What are you talking about? The Democrats actual platform around gun safety is very bland and common sense reforms with wide bipartisan support.
Your question is actually, “When will the Democrats stop doing the things that they aren’t actually doing that Republicans told me they were doing as a boogeyman!!!”
An armed population is just ensuring their rights through threat of force just like the government doesn’t. The government has to take that into consideration when deciding if they’re going to choke more social support in favor of giving more to the keys of power.
The US Electoral system is not a representation of political views, but constraints within what the Bourgeoisie indicates as “acceptable.” Support for Luigi is widespread among the Proletariat, regardless of how they voted. Your error is in assuming the DNC and GOP parties represent the people.
This assumes that either the populace that would fight for a freer regime is in the permanent minority or that there exists no part of the populace that would simply not fight for either regime.
I seem to recall that ~40% is the magic number of strong supporters (not necessarily militant supporters) that the regime would need to effectively suppress dissent through violent and non-violent means, but that’s a half-remembered number that I cannot source.
When will the democrats drop gun control from their platform given recent history?
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
What are you talking about? The Democrats actual platform around gun safety is very bland and common sense reforms with wide bipartisan support.
Your question is actually, “When will the Democrats stop doing the things that they aren’t actually doing that Republicans told me they were doing as a boogeyman!!!”
democrats are right wing. slightly left than republicans, but still right wing.
When the Dems become a Marxist party.
~50% of an armed populace will fight for an oppressive regime. It’s not an effective way to deter governmental takeover.
That’s not how power works.
An armed population is just ensuring their rights through threat of force just like the government doesn’t. The government has to take that into consideration when deciding if they’re going to choke more social support in favor of giving more to the keys of power.
And that number is based on what, exactly? Vibes? Revolution only succeeds when there is broad support.
Based on how people voted
That’s exactly what I’m saying
The US Electoral system is not a representation of political views, but constraints within what the Bourgeoisie indicates as “acceptable.” Support for Luigi is widespread among the Proletariat, regardless of how they voted. Your error is in assuming the DNC and GOP parties represent the people.
Hmm, fair
This assumes that either the populace that would fight for a freer regime is in the permanent minority or that there exists no part of the populace that would simply not fight for either regime.
I seem to recall that ~40% is the magic number of strong supporters (not necessarily militant supporters) that the regime would need to effectively suppress dissent through violent and non-violent means, but that’s a half-remembered number that I cannot source.
Yeah, I meant ~50% of people who fight, not 50% of all people.
40% seems pretty high for that effect. I suspect it would depend on how desparate people are for change.