Braindead take, is Biden gonna come to my rescue when some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch?
Sounds like a similar argument to how christofascists justify owning military weapons. It's very disturbing from a European point of view.
The countries with nukes get permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
Maybe once the US has been around for a few more centuries it'll be different. in the meantime, if the crazies are armed you should be too.
That's military not civilians, it seems justified as long as there are authoritarian regimes with imperialist ideas. Completely unrelated to civilians having military weapons. Unless you're saying civilians should have nukes too.
Unarmed protest will not stop putin
...the military will.
Will they though? Last I checked, the EU mostly underfunds their military. They dont even meet nato obligations
This is rapidly changing, all thanks to Putin.
Seems Ukrainian stopped it pretty well without having civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty.
Not true at all. Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.
Because they were expecting a foreign military invasion, it still is military duty.
Nope. A civilian fighting in a war does not make them part of the military. It makes them a civilian fighting in a war.
Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.
regardless of whether this statement is true or not, it would be because they were expecting and preparing themselves for military invasion.
also there was armed conflict already in progress before start of the "3 day special operation".
Not true at all
so completely true after all... 😆
No, you said Ukraine fought Russia back without arming their civilian populace, then tried to walk it back by saying they were expecting an invasion. Yeah, no kidding. But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.
Yes, it is absolutely true that Ukraine fought Russia by having ordinary citizens fighting back with military weapons.
then tried to walk it back
i couldn't have tried to walk anything back for two reasons:
i am not the person you originally replied to.
and
the two statements are not contradictory, so there isn't "taking anything back".
But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.
that is how it works. you are a civilian, until you are given weapons and task to do, such as fight invading armed forces.
how long you were on a army's payroll before is just splitting hair. different para-military and guerilla forces are part of the armed conflicts all over the world.
and from the context of this discussion it is pretty clear that "civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty" refers to some fucking meal team six redneck from some confederate state who only ever saw a war in television and carries his assault rifle to walmart to protect himself against people laughing at his small dick, not people fighting in actual war.
so thanks for playing darling, better luck next time.
No, they were given assault rifles, while not being inducted into the military. That makes them civilians in every sense of the word, and not in the military. Civilians have always fought in wars. That doesn't make them part of the military.
you want to lecture someone on "not considering what i said"? clown
The hell are you talking about? You keep saying that civilians given rifles are suddenly part of the military, but they are NOT.
I asked you what I should do if white supremacists start hanging minorities again, and you completely ignored the question because you've got nothing, and then I guess you directed me here.
I asked you what I should do if white supremacists
white supremacist shouldn't have access to automatic weapons (or preferably any weapons), which is exactly what this debate is about.
And that is not an answer to the question I asked.
Paramilitary is not military.
I asked you, what I should do, if white supremacists, begin lynching minorities. Again. What is your solution to this problem? Not what is your pipe dream for reality?
Seeing how 2A it almost took down a fascist it's getting hard to argue against it.
If you think arming yourself because there are organized fascists in the country is a similar argument to fascists wanting guns to do fascism you're a fascist and nothing less.
Ah, didn't know you would consider most of EU and the developed world to be fascist, thanks for the insult.
You would have been the worst kind of fence sitter right up until the germans boarded in your house. You are a fascist.
Soon to be "our". And not just in America, unfortunately.
I don't think you know what the world is like outside your gun nut bubble.
I don’t think you know what the world is like outside your gun nut bubble.
Then you should probably be a little less judgy about what folks think they need to do to defend themselves within that bubble.
Since you aren't from the US, you may not be aware of Project 2025, but "some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch" is a plausible eventual outcome for many over here if Trump gets in again.
Then you should probably be a little less judgy about what folks think they need to do to defend themselves within that bubble.
no, he shouldn't be. folks in gun nut bubble don't need to defend themselves, they are just gun nuts, that's the whole point of the argument 😆
Hey I've got news for you - all the US is the gun nut bubble, and we all take the impacts from it, whether we own guns or not. You may have heard about our problems with school shootings, for example, or our police who are convinced everyone wants to kill them, and so open fire at the slightest provocation....
hey, i've got news for you as well - more guns is not a solution to the problem. more guns is the problem.
