Beto says the quiet part out loud.

[Admiral X]

You also just assume people would get involved. Most people would not, even with an underground resistance leading terror attacks on the police state. How often have we seen that in nations like Germany and Russia? They tried to stop it, but most people were too terrified to get involved. They knew the consequences, and they didn't wanna suffer, or have their families targeted. Of those that did, I applaud them for it, but of those who chose not to, I can't blame them and I certainly won't demonize them the way lots of people try to do with their political agendas. No, I've said it over and over. People don't want freedom. They just want the illusion of freedom to make themselves feel better while they glut themselves upon luxury, indulgence, and the lie of comfort and security.

Not everyone fought the Nazis in occupied countries, but that didn't stop the ones who did.

[Admiral X]

Trump has already successfully, and with stated intent to accelerate, removed rights from citizens based on identity, and if anything only improved his standing among supporters.

2019 conservatives fail to understand the severity of their own positions.

Nah, I think you just built a straw man. The only "rights" I can think of he actually managed to infringe upon were for trans people to serve in the military and for people to own bump stocks. Feel free to add to that list, I'm morbidly curious what you'd add.

[Yukaphile]

Admiral X, that number was so tiny as to NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. And it didn't stop the destruction left behind when the enemies they pissed off came knocking. There are ways to resist what they government tells you without force of arms.

It is a strawman. I am hard-line on certain things. What does that say about me?

[LittleRaven]

What's the point of one girl with a gun maybe shooting up a couple cops? Doesn't make me any more alive or contribute any meaningful reduction of bigotry and legal discrimination for people I care about.

It doesn't make a difference if they ACTUALLY come for you. Sure, you might get one of the bastards on your way out, but if they want you bad enough, they'll get you. That's not really the point though. Being armed won't save you if they come for you...but it most certainly makes a difference in whether they come for you.

There's a reason the government handled the Bundy idiots with kid gloves, while they had no problem running roughshod over Ferguson. Being armed forces the opposition to weigh the cost of coming for you, and it's a very serious calculus indeed. Mao understood it; modern leftists have no excuse.

So no. The goal is to nudge people into thinking more critically, thwart the spread of propaganda, and get bad actors to talk themselves into a hole.

But...being armed doesn't affect your ability to do any of that.

[CmdrKing]

Mao ended up being a self-aggrandizing totalitarian more interested in demolishing history than advancing human knowledge and creating a society working toward equity. More than that, his brand of "communism" is just a revival of a Chinese Empire, whichonly functions when underwritten by intense nationalism. And if I haven't been clear, nationalist sentiment will inevitably be the enemy of any form of progress in modern society.

There absolutely are leftist who want to be prepared for such eventualities, and I'm not one to dissuade them if they're not falling prey to any major pitfalls, but acquiring, maintaining, and learning proper use of fire arms is in fact a substantial investment I lack the means or drive to do.

[Admiral X]

Admiral X, that number was so tiny as to NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. And it didn't stop the destruction left behind when the enemies they pissed off came knocking. There are ways to resist what they government tells you without force of arms.

It is a strawman. I am hard-line on certain things. What does that say about me?

That you would bend the knee where others would not.

[Yukaphile]

... I don't know how you get that from what I said... I think I was addressing somebody else. Just this whole notion that you can boil down "GOP hard-liners" to one strawman is embarrassing.

[LittleRaven]

There absolutely are leftist who want to be prepared for such eventualities, and I'm not one to dissuade them if they're not falling prey to any major pitfalls, but acquiring, maintaining, and learning proper use of fire arms is in fact a substantial investment I lack the means or drive to do.

I feel I owe you an apology - my previous post came out somewhat more personally oriented than I intended.

Granted, given the...somewhat apocalyptic...rhetoric that you often engage with, I do sometimes wonder if you might not be more comfortable being armed. But that decision is a very personal one, and a whole lot of factors go into it. I trust you are making the correct choice for you.

My confusion stems more from the anti-gun stance of the American Left as a whole, which seems to run very deep from what I can tell, and leaves me very confused. Most Leftist I know think that our current system is steeped in violence and subjugation, with virtually no hope of significant political reform - which to my mind leaves guns as a very important contingency plan. And there are a FEW armed Leftists....but very, very few.

[Makeshift Python]

Admiral X, that number was so tiny as to NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. And it didn't stop the destruction left behind when the enemies they pissed off came knocking. There are ways to resist what they government tells you without force of arms.

It is a strawman. I am hard-line on certain things. What does that say about me?

That you would bend the knee where others would not.

Seemed to work for other countries where citizens stopped prioritizing guns. Of course, I'm sure hard lining gun enthusiasts view them as "cowards" that "gave up their freedom" to bear arms or whatever nonsense.

[Yukaphile]

"Somewhat apocalyptic rhetoric" pretty much sums up the hard left in general. Hell, same applies to the hard right too.