You're viewing a single thread.
Bro isnt this why you have a second amendment?
Originally, yes. In the last 50 years, no.
But if Americans revolt, they’ll miss the next season of the great British bake off. They can’t risk it.
We gotta wait for the people with all the guns to feel the pinch.
Guns and ammo are available in pretty much every city in America, just throwing it out there.
You would be suprised. This topic has crossed my circles, every firearms introduction and saftey class within 30 miles is sold out till april. Unless you have a friend who is willing teach you the basics and how to use them safely, you just got to wait in line.
The ones passionate about guns are the same uneducated ones sucking on the propaganda tit. They're just starting to get inklings that it might have been a bad idea, unfortunately most of them will stick their fingers in their ears and say it'll all be just fine.
IMO 70:30 we won't revolt, the silent majority doesn't like it, but just accepts the Nazi overtake.
Yes it is. But unless YOU personally are willing to risk death, then it means little. The magas seem reasonably content at the moment. And progressives aren't willing to give up the comforts of life either. Nor are they actually interested in getting their hands dirty by running for any office either. They mostly prefer to whinge on line rather than do much beyond complaints and yard signs.
If and when people are homeless and starving and believe they have no other alternative, then they might pick up a gun. But that point in time isn't here yet.
If and when people are homeless and starving and believe they have no other alternative, then they might pick up a gun. But that point in time isn’t here yet.
Of course; as we all know, the starving and homeless are the most revolutionary element of society.
they quite literally are my guy, when you have no food, no home, no family, and no life worth living, you will do whatever you see fit.
Historically, yes they are. They are the ones with nothing left to lose except their lives. And are more likely to revolt. Anyone with a couch and xbox isn't nearly the threat to those in power. I believe that's called 'Bread and Circuses'
Historically, yes they are.
Historically, they fucking aren't. Revolutionary action doesn't come from the starving and homeless. Most revolutions are driven by the comfortable middle class. The working class is often in support, but the working class is generally neither starving nor homeless when they lend their support, because starving and homeless people are generally worried about things other than the overall political situation.
They are the ones with nothing left to lose except their lives.
They're also the ones whose primary thoughts of gain are centered around immediate, not long-term or abstract, needs. Desperation drives one to desperate acts - with desperate goals. A starving man doesn't overthrow a government, a starving man steals bread.
And are more likely to revolt.
When? When has this been true? How many incidents of mass starvation have seen the quiet acquiescence of the population?
Anyone with a couch and xbox isn’t nearly the threat to those in power.
What.
What kind of inane bullshit is this.
Is this the left-equivalent of "Modern 'poor' are so rich they even have refrigerators"?
I believe that’s called ‘Bread and Circuses’
Bread and circuses were used to keep the middle and upper-working-class of the city of Rome from protesting the loss of their political power. Not to keep the starving or homeless satisfied; nor did such measures include the slaves of the city, who generally had much lower living standards than the established working families who attended the assemblies of Rome. It also didn't keep the middle and upper-working-class of the city from violence and revolt against the establishment.
Desperation drives one to desperate acts - with desperate goals. A starving man doesn't overthrow a government, a starving man steals bread.
Yes, and a million starving men will kill the people keeping all the bread so they can eat. The Russian revolution, for example, was directly caused by the lack of food in Russian cities, and the revolutions of 1848-1849 were in part caused by the hungry forties.
Yes, and a million starving men will kill the people keeping all the bread so they can eat.
Brilliant, I suppose that's why famines are so often accompanied by redistribution of wealth, once the rich have been killed so the poor can eat. Inequality plummets after famines, what with all of those dead elites. /s
The Russian revolution, for example, was directly caused by the lack of food in Russian cities,
The actual conditions of food availability had been considerably worse without murmur of revolution, numerous times before. And quite a few times after, for that matter. Much of the initial unrest was because of the prospect of rationing was the final irritant in a weak government's loss of popularity, not because people were starving. Furthermore, the strata most likely to experience anything resembling actual starvation was the peasantry, which was largely indifferent to the prospect of revolution, and would end up as a primary support base for the counterrevolutionaries in the years to come.
and the revolutions of 1848-1849 were in part caused by the hungry forties.