No one seems to get that I'm neither a gun owner nor enthusiast, but go ahead, keep them coming.
Maybe it is because no one cares what you are, and react to what you say.
They should react to what I'm saying and not what they think I am then.
How often are you shot at? Have many enemies trying to kill you? Grow up.
I'm not even a gun owner buddy, but I'm not going to pretend the world is going to stay safe for everyone who isn't (or can't pretend to be) a white cishet christian if Project 2025 comes to pass.
Yeah a ton of people will lose their rights with project 2025, but how does having a gun help you fix that? Are you talking about like civilization declining into groups of people killing each other in the streets?
Have you not followed the context of this discussion that led to this seeming disagreement we're now having? Please note, I am not the commenter in the picture below. I was explaining why someone would have this worry. If you think the worry is invalid or overblown, OK, I don't feel the need to argue with you about it.
I'm saying I dont see how guns will help you there either unless you plan to form your own militia I suppose.
Besides this is all based on unfounded fears, which I prefer not to base my decisions on. Seat belts make sense. Most examples of gun ownership do not.
While owning a gun might make someone feel safer, it absolutely increases the danger for those living in and around the house. I'm sure some situations mitigate that problem, and we could likely license those people to have guns.
Suburban family of four does not need a rifle and handgun for each family member. Its far more likely to hurt someone in the family than to be used in a defensive manner. Besides the fact that guns are stolen ALL THE TIME and then used in violent crimes.
The way we treat guns does not respect the power they provide and the multitude of uses they have, good or bad. People also have some false belief that making guns harder to get and more expensive would only affect legal owners. When a gun on the street goes for 300$ now its far easier to buy than if that same gun was worth 1000$ or 10000$, and contrary to popular belief people with severe mental disorders are not the target customer for a street dealer selling a gun.
If you want an argument about gun ownership you are talking to the wrong guy.
As to the rest - you can read the writing on the wall about what happens in the next Trump presidency or you can ignore it. I can't blame someone for wanting a better chance at self defense under those conditions though.
Gun nut? I'm not replying regarding guns, but the rise of right wing nationalism
Braindead take, is Biden gonna come to my rescue when some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch?
Sounds like a similar argument to how christofascists justify owning military weapons. It's very disturbing from a European point of view.
The countries with nukes get permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
Maybe once the US has been around for a few more centuries it'll be different. in the meantime, if the crazies are armed you should be too.
That's military not civilians, it seems justified as long as there are authoritarian regimes with imperialist ideas. Completely unrelated to civilians having military weapons. Unless you're saying civilians should have nukes too.
Unarmed protest will not stop putin
...the military will.
Will they though? Last I checked, the EU mostly underfunds their military. They dont even meet nato obligations
This is rapidly changing, all thanks to Putin.
Seems Ukrainian stopped it pretty well without having civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty.
Not true at all. Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.
Because they were expecting a foreign military invasion, it still is military duty.
Nope. A civilian fighting in a war does not make them part of the military. It makes them a civilian fighting in a war.
regardless of whether this statement is true or not, it would be because they were expecting and preparing themselves for military invasion.
also there was armed conflict already in progress before start of the "3 day special operation".
so completely true after all... 😆
No, you said Ukraine fought Russia back without arming their civilian populace, then tried to walk it back by saying they were expecting an invasion. Yeah, no kidding. But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.
Yes, it is absolutely true that Ukraine fought Russia by having ordinary citizens fighting back with military weapons.
i couldn't have tried to walk anything back for two reasons:
and
that is how it works. you are a civilian, until you are given weapons and task to do, such as fight invading armed forces.
how long you were on a army's payroll before is just splitting hair. different para-military and guerilla forces are part of the armed conflicts all over the world.
and from the context of this discussion it is pretty clear that "civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty" refers to some fucking meal team six redneck from some confederate state who only ever saw a war in television and carries his assault rifle to walmart to protect himself against people laughing at his small dick, not people fighting in actual war.
so thanks for playing darling, better luck next time.
No, they were given assault rifles, while not being inducted into the military. That makes them civilians in every sense of the word, and not in the military. Civilians have always fought in wars. That doesn't make them part of the military.
you want to lecture someone on "not considering what i said"? clown
The hell are you talking about? You keep saying that civilians given rifles are suddenly part of the military, but they are NOT.
