• AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    4 months ago

    Anyone looking to ban weapons must not believe Jan 6th was a genuine insurrection.

    Why, oh why, would you disarm the people and give the state a monopoly on violence when that state is teetering on the edge of fascism.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think they mean you want to have guns AFTER the insurrection.

        But then, what good are AR-15s against Abrams and F35s?

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          4 months ago

          An F-35 can’t stand on a street corner and enforce martial law. This argument falls apart when you look at any armed resistance fighting oppression.

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Russia is finding out that even those planes and tanks are obsolete compared to cheap drones. At this point any laws we make won’t matter at all in Civil War II.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          But then, what good are AR-15s against Abrams and F35s?

          Heres the thing about civil war. You don’t need to fight the f35. You live where the pilot, and his family lives. Theres a reason civil war is a last resort and it’s not because it’s unwinnable, it’s because there’s not much justification for the steps you have to take, so the ends better be damn well justified. To think American is some how immune to how civil conflicts work is fantasy.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Dude if the fascists get control of the military then an AR-15 is not going to help you. In fact the best chance we have of avoiding a successful violent coup is military intervention. I know that sucks to hear, but it’s not the 1970’s anymore. The technology we developed for 20 years of fighting an insurgency makes it pretty suicidal to attempt an insurgency against the US military.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

        You mean the insurgency that eventually achieved all of its goals and reclaimed it’s power and control after the most powerful military in the world gave up and went home?

        Or did you mean it’s not the 1970s where that insurgency also did it to the second most powerful military…while a different insurgency did it to the one from the first example?

        You’re absolutely right that in a straight up fight no individual stands a chance against the US military (and I also tend to agree that the military would be the best friend of the people in that awful scenario) but there’s two or three points that muddy the waters here a bit: it’s not going to be just one, it’s not going to be a straight up fight, and if the population were somehow disarmed, there wouldn’t even be any struggle at all.

        I’m not saying I’d fight off a battalion from my front porch wearing my Crocs, but a) anything is preferable to being herded to my fate, and b) it’s not about one armed individual, it’s more about the unappetizing proposition of subduing an armed populace.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, it’s not the 1970’s, you can’t expect to survive fighting an American infantry platoon with nothing but rifles anymore.

          You guys keep bringing up that the Taliban and Vietnamese won but you aren’t actually comparing the situations. In both situations they only won because we left voluntarily.

          So tell me, if half of America votes in a Fascist, when are they leaving?

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              No, I’ve told you. You just make it a thing to not get the point. Looking at your post history this is a pattern with you. You ask for clarification, make fun of the argument and then pretend you never got an answer. I’m not engaging with that anymore.

      • xerazal@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        80’s-action-hero-MC syndrome is so prevalent in our culture it’s not even fucking funny.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Maybe look a little outside the US? Other Western countries are far, far safer and have much less gun violence with less weapons in circulation. The difference is the easy access to weapons.

      • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Canada and Sweden still have a lot of guns but considerably lower rates of violence in general, and gun violence in particular.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          And way, way lower gun ownership rates compared to the US. Plus very strict rules for owning a weapon, such as storage.

          • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            This is a strange angle because the UK does not have notably higher levels of knife ownership but has a disproportionately high level of stabbings.

            I think the idea that the cause of gun violence is guns is just flawed. People need a reason to commit violence, they don’t just do it for fun.