Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Except that revolutionaries have in fact done exactly what Valrifell is describing, and in fact succeeded? What you are describing is objectively wrong, when analyzed from a historical and tactical standpoint.

Not if the military bombs all areas where the rebels could be hiding or getting support from.

Good job, you just bombed all your own cities and made them even more popular.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Except that revolutionaries have in fact done exactly what Valrifell is describing, and in fact succeeded? What you are describing is objectively wrong, when analyzed from a historical and tactical standpoint.

Not if the military bombs all areas where the rebels could be hiding or getting support from.

Rebels are being bombed as we speak, and they are still rebelling.

[Valrifell]

Except that revolutionaries have in fact done exactly what Valrifell is describing, and in fact succeeded? What you are describing is objectively wrong, when analyzed from a historical and tactical standpoint.

Not if the military bombs all areas where the rebels could be hiding or getting support from.

There have been successful insurgencies and revolutions in spite of air superiority, though?

[Ardoki]

Not if the military bombs all areas where the rebels could be hiding or getting support from.

There have been successful insurgencies and revolutions in spite of air superiority, though?

In a modern developed country?

[Valrifell]

There have been successful insurgencies and revolutions in spite of air superiority, though?

In a modern developed country?

Not quite sure how that would change things all that much.

[Torrocca]

Guerrilla movements can be quite a fearsome thing over time.



There's a reason the police are rapidly militarizing in America.



There's plenty of valid reasons even beyond the idea that there should be an armed civilian presence that can combat a state's potential for tyranny. Plenty of people need to hunt for survival, for starters, for reasons such as being physically isolated from a greater part of society or so on. There's places that people live that are dangerous enough to warrant a strong means of self-defense, which is extremely more affordable than the oft-touted, "why don't they just move to a better place?" Having a gun makes it easier for parents, too, to teach their children safe and responsible firearm usage and ownership. Those are just three examples, but there's plenty more.

I can't see guerrilla movements in developed countries happening any time soon, save an apocalypse of some sort. The armed forces of developed countries have great equipment, great infrastructure, great organisation, great communication, and great command. Any rebel force will be crushed in short order.

If a major revolution broke out in America (assume, for the sake of argument's sake, that it's a legitimate revolution happening because of some huge event or a multitude of smaller events that have driven the general populace to desperation), the military will lose the means to repair and resupply their equipment, will lose most of their infrastructure, will suffer a huge degradation to their organization as soldiers, sailors, and air personnel join the ranks of the revolutions, lose communication because of the aforementioned situation, lose command elements as generals legitimatize the revolution for whatever reason that drove them into its arms, and so on.

Hell, the War in Afghanistan went on for nearly two decades, and all that's really happened is a resurgence in Taliban numbers and operations across the country, for one modern example of an insurgency not being, "crushed in short order," as you suggest, and they're mostly not even hitting those marks I mentioned above.

[West Leas Oros 2]

In a modern developed country?

Not quite sure how that would change things all that much.

Especially since quite a lot of the military would likely desert and join the rebels.

[Ardoki]

I can't see guerrilla movements in developed countries happening any time soon, save an apocalypse of some sort. The armed forces of developed countries have great equipment, great infrastructure, great organisation, great communication, and great command. Any rebel force will be crushed in short order.

If a major revolution broke out in America (assume, for the sake of argument's sake, that it's a legitimate revolution happening because of some huge event or a multitude of smaller events that have driven the general populace to desperation), the military will lose the means to repair and resupply their equipment, will lose most of their infrastructure, will suffer a huge degradation to their organization as soldiers, sailors, and air personnel join the ranks of the revolutions, lose communication because of the aforementioned situation, lose command elements as generals legitimatize the revolution for whatever reason that drove them into its arms, and so on.

Hell, the War in Afghanistan went on for nearly two decades, and all that's really happened is a resurgence in Taliban numbers and operations across the country, for one modern example of an insurgency not being, "crushed in short order," as you suggest, and they're mostly not even hitting those marks I mentioned above.

That isn't a realistic scenario though. There is no revolution on the horizon.

[Ardoki]

Not quite sure how that would change things all that much.

Especially since quite a lot of the military would likely desert and join the rebels.

Why? Why would they join forces of chaos seeking to cause countless deaths and untold suffering?

[West Leas Oros 2]

If a major revolution broke out in America (assume, for the sake of argument's sake, that it's a legitimate revolution happening because of some huge event or a multitude of smaller events that have driven the general populace to desperation), the military will lose the means to repair and resupply their equipment, will lose most of their infrastructure, will suffer a huge degradation to their organization as soldiers, sailors, and air personnel join the ranks of the revolutions, lose communication because of the aforementioned situation, lose command elements as generals legitimatize the revolution for whatever reason that drove them into its arms, and so on.

Hell, the War in Afghanistan went on for nearly two decades, and all that's really happened is a resurgence in Taliban numbers and operations across the country, for one modern example of an insurgency not being, "crushed in short order," as you suggest, and they're mostly not even hitting those marks I mentioned above.

