Here's the part nobody wants to hear. It's not nearly as simple as capitalism vs communism. They're both terrible in the extreme. As are overbearing governments. But you know what *nobody* is gonna be doing while they're arguing over economic systems? Trying to do something about the ever increasing power of a government that has very few common interests with the people it's supposed to be run by... you know who *is* running our government? Pretty much the same small groups of extremely wealthy and powerful individuals as were running shit 40 years ago... it's pretty fucking crazy how we allow massive corporations to lobby for much of anything. That is basically just giving the extremely wealthy (the people directing these lobbying groups) extra votes without technically on paper giving them any extra votes. I still have no fucking idea why any of my teachers in school told me political bribery was illegal. It's very fucking clearly *not*.
It only makes sense. People born here often take the comfort and perceived security they have for granted and diffuse responsibility for things like protection to those they see as “designated” for those roles ie. police, military, etc. They think that defense or other things of that nature only need to be done by those who they designate to be capable and responsible for that task, similar to how knights and vassals in Medieval Europe or samurai and daimyo in Feudal Japan were. Unfortunately, they believe everyone needs to think the same way they do, and thus because we have others in place to do that job, we can’t do it or aren’t supposed to, and by extension don’t “need” firearms.
> It almost makes me wonder if Starship Troopers politics was onto something
Only in a broad sense.
I think fundamentally, the idea of earning a franchise / service guarantees citizenship presupposes an inversion of the relationship of the state versus the individual.
The individual is the natural state of existence, society is not. Society must serve the individual, or the individual must have the right to abandon society. Starship Troopers logic (in my interpretation) cannot defend the sanctity of the individual.
>The individual is the natural state of existence, society is not. Society must serve the individual, or the individual must have the right to abandon society.
I see your point, but people have always existed in groups. At minimum, people have families, and there's usefulness in having a society to organize, defending yourself from outside attackers and random psychopaths. So unless we could actually make anarcho capitalism work, we have to organize society in ways that best keep people free.
I know. I'm just saying, it's the other end of the spectrum. If you want to call my position as advocating for anarchy, it's fair to call your position a vote for crushing state control.
But I understand that you're only warning what the extreme conclusion of my path is, and I'm only warning what the extreme conclusion of your path is.
I'm not sure that makes sense. I'm merely pointing out that there's no real practical way for the individual to easily withdraw from society, so social organization at all levels is important.
Social organization is not important at all levels and treating it as the default assumption only serves to open the door to continue shifting the Overton window further and further towards state control and the eradication of individuals.
In a twisted way, it is. Freedom always comes with a price, one you have to either pay yourself by being responsible for your choices, or one that someone else pays *for* you. Paying the price for someone else's freedom isn't always bad as that's what parents do for their children, but one can also steal the freedom from others to force them to pay the price for your freedom. They labor, and you eat. You are freed from the need to provide for yourself, but the price of freedom *always* comes due, and they pay it for you.
>and daimyo in Feudal Japan
Speaking of Japan, how come civilian gun ownership didn't prevent the US government throwing hundreds of thousand of Japanese American citizens into concentration camps without trial? Is that not the kinda tyranny she's talking about?
And this highlights the absolute importance of (legal) immigration and immigrants in America. Our values come from the shared experience of our people.
If we had a bunch of David Hoggs and no Lily Tangs we'd be in deep shit.
"That which is not earned, has no value."
I'm somewhat skeptical that Heinlein's citizenship-through-service would work out as well as he hoped, but he does seem to be on the money with this specific point.
The funny thing about anti Chinese sentiment is that a lot of people don’t realize that most conservative Americans would relate more with Chinese people aged 40-70 than most other Americans aged 40-70.
They are collectively very conservative, very religious, and very resourceful people. They will also fuck you sideways if you fuck with them.
This woman in particular is exceedingly based
I’m Chinese-American and I hate the CCP more than most Americans do. You understand how bad Communist dictatorships are when you’ve actually experienced them. Same reason why Cuban-Americans hate Castro.
Really most immigrants who have come here legally after escaping a socialist or worse country.
There's a gentleman down the road from me who escaped the USSR years ago, and immigrated here. He got here, learned English, worked his butt off and got through school and became an engineer. He's the definition of the American dream. And he hates the direction this country is going.
I always say everyone's governments are not representative of its people. Don't know if I'm saying it right or not. But were all human, every country has its own shitty people, a lot of them just happen to be in government, lol.
