Red Mosquito

Multiply that a few times, and real revolt might become a lot more probable.

Armed violence against the state has a much, much harder ceiling of support than you are pretending here.

You might be surprised!

McParadigm wrote:

Multiply that a few times, and real revolt might become a lot more probable.

Armed violence against the state has a much, much harder ceiling of support than you are pretending here.

You might be surprised!

No, I really wouldn’t. Nothing hard stops US citizen support for a thing quite like “It might disrupt my life in any way whatsoever.“ The minute an insurgency affects people’s ability to buy baby formula, beer and bread is the same minute they are radicalized against you.

Even the most revolution-fetishistic crowd know deep down in their hearts that direct conflict with the United States government is an endgame scenario. That power is just too big and too ruthless to take on directly. A real United States insurgency would be about acquiring that power for themselves, not fighting it. It would be about rejecting and delegitimizing any election they couldn’t win. It would be about claiming the reins and forcing people who oppose them to become the insurgency.

Because they know the insurgency is going to lose.

McParadigm wrote:A real United States insurgency would be about acquiring that power for themselves, not fighting it. It would be about rejecting and delegitimizing any election they couldn’t win. It would be about claiming the reins and forcing people who oppose them to become the insurgency.

wease wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Multiply that a few times, and real revolt might become a lot more probable.

Armed violence against the state has a much, much harder ceiling of support than you are pretending here.

You might be surprised!

No, I really wouldn’t. Nothing hard stops US citizen support for a thing quite like “It might disrupt my life in any way whatsoever.“ The minute an insurgency affects people’s ability to buy baby formula, beer and bread is the same minute they are radicalized against you.

Even the most revolution-fetishistic crowd know deep down in their hearts that direct conflict with the United States government is an endgame scenario. That power is just too big and too ruthless to take on directly. A real United States insurgency would be about acquiring that power for themselves, not fighting it. It would be about rejecting and delegitimizing any election they couldn’t win. It would be about claiming the reins and forcing people who oppose them to become the insurgency.

Because they know the insurgency is going to lose.

Unless the former President commands you to perpetrate the insurgency.

macphisto wrote:Good stuff, Burt. Thanks for weighing in.

Mickey wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Mickey, Ukraine is not alone. They are not just using AKs, and Donbas seperatists were not alone in their fight against the Ukrainian state.

This has been my point all along. It's not that private gun owners are holding off the tyranny of Putin, it's a proxy war between many states. Which is what would happen here if the US gov. decided it wanted more (explicit) control.

Sorry, do you think a proxy war could never happen in the US? Because I definitely don't think that, but it's a lot harder to have a proxy war if the proxies don't have their own weapons.

Mickey wrote:To be clear, that's not what I'm contesting. I think they definitely should be regulated, I think the spectre of "tyranny"--as it is usually invoked in defense of almost unlimited gun rights--is patently absurd.

I also think the notion that organized civilian gun owners wouldn't be able to resist the US military for a significant or prolonged period of time, and that civilian gun ownership is completely ineffective as a mode of achieving social change, is a little foolish, and a little smug.

There are plenty of reasons to regulate gun sales, but this caricature of like, "What's Bubba going to do, shoot his dick off?" overestimates the capacity of the state, and in particular assumes a kind of cohesive state power that doesn't reflect its current fragmentation.

elliseamos wrote:You're not blundering into it, Burt. You posted a gif of people laughing at the idea that AR-armed people (alone) can't topple the full force of the US Military. Then Mac went off. And as so often happens, the 2nd man in has taken the brunt of the flack despite the real instigating post.

Now, as far as "permission to own ARs":

On the one hand we're discussing why someone would want to own them, to which "fun" and "defense against tyranny" were the offered reasons.

On the other hand is your point, "it doesn't matter why." I'm choosing not to go down that road because it's a different conversation and one I don't feel knowledgeable enough to consider a response. I'll defer to others (if they want) and listen in on that episode.

In specifically talking about why we should all indulge your (or anyone's) desire to own one of these killing machines, is it really worth the risk that "nutjobs" will get them? And by "get them" I mostly mean "so easily", because as you say, it's your stated position that it shouldn't matter if you (or anyone) has them. I'd say it's reasonable to say you can have "if." Or, you can have after providing "x, y, z." We (meaning persons like me that can't fathom owning these things) would like you (meaning persons who want as many of these as they can afford) to have a little more accountability for this choice. It appears to me (and I assume others) that the risk is all on us for not owning our own. I wonder if we could shift it to put more of the risk being on your side (of the argument).

macphisto wrote:

elliseamos wrote:You're not blundering into it, Burt. You posted a gif of people laughing at the idea that AR-armed people (alone) can't topple the full force of the US Military. Then Mac went off. And as so often happens, the 2nd man in has taken the brunt of the flack despite the real instigating post.

Now, as far as "permission to own ARs":

On the one hand we're discussing why someone would want to own them, to which "fun" and "defense against tyranny" were the offered reasons.

On the other hand is your point, "it doesn't matter why." I'm choosing not to go down that road because it's a different conversation and one I don't feel knowledgeable enough to consider a response. I'll defer to others (if they want) and listen in on that episode.

In specifically talking about why we should all indulge your (or anyone's) desire to own one of these killing machines, is it really worth the risk that "nutjobs" will get them? And by "get them" I mostly mean "so easily", because as you say, it's your stated position that it shouldn't matter if you (or anyone) has them. I'd say it's reasonable to say you can have "if." Or, you can have after providing "x, y, z." We (meaning persons like me that can't fathom owning these things) would like you (meaning persons who want as many of these as they can afford) to have a little more accountability for this choice. It appears to me (and I assume others) that the risk is all on us for not owning our own. I wonder if we could shift it to put more of the risk being on your side (of the argument).

This style of writing (full of fucking parentheses) is cumbersome to read and shows a great disdain for your audience.

Mickey wrote:

macphisto wrote:

elliseamos wrote:You're not blundering into it, Burt. You posted a gif of people laughing at the idea that AR-armed people (alone) can't topple the full force of the US Military. Then Mac went off. And as so often happens, the 2nd man in has taken the brunt of the flack despite the real instigating post.

Now, as far as "permission to own ARs":

On the one hand we're discussing why someone would want to own them, to which "fun" and "defense against tyranny" were the offered reasons.

On the other hand is your point, "it doesn't matter why." I'm choosing not to go down that road because it's a different conversation and one I don't feel knowledgeable enough to consider a response. I'll defer to others (if they want) and listen in on that episode.

In specifically talking about why we should all indulge your (or anyone's) desire to own one of these killing machines, is it really worth the risk that "nutjobs" will get them? And by "get them" I mostly mean "so easily", because as you say, it's your stated position that it shouldn't matter if you (or anyone) has them. I'd say it's reasonable to say you can have "if." Or, you can have after providing "x, y, z." We (meaning persons like me that can't fathom owning these things) would like you (meaning persons who want as many of these as they can afford) to have a little more accountability for this choice. It appears to me (and I assume others) that the risk is all on us for not owning our own. I wonder if we could shift it to put more of the risk being on your side (of the argument).

This style of writing (full of fucking parentheses) is cumbersome to read and shows a great disdain for your audience.

I'm sorry that you (a dipshit) are unable to read.

verb_to_trust wrote:Why do me and Mac get to be openly swore at? I would also like to swear at people but I know how that would end up...

spike wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Why do me and Mac get to be openly swore at? I would also like to swear at people but I know how that would end up...

ellis isn’t a constant asshole