Who you gonna shoot to fix this situation? Seriously, though. What person needs bullets in their body so that your worker rights are protected? I want names.
Where I live, when police think there might be firearms, there are police snipers. Armed protested don’t get tear gassed, they get shot.
You can’t be armed all the time. How many Black Panthers died in their sleep, again? When you take up violent means, you invite violent means. (No disrespect intended. Black power.)
Your guns cannot protect you from tyranny or even from another asshole with another gun. They are serving as a psychological security blanket against an intolerably overbearing power imbalance. The only thing we have that can match the power of the state is collectivism.
And that’s a justification for rolling over and doing nothing? In the US, armed protests don’t usually get messed with because open carry isn’t illegal everywhere. Hell, Ronnie Reagan banned open carry in California exactly because the Black Panthers were copwatching with guns and the kkkops didn’t like it.
That doesn’t even attempt to address my point. You’re not saying that taking up violent means wouldn’t make the problems you bring up even worse. You need to say that part. So I can show that you are wrong.
But you’re not disagreeing. Tell me what you disagree with about my statement: When you take up violent means, you invite violent means. Aren’t you using the state’s violence as an invitation to reply with violence?
You’re reading that in. I never said violence has to be invited, just because it can be. I did not say something like, “if you never invite it you never suffer it.” You’re disagreeing with something that was never said.
Who you gonna shoot to fix this situation? Seriously, though. What person needs bullets in their body so that your worker rights are protected? I want names.
Trump would be a good start. Hegseth. Literally any ICE agent. Vance. Peter Theil. There are plenty of targets.
You do, actually. Armed protests don’t get attacked or tear gassed by police. Also, look up the battle of Blair Mountain.
Where I live, when police think there might be firearms, there are police snipers. Armed protested don’t get tear gassed, they get shot.
You can’t be armed all the time. How many Black Panthers died in their sleep, again? When you take up violent means, you invite violent means. (No disrespect intended. Black power.)
Your guns cannot protect you from tyranny or even from another asshole with another gun. They are serving as a psychological security blanket against an intolerably overbearing power imbalance. The only thing we have that can match the power of the state is collectivism.
And that’s a justification for rolling over and doing nothing? In the US, armed protests don’t usually get messed with because open carry isn’t illegal everywhere. Hell, Ronnie Reagan banned open carry in California exactly because the Black Panthers were copwatching with guns and the kkkops didn’t like it.
If that is your reading of my comment, then I’m not interested in trying to correct you.
They’re already shooting us, armed and unarmed alike.
That doesn’t even attempt to address my point. You’re not saying that taking up violent means wouldn’t make the problems you bring up even worse. You need to say that part. So I can show that you are wrong.
I’m addressing the part with which I disagree. The violence is here whether we literally fight back or not.
But you’re not disagreeing. Tell me what you disagree with about my statement: When you take up violent means, you invite violent means. Aren’t you using the state’s violence as an invitation to reply with violence?
The need for an invitation. It’s going to escalate from here no matter what.
You’re reading that in. I never said violence has to be invited, just because it can be. I did not say something like, “if you never invite it you never suffer it.” You’re disagreeing with something that was never said.