And just like that, we went complete route from “without guns we can’t fight fascism” to “guns are actually completely useless in fighting fascism” in two comments.
Yes, I’m aware that only one of these cases was literal fascism.
You can see my other comment in this chain, but firearms are the “last stand” tools to fight oppression. We’re in the midst of a particularly sensitive stage and, in my opinion, haven’t crossed the “tipping point” where a violent response would be wise or justified.
Bloody hell, are you for fucking real, WWII, seriously? The global war fought by armies has something to do with public having guns?
Fucking Vietnam? US losing a military campaign on the other side of the world is a testament of how useful it is for Americans to have guns? And then american fucking revolution, that I can’t even imagine how to tie in.
I just hope for the sake of sanity that you’re trolling.
I do concede that WWII was not fought and won by armed civilians, I was largely responding to “without guns we can’t fight fascism” and can see that, in the greater context of the thread, that might be less relevant.
I do think the French Resistance would have been better equipped if they hadn’t had to rely on smuggled or captured weapons. A full scale invasion is going to pan out differently when most civilians are able to shoot back or organize into militia.
Vietnam is a testament to the fact that multiple military superpowers can still lose to a lesser armed (but still armed) populace.
And then the american fucking revolution, that I can’t even imagine how to tie in
This is where you really have me stumped and should maybe do some reading into US history, fighting this war is the foundational experience that led to the creation of the second amendment. Here’s a good place to start:
And just like that, we went complete route from “without guns we can’t fight fascism” to “guns are actually completely useless in fighting fascism” in two comments.
US - 1765 to 1784
EU - 1939 to 1945
Vietnam - 1955 to 1975
Yes, I’m aware that only one of these cases was literal fascism.
You can see my other comment in this chain, but firearms are the “last stand” tools to fight oppression. We’re in the midst of a particularly sensitive stage and, in my opinion, haven’t crossed the “tipping point” where a violent response would be wise or justified.
Bloody hell, are you for fucking real, WWII, seriously? The global war fought by armies has something to do with public having guns?
Fucking Vietnam? US losing a military campaign on the other side of the world is a testament of how useful it is for Americans to have guns? And then american fucking revolution, that I can’t even imagine how to tie in.
I just hope for the sake of sanity that you’re trolling.
I do concede that WWII was not fought and won by armed civilians, I was largely responding to “without guns we can’t fight fascism” and can see that, in the greater context of the thread, that might be less relevant. I do think the French Resistance would have been better equipped if they hadn’t had to rely on smuggled or captured weapons. A full scale invasion is going to pan out differently when most civilians are able to shoot back or organize into militia.
Vietnam is a testament to the fact that multiple military superpowers can still lose to a lesser armed (but still armed) populace.
This is where you really have me stumped and should maybe do some reading into US history, fighting this war is the foundational experience that led to the creation of the second amendment. Here’s a good place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord