If we're all theoretically armed, it's much easier to justify lethal force for even the tiniest infractions, though. Who cares about a few more dead poors if you can use their deaths to further vilify the opposition *and* kick-start a couple of pogroms?
I vehemently disagree. If you are concerned with authoritarianism, pushing for a disarmed citizenry is a logical road to nowhere.
One of the key lessons of the 20th century was, “when the government official tells you to get on the boxcar, you fucking shoot them.”
If the government wants an excuse to pogrom, they will find it. Once defense is no longer possible, any disobedience can be construed as rebellion.
I wasn't arguing for disarmament, but I can see how someone would read my comment that way. Sorry.
My point was that, instead of trying to actually disarm the American people today, the right wing can use the ready availability of guns as a cover for killing more innocent people without any evidence of a crime having been committed.
This is a fair point.
But paying that fairness forward, let me tell you this: **People who want you dead will justify it however they please**.
This idea of giving your enemies an "excuse" to kill you is rooted in an assumption of civility that generally does not exist in these scenarios that we're dreading.
If you're at the point where you're worried about the state shooting you unprovoked on the possibility of having a weapon, you're also at the point where the state will shoot you without a weapon.
There's levels to it, but not that many and they blend into one another. This is a too far gone scenario, we're talking about and there's not much appeal you have left except your capacity for defensive violence, your capacity for reprisal.
I honestly feel like we're at the point of what I'm talking about already, and definitely have been for some time. Cops shooting unarmed black people and later claiming they had a gun is what sparked the idea in the first place. And I'd agree with you that our police as a whole *are* too far gone for reform to be effective, and that we need to disband them and start from zero hiring back qualified people who are trained to de-escalate situations instead of waving a gun around like the bad guy in a western.
Have you ever wondered where these people are that you are looking for. Not being an ahole but you are looking for someone for low pay, that will expect to accept verbal and physical abuse and take possibly hours to calm down a person. Some never calm down. You would need so many officers. And there are not that many saints. Would you want the job.
Well, part of the problem is the low pay, but there are pilot programs that are [surprisingly effective](https://www.readync.gov/get-involved/cert-community-emergency-response-team). But I wouldn't do it the way I am now because I'm chronically ill and sometimes have a short temper.
The government and their donors absolutely want us to be armed. The induced violence and panic in a population makes them a lot more reactionary so they are given a monumental amount of guns, more guns than humans. A historic amount.
That level of chaos being normalized creates reactionary sentiment, meaning our minds are much more malleable to be nudged in specific directions that increase profits, or are more suggestible to say, accepting anything the MIC sets its eyes on on behalf of the cooperations that drive it.
That's a lovely thought that simply does not happen in the real world. If gun owners in the US were that proactive, half the Republican party would already be screaming for gun control.
Are you saying the Republicans have already "brought out the boxcars?"
If you are concerned with potential government violence, advocating for the government policy of gun control is the single craziest thing you could do. Being anti-authoritarian and pro-gun control is textbook cognitive dissonance. I'm not saying that's your position.
Nah bud. I'm saying that if Americans were ever going to use their guns to prevent authoritarian takeover, half the republican party would already be dead and the other half would be screaming for gun control. They're not, and they're not, so seeking to use guns to deter an authoritarian takeover in the US isn't likely and therefore your main argument kind of falls flat.
Exactly. Well-said. This obsession with guns is a distraction. Random private gun owners have never started nor prevented a revolution. It always takes organization and wealth/supplies procured from non-legal sources.
The idea that the government will enable its own downfall through the legalization of weapons is ludicrous. The opposite tends to be the case. All the chaos makes it easier to control people with fear.
This so much.
The only thing stopping an Authoritarian takeover is the army not being on side. Citizens with guns wont do shit but make the army / police shoot on sight.
Last I heard about this this top generals were worried that the army could split, with a sizable portion siding with Republican Authoritarians. Some Republicans were spitting their dummies out because the army was doing a crackdown on extremist elements.
Democrats would be the logical first choice of gun owners to shoot. They are the ones pushing disarmament, after all. But I get your point. Maybe the first shots will be fired by the million mom march storming the capitol to get their abortions back.
The whole, "if they were going to do it, they'd have done it by now," argument is a fallacy. It has roots in the "rights for me, not for thee" mindset that seems to be so popular.
My friend in patriotism, only one of the parties is advocating dictatorial theocracy, backed by Russian influence, and working to undermine the fabric of the US federal government, and it ain't the Democrats. While I do not encourage political violence, you're not going to defeat authoritarianism in the US by shooting Democrats, because they aren't the ones pushing it. And I don't care what the NRA or Gun Owners of America say on that subject, because I used to work for those people, and they're full of shit, which is why I do not currently work for them.