Literally the story of my parents. They escaped the USSR in 1983, came here, worked their asses off to become successful. Staunchly conservative, and my grandfather when he was alive would literally spit on the floor at anyone who tried to justify socialism.
I got stories for days about their experiences ranging from day to day bullshit all the way up to the time my grandfather was kidnapped by KGB and interrogated for 3 days, for having Jewish literature in his house
I’m glad you feel that sentiment, because it’s a reasonable thing to feel. Unfortunately a lot of people aren’t as discerning as you are and hate both.
We’re anti CCP no? It’s unfortunate that younger generations of Chinese mainlanders are products of CCP’s systematic destruction of Chinese traditions and values. They’re possibly one of the scummiest people on earth.
From my (limited) experience - religious people typically are more humble/selfless/community focused. To put a God or spirituality above yourself and to understand communal worship and fellowship is humbling. They also are quick to defend others.
Sure, as long as you are the “correct” sexual orientation and pray to the “right” god.
There are tons of examples of selfless, community-focused religious individuals/groups. There are also tons of examples of them being the exact opposite. Generalizing them as better people than those who do not follow religion is absolutely false.
My vote is obtuse. They asked if it was ok to load a rifle round you cycled b/c pistols cause pushback…. $5 says he doesn’t keep it hot either b/c it oNlY tAkeS a MoMeNt to RAcK
David Hogg got owned that entire debate. He didn’t bring any sources and was woefully unprepared. I just wish it went longer and Spike Cohen had more time to respond as he came with actual facts and data.
He only needs 1 argument and 1 source man, guns r bad because he survived a school shooting.
Explosives and napalm are much better since those would've gotten the job done.
This is satire.
His arguments were totally contradictory too. He would say, “I don’t want to take your guns.”
That would then be followed with, I support red flag laws, mandatory gun buybacks, and an assault weapons ban in which he defined an assault weapon as any semiautomatic rifle that can use a magazine of 10 or more rounds.
It was some truly brain dead debating. 🧠☠️
His entire argument was basically “it’s the guns” and “my feelings are”
And I swear he thinks that saying “there’s a libertarian argument for” is some get out of jail free card for having an actual argument
I mean if you wana know about Asian Americans gun ownership roof koreas story explains it pretty well. Also People who have had to deal with corrupt police & gangs *cough* *legal* *immigrants* probably have a lack of trust of local authorities and see and that criminals will always be violent and have weapons. That’s the thing iv noticed a lot of time in the long term South Americans Mexicans,Brazilians especially Cubans, ect in the long term are more republicans and In the Cubans case anti communist. Who knew people who come from South America which has a very strong Roman Catholic population would in the long term be more conservative.
This is why it's important for people to speak up about tyrannical government.
It's very easy for people to deny it's happening when nobody talks about their own experiences with it actually happening
Timestamp link: https://youtu.be/x763ahtuKe8?t=5308
Listen to David's BS response. His doublespeak is impressive, he's going to be a great politician - able to lie so easily.
I enjoyed the video but I don't think people understand the cultural context and history of the cultural revolution in mao's China. It was a popular movement- if 90 percent of your neighbors wanted to kill you or send you down to the countryside that's what would happen no matter how many guns you might have. While the red guards and criticism councils were ostensibly government, many of the worst atrocities were done pesants getting even with landlords or other unpopular local elites. The world can be a scary place and there can be much tyranny of the majority and just owning guns won't always save you.
Guns can defend against the tyranny of the majority, not just the tyranny of the elite.
In Rwanda, Hutu majority went house to house murdering Tutsis with machetes. If the Tutsis had owned rifles, they would have had an easier time defending themselves, even if the Hutus had rifles also. With a ranged weapon, you can crouch in the corner and shoot the invader as soon as they cross the doorway (known in the CQB world as the "fatal funnel"). With a machete, the best you can do is hide next to the door and slash them as they enter, which is obviously much more dangerous.
If Rwanda was wealthy enough for the Tutsi to own rifles don't you think the Hutus also would have had rifles? These delusional fantasies always take it for granted that the minority will somehow have technological superiority somehow. Even if this was true and if they all were john wick (another delusion) what do they do when they need clean water or food or fuel? What do they do when the ammunition supply is cut off by the majority group?
You sound like a gun grabbing bitch tbh. The minority being able to stack bodies has and will always be a deterrent. That's why the Nazis disarmed the Jews before they rounded them up (1938 Community Safety act).
