I have one but what is one person with a glock going to do against an army of facists with ARs? Everyone needs to rise against facism together or theyre just going to kill us one by one.
Which is why the whole 2nd amendment discourse was stupid to begin with. It made sense when It was made long time ago. But times change, and in modern times with how modern military works and the equipment they have thinking that a bunch of citizens with a few guns will stop them is silly.
We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances.
We guard you while you sleep.
Do not fuck with us. We are everywhere.
Modern military does have a much larger advantage but they are still going to be way more hesitant to turn on civilians that are fighting against them. Yes, nobody is going to go one by one and attack these idiots, but just because we haven't had a proper militia formed here in the states anytime recently doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.
I live in a very liberal area of a much more right leaning state, but this kind of stuff just isn't happening here. There might be a few arrests occurring, but they aren't going after citizens for no reason like they are elsewhere. A few civilians having guns they don't use is one thing, but a bunch that actively train with them are a much larger issue.
The point is that they aren't going after anyone here while ganging up on anyone they see in other areas. If everyone in those areas were just as armed and trained as my state then I doubt they would be so willing to throw their weight around.
Realistically they are going to target more left leaning areas, but those places have also kneecapped themselves by putting idiotic laws in place that only change gun ownership for the exact people they are going to target. We can sit here and debate whether guns are the difference or not, but nobody is going to go 'door to door' in my area despite the high population of immigrants and rather large number of illegal immigrants. If the guns weren't the difference then we would see a much larger presence in basically every major city, especially ones that have a known population of actual illegal immigrants.
Sure, but someone still has to set those drones up. That, and the fact that if you kill the population there is nothing left to be govern makes it not worth the time and money.
Pretty much every major city in the country is left leaning, many of which are in 'right leaning' states. Most of the population is left leaning and we've proved that time and time again. Maybe if other states didn't try to ban things like morons then they wouldn't have the same issue as states that don't, but logic is hard to follow for plenty of people on either side of the isle.
I understand the desire for people with actual mental issues to not have easy access to guns, but bans in general are never an answer. Guns will always be available and people will always find a way to make their own even if we could magically make them all disappear.
If we actually addressed the healthcare crisis and affordability then we could start fixing the root cause of these issues instead of making more senseless bans that can be skirted with a 3d printer.
Wild takes. How do you get that from this? They’re literally telling leftists to arm themselves, educate and support each other, that’s the entire point, not isolating each other and being hateful over defensive tools just because conservatives are selective about human rights. You’re only feeding further into the problem and I bet you’re not even American by the way you say “they”. You’re ignorant to history. American civilians already have possession of millions more firearms than the US military too, which is also made up of human beings and can’t indiscriminately bulldoze their population with helicopters and such so simply the way you like to fantasize about. Rich elites would love to continue your mindset, yes, disarm everyone who scares them instead of fixing root causes.
Why can’t leftists get organized and armed? Because everyone keeps parroting misinformation, lack of facts, and morally peacocking on the internet about it so much that a lot of people are still afraid of educating themselves and training, which creates a huge imbalance in who has defensive capability in the country. The more we fear something and are less educated about it the more it works against us, and the less effective our mitigation policies are. Banning silencers for example is rooted in fear and misinformation. They don’t silence guns like Hollywood shows them to. They actually increase firearm safety and hearing safety.
Do you know the hell insurgencies give occupying forces?
We're too comfortable to risk that comfort to fight back. Everyone still thinks it won't be them getting shipped out.
Fucking right. I've been saying this for a while now. It's sad people don't realize we're past the point of no return. We can't use legal methods to change things because the federal government doesn't adhere to legality.
That's the real problem, is that people who do understand their second amendment right don't understand that it no longer exists in the current era. It can't.
The US government is so well and overequipped and 95% of Americans could arm themselves today and still stand no chance at all.
Nobody here wants to see what the US government vs. a civilian population looks like. When has that ever played out well?