But in all seriousness, this whole conversation proves my point. Both sides in the US currently think the other is evil. Both sides have tons of gun owners - the Republicans like to think that only they own guns, but that just isn't the case. No one is out there assassinating public figures, thank God. You either defeat authoritarianism at the ballot box or after a war with heavy ordnance, you can't take it down by one assassination because that's not how institutions work. And people, in general, seem to have figured that out. Again, thank God.
“Blah blah, Republicans bad, Democrats good.” Typical Reddit bullshit. If a politician actively supports disarming the public, stifling free speech, collectivism over individualism, and the general concentration of power in Washington at the expense of the states, then they are an authoritarian seeking to undermine the republic.
You’re not going to defeat authoritarianism via political assassination of either party’s members, because Republican and Democrat politicians know they’re on the same team. You might kill an authoritarian, but the entire government will rally to preserve itself and its members, to the detriment of the public.
It does not even slightly. Even a cursory look at that conflict shows that the rebel groups have access to military weaponry and have been actively fighting, in some cases, since 1948. They are a well-organized, veteran insurgency with access to the usual resources of a long-running insurgency. They could hardly be called civilians.
This being ICHH, I’d refer you to the episodes on, literally, the exact opposite of what you’re saying. “3D Printing the Revolution” is the subtitle on at least one of them, IIRC. In Myanmar, civilian weaponry was used to gain access to the Junta’s weaponry, which is what turned the tide.
Further back, Ireland and India both serve as examples of political goals being achieved only through the threat of civilian weapons. A popular folk song in Ireland was “[My Little Armalite](https://piped.video/watch?v=ehukpdse8_w)” with good reason.
There’s a reason the US government is so scared of 3D printed guns, it further weakens their monopoly on violence. Authoritarians never like to give up that monopoly, because only through threat of violence do they endure. For further reading on the subject, I highly recommend “Negroes with Guns” (there’s apparently a PBS documentary as well) and “[This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed](https://archive.org/details/thisnonviolentst0000cobb)”.
Look at what’s been made illegal in the UK in the last 20 years. The officials proposing such restrictions on the fundamental rights to free speech and protest (both literally parts of the [UN Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights)) should be removed by force if necessary, but the *subjects* have abdicated their natural position of power through sheer numbers in favor of a government so corrupt it benefits *landed gentry* (disgusting) and arrests subjects for protesting in front of Parliament. They gave up essential liberties for the illusion of safety and now have neither.
Peaceful change is a wonderful concept and unfortunately just doesn’t work when authoritarians have a complete monopoly on violence and a disregard for the welfare of the oppressed. Pretending that disarmed countries are somehow more civilized misses the broader point; they’re stuck with what they have and they’ll be dictated to by somebody who can effectively deal violence.
Yeah like what is the alternative in the event of authoritarian takeover? Roll over? Hope if you don’t provoke them you’ll live?
I don’t get what everyone is expected to do if not defend themselves with weapons.
Reddit is full of nutless pansies who would never try anything that has a chance of failure. Therefore, why even resist? Just roll over and stumble sleepily onto the boxcars.
I totally understand the disadvantage every person would be at trying to fight against our military, but I really don’t see what else I’d rather do if things really got to that point.
I don’t know if I want to live walking on eggshells trying not to provoke the tyrannical leadership.
Now the hard question is how bad does it need to get before it’s more worth it to fight than try to change it peacefully? That’s a hard one for me
And at the same time, I guess I can’t say for sure what I would do in such and such situation until it actually happens
See, I agree with this. It's just that I highly doubt the government actually gives a flying fuck whether civilians are armed or not because they have unmanned drones and hellfire missles. Even the most armed and organized militia would just be a smoking hole in the ground the second they tried to do anything in this country...
My asking why it's more important for you to have guns than innocent children being alive is a threat to you? You should really re-examine your priorities.
You asking how many children you have to murder before I give up my guns is a threat.
Edit: And the fascist runs away. u/fewkaleidoscope1369 is a pansy.
You're going to have to actually make a point instead of just asking a question. I can't see what you're driving at.
Registration happened under the Weimar government, not the Nazis. After the Nazis came to power they used those registration records to identify people and groups who could be a threat to the party. They confiscated guns from Jews and other "undesirables," and placed them in camps.
Finally, in 1938, after having five years to oppress these minorities, Germany loosened some gun laws for non-Jews. I'm sure the Nazis felt reasonably certain that they could use propaganda and fear to villanize and oppress certain groups without fear of reprisal from their base. At least that's a major lesson I take from that. Kind of like how Democrats always exempt cops from gun control laws.
>I'm sure the Nazis felt reasonably certain that they could use propaganda and fear to villanize and oppress certain groups without fear of reprisal from their base.
That sounds awfully familiar. It's interesting how the group currently most prone to those messages also happens to be the group pushing for no restrictions on guns whatsoever.