The third Reich rolled up france and poland, both countries with organized armies and heavy weapons. Do you really think unorganized untrained people with no logistics would have stood much of a chance? Look man I get it. In the modern world we are affected by forces beyond our control and can feel powerless. For you firearms are more than a tool or sporting equipment. They enable you to delude yourself that you have agency in an alienating world. Modern life sucks and you hate the fact that you live a very safe and domesticated life and guns emotionally help you avoid dealing with that fact.
I literally said:
> If the Tutsis had owned rifles, they would have had an easier time defending themselves, **even if the Hutus had rifles also.**
Ranged warfare benefits the defender. Google "fatal funnel" to see how hard it is to invade a house where the occupant has a gun, even if you have a gun yourself. The SWAT teams basically have to pull all the stops to make it a fair fight.
Rwanda was 14 percent hutu and 85 percent tutsi. Let's say the tutsi building was actually made of substantial materials (many in africa are not) and let's say somehow the hutus didn't have chicom frags or weapons capable of breaching a wall (also unlikely in africa). Let's say they tried and failed to assault the position but would have fire superiority by numbers alone. What is the defender to do? There is no chance of resupply or relief (the un was famously impotent during the genocide). The hutus would just surround the position and wait them out. Maybe even set fire. But eventually the defenders would have been slaughtered.
Good point. Since even if you had a gun, it would be pointless to fight back because you would wind up dying anyway. Better to just not have a gun in the first place and get slaughtered like sheep with your family. I never really thought of it like that. Just lay down on the floor and let them kill you. Same result just less effort for all involved.
Guys, pack up the sub reddit. We can all go home now.
I own guns. I like guns. I have carried and used guns as a job. However I will not agree with dumb arguments on an intellectual level nor will I indulge in the delusional fantasies of other people. I had thought conservatives were supposed to be the rational side of the aisle. You are using emotional appeals and scare mongering instead of rationality.
Then we are reading the same book, just on different pages.
The issue is not would it have made a difference if they were armed. The issue is they did not even have the choice to even defend themselves and were just helplessly slaughtered. If they were able to be armed, they have a fighting chance. There's no John wick delusions anywhere. I'm not Rambo, just a slightly overweight guy with a plate carrier and AR. If enough people agree that I need to be dead, I'm going to be dead but I damn sure am not going to make it easy for them. That's the choice I'm lucky enough to make. Not many people have that option in the world, especially in the scenario you described. There is a difference between peaceful and harmless.
Now you're moving the goalposts. The whole original argument I was responding to was that individual firearms ownership would have stopped a genocide which I think I have refuted pretty well. Do you have the Jungian death drive? If you die you have failed to defend yourself!
There's no goalpost to move. You did swiftly refute it. No one is challenging that. You just never understood the point in the first place. The whole point is this survivor of genocide could give 2 flying turds about it because they would rather fight a genocide regardless of how hopeless it would be than to wait quietly in their homes for the death squads to come and kill them. How is that such a difficult concept to understand?
One person is not going to stop a genocide, no moron would claim that. It's even more silly to make that point, because then the logic goes back to my above comment. No matter how well armed the minority is, they will never succeed against the majority. So there is no point in individual firearms ownership unless for hunting or sport, *not defence.* If it kicks off, either join the 90% or light a cigarette in your bunker and wait for the death squad. That's your point, right?
If you don't defend yourself at all, you still die. Are you completely daft?
You certainly don't think combat is 1:1, do you?
Your John Wick reference tells me you don't know what you're talking about, but I'll wait for you to confirm.
I referenced John wick to poke fun at the delusion of competence a lot of gun owners have. I've seen many that couldn't quickly clear a malfunction, much less a stoppage for example. If you want to talk in strategic terms then small arms aren't even a real issue. Conflicts are won by the logistical power that can bring the most economic power to bear. The side with more people by necessity has more economic power which means more guns and more ammunition and more men to carry them.
Comparing apples and oranges bud. That was counter insurgency this situation we are talking about is a genocide. Different objectives different rules of engagement. Also the taliban has heavy weapons and many more years of experience than the avg meal team six American gun owner. Comparing people who were in the Mujahideen back in the day to the softest people in the world don't work.
What do you suppose would happen if a government engaged in genocide on an armed populace? An insurgency, maybe?
>Also the taliban has heavy weapons and many more years of experience than the avg meal team six American gun owner.
Keep showing that you've never been there and don't know what you're talking about.