I asked you what I should do if white supremacists start hanging minorities again, and you completely ignored the question because you've got nothing, and then I guess you directed me here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary
white supremacist shouldn't have access to automatic weapons (or preferably any weapons), which is exactly what this debate is about.
And that is not an answer to the question I asked.
Paramilitary is not military.
I asked you, what I should do, if white supremacists, begin lynching minorities. Again. What is your solution to this problem? Not what is your pipe dream for reality?
Seeing how 2A it almost took down a fascist it's getting hard to argue against it.
If you think arming yourself because there are organized fascists in the country is a similar argument to fascists wanting guns to do fascism you're a fascist and nothing less.
Ah, didn't know you would consider most of EU and the developed world to be fascist, thanks for the insult.
You would have been the worst kind of fence sitter right up until the germans boarded in your house. You are a fascist.
The cops will bring the rope.
Source: George floydd protests
Is this what your life is like?
Soon to be "our". And not just in America, unfortunately.
I don't think you know what the world is like outside your gun nut bubble.
Then you should probably be a little less judgy about what folks think they need to do to defend themselves within that bubble.
Since you aren't from the US, you may not be aware of Project 2025, but "some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch" is a plausible eventual outcome for many over here if Trump gets in again.
no, he shouldn't be. folks in gun nut bubble don't need to defend themselves, they are just gun nuts, that's the whole point of the argument 😆
Hey I've got news for you - all the US is the gun nut bubble, and we all take the impacts from it, whether we own guns or not. You may have heard about our problems with school shootings, for example, or our police who are convinced everyone wants to kill them, and so open fire at the slightest provocation....
hey, i've got news for you as well - more guns is not a solution to the problem. more guns is the problem.
https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10259683/mother_jones_gun_deaths_by_state.png
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts
No one seems to get that I'm neither a gun owner nor enthusiast, but go ahead, keep them coming.
Maybe it is because no one cares what you are, and react to what you say.
They should react to what I'm saying and not what they think I am then.
How often are you shot at? Have many enemies trying to kill you? Grow up.
I'm not even a gun owner buddy, but I'm not going to pretend the world is going to stay safe for everyone who isn't (or can't pretend to be) a white cishet christian if Project 2025 comes to pass.
Edit: They are already ramping it up more, as if that were possible. They want to be ready to hit the ground running on Day 1 of Trump's second term. https://www.advocate.com/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-rnc
Yeah a ton of people will lose their rights with project 2025, but how does having a gun help you fix that? Are you talking about like civilization declining into groups of people killing each other in the streets?
Have you not followed the context of this discussion that led to this seeming disagreement we're now having? Please note, I am not the commenter in the picture below. I was explaining why someone would have this worry. If you think the worry is invalid or overblown, OK, I don't feel the need to argue with you about it.
I'm saying I dont see how guns will help you there either unless you plan to form your own militia I suppose.
Besides this is all based on unfounded fears, which I prefer not to base my decisions on. Seat belts make sense. Most examples of gun ownership do not.
While owning a gun might make someone feel safer, it absolutely increases the danger for those living in and around the house. I'm sure some situations mitigate that problem, and we could likely license those people to have guns.
Suburban family of four does not need a rifle and handgun for each family member. Its far more likely to hurt someone in the family than to be used in a defensive manner. Besides the fact that guns are stolen ALL THE TIME and then used in violent crimes.
The way we treat guns does not respect the power they provide and the multitude of uses they have, good or bad. People also have some false belief that making guns harder to get and more expensive would only affect legal owners. When a gun on the street goes for 300$ now its far easier to buy than if that same gun was worth 1000$ or 10000$, and contrary to popular belief people with severe mental disorders are not the target customer for a street dealer selling a gun.
If you want an argument about gun ownership you are talking to the wrong guy.
As to the rest - you can read the writing on the wall about what happens in the next Trump presidency or you can ignore it. I can't blame someone for wanting a better chance at self defense under those conditions though.
Gun nut? I'm not replying regarding guns, but the rise of right wing nationalism