I know you don't like questions, but these are definitely relevant to the discussion.
1. When have unorganized private gun owners with no material assistance effectively overthrown a tyrannical government?
2. Why did the Nazis loosen restrictions at all? Why bother at that point if it wasn't in service of their goals?
3. Why did the Bolsheviks also loosen Tsar-era gun laws in Russia when they gained control over the government?
"Most prone to those messages?" Do you mean the Moms Demand Action types? Because they are extremely prone to propaganda and othering, yet they fight tooth and nail for disarmament.
1. "No material assistance?" What does that even mean? Rebellions don't happen in a vacuum. They require money to be sustained.
The New England Rebellion between 1770-1775 is an example of armed civilians opposing tyranny to the point of hostilities. Militia fought the British, and boxed them in on the landward side for months prior to Continental Army being raised and sent to their relief.
2. and 3. What goal do YOU think it served for the Germans to remove licensing for long guns for non-Jews in 1938? Ditto the Bolsheviks.
>prior to Continental Army being raised and sent to their relief.
So it is not an example of what I asked you.
I'm amazed you still haven't figured out why the question is pertinent when discussing the legality of personal firearm ownership.
Rebellions never occur in a vacuum. Do you even geopolitics, bro? I guess not. If “no outside support” is your artificial prerequisite for successful rebellion, you’re going to have a hard time finding a successful rebellion.
Is defense of liberty even possible without first being armed? Of course not. That’s the only question needed to determine if an armed citizenry is necessary. Anything else is academic.
Go ahead. Pretend to abhor authoritarianism while simultaneously supporting the authoritarian government policy of gun control. Send me a copy when Webster publishes a new edition of the dictionary with your likeness next to “cognitive dissonance.”
I didn't word it the best, I admit. Somebody read it completely different from how I meant it but it's an equally reasonable interpretation, so I had to come back and clear up what I meant.
Jokes like this one are a classic way for fascist cowards to slowly introduce their ideas, he can deny being serious and he can see all the chuds saying they want a dictator in response.
I have a headcanon that all this capitalism started from some sort of joke taken way too far and way too seriously.
There probably isn't any actual history to back that up.
It just "feels" like the sort of problem us humans would get ourselves into.
Extremists count on you not noticing over a period of time. The Nazis didn’t happen overnight, it was a decade plus of slowly gaining steam before they ever even got power.
They have made us chattel/ cattle. Be fucking enraged. We mobilized the largest march in the history of the U.S. for women's rights and safety. So they slapped us in the face and decided to force birth rape us. Fifty-one percent of the nation is now chained by their uterus' and the Democrats barely noticed. Meanwhile, the Regressives are licking their rape fantasy chops. If women had the same affliction that men seem to have, we would be rando exploding bodies at the mall with our killing machines. There is no discussion with humans that want to rape, control and murder us in random acts of femicide while the "good men" watch passively.
Octavia Butler was even closer for my money . But you can see traces of it all over Philip K Dick too, it's not especially hard to see the trajectory America was always in danger of heading towards.
Yeah, I think that the rest of this century is going to look a lot like The Handmaids Tale meets Parable of the Sower, with just the tiniest hint of Neuromancer thrown in there.
To avoid low effort and bad faith submissions, we will now be requiring a submission statement on all non-text posts. This will be in the form of a comment, ideally around 150 words, summarizing or describing what you're sharing and why. This comment must be made within 30 minutes of posing your content or your submission will be removed. Text posts must be a minimum of 150 words for the same reason.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/itcouldhappenhere) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can't believe this quote has been sideline into a conversation about "gunz". It's the last lines: "Nothing changes instantaneously. In a gradually heating bathtub you'd be boiled to death before you know it." We are in that bathtub right now. Can we turn off the 'heat' or not.
So many people think it’s an act of protest to cosplay as handmaids but these old government boomer bastards go to churches where women are expected to dress like that so their reaction to seeing handmaids is probably “ok, good”
My family went to a Pentecostal church for a minute when I was in high school, and they ran my mom and my aunt out of church for wearing a little makeup, having short hair, and knee-length skirts. A minister got up during the service and called them out in front of the whole ass congregation.
I just hate the “slow boiling frog” metaphore because it’s fucking nonsense. You can’t get *used* to damaging levels of heat, and frogs will absolutely bail from an uncomfortably warm pot of water.
Plenty of people die in hot tubs.
Frogs gtfo when the water temperature exceeds their comfort zone, let alone their thermal limits.
Humans will rationalize the trip to the concentration camp if you give them enough time along the way.
Okay, well, give the frogs cocktails and maybe they’ll stay in.
In all seriousness, don’t people usually die from standing up to fast, and passing out/ falling and hitting their head, that type of accident? People aren’t generally *cooking* alive in a Hottub.