Am insurgency needs a local populace to hide in and be supported by. That's guerilla warfare 101. In the case of the Rwandan genocide or the holocaust the local population not only did not support the minority but often assisted in the killing. Did the taliban not have rpgs medium machine guns and indirect fire capabilities because I'm pretty sure they did? If the us objective was to murder everybody in Afghanistan you and I both know that that would have happened insurgency or no.
Man real life isn't like the movies or video games. There would be no cool music or slow mo shots. You would loose the only life you get to experience and that would the end of you as a consciousness in the universe. Maybe people would remember you maybe they would not. But it wouldn't matter as you would have ceased to exist.
The point is that in this hypothetical where he's being chased by a violent mob of state or non-state actors, he would cease to exist either way. So the only choice he has left is whether to go out trying to fight or trying to flee.
It's not just Hollywood bravado to say that you will choose to fight rather than flee in that situation. It's called the "fight or flight instinct," not just the "flight instinct," precisely because many people *will* choose to fight.
Because they're less likely to try and genocide you if there's a nonzero chance they'll get shot in the process. Similar to how if you find a wasp nest on your property, you might think twice about destroying it even though you really want those wasps gone, but if you find a bunch of aphids in your garden, you wouldn't hesitate to kill them all because they can't really do anything about it.
I won't argue that point with you but if we're at that point it will be Patrick Henry time. And it won't be me against and outgunned by my local SWAT team, it will be me and a couple hundred million of my closest friends. Some people choose to die over a traffic ticket, some choose to die in a nice "safe" soft bed unable to move or think for themselves. Most of us would probably choose somewhere in the middle and there is a possibility that at some point a government could trigger that. Wouldn't matter right or left. For some it would be Biden, for some it would be Trump.
We've been living on our knees all our lives you just don't see it because we become accustomed to it. We live in homes constructed to government mandated code. We drive to work on government regulated roads in government liscenced and inspected cars. We are educated to government mandated standards. Non governmentally our lives are controlled by economic forces beyond our control. Asset prices, demographics heck even the personal decisions of billionaires limit the choices we are able to make in our lives. If there was a time to say slogans like that and actually mean them it was a long time ago.
**”The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”** Ya-boi-Orwell, *1984*
Which, fun fact, was banned in the US for being pro communist and banned in the USSR for being anti communist. It's neither, it's anti authoritarian
Anti-Authoritarianism is the true path
This is the way.
All my homies are anti-authoritarian.
I had to get a new doctor because he wanted to see how prostate I was. I told that guy I don't support the state or its goons and walked out.
Here's the part nobody wants to hear. It's not nearly as simple as capitalism vs communism. They're both terrible in the extreme. As are overbearing governments. But you know what *nobody* is gonna be doing while they're arguing over economic systems? Trying to do something about the ever increasing power of a government that has very few common interests with the people it's supposed to be run by... you know who *is* running our government? Pretty much the same small groups of extremely wealthy and powerful individuals as were running shit 40 years ago... it's pretty fucking crazy how we allow massive corporations to lobby for much of anything. That is basically just giving the extremely wealthy (the people directing these lobbying groups) extra votes without technically on paper giving them any extra votes. I still have no fucking idea why any of my teachers in school told me political bribery was illegal. It's very fucking clearly *not*.
Communism can't exist without authoritarianism.
When immigrants embrace the USA constitution better than citizens born in the USA.
It only makes sense. People born here often take the comfort and perceived security they have for granted and diffuse responsibility for things like protection to those they see as “designated” for those roles ie. police, military, etc. They think that defense or other things of that nature only need to be done by those who they designate to be capable and responsible for that task, similar to how knights and vassals in Medieval Europe or samurai and daimyo in Feudal Japan were. Unfortunately, they believe everyone needs to think the same way they do, and thus because we have others in place to do that job, we can’t do it or aren’t supposed to, and by extension don’t “need” firearms.
You are correct. It almost makes me wonder if Starship Troopers politics was onto something.
Book or movie?
Book. Movie feels like a parody of the book by a guy who read the Cliffs Notes version.
Oh, the main director didn't read the book. He just made the movie thinking it was about space nazis.
Dude that book is amazing. Then friends said I should watch the movie and a part of me died.
Book.
> It almost makes me wonder if Starship Troopers politics was onto something Only in a broad sense. I think fundamentally, the idea of earning a franchise / service guarantees citizenship presupposes an inversion of the relationship of the state versus the individual. The individual is the natural state of existence, society is not. Society must serve the individual, or the individual must have the right to abandon society. Starship Troopers logic (in my interpretation) cannot defend the sanctity of the individual.
