I do not blame any woman or queer person arming themselves in the U.S. right now. But I think that you should think of it as personal protection rather than preparation for something larger.
The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson’s suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.
Obviously, women and queer people are a lot more than 1% of the population, but you can’t count on every queer person being on the right side and you certainly can’t count on every woman to be on the right side.
It was also opposed by George Washington on the argument that “A bunch of farmers with guns will never defeat a trained army.” He basically did exactly that, but it took the support of one of the world’s largest super powers at the time in order to do it - France.
Not to say don’t arm yourself. I plan on doing exactly that myself. But don’t expect to be overthrowing the dictatorship to come. There are no resistance groups being armed by the EU here.
I’d like it if indigenous Amazonians had better tools than bows to defend against loggers, ranchers, miners and various land grabbers. And a few SAMs to take care of those chemical airborne attacks.
Washington was talking about the militias that were present in the early parts of the war that were under trained and undisciplined. The red coats took them easily and they fled often so the continental congress started the continental army lead by Washington, which was a trained and disciplined army in the style of European standing armies, which was able to take on and even defeat the British occasionally.
After the war the ruling elite still had this idealized vision of citizen militias protecting the liberty of white man and saw it as a less tyrannical, and cheaper model then the European professional standing army and made the second amendment to encourage it. Washington was saying that that system failed and will never work and that we should have a trained army ready to take on European powers if they come back.
Now we have the worst of both worlds, a massive army that gobbles up tax dollars and a bunch of untrained citizens with guns who barely understand what a militia is much less can protect the liberty of the nation.
Yeah, pretty much what I was getting at. We live in a country where everybody believes themselves to be the hero in their own Rambo style action movie.
that was before tanks and instant communication. the army would have been less organized and maybe you could have a chance against the government, especially as a militia. today you don’t.
you do have a chance against a bunch of fuckwads who threaten you because the party they voted for won and the think they can rape freely now. just not the government.
The last three wars have been pretty recent, and haven’t not gone well against a foe no where near or equal. Not so much as a pyric victory, but an eventual unwillingness to keep wasting time and money and lives, and we just left. What do you call it when you just leave a war failing all your objectives and handing over territory to the enemy?
I’m not saying you are wrong, but the biggest difference, and one that actually matters, is that there was a very clear us vs. them defined and easily spotted. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan we were fighting against people that blended in and weren’t being actively turned on by their neighbors. Here, you can bet every dickish Dick that voted red would happily report on the neighbors that they even have an iota of suspicion about resisting the orange cunt.
Actually you are describing how it would not be different at all than these other wars. An insurgency in the us would be particularly hard to pick out. There would be no outward appearance between “us” or “them” we are a very diverse nation after all. Also, in these wars neighbors were turning each other in left and right. It was nearly impossible to determine if it was legitimate, or a personal squabble, or some random in order to get brownie points with the us. People are no different over here.
Besides, i will not entertain the idea that fighting against tyranny is wrong because it would be hard.
That is historically true, unfortunately the conservative artificial supermajority Supreme Court doesn’t respect its own precedents and historical facts.
Whoa, I’m not attacking you. I have a difference in opinion as to why people should be armed. Not saying that one does not have a right to self defense, just that i put stock in the need to collectively hold the government accountable and fight tyranny
Not whatsoever, but we’re in the US, where although some leftists are armed, the dominant gun culture isn’t going to come out to defeat tyranny, they will come out to defend it. If Trump goes full dictator, these hypothetical armed antifascists resistance fighters will have to fight their way through legions of y’allqaeda before the US military (who I desperately hope will not recognize Trump’s authority in such a circumstance) ever has to worry about them.
In that case, that sounds like the left needs to get weapons and become organized, like i recommend. And not turn over and assume that the majority will let them live free… as a treat.
You are basically arguing to give up and die because it’s too hard.
You are basically arguing to give up die because it’s too hard.
I’m not arguing at all. The left should arm themselves. But if things go like they are going, they’ll never see the US military, it won’t be about fighting a tyrannical government; they’ll be fighting all their neighbors and relatives who are trying to defend that tyrannical government.
And frankly, echoing the other poster, ultimately that fight will likely be in the form of self-defense.
You don’t need to rebut my comments, I’m not really arguing with you. Just expressing doubt that any tyrannical government will be directly harmed by citizens exercising the 2A. You can disagree without trying to convince me I’m wrong, that’s just fine.
