If the government comes for me, they’re bringing more people than I can shoot. The first answer to that, is to prevent that from happening through political action. The second is that you don’t respond to that with a gun.
Everyone on Ruby ridge was armed, everyone in Waco was armed. They’re all dead for their troubles. A gun won’t fix that problem.
“Armed resistance never works” says the uneducated and ahistorical American with no understanding of the world outside the fascist empire they live in.
I didn’t say armed resistance doesn’t work. I said your gun isn’t going to work.
You need a gun to join an armed resistance, Einstein. Surrendering your guns prevents your ability from joining an organized resistance.
Pretty sure I pull up with a semi full of fertilizer and I’d be their bestest friend.
If you are as good as dead either way, why do you think it’s better to go down without a fight?
Being disarmed won’t save you, it just makes you an easier victim of the same forces.
It’s not about the reality of defending yourself from tyranny with homicide. It’s about the psychological comfort that the warped fantasy brings.
Where does ICE fall in this paradigm?
Target practice.
The 2nd amendment LITERALY states it to use against the gov…
No it doesn’t. The role of the militias were to be called up to put down insurrection and slave revolts.
Ahem…
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Where, exactly?
I know reading context isn’t easy for Americans so let me, a foreigner, explain it to you.
That document was written about 10 years after the Americans launched an armed insurrection against their government so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation. In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with. They understood that the free state (for white landlords) was precarious and could change so they believed that the hedge against that was local participatory militias. To note here is a “well regulated militia” in this era implies the adoption of military rank and file and internal regulations, not governmental imposed regulations on the existence of the militia or the weaponry itself.
I know reading is very hard. I hope with practice you may someday be able to read and understand context. It takes a lot of effort to become literate. Good luck on your journey.
In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with.
No, it doesn’t. Read Article 8, as it describes what the militia’s purpose is. At the time “the people” meant “the states”, as each state was to be secure in it’s own abilities and authorities to manage it’s militias. The purpose was to put down insurrections and slave revolts.
Remember, also, that to be “in the militia”, you were also reporting for regular muster and inspections. By the government.
Considering there are only 7 articles to the constitution I assume you mean Article 1 Section 8 which defines the ability of the federal government to call forth a militia but does not itself impose any substantive limits on the militias beyond that? Is that the article you are referring to? Maybe you should re-read it. Well regulated language is conceptually distinct from congress’s power defined in A1 § 8 to organize and discipline a militia once its activated. The text also imposes no federal prohibition on state or unorganized militias from setting membership or arms. If it isn’t prohibited by the language of the document, it is allowed.
Yes, sorry… the militia clause, as its known
The purpose of the militia is to put down insurrection, not to engage in it.
The word “regulated” has had only one actual meaning… the same as it means to regulate interstate commerce.
And only a couple of years later, the militia acts passed.
At the time “the people” meant “the states”
Please take a government class before continuing with your understanding of the Constitution
Please read why the 14th amendment extended the bill of rights to apply to people…
That’s not what the 14th amendment does
The 14th provides birthright citizenship, outlines that states won’t imprison people without due process, covers congressional proportionality, and makes insurrection/treason cause for not being eligible for office
Seriously, take a constitutionality class, you need it
I pray you actually read what people point you too:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Good explanation. Really no need for the insults though.
Ahem…
They kinda asked for it.
Truth hurts sometimes
Nah, atp Americans that don’t understand their own constitution need to have snark thrown at them.
Being that fucking stupid is costing people their lives.
so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation
They did primarily because they wanted to expand their settler colonies further into native lands while the British government had tried restricting settler expansion.
The “free state” was never about preventing oppression of the citizens or launching an insurrection against the state. I don’t know where this bizzare view comes from, since the constitution literally defines treason against the state to be punishable by death.
You are correct, but implying something is not the same as literally stating something
To answer Pete Buttigeg:
That’s the point!
You know those Russian soldiers dropped their weapons during the October revolution.
If American soldoers are wise, they’d do the same.Or is Pete trying to tell everyone to be more like Benjamin Netanyahu when buying a gun?
The “don’t step on me” people who talk about the right to bear arms often celebrate the police and the military
Well that sounds like more people need to bear arms.
Your terms are acceptable.