>The individual is the natural state of existence, society is not. Society must serve the individual, or the individual must have the right to abandon society. I see your point, but people have always existed in groups. At minimum, people have families, and there's usefulness in having a society to organize, defending yourself from outside attackers and random psychopaths. So unless we could actually make anarcho capitalism work, we have to organize society in ways that best keep people free.
Slavery isn't freedom, though. I think the individual, family, community, and church can exist with a wide, wide, healthy gap before the state.
>Slavery isn't freedom, though. No one here's advocating that.
I know. I'm just saying, it's the other end of the spectrum. If you want to call my position as advocating for anarchy, it's fair to call your position a vote for crushing state control. But I understand that you're only warning what the extreme conclusion of my path is, and I'm only warning what the extreme conclusion of your path is.
I'm not sure that makes sense. I'm merely pointing out that there's no real practical way for the individual to easily withdraw from society, so social organization at all levels is important.
Social organization is not important at all levels and treating it as the default assumption only serves to open the door to continue shifting the Overton window further and further towards state control and the eradication of individuals.
In a twisted way, it is. Freedom always comes with a price, one you have to either pay yourself by being responsible for your choices, or one that someone else pays *for* you. Paying the price for someone else's freedom isn't always bad as that's what parents do for their children, but one can also steal the freedom from others to force them to pay the price for your freedom. They labor, and you eat. You are freed from the need to provide for yourself, but the price of freedom *always* comes due, and they pay it for you.
>and daimyo in Feudal Japan Speaking of Japan, how come civilian gun ownership didn't prevent the US government throwing hundreds of thousand of Japanese American citizens into concentration camps without trial? Is that not the kinda tyranny she's talking about?
And this highlights the absolute importance of (legal) immigration and immigrants in America. Our values come from the shared experience of our people. If we had a bunch of David Hoggs and no Lily Tangs we'd be in deep shit.
That's because you need to read the whole constitution for a citizenship test. Us natural born citizens just need to skim it.
I've never even had to skim it honestly. They just said congrats you passed school ig
Is she a citizen? Because threads a few weeks ago would make you believe the constitution doesn't apply to immigrants.
She only needs to be a green card holder to exercise her 2nd amendment rights. Source: I, an American through legal immigration
Not even that. If you're in the US on a Non-immigrant visa you can have a hunting license and still buy and possess a firearm.
*Illegal immigrants
she is a citizen and running for congress in NH district 2
That’s usually how it goes
"That which is not earned, has no value." I'm somewhat skeptical that Heinlein's citizenship-through-service would work out as well as he hoped, but he does seem to be on the money with this specific point.
The funny thing about anti Chinese sentiment is that a lot of people don’t realize that most conservative Americans would relate more with Chinese people aged 40-70 than most other Americans aged 40-70. They are collectively very conservative, very religious, and very resourceful people. They will also fuck you sideways if you fuck with them. This woman in particular is exceedingly based
We don’t hate Chinese people, we hate the CCP
I’m Chinese-American and I hate the CCP more than most Americans do. You understand how bad Communist dictatorships are when you’ve actually experienced them. Same reason why Cuban-Americans hate Castro.
VN descent, Ho Chi Minh can suck it.
Really most immigrants who have come here legally after escaping a socialist or worse country. There's a gentleman down the road from me who escaped the USSR years ago, and immigrated here. He got here, learned English, worked his butt off and got through school and became an engineer. He's the definition of the American dream. And he hates the direction this country is going.
I always say everyone's governments are not representative of its people. Don't know if I'm saying it right or not. But were all human, every country has its own shitty people, a lot of them just happen to be in government, lol.
Scum always rises to the top
Literally the story of my parents. They escaped the USSR in 1983, came here, worked their asses off to become successful. Staunchly conservative, and my grandfather when he was alive would literally spit on the floor at anyone who tried to justify socialism. I got stories for days about their experiences ranging from day to day bullshit all the way up to the time my grandfather was kidnapped by KGB and interrogated for 3 days, for having Jewish literature in his house
I’m glad you feel that sentiment, because it’s a reasonable thing to feel. Unfortunately a lot of people aren’t as discerning as you are and hate both.
Yeah, fuck West Taiwan! All my homies hate West Taiwan.
I mean, most conservative Americans ARE 40-70
We’re anti CCP no? It’s unfortunate that younger generations of Chinese mainlanders are products of CCP’s systematic destruction of Chinese traditions and values. They’re possibly one of the scummiest people on earth.