The military has had a pretty lousy track record against gorilla warfare from much smaller, worse armed groups who, by the width of an ocean were unable to affect logistical lines, the means to project warfare, or the families of our soldiers. A Revolution within would be much worse.
Oh? Now it’s a discussion about who should be sacrificed and for what. Freedom always has a cost. I never removed myself from the possibility. But right now, the royal “we”, seem to be sacrificing the minority, the different, the poor, the non christian and it gets worse every day. Freedoms are slipping, corporations get stronger, and standards of living and hope for the future fades. This will only accelerate. Arguing to arm oneself for personal protection but not collective action will doom all, but the chosen, to be picked off one by one.
As an alternative, if we assume that a significant portion of the left is armed instead of just a minority, Rojava would be a good modern day example of the realistic effectiveness of an armed populace, as they employ horizontal citizen militias to survive against both ISIS and Turkey.
The Spanish Civil War is another interesting example, as the initial response from the left/anarchists when the fascists began their coup attempt was made up of civilian militias formed quickly and armed with whatever they had or could source from a local armory, and they were able to effectively fight off the initial coup in almost half the country, and gather themselves up for a protracted conflict. It’s not quite as direct an example, as the leftists in that conflict we supplemented with tanks and airplanes and artillery from the USSR, but firearms were an essential piece to their resistance, and had the populace been more armed before hand, it would’ve been helpful, as they had trouble producing and acquiring enough through trade.
Both conflicts are horrific, but what was their alternative? We saw what happened in Germany when few fought back, and that was just as horrific an outcome, if not more so (6 million Jews killed vs 300 thousand on the left side in the Spanish civil war, though estimates vary).
Tens of thousands died under Mussolini in labor camps and via execution, and the same would’ve happened under Franco in Spain (and eventually did, post civil war)
To be clear, I’m not advocating that any country rush to armed conflict, but history seems to indicate that it’s better to be capable of defending yourself vs. not having the option at all.
If you have examples of pacifism being effective against fascism, I’m quite open to having my mind changed. In fact, I would prefer if that were the more effective option, if evidence supports it.
I don’t think you’re stupid and I think you’re able to read context, so why you’re pretending I wasn’t talking about the political atmosphere and playing this “well actually” game, I don’t know.
I really don’t want to argue, and my original comment was a direct response to your assertion that armed resistance in the US (if warranted) is essentially futile.
Again, yes there are parallels, which I continue to acknowledge, but the US is not Germany in a ton of relevant ways. Subsequently, a direct comparison between 1930’s Germany and 2025 US is inherently flawed, in regard to armed resistance - the main topic of your own original comment.
Is it possible that while you were busy erroneously ad homineming me with an accusation of '‘well actually(ing)’ you, that it was you who missed context? Or are you pretending I wasn’t talking about the topic of the comment I replied to and playing a ‘well actually’ game?
My reply to you was not hostile, why default to treating me adversarially? Why instead of discussing the topic that you brought up would you force me into this exhausting position? I believe you can do better than reddit tier.
I do not blame any woman or queer person arming themselves in the U.S. right now. But I think that you should think of it as personal protection rather than preparation for something larger.
Be aware of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews
Obviously, women and queer people are a lot more than 1% of the population, but you can’t count on every queer person being on the right side and you certainly can’t count on every woman to be on the right side.
It’s not about mounting an organized resistance. It’s about making the black bag squads scared of coming to your house specifically.
When the chips are down, nobody’s got your back like you do.
That’s literally what I said:
That’s actually the sentence that was cryptic enough for me to misread it, but the rest of your comment is pretty clear.
The second amendment was not made for personal protection
It was also opposed by George Washington on the argument that “A bunch of farmers with guns will never defeat a trained army.” He basically did exactly that, but it took the support of one of the world’s largest super powers at the time in order to do it - France.
Not to say don’t arm yourself. I plan on doing exactly that myself. But don’t expect to be overthrowing the dictatorship to come. There are no resistance groups being armed by the EU here.
Not yet.
I’d like it if indigenous Amazonians had better tools than bows to defend against loggers, ranchers, miners and various land grabbers. And a few SAMs to take care of those chemical airborne attacks.
Same!
