711
Women and LGBTQ+ people take up guns after Trump’s win: ‘We need to protect ourselves’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
711 points (97.0% liked)
News
31592 readers
3442 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The second amendment was not made for personal protection
It was also opposed by George Washington on the argument that "A bunch of farmers with guns will never defeat a trained army." He basically did exactly that, but it took the support of one of the world's largest super powers at the time in order to do it - France.
Not to say don't arm yourself. I plan on doing exactly that myself. But don't expect to be overthrowing the dictatorship to come. There are no resistance groups being armed by the EU here.
Washington was talking about the militias that were present in the early parts of the war that were under trained and undisciplined. The red coats took them easily and they fled often so the continental congress started the continental army lead by Washington, which was a trained and disciplined army in the style of European standing armies, which was able to take on and even defeat the British occasionally.
After the war the ruling elite still had this idealized vision of citizen militias protecting the liberty of white man and saw it as a less tyrannical, and cheaper model then the European professional standing army and made the second amendment to encourage it. Washington was saying that that system failed and will never work and that we should have a trained army ready to take on European powers if they come back.
Now we have the worst of both worlds, a massive army that gobbles up tax dollars and a bunch of untrained citizens with guns who barely understand what a militia is much less can protect the liberty of the nation.
Yeah, pretty much what I was getting at. We live in a country where everybody believes themselves to be the hero in their own Rambo style action movie.
"Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he's John Wayne? Rambo? Marshal Dillon?"
Edit: I can't be the only person who's seen Die Hard.
You mean the best Christmas movie?
Getting another superpower to arm Americans is like putting a hat on a hat
I’m going to make myself harder to black bag.
that was before tanks and instant communication. the army would have been less organized and maybe you could have a chance against the government, especially as a militia. today you don't.
you do have a chance against a bunch of fuckwads who threaten you because the party they voted for won and the think they can rape freely now. just not the government.
The last three wars have been pretty recent, and haven’t not gone well against a foe no where near or equal. Not so much as a pyric victory, but an eventual unwillingness to keep wasting time and money and lives, and we just left. What do you call it when you just leave a war failing all your objectives and handing over territory to the enemy?
what are you talking about? control over your own land is nothing like invading a remote country halfway around the world.
Yes, like its two completely different things
I'm not saying you are wrong, but the biggest difference, and one that actually matters, is that there was a very clear us vs. them defined and easily spotted. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan we were fighting against people that blended in and weren't being actively turned on by their neighbors. Here, you can bet every dickish Dick that voted red would happily report on the neighbors that they even have an iota of suspicion about resisting the orange cunt.
Actually you are describing how it would not be different at all than these other wars. An insurgency in the us would be particularly hard to pick out. There would be no outward appearance between “us” or “them” we are a very diverse nation after all. Also, in these wars neighbors were turning each other in left and right. It was nearly impossible to determine if it was legitimate, or a personal squabble, or some random in order to get brownie points with the us. People are no different over here.
Besides, i will not entertain the idea that fighting against tyranny is wrong because it would be hard.
That is historically true, unfortunately the conservative artificial supermajority Supreme Court doesn't respect its own precedents and historical facts.
I mean the Supreme Court can say what they like. But their power is derived by the people. It can be taken back.
What a bunch of slave-owners thought about guns hundreds of years ago is not really relevant to today.
And if you're going to attack someone for thinking people should be armed for the wrong reason, maybe you should find better targets.
Whoa, I’m not attacking you. I have a difference in opinion as to why people should be armed. Not saying that one does not have a right to self defense, just that i put stock in the need to collectively hold the government accountable and fight tyranny
When're you gonna start?
And you can see why, from what I already wrote, that is not likely to work unless the majority is on your side. And the military.
The military has had a pretty lousy track record against gorilla warfare from much smaller, worse armed groups who, by the width of an ocean were unable to affect logistical lines, the means to project warfare, or the families of our soldiers. A Revolution within would be much worse.
How many innocent people died in those wars? It's not very nice of you to be willing to put their lives on the line like that.
