. And as things degrade, I need protection, particularly from low IQ aggressive conservatives.
booly@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 159d
You buy guns to feel safe.
I buy guns to feel dangerous.
We are not the same.
apftwb@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 159d
I don't know. MAGA Marty is probably not to worried about a tyrannical government kicking in their door.
roundup5381@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 159d
I wonder how many government agencies mine threads like this
ameancow@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 159d
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 159d
Firearm sales in USA have TRIPLED since 2000
Every state is involved in their production, even Hawaii; according to the gun makers, anyway. Way more than most people realize.
https://www.nssf.org/government-relations/impact/
foreign military sales have quintupled or so since 2000, depending on who you want to use as a source.
Last time I checked, US has as much military spending as the top 10 spenders combined, including China and Russia. Sources disagree somewhat depending on what you consider to be military spending.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/largest-defense-budgets-in-the-world/
Chances are very good the USA arms your country; we do make the very best in weapons, since we have been at war since 1911
The USA has been smuggling weapons since the Brown Bess rifle
MrsVeggies@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 159d
You think we weren't at war in 1910? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Border_War
BanMe@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 159d
I remember when the world entered the information age and wars started being fought by information instead of bullets but people still want you to believe gun ownership is going to keep you safe somehow against misinformation in the information age we now live in
ameancow@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 159d
Bazell@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 160d
ameancow@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 160d
Rakonat@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 159d
Did I end up tankie lemmy again? How does that keep happening?
ameancow@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 159d
Rakonat@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 159d
Read the meme and re-read your comment.
ameancow@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 159d