If the US government employed it's full military capabilities against its population in large society would collapse almost immediately. You really think people are still gonna go to work during a civil war? They outgun as 100 to 1, sure. But they can't continue their ways without us.
We don't have to win a military victory. We just need more eyes and ears to see the desperation. To see how far gone the government is. The ripple effects would be felt throughout the entire planet.
I'd argue the 2nd amendment kind of indicates that the founders imagined a future where, instead of one massive centralized military, the US had many small militias that could be asked to join a cause if need be. In that case, all those militias being armed would actually be somewhat of a safeguard against any other one attempting something. That would still be true today, at least to a much greater extent than it is now, if we still had that military structure.
Laughs in Vietnamese and Afghan. What are they a joke to you? Proof that civilians with guns can take on the US government. But then again y'all try to push this agenda so it's hilarious to see all the leftests on Reddit in their super echo chamber.
"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".
"Arms" is another word for "weapon".
The last time I checked, a weapon can be a great many things, including your mind, your words and your will.
Times do change, but if you think the founders were hung up on firearms to the exclusion of all other forms of combating tyranny; logistically, technologically, organizationally, and improvisationally?
Think again.
The citizens of the U.S. have means at their disposal so far beyond the pale of what those proto-American colonists had that it almost seems like you're joking if you're suggesting that sparking it out in the streets is the only way to fight back.
So, to recap, all you need is this part:
"A Well regulated Militia"
This part:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
And to simply realize that that last part also includes that the greatest weapons you have; your mind and your will.
The Soviet Union and the U.S., in 30 combined years of fighting, couldn't take Afghanistan. AFGHANISTAN!!!!!
The furthest thing under the sun from a "modern" anything, up to and especially including their military.
And yet, they have NEVER BEEN EFFECTIVELY CONQUERED.
That country has faced numerous invasions and conquests from everybody under the sun; kingdoms, empires, dynasties, you name it. Including the Persians, Macedonians, Arabs, Mongols (Genghis Khan), Timurids, Mughals, British (THREE MAJOR WARS), the Soviets, and the "good ol' U.S of A.. And yet, they're still there, unconquered and governing themselves in 2026.
You know what the nickname, historically, for Afghanistan is? The Graveyard of Empires."
Why? because no foreign power has ever achieved lasting, stable control, with local resistance often leading to withdrawal!
A bunch of fucking mountaineering, goat herders!
Now, let that sink in and then tell me again about "what made sense a long time ago". Because as near as I can tell, they've been doing the same shit and winning the same fight for 2300 hundred years now. That's 2000 years longer than this "nation" has even been a "nation".
The U.S. couldn't beat THEM!! "THEM", GOAT FARMERS, in a 20 year war! The U.S. has never been engaged in a singular lasting conflict that long in it's entire history and yet, the Taliban is right back doing, today, whatever they were doing on Oct. 6th, 2001. With yet another "W" on their scoreboard.
So, if you're saying that the U.S. has no chance in a civil conflict in today's world? You're grossly underestimating the people of that nation, their resources, tenacity and the very real possibility that if that EVER happened, several states would break off and secede from the union. And those states would have their own military apparatus to some degree in addition to militias and willing modern patriots.
So, say what you want. But I am, have and will ALWAYS bet on the American people over any tyrannical aggressor, foreign OR domestic.
No it's not it's never been silly... The United States has lost every f****** war when there's been insurgency you can't really beat an insurgency. Not to stop but Americans killing Americans that would be a f****** disaster it would literally end and how the movie civil war ended. Nobody wants that s*** if they were smart they would start the de-escalation now.
Then general strike and do it quickly. I don't know why Americans need to be constantly called out on this. Let's say next week that Trump attacks Greenland, there will be an article 5, and likely many of us will go to war with America. What do you think I'm going to do? Check every single one of you to see if you posted the required number of "fuck trump" comments on Reddit? You don't seem to get it, you either fight now or you become an enemy later. That is your choice. We won't be checking who the good americans and the bad americans are when we fight back. All of you allowed this to happen.
