And the politicians are doing great at is as well! /j
The problems in the US are cultural ones (that and socio-economic), not a gun one. The people in power are cowards who are trying to protect their power, not the people. And the people with guns are largely the same people who are at least complicit (and many who are outright supporters) with the government. Liberals and leftists have distanced and villainized guns so much that they are neither armed, nor ready for violent resistance. The conservatives and fascists are armed and are ready, but they wont cause they got what they wanted. The exception being the groypers that keep trying to assassinate their own teammates. For what reason idk, but my guess is they are trying to pull a false flag to start a civil war.
In other words, you have a case where “the people in power are cowards who are trying to protect their power”—the exact case for which this should work, but it doesn’t work because… well, because people are idiots and don’t do what you think they should do, certainly not because the whole point is utter nonsense.
Guns exist. They will continue existing. They will continue being used in every society. Calling them “lame” has no coherent meaning politically. The questions needing to be answered are who will use them, and toward which ends?
I don’t care what it means politically it’s my personal view guns are lame. Why should I have to compromise my beliefs because whoever else decided they wanted to be violent assholes. Do what you like but the constant rhetoric about arming yourself is tiring. I don’t know what the end game is supposed to look like, some kind of mutually assured destruction scenario where everyone is armed to the teeth?
Mutually-assured destruction is inapplicable to small arms.
Regardless, a responsible attitude entails developing personal beliefs congruent with the surrounding political reality.
Emphasizing one’s own individual partiality, from within a political frame, serves as an obstruction of essential discourse.
Additionally, considering the matter as affecting someone personally, the day may come that violent thugs go after you or someone you love, with self defense being your only means of preservation.
Yes, in the USA it’s working great to prevent tyranny and the accumulation of power by the elites.
Are most people in the US leftist?
So weapons only prevent tyranny when the majority is left-wing? That makes perfect sense.
Weapons not existing is not realistic. Weapons exist and will exist.
Either someone will use them successfully to prevent tyranny, or someone will use them successfully to inflict tyranny.
For those who wish tyranny to be prevented, the necessity of an armed population is essential to recognize.
And the politicians are doing great at is as well! /j
The problems in the US are cultural ones (that and socio-economic), not a gun one. The people in power are cowards who are trying to protect their power, not the people. And the people with guns are largely the same people who are at least complicit (and many who are outright supporters) with the government. Liberals and leftists have distanced and villainized guns so much that they are neither armed, nor ready for violent resistance. The conservatives and fascists are armed and are ready, but they wont cause they got what they wanted. The exception being the groypers that keep trying to assassinate their own teammates. For what reason idk, but my guess is they are trying to pull a false flag to start a civil war.
In other words, you have a case where “the people in power are cowards who are trying to protect their power”—the exact case for which this should work, but it doesn’t work because… well, because people are idiots and don’t do what you think they should do, certainly not because the whole point is utter nonsense.
Certainly is in Kurdistan.
America is fucked for a million reasons.
So, gun ownership isn’t a determining factor in preventing tyranny, but it will increase the problems of violence in society. Noted.
It literally is protecting people from tyranny in Rojava as I mentioned, but hey ignore that to only focus on the failure that is America.
I haven’t ignored it; I told you that if it works in one place and not in another, it’s because it’s not the key element.
If works in those tiny little counties surely it’s fine. /s Guns are lame.
Guns exist. They will continue existing. They will continue being used in every society. Calling them “lame” has no coherent meaning politically. The questions needing to be answered are who will use them, and toward which ends?
I don’t care what it means politically it’s my personal view guns are lame. Why should I have to compromise my beliefs because whoever else decided they wanted to be violent assholes. Do what you like but the constant rhetoric about arming yourself is tiring. I don’t know what the end game is supposed to look like, some kind of mutually assured destruction scenario where everyone is armed to the teeth?
Mutually-assured destruction is inapplicable to small arms.
Regardless, a responsible attitude entails developing personal beliefs congruent with the surrounding political reality.
Emphasizing one’s own individual partiality, from within a political frame, serves as an obstruction of essential discourse.
Additionally, considering the matter as affecting someone personally, the day may come that violent thugs go after you or someone you love, with self defense being your only means of preservation.