Oh? Now it’s a discussion about who should be sacrificed and for what. Freedom always has a cost. I never removed myself from the possibility. But right now, the royal “we”, seem to be sacrificing the minority, the different, the poor, the non christian and it gets worse every day. Freedoms are slipping, corporations get stronger, and standards of living and hope for the future fades. This will only accelerate. Arguing to arm oneself for personal protection but not collective action will doom all, but the chosen, to be picked off one by one.
So when are you going to start shooting?
When it’s needed. I don’t see a path that prevents tyranny or revolution, but that doesn’t mean there is none. You say that people should arm themselves, and i agree, the main difference being what we see as the threat i guess. But I take inspiration from the Black Panthers. I believe they were right and righteous in their actions, no matter what was taught in schools. And you know they were effective, because the state conspired against them and they got the NRA TO ARGUE FOR MORE RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS because they have a certain power dynamic they want to uphold.
I don't remember the Black Panthers starting a guerilla war like what you're advocating for.
When is this guerilla war going to be "needed?"
I’m not saying a gorilla war is needed. I am saying collective action is needed.
The reason i bring up gorilla warfare is because of the “there is no point in fighting tyranny because it’s too hard” argument. in the recent wars verses gorilla warfare and insurgency, it has been an absolute shit show boondoggle for the last 3 wars we have been in. And that is with the advantage of untouchable logistics, the world’s largest, and most secure, military industrial complex, top of the line weapons and training, and the homeland being unreachable.
Either way it’s best if those we care about own and become proficient in fire arms.
You're saying collective action with firearms is needed. Which, as I already showed, is probably doomed to failure.
You haven’t showed anything. You asserted. And i brought up the black panthers as the counter argument.
It was not a counter argument because the black panthers were not fighting back against a genocidal regime, which is what queer people are facing. If Jews marched around Nazi Germany with guns, they would have just been picked off by snipers from rooftops.
Are you saying if the lgbtq community formed a militia and walked around american streets, they would be gunned down by snipers? We are not at that point yet, so a militia like the Black Panthers is needed. But if we are at the point where the government is sniping its citizens, then we would need an insurgency.
If by, "we are not at that point yet," you mean that it's 1932 and Hitler is going to take power in two months and then it will be too late, sure.
Then, as I said, it will be too late. There were plenty of insurgencies against the Nazis. They didn't work.
It would not be too late if at this point, before snipers starts shooting, that militias start to form and the minority arm up and train now. That’s why i am pushing this. And it’s never too late to fight for freedom. Just because the insurgencies against the nazis didn’t “win” doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth doing. The point of the insurgency is to “not lose“ and every life saved was worth the effort.
Okay, so who are you gathering up to train? Because just telling people your plan on social media and expecting it to happen in two months is not especially realistic.
That’s a good question. I guess the start is finding like minded people, or convincing others to be receptive of the ones that form if not get them actuated themselves. So what i am attempting now. There was that group of armed protestors that stand watch over planned parenthood clinics. They satisfy a price of the puzzle
You're not going to be able to train those like-minded people in military tactics over the internet.
What are your own experience in military tactics anyway? You don't seem to know how to spell 'guerilla' since you keep spelling it like the animal, so I'm not so sure you have much.
I generally have you in high regard here on Lemmy. We have had discussions in the past and i made a concerted effort to not attack you. I have been civil. So i will have to ask you to look past my difficulties in spelling, and my constant battle against auto correct. I have military training, but they are not necessary to effectively organize, or train in fire arms.
So you have no actual ability to train people to fight in this revolution of yours and you have not gathered anyone together. I assume you haven't raised any funds or stockpiled any armor (let alone weapons). You have two months to achieve your goal. And yet this sounds achievable to you?
I don’t think a Revolution in two month’s is a good idea. Again at this stage, militias such as the Black Panthers would be much more effective.
You are attempting to discredit my position by setting arbitrary unrealistic expectations, and pointing out my incapability in pulling that off.
You are not any longer arguing against the principle of my argument. It would take time, and the first steps is to lay the ground work for it to happen such as, convincing people of the need and effectiveness of militias.
Were you the one who is said they were leaving the states due to expected tyranny?
All you have is two months. Then the genocide begins. Sorry. If you wanted armed revolution to happen, it's too late. They're already building the concentration camps.