Everyone should own a copy of Guerilla Warfare by Che Guevara.
awesome, so no innocent people will get hurt
Well, the gun would certainly improve my chances in the battle against fascist cops and soldiers. Political resistance is proving to be a failure. The Dems are already thinking that Kamala (proven failure) is our best chance against Trump 3.0 in 2028. No third-party will be viable by that date.
political resistance includes strikes, protests and mutual aid. oh and also guns when (because its just a matter of when in the us) it comes time for it. libs are just doing it aimlessly, start listening to the socialists and you won’t even need to elect anyone.
also its cute that some people think you are likely to see another election in 2028.
and proselitizing. don’t forget proselitizing. if possible go to squares and city centers, perhaps with a small table or tent, lots of pamphlets and some good will to explain.
Waiting for people to wake up. At this point I am not sure they will.
This is only a problem because Americans continue to support Democrats. Unfortunately, we need to be even more clear that their corrupt and ineffectual politics are no longer desired than we did in ‘24, because the bozos are pretending they didn’t get the message. The corporate Dems work tirelessly to enable disastrous Republican policies all the time, usually at the behest of their common donors - they should just stop the charade and switch parties.
In the meantime, there are efforts to get leftist 3rd parties off the ground. This Is our only hope to “vote” our way out of fascism, and yes, I’m aware it’s a minuscule chance of success. People typically don’t vote their way out of fascism, historically speaking.
Good argument against republican gun nuts at least who seem to be quite fond of law enforcement
Ngl I do get the arguments against gun control in the abstract, and I’m maybe even sympathetic to some of them, but then I look at America and ehhhhhh
I’d love to see some reports of “gun toting Americans” blasting the shit out of ICE agents. The problem is ice agents and gun toting Americans are the same group.
We’re not all in the same group… I’m not an ICE agent, but I am a gun toting
Americanworking class person.that’s a fucking lie. there’s plenty of armed leftists. not enough (yet) but plenty.
join us. there is no other way to stop the dystopia from spreading.
I have noticed that ICE usually wants to conduct their splashy raids in areas with very low gun ownership, e.g., NYC, Boston, etc.
Is that even happening? Considered US police and various letter agencies are basically at the level of open warfare against the population i would imagine population of such a liberty loving country would fight back…
Do you expect individuals to go up to their local government and let loose? What do you think the result of that would be?
That’s not how resistance movements work and never has been.
You must build first. Read history.
I’m calling up Americans and their relation to government. They are not the courageous liberty loving individuals they claim they are, there is plenty of gun violence in USA but very little if any is against the government and for their liberties despite it becing cited as the main reason of what is otherwise just a gun fetishism.
Point is: liberalism sucks and is unable to organise anyone for anything.
Well Americans aren’t a monolith and as I said, individuals taking action against a government achieves nothing. Do you believe America has achieved a mass leftist movement capable of overthrowing the govt?
Unless you are in China, Cuba, Vietnam, or NK you really don’t have a valid platform to criticize a people not overthrowing their government, have you partaken in the overthrow of your government/do you agree with your government?
Considering the OP is mocking a “leftist” liberal advocating the disarmament of the people. Do you think OP/most people agreeing with OP here are right wing liberals or ollectivist leftists? It seems to me you are advocating for liberal individualism or from a similar liberal view unless I’m drastically misunderstanding something.
unless I’m drastically misunderstanding something.
Yes, you managed. Down with liberalism, down with America.
Yeah, Americans love to fantasise about their beloved 2nd amendment (regardless of political persuasion), but they have never ever used it for what they (falsely) claim it was intended for.
Yeah that not exactly true though. You ever heard ofthe Battle of Blair Mountain and the Cole Wars?
Police and the military aren’t attacked in the US because the majority of Americans think those are good things. Americans want white supremacy and classicism enforced. Americans just think the enforcement is being done to the wrong groups, so they carry out mass shootings against schools, churches, etc. as a correction.
The actually oppressed are in no position to openly engage in warfare against the government. MLK pointed out it would be a disaster because the retaliation would exceed any forces black Americans could muster. Look at how much pearl clutching was done in the wake of the George Floyd protests. The so-called moderates immediately supported the pigs throwing people into unmarked vans.
He thinks he’s talking to conservatives, playing on their “thin blue line” sympathies. But like every other rank-and-file Democrat, he has failed to read the fucking room. The right-wing in America showed us on January 6th 2021 that their support of law enforcement is purely conditional, and will be revoked the minute they don’t get their way. And the Left? We always hated cops.
His message reached zero people.
If those soldiers and cops are there solely at the behest of s despot like the current one in office then they are expendable
The
ICEGestapo agents, more likely.