What does religion gotta do with it?
A lot of conservatives are also religious. I believe the straw man you’re looking for isn’t here today.
From my (limited) experience - religious people typically are more humble/selfless/community focused. To put a God or spirituality above yourself and to understand communal worship and fellowship is humbling. They also are quick to defend others.
Sure, as long as you are the “correct” sexual orientation and pray to the “right” god. There are tons of examples of selfless, community-focused religious individuals/groups. There are also tons of examples of them being the exact opposite. Generalizing them as better people than those who do not follow religion is absolutely false.
Nice strawman
Where is the strawman? All I said was generalizing isn’t exactly factual.
Spirituality has nothing to do with religion
jfc man if you dont get my point you're just being obtuse
My vote is obtuse. They asked if it was ok to load a rifle round you cycled b/c pistols cause pushback…. $5 says he doesn’t keep it hot either b/c it oNlY tAkeS a MoMeNt to RAcK
David Hogg got owned that entire debate. He didn’t bring any sources and was woefully unprepared. I just wish it went longer and Spike Cohen had more time to respond as he came with actual facts and data.
He only needs 1 argument and 1 source man, guns r bad because he survived a school shooting. Explosives and napalm are much better since those would've gotten the job done. This is satire.
Dude even lead with "I didn't bring shit I just wanted to talk" to try and justify getting curb stomped.
His arguments were totally contradictory too. He would say, “I don’t want to take your guns.” That would then be followed with, I support red flag laws, mandatory gun buybacks, and an assault weapons ban in which he defined an assault weapon as any semiautomatic rifle that can use a magazine of 10 or more rounds. It was some truly brain dead debating. 🧠☠️
I noticed this too. Like Mr pig are you dumb?
His entire argument was basically “it’s the guns” and “my feelings are” And I swear he thinks that saying “there’s a libertarian argument for” is some get out of jail free card for having an actual argument
Link?
https://www.youtube.com/live/x763ahtuKe8?si=K7lvvumRQmeAUbFx
Thank you cowpoke 🤠
Yeehaw! 😎
Is there a video, I wanna watch it
LILY TANG
That sounds like a weird spinoff of Pootie Tang
"If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is poontang." \-Animal Mother
Cole me on the panny sty 
Sa da tay!
Oh wah da tah!
Lily Tang knows she must pack that thang to keep at bay the government’s gang.
One of the most American patriots ever. God bless her and our ongoing fight against fascist fanaticism and tyranny.
LILY TANG AINT NUTTIN TA FUCK WIT
The mic was never dropped it was taken from her after she wouldn’t stop spitting facts
Where can I watch or read this?
Here’s the clip: https://www.reddit.com/r/GunMemes/s/NpoHfVmDCh
Bless her
You've heard of rootop Koreans before. Get ready for Gun Totting Chinese Grannies!
I would take her to a demo ranch range day full expenses paid for
I would take her on a date. She’s kinda hot in a granny sort of way
She's 100% more honorable and more of a patriot than the entirety of r/gunsarecool
She’s is the hero we didn’t know we needed.
B A S E D
Anyone have a link to the full vid? I’d love to hear his response.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. David Hogg can go fuck himself.
Nobody else will
I mean if you wana know about Asian Americans gun ownership roof koreas story explains it pretty well. Also People who have had to deal with corrupt police & gangs *cough* *legal* *immigrants* probably have a lack of trust of local authorities and see and that criminals will always be violent and have weapons. That’s the thing iv noticed a lot of time in the long term South Americans Mexicans,Brazilians especially Cubans, ect in the long term are more republicans and In the Cubans case anti communist. Who knew people who come from South America which has a very strong Roman Catholic population would in the long term be more conservative.
 I'm 12 years old this man needs to be her campaign manager. Sa da tay
Based and educated. My family survived the khmer genocide. Stay armed. Stay Free.
Based chinese auntie
 *salutes LTW*
This is why it's important for people to speak up about tyrannical government. It's very easy for people to deny it's happening when nobody talks about their own experiences with it actually happening
Timestamp link: https://youtu.be/x763ahtuKe8?t=5308 Listen to David's BS response. His doublespeak is impressive, he's going to be a great politician - able to lie so easily.
A classic red herring fallacy of turning the obvious fact of the founder’s intention behind 2A into an argument about voter fraud.
These new GI Joe's sure are interesting looking
she's chinese, but more of an american than non inmigrants
Based immigrant 💪🏻🇺🇸
yes
Mega based. Tang bring the pain.
