Reagan banned open carry because people he disagreed with politically (Black Panthers) started marching down streets with AR15s…
I’ve still never seen police escalte to violence when protesters open carry rifles, even if they’re ordered to, they won’t because they’re outnumbered.
And before someone brings up MOVE, that’s what happens when police isolate one group alone and surround them.
To quote Boots Riley:
They got the TV, we got the truth
They own the judges and we got the proof
We got hella people, they got helicopters
They got the bombs and we got the, we got the…
We got the guillotine
But no oligarch ever just threw in the towel, without an armed populace a guillotine is just performance art.
“But no oligarch ever just threw in the towel, without an armed populace a guillotine”
I can only think of one revolution where this happened where it wasn’t just one wealthy side killing the other like during the French revolution, American Revolution, Chinese Revolution, etc.
That is the Haitian revolution. The only truly revolutionary revolution. It now has one of the largest wealth gaps in the world and is extremely corrupt soooo…
Historically, untrained peasantry is no match for a professional army. I’m not saying arming the population is worthless, but the armed masses rising up against a non-figurative army of disciplined professional kills has essentially never panned out. That is a pipe dream, which, at least in my country, has historically been parroted by right-wing morons. They can make subduing them costly through guerilla tactics, but without regulars, it’s just not a winning proposition. Every successful revolution has trained up a professional army as soon as they could, armed with something a bit more uniform than “whatever weapons people happen to own”. The National Guard in France, the Red Army in Russia, the Continental Army in America, the People’s Liberation Army in China, literally no revolution succeeds by just having randos with guns overthrow the government. A revolution will need either resources and training from the outside, or a man on the inside who can turn the state’s resources against it. That is, respectively, (1) a civil war, or (2) a coup d’état.
The goal in such a scenario isn’t to fight the army. It’s to kill the people in charge of the army. We don’t send all the soldiers to the guillotine during a revolution, just the king and his court.
That doesn’t really do much, does it? Sure, you can get your revenge against those in charge, but all it does is create a power vacuum. And now instead of fighting one army, you’re fighting ten. Good luck even having a country after that. This is a lesson the Americans learn the hard way in the Middle East, over and over again.
And now instead of fighting one army, you’re fighting ten. Good luck even having a country after that.
Pretty easy in fact, just ask china. Well there was one Island that cried to mommy and was a fascist dictatorship protected by the US for half a century before “democratic” reforms came in (incidentally after all the natives of that island died and the only people left were descendants of the fascist dictatorship that fled there.
This is a lesson the Americans learn the hard way in the Middle East, over and over again.
No, the lesson Americans keep learning is there is no revolution without popular support. You cannot coup your way to a popular and favorable government. Because popular governments never align with American interests outside the quite literally evil west. Popular governments in the rest of the world are socialist or communist, because they actually are democracies and care about the quality of life of their populace, while also caring about all other humans. Unlike all western governments.
but the armed masses rising up against a non-figurative army of disciplined professional kills has essentially never panned out.
There’s a lot that can be done with guns without overthrowing the government, but also I can name Syria and Yemen in the 21st century alone, and beyond that this is basically what Latin American Caudillos did.
The National Guard in France, the Red Army in Russia, the Continental Army in America, the People’s Liberation Army in China, literally no revolution succeeds by just having randos with guns overthrow the government.
I don’t know about China, but Russia’s Red Army and France’s National Guard both started out as randos with guns. Any rebel army will have to organize itself like an army, but what does that have to do with your argument?
That is, respectively, (1) a civil war, or (2) a coup d’état.
Revolutions can intersect with both of these things.
You love your commie fantasies of heroically killing each other when all you ever do is kill the peaceful productive academic liberals. Same old authoritarian lies
Reagan banned open carry because people he disagreed with politically (Black Panthers) started marching down streets with AR15s…
I’ve still never seen police escalte to violence when protesters open carry rifles, even if they’re ordered to, they won’t because they’re outnumbered.
And before someone brings up MOVE, that’s what happens when police isolate one group alone and surround them.
To quote Boots Riley:
But no oligarch ever just threw in the towel, without an armed populace a guillotine is just performance art.
“But no oligarch ever just threw in the towel, without an armed populace a guillotine”
I can only think of one revolution where this happened where it wasn’t just one wealthy side killing the other like during the French revolution, American Revolution, Chinese Revolution, etc.
That is the Haitian revolution. The only truly revolutionary revolution. It now has one of the largest wealth gaps in the world and is extremely corrupt soooo…
Historically, untrained peasantry is no match for a professional army. I’m not saying arming the population is worthless, but the armed masses rising up against a non-figurative army of disciplined professional kills has essentially never panned out. That is a pipe dream, which, at least in my country, has historically been parroted by right-wing morons. They can make subduing them costly through guerilla tactics, but without regulars, it’s just not a winning proposition. Every successful revolution has trained up a professional army as soon as they could, armed with something a bit more uniform than “whatever weapons people happen to own”. The National Guard in France, the Red Army in Russia, the Continental Army in America, the People’s Liberation Army in China, literally no revolution succeeds by just having randos with guns overthrow the government. A revolution will need either resources and training from the outside, or a man on the inside who can turn the state’s resources against it. That is, respectively, (1) a civil war, or (2) a coup d’état.
The goal in such a scenario isn’t to fight the army. It’s to kill the people in charge of the army. We don’t send all the soldiers to the guillotine during a revolution, just the king and his court.
That doesn’t really do much, does it? Sure, you can get your revenge against those in charge, but all it does is create a power vacuum. And now instead of fighting one army, you’re fighting ten. Good luck even having a country after that. This is a lesson the Americans learn the hard way in the Middle East, over and over again.
Pretty easy in fact, just ask china. Well there was one Island that cried to mommy and was a fascist dictatorship protected by the US for half a century before “democratic” reforms came in (incidentally after all the natives of that island died and the only people left were descendants of the fascist dictatorship that fled there.
No, the lesson Americans keep learning is there is no revolution without popular support. You cannot coup your way to a popular and favorable government. Because popular governments never align with American interests outside the quite literally evil west. Popular governments in the rest of the world are socialist or communist, because they actually are democracies and care about the quality of life of their populace, while also caring about all other humans. Unlike all western governments.
It’s not that a trained military is stronger than a makeshift opposition it’s that a trained military isn’t 100% effective.
Well, what do you mean by “100% effective”? Effective in doing what?
I’m not really contradicting what you said. I’m just adding more to it.
There’s a lot that can be done with guns without overthrowing the government, but also I can name Syria and Yemen in the 21st century alone, and beyond that this is basically what Latin American Caudillos did.
I don’t know about China, but Russia’s Red Army and France’s National Guard both started out as randos with guns. Any rebel army will have to organize itself like an army, but what does that have to do with your argument?
Revolutions can intersect with both of these things.
Also the red army kinda came after the revolution. The randoms with the guns are what pulled it off first.
You love your commie fantasies of heroically killing each other when all you ever do is kill the peaceful productive academic liberals. Same old authoritarian lies