Washington was talking about the militias that were present in the early parts of the war that were under trained and undisciplined. The red coats took them easily and they fled often so the continental congress started the continental army lead by Washington, which was a trained and disciplined army in the style of European standing armies, which was able to take on and even defeat the British occasionally.
After the war the ruling elite still had this idealized vision of citizen militias protecting the liberty of white man and saw it as a less tyrannical, and cheaper model then the European professional standing army and made the second amendment to encourage it. Washington was saying that that system failed and will never work and that we should have a trained army ready to take on European powers if they come back.
Now we have the worst of both worlds, a massive army that gobbles up tax dollars and a bunch of untrained citizens with guns who barely understand what a militia is much less can protect the liberty of the nation.
Yeah, pretty much what I was getting at. We live in a country where everybody believes themselves to be the hero in their own Rambo style action movie.
“Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he’s John Wayne? Rambo? Marshal Dillon?”
Edit: I can’t be the only person who’s seen Die Hard.
You mean the best Christmas movie?
I’m going to make myself harder to black bag.
Getting another superpower to arm Americans is like putting a hat on a hat
that was before tanks and instant communication. the army would have been less organized and maybe you could have a chance against the government, especially as a militia. today you don’t.
you do have a chance against a bunch of fuckwads who threaten you because the party they voted for won and the think they can rape freely now. just not the government.
How’d Afghanistan turn out?
in what way is the US even remotely comparable to Afghanistan?
We have psychos trying to implement a theocratic government and oppressing women and minorities like Afghanistan
lol… yeah but i meant in terms of using guns to oppose the government
The last three wars have been pretty recent, and haven’t not gone well against a foe no where near or equal. Not so much as a pyric victory, but an eventual unwillingness to keep wasting time and money and lives, and we just left. What do you call it when you just leave a war failing all your objectives and handing over territory to the enemy?
I’m not saying you are wrong, but the biggest difference, and one that actually matters, is that there was a very clear us vs. them defined and easily spotted. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan we were fighting against people that blended in and weren’t being actively turned on by their neighbors. Here, you can bet every dickish Dick that voted red would happily report on the neighbors that they even have an iota of suspicion about resisting the orange cunt.
Actually you are describing how it would not be different at all than these other wars. An insurgency in the us would be particularly hard to pick out. There would be no outward appearance between “us” or “them” we are a very diverse nation after all. Also, in these wars neighbors were turning each other in left and right. It was nearly impossible to determine if it was legitimate, or a personal squabble, or some random in order to get brownie points with the us. People are no different over here.
Besides, i will not entertain the idea that fighting against tyranny is wrong because it would be hard.
what are you talking about? control over your own land is nothing like invading a remote country halfway around the world.
Yes, like its two completely different things
That is historically true, unfortunately the conservative artificial supermajority Supreme Court doesn’t respect its own precedents and historical facts.
I mean the Supreme Court can say what they like. But their power is derived by the people. It can be taken back.
What a bunch of slave-owners thought about guns hundreds of years ago is not really relevant to today.
And if you’re going to attack someone for thinking people should be armed for the wrong reason, maybe you should find better targets.
Whoa, I’m not attacking you. I have a difference in opinion as to why people should be armed. Not saying that one does not have a right to self defense, just that i put stock in the need to collectively hold the government accountable and fight tyranny
It sounds good until the majority of gun owners in the country decide they like the tyranny.
Would you argue that the resistive elements in nazi Germany were wrong?
Not whatsoever, but we’re in the US, where although some leftists are armed, the dominant gun culture isn’t going to come out to defeat tyranny, they will come out to defend it. If Trump goes full dictator, these hypothetical armed antifascists resistance fighters will have to fight their way through legions of y’allqaeda before the US military (who I desperately hope will not recognize Trump’s authority in such a circumstance) ever has to worry about them.
In that case, that sounds like the left needs to get weapons and become organized, like i recommend. And not turn over and assume that the majority will let them live free… as a treat.
You are basically arguing to give up and die because it’s too hard.
I’m not arguing at all. The left should arm themselves. But if things go like they are going, they’ll never see the US military, it won’t be about fighting a tyrannical government; they’ll be fighting all their neighbors and relatives who are trying to defend that tyrannical government.
And frankly, echoing the other poster, ultimately that fight will likely be in the form of self-defense.