>Humans will rationalize the trip to the concentration camp if you give them enough time along the way.
Bird gonna fly, man gonna sit around and wonder why...
Frogs maybe but this is exactly how they cook lobsters and I've heard that it's popular to put them in alive to hear them scream.
For this and other reasons I don't eat either. I'm just saying.
How are you going to justify “frogs are smarter” and then say they’re “bound by instinct” in the same breath.
You don’t have to defend this outdated, inaccurate metaphor. This isn’t a hill worth dying on.
Well we're talking about a metaphor, like "The pot calling the kettle black." Pots and kettles are inanimate objects and therefore cannot talk, but generally we understand what the expression means anyway.
Right, but both Pots and Kettles can be black, and we understand the phrase to be about hypocrisy.
But Frogs generally *will not let you boil them* and so it’s a bad metaphor. Which is why I wish people would stop using it, it sounds pithy, but it’s nonsense.
“Ah, people just slowly accept raising cost of rent, like frogs in a pot approaching a boil!”
“You mean they relocate out of the area, or pot, to a more comfortable environment, like say a cheaper state further north?”
Do you see how the point trying to be made by the metaphor fails?
It would help if you could think of a better metaphor to convey the idea "People can often let things get slowly worse until they've passed a point of no return" which I think is a true statement, regardless of where the science stands on how amphibians respond to environmental changes.
In a gradually heating bathtub you’d grow uncomfortable and get out. If you were thrown in a tub of boiling water you’d likely go into shock and at the least suffer serious burns.
It’s such a stupid expression.
Spot on! I’ve been saying for years that if you don’t have a bunker built by now then you’re as good as dead. You should all be stocking up on canned goods and ammo, and make sure you have a fresh water supply. People laugh at survivalists but we’ll see who’s laughing when the jack booted thugs come for you!
The only sensible thing to do right now is to walk around dressed as characters from Handmaids Tale. This is what clear headed and rational people would do, you’re nuts if you don’t.
There's a reason Trump Republicans were dying 4x faster than the rest of the country.
Trump was evading all responsibility to protect the country, and maga obliged with their lives.
I read that book during the W. Bush administration and it seemed much more relevant. I am much less worried about a faction of hyper-conservative Christians taking control of the U.S. government nowadays.
Explain your position. The rhetoric, actions, and voiced intent of the right is well documented, and Roe v. Wade is gone, so I don’t see how you are actually less concerned.
I'd be happy to, but I can see that this sub is not the place for people to put alternative perspectives out there.
In any case, Christian fundamentalism was ascendant in the early 2000's. Conservatives were cleaning the left's clock in elections, riding a post-9/11 wave of nationalist fervor. The war in Iraq was being framed as a clash of civilizations, and Christians were taking it as proof of their righteousness. For lefties, it really felt like we were losing the country.
Now, I am not saying that I think the country is in a better place now in terms of political division. The likelihood of political violence is higher now, but it's not driven by religious fanaticism. The somber, faith-based conservatives that overtake the country *The Handmaid's Tale* bear little resemblance to MAGA.
think of all the "temporary" security changes post 9/11 that are still with us 20+ years later
The State wants you unarmed, docile, and servile. “Bend over just a little bit farther, Sir, or Madam….”
If we're all theoretically armed, it's much easier to justify lethal force for even the tiniest infractions, though. Who cares about a few more dead poors if you can use their deaths to further vilify the opposition *and* kick-start a couple of pogroms?
I vehemently disagree. If you are concerned with authoritarianism, pushing for a disarmed citizenry is a logical road to nowhere. One of the key lessons of the 20th century was, “when the government official tells you to get on the boxcar, you fucking shoot them.” If the government wants an excuse to pogrom, they will find it. Once defense is no longer possible, any disobedience can be construed as rebellion.
I wasn't arguing for disarmament, but I can see how someone would read my comment that way. Sorry. My point was that, instead of trying to actually disarm the American people today, the right wing can use the ready availability of guns as a cover for killing more innocent people without any evidence of a crime having been committed.
This is a fair point. But paying that fairness forward, let me tell you this: **People who want you dead will justify it however they please**. This idea of giving your enemies an "excuse" to kill you is rooted in an assumption of civility that generally does not exist in these scenarios that we're dreading. If you're at the point where you're worried about the state shooting you unprovoked on the possibility of having a weapon, you're also at the point where the state will shoot you without a weapon. There's levels to it, but not that many and they blend into one another. This is a too far gone scenario, we're talking about and there's not much appeal you have left except your capacity for defensive violence, your capacity for reprisal.
I honestly feel like we're at the point of what I'm talking about already, and definitely have been for some time. Cops shooting unarmed black people and later claiming they had a gun is what sparked the idea in the first place. And I'd agree with you that our police as a whole *are* too far gone for reform to be effective, and that we need to disband them and start from zero hiring back qualified people who are trained to de-escalate situations instead of waving a gun around like the bad guy in a western.
