Why don't protestors who oppose Trump/ICE open carry their guns to prevent what's currently occuring in the US ie kidnapping, assaults etc?
-
No shit. That's the problem. You bring your friends and the cops will bring their tanks. Then what, have a dick measuring contest?
... Oh wait, they'll gun you all down and laugh about it instead.
So yeah, guns can be used, but let's not pretend flexing your firearm in public will easily accomplish your goal. Be thoughtful and careful about when and where.
We had tanks in Afghanistan, didn't stop us from losing. Nobody in history, no matter how well armed, has ever won a war against a dedicated insurgency.
-
Are you suggesting that people have to live under harsh conditions to fight back? It surely helps, but go read about the french or polish during WWII before you think that a group needs to be oppressed for years and years.
Hell look at Ukraine and how it's civilians stepped up.
I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that there are major differences between a modern day American and a Vietnamese person during the war, which makes comparisons difficult. It's just a bit of a pet peeve when people are like, "We'll just do a guerilla war, no biggie, worked loads of times." Sure, it can be an effective tactic, but you have to understand why it was effective in certain cases and what that entailed.
I don't believe the US left has much of a chance of winning a domestic military conflict, looking at the material conditions and the present level of organization, discipline, and training (or lack thereof). If we end up being forced to fight then we can hope for the best, and preparing for the possibility is a worthwhile endeavor. But don't think that just because guerilla tactics exist that it's trivial to employ them.
-
Is this not the reason the second amendment exists?
Regards
An Australian
Edit: I'm not advocating for violence. More so "a well regulated militia" which could be established by protesters or Democratic Governors for genuine self defence.Armed victims increase the cost of tyranical actions but modern warfare and thus miltia movements is not just (have weapon, intimidate or kill enemy). Honestly one of the failures of the defense of the second amendment has been the failure to modernize and includr other parts of warfare.
Honestly there is a mixture of denial in what is actually happening and support too
-
Russia took over Germany, they invaded the land and took it by force that’s winning. North Vietnam did not take American land, so they don’t meet that requirement of winning. Germany surrendered. The US did not surrender so they don’t meet that requirement of losing. Russia established a real puppet government in east Berlin where they had full control over the Germans who lived there. North Vietnam had no control over the U.S.
So in what ways can we analyze north Vietnam showing domination over the United States?
It was a bar fight between 3 brothers NVA, VC, and ARVN. the two brothers NVA and VC were beating ARVNs ass then a random dude at the bar who was kind of drunk wanders over and tells ARVN he will help him and then proceeds to kill VC, he then starts beating the shit out of NVA but NVA keeps getting up and trying to hit ARVN so finally the drunk dude walks away with some bloody knuckles and a little scratch on his face and NVA finishes what he started and beats ARVNs ass. Saying that NVA beat up the drunk POS makes no sense, you can say NVA won the brotherly fight but saying he beat up the drunk POS is an objectively incorrect statement
Domino theory wasn’t that Vietnam was going to conquer adjacent areas it was that the idea of communism was going to spread and there would be seperate revolutions in those countries
Not sure if you are drunk, high, or just uneducated but just read the Wikipedia article about the Vietnam war before you reply because your misunderstandings of basic things like what domino theory is even about is causing you too much confusion
but just read the Wikipedia article about the Vietnam war
Lmao.
It was a bar fight between 3 brothers
No it wasn't. It was the Vietnamese fighting against the invaders and their comprador regime.
Russia took over Germany, they invaded the land and took it by force that’s winning.
Nuh uh! Who cares about land, Germany had a higher KDR, that means they won! KDRs are super important in determining who won or lost, that's what I learned from you, that's why you brought it up in the first place, isn't it? Or were you just talking nonsense, coming up with excuses for why the US didn't "really" lose?
So in what ways can we analyze north Vietnam showing domination over the United States?
They weren't fighting over "domination over the United States," dumbass, they were fighting over control of Vietnam. Which they got.
I have no idea where this idea comes from that seems to be something exclusively American, that "defeat" means total, unconditional surrender and occupation, and anything short of that isn't "really" a defeat. It's so insane. Like, after the War of Spanish Succession, pretty sure all involved countries still existed afterwards, but one side got who they wanted on the Spanish throne and the other side didn't, meaning, one side won and the other side lost. I guess according to you, the countries that dumped tons of blood and treasure and got nothing out of it "didn't really lose" because they weren't occupied. More realistically, you would say they lost, because they did lose and anyone can see it, and, and this is crucial, the US wasn't involved so you're not blinded by your chauvanism and propaganda, like you are with Vietnam.
The absolute state of education in this country... zero understanding of anything, literally just reciting a bunch of memes and talking points designed to twist words around in order to defend the US's "honor." Americans are such a lost cause, how am I supposed to reason with this shit? Excuses after excuses after excuses, can't back up even a single point.
-
We had tanks in Afghanistan, didn't stop us from losing. Nobody in history, no matter how well armed, has ever won a war against a dedicated insurgency.
