But we’re not talking specifically about protecting children here, I’d agree with you that less guns are better to those ends. For fighting fascism though? It took a lot of gun deaths to unseat Hitler and Mussolini
Sure in a hypothetical alternate reality where the only way to defeat evil is to shoot it. Unfortunately we live in the real world and it just means more dead people.
Maybe I’m feeling cornered, vulnerable, angry, as is often the case with these things. But how do you suggest we protect ourselves and our allies from an evil that strengthens itself off of your sickness, your hunger, your homelessness, and has absolutely no qualms about meeting you with violence and coming up with an excuse later?
Bringing a good argument to a gunfight is unfortunately not a winning strategy. When the fascists have no qualms shooting you simply for being yourself, no amount of peaceful organizing is going to stop them. Peaceful protests and organizing only work because they have the implicit threat of violence if the demands are not met.
Yeah because that is what Martin Luther King Jr. would have wanted. We also have to ignore all the peaceful demonstrations throughout history to believe your line of reasoning.
I totally get you live in a fantasy world where moar guns are the only solution. I guess the good guys just magically kill the bad guys. Glad we got that all worked out.
“If the Negro succumbs to the temptation of using violence in his struggle for justice, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and his chief legacy to the future will be an endless rain of meaningless chaos.”
I heard his words and understood the significance. You pretend he would support a literal genocide on the American people through gun violence. It is sickening really.
Would you like to investigate what the Black Panthers did? The number of times they shot their guns in anger is very small, but having guns was integral to their strategy of protecting the rights of black people being harassed by police. They were so effective that they changed to rules to prevent them from using guns the way they did. There were little more than 100 Black Panthers around at the time.
Perhaps you’d like to have a broader view of history beyond peaceful protests? Peaceful and violent means of protest rarely exist alone, and are rarely effective alone.
India would like a word. I have a very broad view. The difference is people don’t always have to murder each other. In fact, murdering each other rarely brings about the kind a change we need in our society.
On today, the day we celebrate MLK Jr. maybe you could give peace a fucking chance. Tomorrow you can go back to being murderous gun nutter.
This book sometimes gets framed as “this proves non-violent protest is always better”, but its text is far more nuanced than that. For any peaceful group that succeeds, you can find a more violent group working for the same goals. This is so consistent that making an academic case that peaceful protest works in isolation is an impossible task. For MLK, it was groups like the Black Panthers. For Gandhi, it was the Indian National Army.
Fascists would very much like it if you swallowed the idea that peaceful protest on its own is sufficient.
On today, the day we celebrate MLK Jr. maybe you could give peace a fucking chance.
So if we come back tomorrow, do we get to argue without this shield around bad facts?
But we’re not talking specifically about protecting children here, I’d agree with you that less guns are better to those ends. For fighting fascism though? It took a lot of gun deaths to unseat Hitler and Mussolini
Sure in a hypothetical alternate reality where the only way to defeat evil is to shoot it. Unfortunately we live in the real world and it just means more dead people.
Maybe I’m feeling cornered, vulnerable, angry, as is often the case with these things. But how do you suggest we protect ourselves and our allies from an evil that strengthens itself off of your sickness, your hunger, your homelessness, and has absolutely no qualms about meeting you with violence and coming up with an excuse later?
I would not suggest purchasing a gun if you are feeling cornered, vulnerable, and angry. Fear is the mind killer.
I would suggest reaching out to others, talking, getting political, and organizing.
Bringing a good argument to a gunfight is unfortunately not a winning strategy. When the fascists have no qualms shooting you simply for being yourself, no amount of peaceful organizing is going to stop them. Peaceful protests and organizing only work because they have the implicit threat of violence if the demands are not met.
Yeah because that is what Martin Luther King Jr. would have wanted. We also have to ignore all the peaceful demonstrations throughout history to believe your line of reasoning.
I totally get you live in a fantasy world where moar guns are the only solution. I guess the good guys just magically kill the bad guys. Glad we got that all worked out.
Dr Martin Luther King Jr bought himself an arsenal. You may not have heard about that
“If the Negro succumbs to the temptation of using violence in his struggle for justice, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and his chief legacy to the future will be an endless rain of meaningless chaos.”
I heard his words and understood the significance. You pretend he would support a literal genocide on the American people through gun violence. It is sickening really.
And black people have such a great time in the states today!
Would you like to investigate what the Black Panthers did? The number of times they shot their guns in anger is very small, but having guns was integral to their strategy of protecting the rights of black people being harassed by police. They were so effective that they changed to rules to prevent them from using guns the way they did. There were little more than 100 Black Panthers around at the time.
Perhaps you’d like to have a broader view of history beyond peaceful protests? Peaceful and violent means of protest rarely exist alone, and are rarely effective alone.
India would like a word. I have a very broad view. The difference is people don’t always have to murder each other. In fact, murdering each other rarely brings about the kind a change we need in our society.
On today, the day we celebrate MLK Jr. maybe you could give peace a fucking chance. Tomorrow you can go back to being murderous gun nutter.
There were violent groups working for India’s independence against the British.
Which brings me to this: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156837
This book sometimes gets framed as “this proves non-violent protest is always better”, but its text is far more nuanced than that. For any peaceful group that succeeds, you can find a more violent group working for the same goals. This is so consistent that making an academic case that peaceful protest works in isolation is an impossible task. For MLK, it was groups like the Black Panthers. For Gandhi, it was the Indian National Army.
Fascists would very much like it if you swallowed the idea that peaceful protest on its own is sufficient.
So if we come back tomorrow, do we get to argue without this shield around bad facts?