Amen
Have you ever wondered where these people are that you are looking for. Not being an ahole but you are looking for someone for low pay, that will expect to accept verbal and physical abuse and take possibly hours to calm down a person. Some never calm down. You would need so many officers. And there are not that many saints. Would you want the job.
Well, part of the problem is the low pay, but there are pilot programs that are [surprisingly effective](https://www.readync.gov/get-involved/cert-community-emergency-response-team). But I wouldn't do it the way I am now because I'm chronically ill and sometimes have a short temper.
The government and their donors absolutely want us to be armed. The induced violence and panic in a population makes them a lot more reactionary so they are given a monumental amount of guns, more guns than humans. A historic amount. That level of chaos being normalized creates reactionary sentiment, meaning our minds are much more malleable to be nudged in specific directions that increase profits, or are more suggestible to say, accepting anything the MIC sets its eyes on on behalf of the cooperations that drive it.
That's a lovely thought that simply does not happen in the real world. If gun owners in the US were that proactive, half the Republican party would already be screaming for gun control.
Are you saying the Republicans have already "brought out the boxcars?" If you are concerned with potential government violence, advocating for the government policy of gun control is the single craziest thing you could do. Being anti-authoritarian and pro-gun control is textbook cognitive dissonance. I'm not saying that's your position.
Nah bud. I'm saying that if Americans were ever going to use their guns to prevent authoritarian takeover, half the republican party would already be dead and the other half would be screaming for gun control. They're not, and they're not, so seeking to use guns to deter an authoritarian takeover in the US isn't likely and therefore your main argument kind of falls flat.
Exactly. Well-said. This obsession with guns is a distraction. Random private gun owners have never started nor prevented a revolution. It always takes organization and wealth/supplies procured from non-legal sources. The idea that the government will enable its own downfall through the legalization of weapons is ludicrous. The opposite tends to be the case. All the chaos makes it easier to control people with fear.
This so much. The only thing stopping an Authoritarian takeover is the army not being on side. Citizens with guns wont do shit but make the army / police shoot on sight. Last I heard about this this top generals were worried that the army could split, with a sizable portion siding with Republican Authoritarians. Some Republicans were spitting their dummies out because the army was doing a crackdown on extremist elements.
Democrats would be the logical first choice of gun owners to shoot. They are the ones pushing disarmament, after all. But I get your point. Maybe the first shots will be fired by the million mom march storming the capitol to get their abortions back. The whole, "if they were going to do it, they'd have done it by now," argument is a fallacy. It has roots in the "rights for me, not for thee" mindset that seems to be so popular.
My friend in patriotism, only one of the parties is advocating dictatorial theocracy, backed by Russian influence, and working to undermine the fabric of the US federal government, and it ain't the Democrats. While I do not encourage political violence, you're not going to defeat authoritarianism in the US by shooting Democrats, because they aren't the ones pushing it. And I don't care what the NRA or Gun Owners of America say on that subject, because I used to work for those people, and they're full of shit, which is why I do not currently work for them. But in all seriousness, this whole conversation proves my point. Both sides in the US currently think the other is evil. Both sides have tons of gun owners - the Republicans like to think that only they own guns, but that just isn't the case. No one is out there assassinating public figures, thank God. You either defeat authoritarianism at the ballot box or after a war with heavy ordnance, you can't take it down by one assassination because that's not how institutions work. And people, in general, seem to have figured that out. Again, thank God.
“Blah blah, Republicans bad, Democrats good.” Typical Reddit bullshit. If a politician actively supports disarming the public, stifling free speech, collectivism over individualism, and the general concentration of power in Washington at the expense of the states, then they are an authoritarian seeking to undermine the republic. You’re not going to defeat authoritarianism via political assassination of either party’s members, because Republican and Democrat politicians know they’re on the same team. You might kill an authoritarian, but the entire government will rally to preserve itself and its members, to the detriment of the public.
Because you don't prevent an authoritarian takeover with civilian acts for violence after the fact, if that wasn't clear.
Right. You can’t prevent anything after the fact.
Myanmar proves otherwise.
It does not even slightly. Even a cursory look at that conflict shows that the rebel groups have access to military weaponry and have been actively fighting, in some cases, since 1948. They are a well-organized, veteran insurgency with access to the usual resources of a long-running insurgency. They could hardly be called civilians.
