- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics
- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics
Time to break free of traditional political ideological labeling and divisions. Time to abandon old, divisive sociopolitical labels like “liberal” and “conservative”.
A new political party based on a vastly, commonly held virtures lends itself to embrace over 66% of Americans, and it clearly embraces progressive principled thinking. In the most ideal American sense of unity, a political party should not be able to be defined or placed as “to the left” or “to the right” of where the Democratic or Republican parties currently are. Just let it exist organically based on present-day principled thinking. The American Progressive Majority.
Originally Posted By u/Atlanticbboy At 2025-03-23 04:38:18 AM | Source
I mean realistically what is you owning a gun gonna do against a drone strike or whatever other tech the military has? The only way a revolution happens in the modern day is if the military lets it. I can definitely see the value in guns for protection against paramilitary groups trying to go after people but beyond that guns aren’t gonna stop the US government from doing fascist stuff if the military is on their side.
Edit: Also at a certain point if you’re actively fighting and resisting against the government getting access to guns even if they are illegal isn’t gonna be the biggest problem you have.
All of that tech is reliant on logistics. People in trucks, moving stuff from where it is, to where it will be used.
With guns, that logistics network is vulnerable.
The Russians spent 10 years fighting Afghan resistance, and lost. The US spent 20 years fighting Afghan resistance, and lost. The American civilian populace is much better equipped than Afghani fighters ever were. Any forceful defeat of the American populace will require civil disarmament.
Untrained unequipped combatants in the Middle East have killed over 20,000 US soldiers in the last 25 years so not sure your point stands
And yet at least in Afghanistan the US propped up government wasn’t overthrown until the US military left. Like I said in another comment you can do damage but you’re not gonna successfully overthrow the government unless you get the military to defect or let you do it. Combine this with the other points I made that even if guns are illegal you can definitely still acquire them and that gun control is the only way we can combat mass shootings and gun violence and I don’t see the positives from being able to own guns outweighing the negatives.
guerilla warfare is still helped by having weapons and is probably still somewhat effective against a military that doesn’t want indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
I mean I would make an argument that it’s a lot easier to convince soldiers to shoot down civilians if they’re armed versus unarmed. So while it might help with guerilla resistance it most likely wouldnt really help towards the ultimate goal of overthrowing a fascist regime.
Americans would not be fighting alone in such a case.
How did Afghanistan turn out?
Yes the ukranians should just give up their guns too, since they’re useless against FPVs and GRADS right? I mean, c’mon, Russia has BMPs, what’re you gonna do with your AK?
/that one cool S.
I mean resisting an invading force is much different than attempting to overthrow your own government. Sure you can cause some damage but at the end of the day the only way you’re actually overthrowing your government is if the military defects in large enough numbers or lets you do it. Also if you’re at the point of violently resisting your government then you’re already breaking the law so acquiring guns illegally isn’t gonna be the biggest hurdle you have to face. I can’t imagine it was legal for the IRA to have guns but they still got them anyways. And at a certain point you need gun control otherwise we’re going to continue to have the problem of mass shootings and gun violence in general.
Are there differences? Yes.
Are rifles effective in both cases? Yes.
The efficacy of rifles isn’t dependant on the nationality of your adversary.
I’m not saying it’s different because of nationality, I’m saying one of those conflicts is a defensive war against a stronger force. Where as what was being talked about is more of a resistance or revolution against an already established government. They are different kinds of conflicts and at least in modern times we haven’t really seen revolutions succeed in large countries with sophisticated militaries without the support of the military or that military eventually deciding to leave in the case or the US in the Middle East. And since this would be happening in the US the military isn’t just going to give up so you need them to actually switch sides or let you win to actually win and stop the fascists. And at least my personal opinion is having guns and using them tends to make it easier to justify to the military to kill you compared to if you’re an unarmed protestor.
Pacifism is a noble cause, sure. Have fun with that. I for one think having rifles is better than having no rifles, and history shows that to be true. Sure, the larger force often wins against rifles, but it always wins against nothing.
Could I get the right to bear nukes?
If you become powerful enough to have them, and get them, you have given yourself the right to have them.