It’s honestly kinda wild how many comments here are in favor of cops kicking down doors to enforce this law.
I know, I know, Lemmy isn’t a singular person. But it’s rare to see the anti-gun crowd advocating for aggressive police action–apparently it’s okay just because they are gun owners?
I absolutely believe we’d be better off with less guns floating around this country, but that necessarily is going to be a slow generational shift unless you’re advocating for violent standoffs between well-armed citizens and an even more well-armed state.
Strong gun control requires a police state, and it’s advocates are okay with this. Some of them (mostly suburbanites and the like) just imagine that that police state will never be directed against them.
Others are capitalists that actively want to inflict a police state on the rest of us, for their own benefit. It’s a lot easier to break strikes and enforce “work discipline” when the working class is disarmed.
And some aren’t even strawmen…they recognize the police state is already directed against them and guns haven’t solved the problem…just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they’re all terrified for their lives.
Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.
I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.
Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.
The Battle of Athens is probably the most uniquely clear-cut example of what you’re asking for, unless we count the American Revolutionary War itself.
Other successful examples mostly involve activists using non-violent protest to push for change, while using firearms to protect themselves from violent reactionaries that would otherwise murder them. Notably, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. For a modern example, there’s various “John Brown Gun Clubs” and other community defense organizations providing security at LGBTQ events against fascist groups that seek to terrorize event-goers.
It’s also worth noting that resistance is often worthwhile even if it doesn’t result in unqualified victory. For example, the Black Panthers’ armed cop-watching activities saved a lot of Black folks from brutal beatings at the hands of the police, even if the organization was eventually crushed by the federal government.
I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.
It sounds like you might be in a bit of a filter-bubble. I don’t mean any offense by this, it’s a normal thing that tends to happen to people. If the news sources you read and the people you talk to don’t mention these things because it doesn’t mesh with their worldview, how would you hear about them?
This is pretty much uniquely American phenomena, even historically speaking. You might be in a filter / culture bubble and cannot see the outside perspective of it. You are a violent culture.
What the anti gun crowd doesn’t get is, saying you have a mental health issue blocks you from getting em, so people are going to bottle shit up because one moment of weakness might cost you your right for a lifetime. It actively discourages people from getting help.
It’s almost as if they don’t have a fucking solution at all.
Despite pointing to “evErY oThER cOUnTrY doEsNt hAvE a PrObleM” they haven’t thought about gun control implementation for 3 seconds.
It’s literally as bad as the conservative saying “do nothing” or “more guns solve the problem”. It’s equally as stupid as that, but the liberal crowd acts like they’re fuckin geniuses whilst giving their suggestions.
While it’s to true that we too often talk about groups of people like they’re individuals, it’s also true that very few people actually bother to have underlying principles for their opinions, much less stick to those principles when they get in the way of a short-term goal.
It’s honestly kinda wild how many comments here are in favor of cops kicking down doors to enforce this law.
I know, I know, Lemmy isn’t a singular person. But it’s rare to see the anti-gun crowd advocating for aggressive police action–apparently it’s okay just because they are gun owners?
I absolutely believe we’d be better off with less guns floating around this country, but that necessarily is going to be a slow generational shift unless you’re advocating for violent standoffs between well-armed citizens and an even more well-armed state.
Agreed, I am a very liberal person and I see other liberals far too often falling into the ‘benevolent dictator’ trap.
That’s because they are authoritarian.
Strong gun control requires a police state, and it’s advocates are okay with this. Some of them (mostly suburbanites and the like) just imagine that that police state will never be directed against them.
Others are capitalists that actively want to inflict a police state on the rest of us, for their own benefit. It’s a lot easier to break strikes and enforce “work discipline” when the working class is disarmed.
False. Unless you are saying every other country in the world with strong gun control laws is a police state. Which is also false.
And some aren’t even strawmen…they recognize the police state is already directed against them and guns haven’t solved the problem…just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they’re all terrified for their lives.
Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.
I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.
The Battle of Athens is probably the most uniquely clear-cut example of what you’re asking for, unless we count the American Revolutionary War itself.
Other successful examples mostly involve activists using non-violent protest to push for change, while using firearms to protect themselves from violent reactionaries that would otherwise murder them. Notably, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. For a modern example, there’s various “John Brown Gun Clubs” and other community defense organizations providing security at LGBTQ events against fascist groups that seek to terrorize event-goers.
It’s also worth noting that resistance is often worthwhile even if it doesn’t result in unqualified victory. For example, the Black Panthers’ armed cop-watching activities saved a lot of Black folks from brutal beatings at the hands of the police, even if the organization was eventually crushed by the federal government.
It sounds like you might be in a bit of a filter-bubble. I don’t mean any offense by this, it’s a normal thing that tends to happen to people. If the news sources you read and the people you talk to don’t mention these things because it doesn’t mesh with their worldview, how would you hear about them?
This is pretty much uniquely American phenomena, even historically speaking. You might be in a filter / culture bubble and cannot see the outside perspective of it. You are a violent culture.
Police brutality isn’t a product of fear. They treat armed crowds with more respect than groups they assume to be unarmed.
Some of us are just sick of reading about mass shootings every couple days.
What the anti gun crowd doesn’t get is, saying you have a mental health issue blocks you from getting em, so people are going to bottle shit up because one moment of weakness might cost you your right for a lifetime. It actively discourages people from getting help.
It’s almost as if they don’t have a fucking solution at all.
Despite pointing to “evErY oThER cOUnTrY doEsNt hAvE a PrObleM” they haven’t thought about gun control implementation for 3 seconds.
It’s literally as bad as the conservative saying “do nothing” or “more guns solve the problem”. It’s equally as stupid as that, but the liberal crowd acts like they’re fuckin geniuses whilst giving their suggestions.
Australia fixed their gun problem. You’re pretending it cannot be solved despite loads of countries have a pretty good grasp of it.
It’s not rare to see the anti gun crowd advocating police violence.
While it’s to true that we too often talk about groups of people like they’re individuals, it’s also true that very few people actually bother to have underlying principles for their opinions, much less stick to those principles when they get in the way of a short-term goal.
If you don’t stick to them then they aren’t principles, they’re opinions.