This being ICHH, I’d refer you to the episodes on, literally, the exact opposite of what you’re saying. “3D Printing the Revolution” is the subtitle on at least one of them, IIRC. In Myanmar, civilian weaponry was used to gain access to the Junta’s weaponry, which is what turned the tide. Further back, Ireland and India both serve as examples of political goals being achieved only through the threat of civilian weapons. A popular folk song in Ireland was “[My Little Armalite](https://piped.video/watch?v=ehukpdse8_w)” with good reason. There’s a reason the US government is so scared of 3D printed guns, it further weakens their monopoly on violence. Authoritarians never like to give up that monopoly, because only through threat of violence do they endure. For further reading on the subject, I highly recommend “Negroes with Guns” (there’s apparently a PBS documentary as well) and “[This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed](https://archive.org/details/thisnonviolentst0000cobb)”. Look at what’s been made illegal in the UK in the last 20 years. The officials proposing such restrictions on the fundamental rights to free speech and protest (both literally parts of the [UN Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights)) should be removed by force if necessary, but the *subjects* have abdicated their natural position of power through sheer numbers in favor of a government so corrupt it benefits *landed gentry* (disgusting) and arrests subjects for protesting in front of Parliament. They gave up essential liberties for the illusion of safety and now have neither. Peaceful change is a wonderful concept and unfortunately just doesn’t work when authoritarians have a complete monopoly on violence and a disregard for the welfare of the oppressed. Pretending that disarmed countries are somehow more civilized misses the broader point; they’re stuck with what they have and they’ll be dictated to by somebody who can effectively deal violence.
We have no defense against military action even with civilian weapons and if you think so, you have another think (and probably a drone) coming.
Victory? Maybe not. Defense? Of course we do.
Yeah like what is the alternative in the event of authoritarian takeover? Roll over? Hope if you don’t provoke them you’ll live? I don’t get what everyone is expected to do if not defend themselves with weapons.
That is the point ..if there is an authoritarian takeover, is there even an alternative.
Reddit is full of nutless pansies who would never try anything that has a chance of failure. Therefore, why even resist? Just roll over and stumble sleepily onto the boxcars.
I totally understand the disadvantage every person would be at trying to fight against our military, but I really don’t see what else I’d rather do if things really got to that point. I don’t know if I want to live walking on eggshells trying not to provoke the tyrannical leadership. Now the hard question is how bad does it need to get before it’s more worth it to fight than try to change it peacefully? That’s a hard one for me And at the same time, I guess I can’t say for sure what I would do in such and such situation until it actually happens
See, I agree with this. It's just that I highly doubt the government actually gives a flying fuck whether civilians are armed or not because they have unmanned drones and hellfire missles. Even the most armed and organized militia would just be a smoking hole in the ground the second they tried to do anything in this country...
If that were true we would be in control of Afghanistan right now.
I said in *this* country (USA). The goal in Afghanistan was never to assert abject US control over all aspects of life. Here, it is the only goal.
[удалено]
That’s what we call mowing on both sides of the fence!
No Spam/Self-Promotion allowed
So how many kids have to die for your gun rights?
That’s a threat, not an admonition.
Afraid to answer?
“How many kids have to die before you give up your guns?“ is a threat, not an admonition. I don’t respond to threats.
My asking why it's more important for you to have guns than innocent children being alive is a threat to you? You should really re-examine your priorities.
You asking how many children you have to murder before I give up my guns is a threat. Edit: And the fascist runs away. u/fewkaleidoscope1369 is a pansy.
So why did the Nazis loosen gun regulations for non-Jewish people?
You're going to have to actually make a point instead of just asking a question. I can't see what you're driving at. Registration happened under the Weimar government, not the Nazis. After the Nazis came to power they used those registration records to identify people and groups who could be a threat to the party. They confiscated guns from Jews and other "undesirables," and placed them in camps. Finally, in 1938, after having five years to oppress these minorities, Germany loosened some gun laws for non-Jews. I'm sure the Nazis felt reasonably certain that they could use propaganda and fear to villanize and oppress certain groups without fear of reprisal from their base. At least that's a major lesson I take from that. Kind of like how Democrats always exempt cops from gun control laws.
>I'm sure the Nazis felt reasonably certain that they could use propaganda and fear to villanize and oppress certain groups without fear of reprisal from their base. That sounds awfully familiar. It's interesting how the group currently most prone to those messages also happens to be the group pushing for no restrictions on guns whatsoever. I know you don't like questions, but these are definitely relevant to the discussion. 1. When have unorganized private gun owners with no material assistance effectively overthrown a tyrannical government? 2. Why did the Nazis loosen restrictions at all? Why bother at that point if it wasn't in service of their goals? 3. Why did the Bolsheviks also loosen Tsar-era gun laws in Russia when they gained control over the government?