You don’t need to rebut my comments, I’m not really arguing with you. Just expressing doubt that any tyrannical government will be directly harmed by citizens exercising the 2A. You can disagree without trying to convince me I’m wrong, that’s just fine.
When’re you gonna start?
And you can see why, from what I already wrote, that is not likely to work unless the majority is on your side. And the military.
The military has had a pretty lousy track record against gorilla warfare from much smaller, worse armed groups who, by the width of an ocean were unable to affect logistical lines, the means to project warfare, or the families of our soldiers. A Revolution within would be much worse.
How many innocent people died in those wars? It’s not very nice of you to be willing to put their lives on the line like that.
Oh? Now it’s a discussion about who should be sacrificed and for what. Freedom always has a cost. I never removed myself from the possibility. But right now, the royal “we”, seem to be sacrificing the minority, the different, the poor, the non christian and it gets worse every day. Freedoms are slipping, corporations get stronger, and standards of living and hope for the future fades. This will only accelerate. Arguing to arm oneself for personal protection but not collective action will doom all, but the chosen, to be picked off one by one.
So when are you going to start shooting?
As an alternative, if we assume that a significant portion of the left is armed instead of just a minority, Rojava would be a good modern day example of the realistic effectiveness of an armed populace, as they employ horizontal citizen militias to survive against both ISIS and Turkey.
The Spanish Civil War is another interesting example, as the initial response from the left/anarchists when the fascists began their coup attempt was made up of civilian militias formed quickly and armed with whatever they had or could source from a local armory, and they were able to effectively fight off the initial coup in almost half the country, and gather themselves up for a protracted conflict. It’s not quite as direct an example, as the leftists in that conflict we supplemented with tanks and airplanes and artillery from the USSR, but firearms were an essential piece to their resistance, and had the populace been more armed before hand, it would’ve been helpful, as they had trouble producing and acquiring enough through trade.
There’s a great series on the Spanish Civil War here that gets into the nitty gritty, if you’re interested. :)
Sorry, you’re calling what is happening in Syria a good example? Do you know how many people died? Also in the Spanish Civil War?
It’s great how people here are willing to sacrifice so many innocent lives on their behalf.
Both conflicts are horrific, but what was their alternative? We saw what happened in Germany when few fought back, and that was just as horrific an outcome, if not more so (6 million Jews killed vs 300 thousand on the left side in the Spanish civil war, though estimates vary).
Tens of thousands died under Mussolini in labor camps and via execution, and the same would’ve happened under Franco in Spain (and eventually did, post civil war)
To be clear, I’m not advocating that any country rush to armed conflict, but history seems to indicate that it’s better to be capable of defending yourself vs. not having the option at all.
If you have examples of pacifism being effective against fascism, I’m quite open to having my mind changed. In fact, I would prefer if that were the more effective option, if evidence supports it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_Slobodan_Milošević
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Nepalese_revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution
I think we agree that it is important to consider parallels in history, but the US is not 1930s Germany.
The U.S. is almost exactly like 1930s Germany in 1932. It’s not 1933 yet.
Germany is roughly 138,000 square miles in size, while the USA is approximately 4,000,000 square miles.
The population of Germany in the 1930’s was roughly 60,000,000, the population of the US today, closer to 400,000,000.
The US does not share an international border with 10 different countries.
That’s just for starters. So while I agree there are parallels, there are a lot more differences that you’re not accounting for.
I don’t think you’re stupid and I think you’re able to read context, so why you’re pretending I wasn’t talking about the political atmosphere and playing this “well actually” game, I don’t know.
I really don’t want to argue, and my original comment was a direct response to your assertion that armed resistance in the US (if warranted) is essentially futile.
Again, yes there are parallels, which I continue to acknowledge, but the US is not Germany in a ton of relevant ways. Subsequently, a direct comparison between 1930’s Germany and 2025 US is inherently flawed, in regard to armed resistance - the main topic of your own original comment.
Is it possible that while you were busy erroneously ad homineming me with an accusation of '‘well actually(ing)’ you, that it was you who missed context? Or are you pretending I wasn’t talking about the topic of the comment I replied to and playing a ‘well actually’ game?
My reply to you was not hostile, why default to treating me adversarially? Why instead of discussing the topic that you brought up would you force me into this exhausting position? I believe you can do better than reddit tier.