This right here. Asymmetrical warfare is terrible for modern occupying armies.
-
Gaza had/has weapons and doesn’t want to be occupied how is that working out for them?
In Cambodia the people looked like them, dressed like them, and were them. They were still put into some of the worst torture camps in history and approximately 1/4 of their population was killed…
That’s why they don’t start by attacking everyone they start by dehumanizing people, like they have been with “the illegals”, then you make them a scapegoat for all your problems. Then a radical terrorist network appears who is helping the undesirables that has loose ties so just about anyone can be labeled a terrorist (in this case it’s Antifa). Then you start provoking violence against this group, that’s where we are today in the United states.
Then either real violence happens or a frame job happens and the military has to intervene and a group of protesters get killed. Then special missions have to happen to take out the so called leaders of this terrorist group that somehow happen to involve a bunch of politicians and people critical of the party, then you can make a special task force whose job is it to deal with these troublemakers that you recruit for on a volunteer basis so you get only the most extreme and loyal soldiers and use them to continue further oppressing.
I could keep going but honestly choose any history textbook and it could summarize it, the point is they don’t tell the military to shoot unarmed protesters on day one and by the time they do the military will not just do it but they will go even further than directed as can be seen in Nazi germany, pol pots Cambodia, and is in progress in Gaza
Gaza was not armed at all, no clue where you got that from hamas has weapons but the citizens are banned from owning firearms.
Pol pot and Cambodia...banned and confiscated civilian arms. Not hard to commit genocide when literally no one but your side is armed.
Nazi Germany with the jewish population...disarmed and sent to camps to be slaughtered.
Seeing any...links here?
-
I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that there are major differences between a modern day American and a Vietnamese person during the war, which makes comparisons difficult. It's just a bit of a pet peeve when people are like, "We'll just do a guerilla war, no biggie, worked loads of times." Sure, it can be an effective tactic, but you have to understand why it was effective in certain cases and what that entailed.
I don't believe the US left has much of a chance of winning a domestic military conflict, looking at the material conditions and the present level of organization, discipline, and training (or lack thereof). If we end up being forced to fight then we can hope for the best, and preparing for the possibility is a worthwhile endeavor. But don't think that just because guerilla tactics exist that it's trivial to employ them.
I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm saying don't underestimate small arms in civilian hands vs a military.
-
Gaza was not armed at all, no clue where you got that from hamas has weapons but the citizens are banned from owning firearms.
Pol pot and Cambodia...banned and confiscated civilian arms. Not hard to commit genocide when literally no one but your side is armed.
Nazi Germany with the jewish population...disarmed and sent to camps to be slaughtered.
Seeing any...links here?
And republicans would never attempt to take guns away from liberals
-
but just read the Wikipedia article about the Vietnam war
Lmao.
It was a bar fight between 3 brothers
No it wasn't. It was the Vietnamese fighting against the invaders and their comprador regime.
Russia took over Germany, they invaded the land and took it by force that’s winning.
Nuh uh! Who cares about land, Germany had a higher KDR, that means they won! KDRs are super important in determining who won or lost, that's what I learned from you, that's why you brought it up in the first place, isn't it? Or were you just talking nonsense, coming up with excuses for why the US didn't "really" lose?
So in what ways can we analyze north Vietnam showing domination over the United States?
They weren't fighting over "domination over the United States," dumbass, they were fighting over control of Vietnam. Which they got.
I have no idea where this idea comes from that seems to be something exclusively American, that "defeat" means total, unconditional surrender and occupation, and anything short of that isn't "really" a defeat. It's so insane. Like, after the War of Spanish Succession, pretty sure all involved countries still existed afterwards, but one side got who they wanted on the Spanish throne and the other side didn't, meaning, one side won and the other side lost. I guess according to you, the countries that dumped tons of blood and treasure and got nothing out of it "didn't really lose" because they weren't occupied. More realistically, you would say they lost, because they did lose and anyone can see it, and, and this is crucial, the US wasn't involved so you're not blinded by your chauvanism and propaganda, like you are with Vietnam.
The absolute state of education in this country... zero understanding of anything, literally just reciting a bunch of memes and talking points designed to twist words around in order to defend the US's "honor." Americans are such a lost cause, how am I supposed to reason with this shit? Excuses after excuses after excuses, can't back up even a single point.
Is chauvinism your sat word of the day because you also don’t know what that means either.
I had a hope that you at least had the capacity for some rational thought but you clearly showed you don’t. So send your final edgy reply and then you can go back to covering your ears and shouting into the void
-
Is chauvinism your sat word of the day because you also don’t know what that means either.