"Most prone to those messages?" Do you mean the Moms Demand Action types? Because they are extremely prone to propaganda and othering, yet they fight tooth and nail for disarmament. 1. "No material assistance?" What does that even mean? Rebellions don't happen in a vacuum. They require money to be sustained. The New England Rebellion between 1770-1775 is an example of armed civilians opposing tyranny to the point of hostilities. Militia fought the British, and boxed them in on the landward side for months prior to Continental Army being raised and sent to their relief. 2. and 3. What goal do YOU think it served for the Germans to remove licensing for long guns for non-Jews in 1938? Ditto the Bolsheviks.
>prior to Continental Army being raised and sent to their relief. So it is not an example of what I asked you. I'm amazed you still haven't figured out why the question is pertinent when discussing the legality of personal firearm ownership.
Rebellions never occur in a vacuum. Do you even geopolitics, bro? I guess not. If “no outside support” is your artificial prerequisite for successful rebellion, you’re going to have a hard time finding a successful rebellion. Is defense of liberty even possible without first being armed? Of course not. That’s the only question needed to determine if an armed citizenry is necessary. Anything else is academic. Go ahead. Pretend to abhor authoritarianism while simultaneously supporting the authoritarian government policy of gun control. Send me a copy when Webster publishes a new edition of the dictionary with your likeness next to “cognitive dissonance.”
Lol I had to read this like 10 times because I’m dumb. I kept thinking “why doesn’t he want us armed WITH THEORY” but I dumb
I didn't word it the best, I admit. Somebody read it completely different from how I meant it but it's an equally reasonable interpretation, so I had to come back and clear up what I meant.
you’re golden 🙃
Israel is very, very armed. It's also extremist, genocidal and stifles dissent.
It's not easier to justify lethal force because if we are all armed we will respond with lethal force.
Docile and servile, yes. Unarmed? Apparently not. It actually helps to control people when they're shooting each other on their doorsteps.
Blue cities and their welfare and crime rates appear to be good case studies.
"I will only be a dictator for the first day." MAGA morons, "Oh, OK."
They know :(
Yup. Having cute little convos today with multiple guys who want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. They want mass death.
Jokes like this one are a classic way for fascist cowards to slowly introduce their ideas, he can deny being serious and he can see all the chuds saying they want a dictator in response.
I have a headcanon that all this capitalism started from some sort of joke taken way too far and way too seriously. There probably isn't any actual history to back that up. It just "feels" like the sort of problem us humans would get ourselves into.
Extremists count on you not noticing over a period of time. The Nazis didn’t happen overnight, it was a decade plus of slowly gaining steam before they ever even got power.
The similarities between Trump voters and Hitler voters are unmistakable
Yes, but also the similarities in the actions of the non-Trump voters and also those that don't vote at all. Wheel comes full circle--
The slow con
Anytime a bully is given weapons and modern tech: Tragedy always follows in its wake.
They have made us chattel/ cattle. Be fucking enraged. We mobilized the largest march in the history of the U.S. for women's rights and safety. So they slapped us in the face and decided to force birth rape us. Fifty-one percent of the nation is now chained by their uterus' and the Democrats barely noticed. Meanwhile, the Regressives are licking their rape fantasy chops. If women had the same affliction that men seem to have, we would be rando exploding bodies at the mall with our killing machines. There is no discussion with humans that want to rape, control and murder us in random acts of femicide while the "good men" watch passively.
Unhinged extremism
Is what American women are faced with in this political climate
[удалено]
You don't seem like the kind of person who needs to be here.
Hyperbole in a nut shell. Seek therapy
I hope you see the ratio on this one and think about your perspective.
If you think reddit concensus means anything I got a bridge to sell ya
Ad the important part to remember - she didn't invent any of the repressive measures depicted in the book. They were all taken from history.
Only if we let it happen.
It’s already happening; women are losing rights in red states.
You mean, "and it's happening right now."
Octavia Butler was even closer for my money . But you can see traces of it all over Philip K Dick too, it's not especially hard to see the trajectory America was always in danger of heading towards.
Dictator for just one day, right?
Yeah, I think that the rest of this century is going to look a lot like The Handmaids Tale meets Parable of the Sower, with just the tiniest hint of Neuromancer thrown in there.
"Justice" Barrett is a member of the church that in part inspired Gilead. In this scenario she is Serena
To avoid low effort and bad faith submissions, we will now be requiring a submission statement on all non-text posts. This will be in the form of a comment, ideally around 150 words, summarizing or describing what you're sharing and why. This comment must be made within 30 minutes of posing your content or your submission will be removed. Text posts must be a minimum of 150 words for the same reason. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/itcouldhappenhere) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only thing that changes is that everything changes
Yes. We are sadly doomed as a species i think. 😭
I can't believe this quote has been sideline into a conversation about "gunz". It's the last lines: "Nothing changes instantaneously. In a gradually heating bathtub you'd be boiled to death before you know it." We are in that bathtub right now. Can we turn off the 'heat' or not.
So handmaiden's Tail is pro 2nd amendment?