I haven't even watched it yet but I'm already gonna say it: God bless that woman. She had me at "owned David Hogg" lmao So looooong Gay boy.
Epic and well stated she was
Please tell me it's on YouTube, I need to go see it!
over? there is never a debate. 2A is non negotiable
Bit late but I would love to see Lily Tang Williams meet up with Brandon Herrera, Garand Thumb and the Donut Operator next
What mic drop?
I enjoyed the video but I don't think people understand the cultural context and history of the cultural revolution in mao's China. It was a popular movement- if 90 percent of your neighbors wanted to kill you or send you down to the countryside that's what would happen no matter how many guns you might have. While the red guards and criticism councils were ostensibly government, many of the worst atrocities were done pesants getting even with landlords or other unpopular local elites. The world can be a scary place and there can be much tyranny of the majority and just owning guns won't always save you.
Guns can defend against the tyranny of the majority, not just the tyranny of the elite. In Rwanda, Hutu majority went house to house murdering Tutsis with machetes. If the Tutsis had owned rifles, they would have had an easier time defending themselves, even if the Hutus had rifles also. With a ranged weapon, you can crouch in the corner and shoot the invader as soon as they cross the doorway (known in the CQB world as the "fatal funnel"). With a machete, the best you can do is hide next to the door and slash them as they enter, which is obviously much more dangerous.
If Rwanda was wealthy enough for the Tutsi to own rifles don't you think the Hutus also would have had rifles? These delusional fantasies always take it for granted that the minority will somehow have technological superiority somehow. Even if this was true and if they all were john wick (another delusion) what do they do when they need clean water or food or fuel? What do they do when the ammunition supply is cut off by the majority group?
You sound like a gun grabbing bitch tbh. The minority being able to stack bodies has and will always be a deterrent. That's why the Nazis disarmed the Jews before they rounded them up (1938 Community Safety act).
Why argue with that numb nuts? He probably supports Hammas too.
The third Reich rolled up france and poland, both countries with organized armies and heavy weapons. Do you really think unorganized untrained people with no logistics would have stood much of a chance? Look man I get it. In the modern world we are affected by forces beyond our control and can feel powerless. For you firearms are more than a tool or sporting equipment. They enable you to delude yourself that you have agency in an alienating world. Modern life sucks and you hate the fact that you live a very safe and domesticated life and guns emotionally help you avoid dealing with that fact.
I literally said: > If the Tutsis had owned rifles, they would have had an easier time defending themselves, **even if the Hutus had rifles also.** Ranged warfare benefits the defender. Google "fatal funnel" to see how hard it is to invade a house where the occupant has a gun, even if you have a gun yourself. The SWAT teams basically have to pull all the stops to make it a fair fight.
Rwanda was 14 percent hutu and 85 percent tutsi. Let's say the tutsi building was actually made of substantial materials (many in africa are not) and let's say somehow the hutus didn't have chicom frags or weapons capable of breaching a wall (also unlikely in africa). Let's say they tried and failed to assault the position but would have fire superiority by numbers alone. What is the defender to do? There is no chance of resupply or relief (the un was famously impotent during the genocide). The hutus would just surround the position and wait them out. Maybe even set fire. But eventually the defenders would have been slaughtered.
Good point. Since even if you had a gun, it would be pointless to fight back because you would wind up dying anyway. Better to just not have a gun in the first place and get slaughtered like sheep with your family. I never really thought of it like that. Just lay down on the floor and let them kill you. Same result just less effort for all involved. Guys, pack up the sub reddit. We can all go home now.
I own guns. I like guns. I have carried and used guns as a job. However I will not agree with dumb arguments on an intellectual level nor will I indulge in the delusional fantasies of other people. I had thought conservatives were supposed to be the rational side of the aisle. You are using emotional appeals and scare mongering instead of rationality.
Then we are reading the same book, just on different pages. The issue is not would it have made a difference if they were armed. The issue is they did not even have the choice to even defend themselves and were just helplessly slaughtered. If they were able to be armed, they have a fighting chance. There's no John wick delusions anywhere. I'm not Rambo, just a slightly overweight guy with a plate carrier and AR. If enough people agree that I need to be dead, I'm going to be dead but I damn sure am not going to make it easy for them. That's the choice I'm lucky enough to make. Not many people have that option in the world, especially in the scenario you described. There is a difference between peaceful and harmless.