Insofar as they caused economic distress by increasing food prices. Insofar as actual starvation is concerned, no. There's a reason why the Communist Manifesto, itself written during the Revolutions of 48, mentions the lack of revolutionary potential of the peasantry, who would've been the most food insecure of the classes.
Brilliant, I suppose that's why famines are so often accompanied by redistribution of wealth, once the rich have been killed so the poor can eat. Inequality plummets after famines, what with all of those dead elites. /s
Here's Wikipedia on the Irish potato famine:
The period of the potato blight in Ireland from 1845 to 1851 was full of political confrontation.[84] A more radical Young Ireland group seceded from the Repeal movement in July 1846, and attempted an armed rebellion in 1848. It was unsuccessful.
Peasant uprisings almost always (or just always???) end in failure, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Furthermore, the strata most likely to experience anything resembling actual starvation was the peasantry, which was largely indifferent to the prospect of revolution, and would end up as a primary support base for the counterrevolutionaries in the years to come.
What? No. The Russian peasantry was having the time of their lives during WWI (well, the ones not conscripted into the war anyway). It's a long story, but because of inflation, strained supply chains and government failures meant that while the food was there, it just wasn't getting to the cities. Also do note that the Russian peasantry, while not as revolutionary as the urban proletariat, were absolutely not indifferent to the prospect of revolution. These were the people breaking into, ransacking and burning down their local nobles' manors. They were also electing these guys.
Insofar as they caused economic distress by increasing food prices. Insofar as actual starvation is concerned, no.
Those are literally the same thing. Economic distress is just an expression of the human desire not to starve.
There's a reason why the Communist Manifesto, itself written during the Revolutions of 48, mentions the lack of revolutionary potential of the peasantry, who would've been the most food insecure of the classes.
I don't see why peasants would be any more affected by lack of food than the urban proletariat, but that could be just my ignorance. Also Marx's reasons for making that conclusion were based on peasants' relationship with private property and religion, and not about how they're somehow more at leace with rhe prospect of starving to death.
Here's Wikipedia on the Irish potato famine:
That genocide is a poor comparison. The Irish were invaded and colonized by the English, a foreign power that maintained its political and cultural separation from the subjugated. Struggle against an external force is vastly different than struggle against an internal one.
Is anyone into Xbox/Netflix/Amazon boycott for 2 years? Walmart? Target? I know there are a few who trulyhave no choice, his many who do are willing to go through the inconvenience? How many are doing shadow work to deal with triggers, distress tolerance/self soothing work? That's what it's going to be, before revo.
Been boycotting a few of those since their inception and the others for 15 + years. I talk with people about how bad walmart,target , Amazon are for our area and local business when they opine about the "good old days" and they say " wow, yeah your right , wow . But I can order a charger for my cell phone and have it at my door tomorrow".
Most people are just receivers for advertising at this point. It's scary
Great job! Keep talking to people! These corps got rich with our meager contributions, they can get poor without them!
I won't stop but the problem is they have become so conditioned they actually need to be deprogrammed before it can sink in .
That's harkening back to my original comment. Anytime they whine about what's happening, to sum up Parkrose Permaculture, 1. Call your representative, even Republican. Do not have to state voting habits, just "This is hurting our state's economy, and your reelection." 2. Stop buying from these companies. 3. Get out in the streets, OR volunteer time in some manner. Contact 50501 or DSA or CPUSA, or your local union, etc. "I have experience with spreadsheets/organization/logistics/etc, how can I help?"
My Amazon boycott has been going legit since October, when Bezos quashed the WaPo endorsement. Won't pretend that I don't miss some of the convenience, and I sure as shit wasn't a lucrative customer padding their profit margins, but a man has to have some standards.
Same reason why I gave up Pepsi shortly after the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War. I don't expect corpos to have a conscience, but I sure as shit still ain't gonna back the worst of the offenders.
Great job! Keep talking to people! These corps got rich with our meager contributions, they can get poor without them!