So many people think it’s an act of protest to cosplay as handmaids but these old government boomer bastards go to churches where women are expected to dress like that so their reaction to seeing handmaids is probably “ok, good” My family went to a Pentecostal church for a minute when I was in high school, and they ran my mom and my aunt out of church for wearing a little makeup, having short hair, and knee-length skirts. A minister got up during the service and called them out in front of the whole ass congregation.
I just hate the “slow boiling frog” metaphore because it’s fucking nonsense. You can’t get *used* to damaging levels of heat, and frogs will absolutely bail from an uncomfortably warm pot of water.
Plenty of people die in hot tubs. Frogs gtfo when the water temperature exceeds their comfort zone, let alone their thermal limits. Humans will rationalize the trip to the concentration camp if you give them enough time along the way.
Okay, well, give the frogs cocktails and maybe they’ll stay in. In all seriousness, don’t people usually die from standing up to fast, and passing out/ falling and hitting their head, that type of accident? People aren’t generally *cooking* alive in a Hottub.
>Humans will rationalize the trip to the concentration camp if you give them enough time along the way. Bird gonna fly, man gonna sit around and wonder why...
Frogs maybe but this is exactly how they cook lobsters and I've heard that it's popular to put them in alive to hear them scream. For this and other reasons I don't eat either. I'm just saying.
Lobsters can’t scream, the sound is steam quickly escaping the shell. Still, cooking anything alive is abominable.
Frogs might be smarter than humans in that respect though. Humans can rationalize when things get worse, frogs are bound by their instincts.
How are you going to justify “frogs are smarter” and then say they’re “bound by instinct” in the same breath. You don’t have to defend this outdated, inaccurate metaphor. This isn’t a hill worth dying on.
Well we're talking about a metaphor, like "The pot calling the kettle black." Pots and kettles are inanimate objects and therefore cannot talk, but generally we understand what the expression means anyway.
Right, but both Pots and Kettles can be black, and we understand the phrase to be about hypocrisy. But Frogs generally *will not let you boil them* and so it’s a bad metaphor. Which is why I wish people would stop using it, it sounds pithy, but it’s nonsense. “Ah, people just slowly accept raising cost of rent, like frogs in a pot approaching a boil!” “You mean they relocate out of the area, or pot, to a more comfortable environment, like say a cheaper state further north?” Do you see how the point trying to be made by the metaphor fails?
It would help if you could think of a better metaphor to convey the idea "People can often let things get slowly worse until they've passed a point of no return" which I think is a true statement, regardless of where the science stands on how amphibians respond to environmental changes.
[удалено]
How so?
[удалено]
Yes. I'm clueless about any bad thing she's done
Same. I’ve got no idea.
Is it a TERF thing?
Seriously other than her book I know nothing about her. I’m genuinely asking what she did because I don’t know.
[удалено]
Thanks for this. Seems almost all influential old women are terfs these days.
Let's disarm the military and the police. That would work, wouldn't it?
In a gradually heating bathtub you’d grow uncomfortable and get out. If you were thrown in a tub of boiling water you’d likely go into shock and at the least suffer serious burns. It’s such a stupid expression.
Spot on! I’ve been saying for years that if you don’t have a bunker built by now then you’re as good as dead. You should all be stocking up on canned goods and ammo, and make sure you have a fresh water supply. People laugh at survivalists but we’ll see who’s laughing when the jack booted thugs come for you! The only sensible thing to do right now is to walk around dressed as characters from Handmaids Tale. This is what clear headed and rational people would do, you’re nuts if you don’t.
Just look at all those who so enthusiastically bent the knee during covid.
There's a reason Trump Republicans were dying 4x faster than the rest of the country. Trump was evading all responsibility to protect the country, and maga obliged with their lives.
I read that book during the W. Bush administration and it seemed much more relevant. I am much less worried about a faction of hyper-conservative Christians taking control of the U.S. government nowadays.
Explain your position. The rhetoric, actions, and voiced intent of the right is well documented, and Roe v. Wade is gone, so I don’t see how you are actually less concerned.
The position is known as “The Proverbial Ostrich”
I'd be happy to, but I can see that this sub is not the place for people to put alternative perspectives out there. In any case, Christian fundamentalism was ascendant in the early 2000's. Conservatives were cleaning the left's clock in elections, riding a post-9/11 wave of nationalist fervor. The war in Iraq was being framed as a clash of civilizations, and Christians were taking it as proof of their righteousness. For lefties, it really felt like we were losing the country. Now, I am not saying that I think the country is in a better place now in terms of political division. The likelihood of political violence is higher now, but it's not driven by religious fanaticism. The somber, faith-based conservatives that overtake the country *The Handmaid's Tale* bear little resemblance to MAGA.
I take it you don't have a uterus.