I had a hope that you at least had the capacity for some rational thought but you clearly showed you don’t. So send your final edgy reply and then you can go back to covering your ears and shouting into the void
Lmao I'm the one with no capacity for rational thought? Defend anything you said this conversation. Any one thing:
-
The Vietnam War was "lost" in morale - Show me a war that was lost not on morale
-
Kill Death Ratios are important in determining who won or lost - explain how this applies when we look at WWII
-
Vietnam lost because they failed in their goal of spreading communism and didn't occupy the US - show me how this applies to other wars, such as my random example of the War of Spanish Succession
You can't. You just move on seamlessly from one excuse to the next, zero thought put into anything you say, zero reason or evidence, just pure brainless talking points, probably just regurgitating what some coach passing for a history teacher told you.
Stand by one thing you said.
-
-
Look up what happened to the Black Panther Party (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party).
If people showed up organized and armed, the Federal government would be more than happy to use under the table tactics to make sure we'd never see our families again.
With that being said, I wouldn't be surprise if people are armed but just not being public about it. Armed protestors are usually the nuclear option for any movement, but it's good to have that unspoken option on the table behind the scenes.
This, why would a given group of protestors all open carry? I'd expect a mass of conceal-carried weapons, though.
-
Is this not the reason the second amendment exists?
Regards
An Australian
Edit: I'm not advocating for violence. More so "a well regulated militia" which could be established by protesters or Democratic Governors for genuine self defence.I believe open carry is illegal here in Illinois.
The meta I've heard is also that, if you're gonna brandish or draw a gun, you'd better be prepared to kill with it. I'm not prepared to die shooting cops so I don't feel like carrying. In the confusion of a gun fight I don't think I'd have much to add by shooting anyone
Like if someone told me that the 2nd amendment just causes more shootings and doesn't actually protect people on average I'd say yeah...
-
They're Americans in ICE. That tells you all you need to know about their characters.
That a large chunk of them are probably doing it primarily because the US economy is trash and they can't find any other work?
-
I see a difference between othering based on actions and decisions, displaying solid viewpoints on human empathy or lack thereof, rather than othering based on race, country of origin, religion, sexuality, or other circumstances of identity beyond an individual’s control.
Agree. See my other reply in the thread
-
No that's nuts because its a fucking subway seat.
I do recall Nazi Germany was defeated by a shit ton of people sitting in the streets and strong letters.
You seem to think something that's scary can't happen in a western society. It does, humans are animals and when the other side is more violent and has no morals, there is no reasoning with them. They're there to oppress and use violence.
wrote last edited by [email protected]See, and there it is. Zero to a hundred. It's either popcorn or civil war, no gradient.
I mean, for one thing Nazi Germany also wasn't defeated by military cosplayers flashing their gun collection at them, and clearly neither was MAGA America. The first one was defeated by a borderline apocalyptic global war, so... in the grand scheme both the military cosplay and the sternly worded letters are pretty much about just as effective there. We're still waiting and seeing on the MAGA America part.
But for another, plenty of nonviolent and/or unarmed protest has achieved its goals, historically. From Europe to India to South Africa to the actual United States. The "sternly worded letter" derision is pure action movie fantasy. This month alone the governments of Madagascar and Nepal came down after mass protests. Not a single set of camo pants in sight, just... you know, students organizing on social media and One Piece flags for some reason because this is a weird timeline.
They weren't even fully nonviolent, either. There were clashes, there was enforcement violence and dozens of people, mostly protestors, were killed in both countries. And still two governments came down and the situations continue to evolve and push for full regime change.
Meanwhile the example I'm being given is some American fascists standing on a street while cops that agree with them wait for them to get sleepy at their military cosplay convention and go home.
I don't get Americans. I don't think the way they see the world as a culture makes sense, and I am terrified at how much they export it successfully through places like this. Nepal just held a full-on election over Discord and I still understand how that went down better than middle class America's political views.
-
And republicans would never attempt to take guns away from liberals
So your suggestion is to disarm yourself for them?
-
I believe open carry is illegal here in Illinois.
The meta I've heard is also that, if you're gonna brandish or draw a gun, you'd better be prepared to kill with it. I'm not prepared to die shooting cops so I don't feel like carrying. In the confusion of a gun fight I don't think I'd have much to add by shooting anyone
Like if someone told me that the 2nd amendment just causes more shootings and doesn't actually protect people on average I'd say yeah...
The meta I’ve heard is also that, if you’re gonna brandish or draw a gun, you’d better be prepared to kill with it.
That's dumb as fuck.
Glad I stopped trying to find logic in the average person.
-
At a certain point we have to fight back.
The argument of "we can't respond to their violence with violence or they will become more violent" doesn't hold water when they are getting increasingly violent anyway.
It's a coward's fallacy
It’s a coward’s fallacy
Most of us are cowards, so this checks out.
-
Why do people think that guns stop bullets? Guns attract bullets.
Guns enable the oppressed to fight back against their oppressors.
Look at Iran to see what happens when people try to protest against abuse without having firearms to protect themselves from said abuse.
-
No, I made a coherent historical argument and then accurately personally attacked you, you're using the second part as an excuse to ignore the first part but we both know you've got no counter-argument. Like I said, fucking coward.
The answer is that people aren't willing to die in the tens of thousands to millions when they hope to unseat the scum in 26 ot 28
