This makes sense. If one of your political platforms is to weaken and reduce the police force, then buying a gun is a very logical and practical thing to do.
Your average liberal/progressive is still probably less afraid (relative to the median) about random or property crime.
But random crime is much more likely to affect you than brownshirts or klansmen, so that seems irrational.
I.e. it's obviously reasonable to believe that private firearms cannot stand up to the federal government, regardless of whether it is the case under theoretical conditions.
It shows a lack of understanding about the nature and power of insurgencies and a vast overestimation of the military's ability to protect itself should every military base, forward refueling point, and backyard airstrip suddenly become under attack. Hint: They're not really designed for that.
Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietnamese. They took on a massively more powerful military, were significantly outgunned, and came out of it in control of their respective countries. If there's anything we can learn from history it's that war is incredibly chaotic and unpredictable, and that anyone making bold and confident predictions is just about guaranteed to have reality prove them wrong.
Look at the number of historically communist or socialist countries with an AK-47/74/AKM on their flag.
That's far from true and universal.
IF that was indeed what they said, what they believed, and what they actually did, sure.
You do seem to have fashioned a weak strawman here though.
This thread appears to be about liberals, PoC's, and LGBTQ's buying guns due to a perception of increased threat from Trump supporters, MAGA cos-players, newly empowere Groypers, etc.
Not (that I can read in the article) to use against their government.
So that's a double no to both your artifically posed questions.
Right?
>It is more like if you have to worry about masked goons breaking into your house and trying to kidnap you or your family members then maybe you can't trust the government either.
Referring to agencies such as ICE, I believe. Then the post I replied to said that it's not about trust, it's about effectiveness. Now you're telling me it's not about the government at all, but essentially for general purpose self defense, which still seems hypocritical coming from the gun control crowd. Also I'm not sure what an "artificially posed" question is.
What makes the 2nd a deterrent against tyranny is the notion that if things degraded to that level, the military would be compromised by the factions as well likely to the same level as the population is. That, in addition to a significant % of your population is also armed, would create the environment that a government could be changed.
Because the government is aware of this fact, it will keep itself in check.
Perhaps you should look up the literal thousands of occasions of that happening, before snarkily dismissing it as absurd.
Doesn’t require “every”, which is an equally ludicrous addition you’ve made solely so you pedantically dismiss any objections.
But I’m sure the students at Kent State, for instance, would’ve been happy to know how much the government feared them. Great comment.
Y’all need history books.
You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point. Yes that happened, but do you have specific evidence that the government specifically ordered the guardsmen to shoot the protesters? Newsflash…there was no such order. What you can argue in this case is that the government created an environment where general emotional chaos could create a bad situation, and did.
Even if you had evidence that this was an ordered massacre by the government—-only 29 out of 77 guardsmen fired their weapons. That means nearly 2/3 disregarded orders (which was my exact point if such an order was to be given).
Despite your suggestion of “thousands of occasions” where ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens, I dare you to list another. You might go back to the civil war, but that technically is a special situation where one country for a time became two, and the combatants of those two did not regard the other are fellow citizens. My guess is that you are will be hard pressed to find many other instance where that has happened in the United States.
Why are you changing your words?
> against their own citizenry
Germany, 1930s. Cambodia, 1970s.
> You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point.
It flatly doesn't. US armed forces fired on citizens. No US military stopped them. The second amendment didn't stop them, or cause them to hesitate. The idea that the second amendment will change anything about the US military's response or choice to follow any orders they're given no matter how reprehensible or obviously evil (My Lai, Abu Ghraib) is laughable fantasy, based on a bunch of people who want to dream about being heroes and pretend that their 9mm handgun means something.
I didn’t, do you find these two phrases functionally different? “military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry” and “ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens”
They look pretty much the same to me.
> Germany, 1930s. Cambodia, 1970s.
So are you attempting to equate genocidal regimes that operated over years where millions were slaughtered to Kent State where 4 people were killed and nine wounded in less than a quarter of a minute?
> US armed forces fired on citizens. No US military stopped them. The second amendment didn't stop them, or cause them to hesitate.
Nowhere did I make the claim that the 2nd amendment would cause every individual military people to stop or hesitate. Actually it was quite the opposite. I said the military would faction in that situation. Also, I was speaking about the government. Individuals are not the government. The Kent State massacre was over in exactly 13 seconds. It both started organically and ended organically and timing also speaks to this being an emotional chaotic event done by individuals and not one that was specifically ordered.
Come on. This is just rank dishonesty. Nothing else you said is worth a response.
We all know that guns, if ever used that way, will be citizen on citizen, not citizen vs the military. Both sides will think they are right, one or both sides will start with violence, the other side will be forced to respond in kind. The 2nd amendment has always been about Americans killing each other ever since the Supreme Court nullified the first clause of the amendment (which was meant to establish a Swiss-like militia). All it will take for the military to shoot a few students in cities Trump sent them to under the pretext of “preserving law and order” and the whole country is going to blow up. Heck, this is probably Trump’s plan to avoid the midterms.
So you actually have a big "company" responsible for something you could dispatch to at least 4 other services (i've heard call to divided it in 7 parts, but i can't find where i read that, so let's be reasonable and say 4), and they have too much political power because of it. Divide the budget accordingly, correctly train teh police and "new police", call it "police" too because branding works and to stop people from crying out in fear ("mental health police" might not be the best brand, but other might work), and actually separate departements, and concerns. Separate training material, separate training place, split the union. Also make a department that will take care of orphaned police kids.
"Divide the police" is a way better catchphrase anyway.
But of course, whether that position or the number of people who hold it, has any real influence on gun sales is doubtful and the GP may have been a bait post.
Is this like “they’re eating dogs!”?
It was quite literally a slogan and rallying cry.
It quite literally wasn't. "Defund" is a different word from "abolish" and has a different meaning. Are you not aware of that difference?
It is your own fault for using a bad slogan.
Do you have a proposal for an equally short slogan that cannot be misunderstood, especially by the right-wing media machine? I don't believe that such a slogan exists, as pretty much every sentence can be willfully misunderstood.
"No, we said defund, which is more nuanced..."
"Nuance, schmuance, I'm moving the goalposts."
"Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police"
-- New York Times opinion headline, June 12, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
I can remember things that happened 5 years ago.
Seems relevant.
I just said I’ve never heard anyone say they want to abolish the police, which sounds absurd to me.
Well, now you've heard it. And you're right, it sounds absurd. I wish it were satire, but there are people in positions of power here in the U.S. who think this is good policy.
[1] https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/southeastern-wisconsin...