And progressives aren’t willing to give up the comforts of life either.
they're too busy yapping on lemmy about how some shit fuck stuff happened and now the sky is falling to actually do anything about it.
Yes. But the Dems decided that was bad and convinced most of their demographic to disarm themselves.
So now 90% of the guns are in the hands of the fascists.
Let's be real, the issue is that a lot of people agree with what Trump does.
a lot of people
agreeagreed ....Seems what they bought is not what they got.
bought is not what they got.
Yeah, that paint is just starting to crack now.
The problem is that they're getting most of what they want and starting to get some things they don't want. They're not going to act until the ratio of want to don't want is more like 40:60, many of them are of the mindset that as long as everyone is suffering, justice is being served.
Yes. And they're the ones with the guns.
It's very impressive how everything you do or don't do is Dems fault. You would think with this amount of shadow leverage over the public they are actually in control, eh?
Yeah it aint the fault of the dems on the disarmament bullshit, its the fault of the fucking suburban yuppies. I will burn it all.
Aight spiteful Redneck statement out of my system. There are worse yuppies now anyways like the ones out in Palm Springs ugh.
i think the majority of most democrats would be in favor of self defense weapons being legal to own.
We're mostly against complete idiots having access to dangerous weapons.
So which is it? You can't have guns and not have them be accessible to people at the same time.
Whether a gun is good or bad depends on timing and perspective. All else being equal, a gun at home is way more likely to kill a member of the household than an assailant. But things aren't always equal.
I live alone, and don't have kids over. I ain't killing myself, and I have decades of experience in firearm safety. So the odds of someone in my household getting hurt by my guns are very low. At the same time, I do live in an area with 40+ minute police response time, so if there is a violent situation, I'm on my own. Guns increase my safety.
But someone with no training, small kids in the house, and in a safe area isn't in the same situation, and firearms make them less-safe.
it's both? You live in the same world i do right? Like we both have the same level of intelligence and critical thinking right? You can let people own guns legally, as weapons of self defense, while also preventing people who are a danger to society and other people, from owning them as well. We're clearly struggling with the second part, and the republican gun movement isn't doing much to improve that look either.
Whether a gun is good or bad depends on timing and perspective.
literally no? Whether or not a gun is good depends solely on whether or not it positively influenced your outcome in life. Murdering someone is obviously bad, and is going to have a bad outcome for you, using it to protect yourself against someone in a situation where you may have been killed, is obviously a good thing for you.
Timing and perspective is just what LEADS to these situations, but doesn't actually denote any significant quality.
a gun at home is way more likely to kill a member of the household than an assailant.
due to domestic violence? I'm guessing responsible gun owners aren't just randomly shooting their family members and pets randomly. Unless you're referring to some sort of like, schizophrenic safety metric where if your house is on a native indian burial site you're 3x more likely to get cancer and fucking die. In which case, that's due to an individuals inherent incompatibility with life, not due to any fault of the gun or the gun owner. (unless they were negligent)
I live alone, and don’t have kids over. I ain’t killing myself, and I have decades of experience in firearm safety. So the odds of someone in my household getting hurt by my guns are very low.
exactly, the best kind of person to own a gun. Whether or not you have a family doesn't significantly change that statistic, unless you don't responsibly store them, or educate your family on them, or i guess you randomly decided to kill everyone in your house one day.
But someone with no training, small kids in the house, and in a safe area isn’t in the same situation, and firearms make them less-safe.
not necessarily, but that is a significantly increased risk for that gun owner. It's like arguing that owning a power tool is dangerous to your entire family, and neighbors, simply because someone could get hurt by it. Which IS true, it's just not a real statistic that people actually view.
The thing is, we can't control for who is bad most of the time. People get murdered with guns every day, and it's all by people who passed background checks or who acquired them by buying them on a secondary market.
Statistics don't support that notion especially considering the typical demographics of the fastest growing groups of new gun owners being dominanted by POC. Its just that violence without coordination and organization will be called terrorism and they may just kill you on the spot for that regardless. See Willem Von Spronsen and Luigi Mangione.
yeah, there have been SIGNIFICANT increases in gun ownership and training among minorities lately, especially those who are queer/trans.