Because there’s no political or popular will to do anything about it. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink; that doesn’t mean water is useless.
I’m talking about Americans that don’t like what the government is doing (there’s a lot to criticise the American right for, but unwilling to act they are not). There’s plenty of gun ownership among American liberals.
The majority of Americans do not like what the government is doing, as seen from its approval rating, but also armed revolution usually doesn’t happen by killing away everyone who disagrees with you.
The majority of Americans with guns do like what the government is doing though. Gun ownership is well over double for Republicans and they currently strongly support ICE and many other abusive domestic policies.
Please point out an armed revolution that wasn’t just wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control. I can name only one and that was Haiti.
I mean obviously, but with popular will you’ll want everything to give your cause an edge—hence the guns. It’s possible to have popular will and still fail, so factors that give the rebellion (or just plain old resistance, see: Black Panthers) an edge are going to be necessary. In recent history, the Houthis definitely benefited from having guns when they rebelled against the then-government.
Yeah because the vast majority of the proletariat here are white people who tolerate capitalism because it uses white supremacy and its white privilege to buy their complicity. Same is true for various other bigotries. If we nipped that shit in the bud and developed class consciousness, a revolution would take like three seconds.
Like having a heavily armed populace is literally the only good thing about
What is that heavily armed populace doing? They’re not resisting a government that has entered the information warfare age, where every police station has SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters. The guns aren’t saving you from the government, they’re not saving me from the government, they’re not saving Cletus on 10 acre compound if Uncle Sam decides to pay a visit with flashbangs and riot gear.
All the guns are doing is terrifying minorities, who actually can be controlled by them.
They’re not resisting a government that has entered the information warfare age, where every police station has SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters.
Except heavily armed populaces have resisted SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters before, but also: Even just forcing escalation to such methods is a win for the rebels/resistance/etc. There’s a reason even oppressive governments don’t jump straight to tanks and helicopters when they have a revolution that hasn’t quite devolved into civil war. Besides, there’s no guarantee the people manning the tanks and helicopters are going to be willing to fire into crowds. In a revolutionary scenario the government’s grip on its armed forces tends to be shaky at best, and doing things like whipping out tanks to put down rebellion tends to alienate people who might’ve supported it otherwise. Hell, sometimes governments just give up instead of going through all this. Obviously armed revolution (which doesn’t necessarily mean civil war) isn’t foolproof, but the hurdle to winning isn’t as big as people around here seem to think, since the very fact that such a thing is happening means there’s a sympathetic cause that will make some fraction of the army/police/etc not want to fight.
The US has guns and they’re being oppressed just fine.
Because there’s no political or popular will to do anything about it. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink; that doesn’t mean water is useless.
Seems to me that it does in fact mean that that excuse for gun proliferation is pretty useless.
Well that’s one hell of a non-sequitur. To make a sweeping generalization, it’s not the guns’ fault that Americans are cowards.
A majority of US gun owners like what the government is doing, how does that make them cowards?
I’m talking about Americans that don’t like what the government is doing (there’s a lot to criticise the American right for, but unwilling to act they are not). There’s plenty of gun ownership among American liberals.
So they are supposed to kill the majority of Americans who have guns that like what the government is doing?
The majority of Americans do not like what the government is doing, as seen from its approval rating, but also armed revolution usually doesn’t happen by killing away everyone who disagrees with you.
The majority of Americans with guns do like what the government is doing though. Gun ownership is well over double for Republicans and they currently strongly support ICE and many other abusive domestic policies.
Please point out an armed revolution that wasn’t just wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control. I can name only one and that was Haiti.
So then it’s not the guns that make resistance possible it’s popular will.
I mean obviously, but with popular will you’ll want everything to give your cause an edge—hence the guns. It’s possible to have popular will and still fail, so factors that give the rebellion (or just plain old resistance, see: Black Panthers) an edge are going to be necessary. In recent history, the Houthis definitely benefited from having guns when they rebelled against the then-government.
There’s something very wrong with your water. It’s killing a lot of children.
So just like regular water then.
Exactly! Thats is a perfect comparison. Even water can kill when unrestrained and unregulated.
The people with the guns, in general, like what the government is doing.
To be fair, several people have tried to shoot Trump.
Yeah because the vast majority of the proletariat here are white people who tolerate capitalism because it uses white supremacy and its white privilege to buy their complicity. Same is true for various other bigotries. If we nipped that shit in the bud and developed class consciousness, a revolution would take like three seconds.
Like having a heavily armed populace is literally the only good thing about
What is that heavily armed populace doing? They’re not resisting a government that has entered the information warfare age, where every police station has SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters. The guns aren’t saving you from the government, they’re not saving me from the government, they’re not saving Cletus on 10 acre compound if Uncle Sam decides to pay a visit with flashbangs and riot gear.
All the guns are doing is terrifying minorities, who actually can be controlled by them.
Guess how I know.
Except heavily armed populaces have resisted SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters before, but also: Even just forcing escalation to such methods is a win for the rebels/resistance/etc. There’s a reason even oppressive governments don’t jump straight to tanks and helicopters when they have a revolution that hasn’t quite devolved into civil war. Besides, there’s no guarantee the people manning the tanks and helicopters are going to be willing to fire into crowds. In a revolutionary scenario the government’s grip on its armed forces tends to be shaky at best, and doing things like whipping out tanks to put down rebellion tends to alienate people who might’ve supported it otherwise. Hell, sometimes governments just give up instead of going through all this. Obviously armed revolution (which doesn’t necessarily mean civil war) isn’t foolproof, but the hurdle to winning isn’t as big as people around here seem to think, since the very fact that such a thing is happening means there’s a sympathetic cause that will make some fraction of the army/police/etc not want to fight.
the gop fully “hypnotized” the 2a loving republicans, the thing that Rs love is authority/hiearchy, someone telling them what to do.