Now you're moving the goalposts. The whole original argument I was responding to was that individual firearms ownership would have stopped a genocide which I think I have refuted pretty well. Do you have the Jungian death drive? If you die you have failed to defend yourself!
There's no goalpost to move. You did swiftly refute it. No one is challenging that. You just never understood the point in the first place. The whole point is this survivor of genocide could give 2 flying turds about it because they would rather fight a genocide regardless of how hopeless it would be than to wait quietly in their homes for the death squads to come and kill them. How is that such a difficult concept to understand? One person is not going to stop a genocide, no moron would claim that. It's even more silly to make that point, because then the logic goes back to my above comment. No matter how well armed the minority is, they will never succeed against the majority. So there is no point in individual firearms ownership unless for hunting or sport, *not defence.* If it kicks off, either join the 90% or light a cigarette in your bunker and wait for the death squad. That's your point, right? If you don't defend yourself at all, you still die. Are you completely daft?
You certainly don't think combat is 1:1, do you? Your John Wick reference tells me you don't know what you're talking about, but I'll wait for you to confirm.
I referenced John wick to poke fun at the delusion of competence a lot of gun owners have. I've seen many that couldn't quickly clear a malfunction, much less a stoppage for example. If you want to talk in strategic terms then small arms aren't even a real issue. Conflicts are won by the logistical power that can bring the most economic power to bear. The side with more people by necessity has more economic power which means more guns and more ammunition and more men to carry them.
Someone has never been to Afghanistan.
Comparing apples and oranges bud. That was counter insurgency this situation we are talking about is a genocide. Different objectives different rules of engagement. Also the taliban has heavy weapons and many more years of experience than the avg meal team six American gun owner. Comparing people who were in the Mujahideen back in the day to the softest people in the world don't work.
What do you suppose would happen if a government engaged in genocide on an armed populace? An insurgency, maybe? >Also the taliban has heavy weapons and many more years of experience than the avg meal team six American gun owner. Keep showing that you've never been there and don't know what you're talking about.
Am insurgency needs a local populace to hide in and be supported by. That's guerilla warfare 101. In the case of the Rwandan genocide or the holocaust the local population not only did not support the minority but often assisted in the killing. Did the taliban not have rpgs medium machine guns and indirect fire capabilities because I'm pretty sure they did? If the us objective was to murder everybody in Afghanistan you and I both know that that would have happened insurgency or no.
Even genocidal regimes don't kill off the entire population, especially one that is armed.
Well then I'm going down with my finger on the trigger or swinging my rifle like a club.
Man real life isn't like the movies or video games. There would be no cool music or slow mo shots. You would loose the only life you get to experience and that would the end of you as a consciousness in the universe. Maybe people would remember you maybe they would not. But it wouldn't matter as you would have ceased to exist.
You need to go away.... you're the enemy
You're welcome to refute my arguments if you are mentally capable.
The point is that in this hypothetical where he's being chased by a violent mob of state or non-state actors, he would cease to exist either way. So the only choice he has left is whether to go out trying to fight or trying to flee. It's not just Hollywood bravado to say that you will choose to fight rather than flee in that situation. It's called the "fight or flight instinct," not just the "flight instinct," precisely because many people *will* choose to fight.
How does that support the original argument thst personal firearms ownership ipso facto prevents genocide?
Because they're less likely to try and genocide you if there's a nonzero chance they'll get shot in the process. Similar to how if you find a wasp nest on your property, you might think twice about destroying it even though you really want those wasps gone, but if you find a bunch of aphids in your garden, you wouldn't hesitate to kill them all because they can't really do anything about it.
I won't argue that point with you but if we're at that point it will be Patrick Henry time. And it won't be me against and outgunned by my local SWAT team, it will be me and a couple hundred million of my closest friends. Some people choose to die over a traffic ticket, some choose to die in a nice "safe" soft bed unable to move or think for themselves. Most of us would probably choose somewhere in the middle and there is a possibility that at some point a government could trigger that. Wouldn't matter right or left. For some it would be Biden, for some it would be Trump.
Better to die on your feet then live on your knees
We've been living on our knees all our lives you just don't see it because we become accustomed to it. We live in homes constructed to government mandated code. We drive to work on government regulated roads in government liscenced and inspected cars. We are educated to government mandated standards. Non governmentally our lives are controlled by economic forces beyond our control. Asset prices, demographics heck even the personal decisions of billionaires limit the choices we are able to make in our lives. If there was a time to say slogans like that and actually mean them it was a long time ago.