• vpol@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Whenever I ask people in the US why they need so many guns, they say it’s to defend against government tyranny.

    So… how does it work for you guys?

    • hope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      3 days ago

      The ones who say that are for government tyranny when it’s the tyrants they like in power.

      • Soulg@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m almost more angry that we have to keep saying this same fucking thing multiple times a day

      • Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 days ago

        I think we’ve known for a while their guns are for the minorities, including but not limited to the poor. There are places where one can walk around with a concealed pistol or openly carrying a semiautomatic rifle, but not a 6-inch knife on one’s belt. It’s pretty telling.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        for government tyranny when it’s the tyrants they like in power.

        Why are so many gun-owners short-sighted and self-centered?

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      The non-GOP party spent the last 40 years demonizing guns and disarming themselves.

      That’s how it worked out.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          The point of an armed populace in term of protecting freedoms is for the people to have enough combined firepower to make tyranny impractical. It’s been proven time and again that an armed citizen insurgency can defeat the US military.

          If 150,000 armed Democrats in Minneapolis started taking pot shots at ICE any time they saw them, there would be nothing the Trump admin could do short of nuking the city.

          But if I had been there on Tuesday with my gun and started shooting at ICE by myself, all I’d have accomplished is getting myself killed and giving Trump more ammunition.

          • sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            You don’t have to take the entire military. You just have to have a critical mass of gun ownership that makes them too afraid to deploy. I know we have a whole propoganda ethos around this but our country doesn’t actually mobilize against anyone with a proportional likelihood of shooting back.

            • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Yeah - and the non-GOP side of the political spectrum doesn’t have that critical mass because the “left” side of the country disarmed itself.

              • sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Yeah. Yeah they did. I spent the last decade trying to convince leftists that we need to back up civil rights with the risk of mortal violence but I’m pretty sure I convinced no one. Maybe there’s a certain factor of wanting to be victimized by power, I don’t know.