315
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
315 points (94.6% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3472 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In sheer numbers, no.
In general planning, no.
In individual combat?
They’re most likely to have access to arms on an individual level.
They generally occupy positions as police officers.
They generally come from the poorest states where serving in the military is a way to try to escape poverty.
These are some pretty distinct advantages, and as we saw from the Capitol Police debacle, they won’t hesitate to fight for their side when the chips fall regardless of what their sworn oaths to duty and country are.
The sheer stupidity will ensure they can never win. They'll probably start by accidentally fighting each other.
The reason they may seem stronger, is because the right is already militant and they are ruthless sociopaths. In case of a civil war, the left would become militant too.
Just look at how they handle things when shit gets real, they eat each other to save themselves.
I think you're missing out on the observation that the military is mostly democratic. And the lopsided advantage of urban defense. If you watched Georgia military ballot drops, you'd see that. In a civil war, you'd want to be on the side where guns alone don't win wars, and Democratic places would have a upper hand on drones warfare. And then, democratic states would be backed by the support of NATO states as their beliefs are closer.
Wars are won on logistics and, as Ukraine has demonstrated, the new way to fight wars is drone strikes.
So ... learn to pilot, I suppose.
I've never understood why you're average dem is so anti gun. They even continue to push harder on weapon bans during trumps rise. We've been careening towards authoritarianism and they're just like "let's disarm ourselves removing our last ditch effort chance to defend ourselves". Makes no sense
We're seeing greater access to guns leading to greater gun violence, not just death but also injuries to bystanders. I mean, why would we want a solution that works everywhere it's been tried? I can't imagine.
Now, if you're planning for a civil war, yeah. It does seem silly to oppose guns instead of stockpiling them. But we're not trying to provoke a civil war. We're trying to prevent the need for one.
How are you trying to prevent one? By attempting to negotiate with the people pushing for one, when they have proven time and time again that they only want their way or the highway?
The argument of it works everywhere its been tried is nonsensical for the states. We have more guns in circulation than other of the countries you look to. Criminals will continue to obtain guns through illegal means so long as there are guns in circulation. The oasis you dream of can only truly be met by full confiscation of all firearms in the states.
Yes, thank you for succinctly outlining the end goal.
We've got one right here @MotoAsh@lemmy.world . Didn't take long to find one at all
Doesn't look like my attempt to tag a user worked, but I'll leave the comment as is. Banning all firearms is a pipe dream. Focus on the few impactful ways you can legislate improvement to gun control instead.
Just because that's the end goal doesn't mean I expect to land there immediately. There's plenty of commonsense reform that lies between "deregulate all guns" and "eliminate all guns." If we want an end to gun violence, we have to get rid of the guns. QED. That doesn't mean we expect that result all at once. Being honest about what I want most doesn't mean I'm unwilling to accept compromise or work toward it in smaller steps.
But since you seem to be determined to strawman this argument to death, I'll end my participation here.
Social program ensuring free access to Healthcare, mental health treatments, affordable housing, and a minimal standard of living for all citizens would do more to curb violence of all types immediately than fighting inch by inch towards a full gun ban ever will.
By any and every means short of violence. If you'll excuse the metaphor, once that trigger is pulled there's no taking it back. I would like to see us exhaust all other solutions before we assume civil war is inevitable.
By any and every means possible would include rolling over and completely giving in to all their demands and wishes. I'll pass. I will not live under a religious authoritarian rule.
So you're going to assume violence is inevitable and kick off the civil war before we've tried de-escalation? Good to know. Goodbye.
Kick it off? Preparing ones self for the worst case scenario is not starting a civil war. Better to have them and not need them than to wish you had when it's too late. Ammo prices will be skyrocketing in a few months. Better buy while you can afford it.
No one wants bans on all guns, stop pretending.
https://lemmy.one/comment/3539363 "no one"
Stop using generalizations. There are absolutely people that support all weapon bans. If you want to debate, use more accurate language.
It is not a significantly held position. I will not pretend 0.1% of the population should be taken seriously just like I think legislation around trans people is a fucking pathetic waste of time regardless of how you feel on the matter (outside of protecting them, because seriously, stop demonizing a tiny % of the population that's not having a good time as is).