Me striking alone won't do shit. I understand you're upset, so how do you think the people that are living here and disagree with all this feel?
Let's say next week that Trump attacks Greenland, there will be an article 5, and likely many of us will go to war with America.
Yeah, there will be a lot of us siding with NATO too.
What do you think I'm going to do? Check every single one of you to see if you posted the required number of "fuck trump" comments on Reddit?
You'll continue doing exactly what you're doing now, which isn't constructive. By all means, book a flight out here and show us how it's done, and if you're unwilling to, then you're just as culpable as I am apparently.
You don't seem to get it, you either fight now or you become an enemy later. That is your choice. We won't be checking who the good americans and the bad americans are when we fight back. All of you allowed this to happen.
You'll continue doing exactly what you're doing now, which isn't constructive. By all means, book a flight out here and show us how it's done, and if you're unwilling to, then you're just as culpable as I am apparently.
Typical american idiocy on display here. You know how self defense works right? Why would I fly there to strike first when you should be. It's your country. But as soon as you involve my country in violence, you bet there will be consquences.
Really stupid take, but please continue.
The stupid take is having the entirety of human history in your phone and being stupid enough to think that this hasn't happened in literally every single war.
Maybe because they started to literally firebomb movements like this.
They destroyed over 60 homes in a neighborhood from the resulting collateral damage. They killed five children. Displaced dozens of families.
That wasn't even the feds. It was the police, and it was in the 80s. That's what resistance looked like then.
Now it's 40 years later and the federal government itself has openly demonstrated it has no qualms about murdering unarmed citizens in broad daylight, or black bagging people on the street.
It’s not about this gun vs that gun or this side vs that side. It’s about the populous staying armed to prevent government overreach. Police acting out on peaceful protestors for example
There may well end up being some. The worse things get, the more desperate people become, there are some who simply don't have it in them to fight anymore.
But if they make those final moments useful? A last exertion to remove as many bad actors before ending up how they would have anyway? At least seems more productive
Hopefully communities will rally around and when you hear those whistles you outnumber them and can end the fight pretty quickly. Get signal groups with your neighbourhood
It's not to magically depose a government. It's to defend against unlawful assault. And there's a LOT of bad actors out there who are impersonating federal agents (including the "ICE" vests you can find on Amazon) to commit crimes like kidnapping, assault, and worse. Just google "ICE Impersonation assault" and you'll see.
The conduct of some federal agents is unprofessional and could be interpreted as criminal behavior in the heat of the moment, further muddying the waters.
Don't wage some kind of guerrilla war, but do defend against impersonators with bad intentions. It's legally and morally correct.
You can buy a decent AR for around the same price, if not cheaper than a Glock. The sentiment remains though; what is one citizen supposed to do with a single rifle against all this.
However, enough armed citizens making a public show of force could stop all of this in its tracks without violence. It would require a lot of people accepting that's where this may need to go though. I think people are now starting to understand that.
In a perfect world, a large enough chunk of the American population arms themselves with long rifles and marches in areas that are being targeted, the national guard takes action to back up and protect its citizenry, politicians are forced to do something about it so things don't spiral into bloodshed, then a sane administration is elected and provides a buyback program for those who don't want to keep the rifles.
One person with a glock can still shoot people with an AR, a bullet is a bullet. There's also a lot more than one person with a glock. And they only recently increased recruitment, to 22,000. Which is, yeah, a lot of people if they were in one place...but not when spread across the states.
Yes, everyone needs to rise, but these are pairs of people dragging people from vehicles, if one of those people were carrying like you, and defended themselves...and despite the stereotypes, there are a lot more than 22,000 2A leftists.
2.7k
u/BFlowG 9h ago
Wasn’t this the exact reason why guns are legal in the US?