That isn't a realistic scenario though. There is no revolution on the horizon.

Whether or not there is a revolution on the horizon, it’s still advisable that the populace bear arms.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Especially since quite a lot of the military would likely desert and join the rebels.

Why? Why would they join forces of chaos seeking to cause countless deaths and untold suffering?

Because the government would likely be spreading chaos, death and suffering? It’s not uncommon for military forces to support rebels, either privately or publicly expressing these opinions,

[Torrocca]

If a major revolution broke out in America (assume, for the sake of argument's sake, that it's a legitimate revolution happening because of some huge event or a multitude of smaller events that have driven the general populace to desperation), the military will lose the means to repair and resupply their equipment, will lose most of their infrastructure, will suffer a huge degradation to their organization as soldiers, sailors, and air personnel join the ranks of the revolutions, lose communication because of the aforementioned situation, lose command elements as generals legitimatize the revolution for whatever reason that drove them into its arms, and so on.

Hell, the War in Afghanistan went on for nearly two decades, and all that's really happened is a resurgence in Taliban numbers and operations across the country, for one modern example of an insurgency not being, "crushed in short order," as you suggest, and they're mostly not even hitting those marks I mentioned above.

That isn't a realistic scenario though. There is no revolution on the horizon.

The purpose is to assume it's realistic for the sake of argument. We can't talk about hypotheticals if we're just gonna go, "oh, but that'd NEVER happen lolol eggs dee xD!!1!"

[Valrifell]

If a major revolution broke out in America (assume, for the sake of argument's sake, that it's a legitimate revolution happening because of some huge event or a multitude of smaller events that have driven the general populace to desperation), the military will lose the means to repair and resupply their equipment, will lose most of their infrastructure, will suffer a huge degradation to their organization as soldiers, sailors, and air personnel join the ranks of the revolutions, lose communication because of the aforementioned situation, lose command elements as generals legitimatize the revolution for whatever reason that drove them into its arms, and so on.

Hell, the War in Afghanistan went on for nearly two decades, and all that's really happened is a resurgence in Taliban numbers and operations across the country, for one modern example of an insurgency not being, "crushed in short order," as you suggest, and they're mostly not even hitting those marks I mentioned above.

That isn't a realistic scenario though. There is no revolution on the horizon.

The probability of a revolution is irrelevant to the current discussion point of the possible usefulness of an armed population.

[Ardoki]

That isn't a realistic scenario though. There is no revolution on the horizon.

Whether or not there is a revolution on the horizon, it’s still advisable that the populace bear arms.

You see? This is why civilians shouldn't have access to guns. It can cause so much trouble.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Whether or not there is a revolution on the horizon, it’s still advisable that the populace bear arms.

You see? This is why civilians shouldn't have access to guns. It can cause so much trouble.

Then maybe the problem is the civilians and not the guns?

[Ardoki]

You see? This is why civilians shouldn't have access to guns. It can cause so much trouble.

Then maybe the problem is the civilians and not the guns?

Yes. Perhaps they need to be pacified.

[An Infinity Gauntlet]

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED. Finally, my dream of socialist monarchism will strive on the American front.

I don’t really think THAT many liberals are arguing for a complete gun ban so most liberals can be seen as “pro-second amendment” in some way. Though I disagree on forming militias along political lines seeing how it’s a splendid way to start Game of Thrones-esq political militias fighting each other for influence. Can’t we form militias on like... “let’s show off our cool guns and shoot at the range” and less “beating each other for wrong think”?

[Torrocca]

Then maybe the problem is the civilians and not the guns?

Yes. Perhaps they need to be pacified.

Or, better yet, you should advocate for fixing their problems to prevent violence?

[Ardoki]

Yes. Perhaps they need to be pacified.

Or, better yet, you should advocate for fixing their problems to prevent violence?

Why not both?

But yeah, a centre-left social democratic economy shall solve all problems. Workers and corporations existing in harmony for innovation and prosperity.

[Torrocca]

Or, better yet, you should advocate for fixing their problems to prevent violence?

Why not both?

But yeah, a centre-left social democratic economy shall solve all problems. Workers and corporations existing in harmony for innovation and prosperity.

DELET THIS IMMEDIATELY

[West Leas Oros 2]

Or, better yet, you should advocate for fixing their problems to prevent violence?

Why not both?

But yeah, a centre-left social democratic economy shall solve all problems. Workers and corporations existing in harmony for innovation and prosperity.

Except that it won’t. The two classes are directly in opposition to each other. Social democracy would be unstable, because it would be a capitalist system that restricts profits. Welfare and a safety net does not stop the underlying root of poverty, merely alleviates the symptoms.

[Ardoki]

Why not both?

But yeah, a centre-left social democratic economy shall solve all problems. Workers and corporations existing in harmony for innovation and prosperity.

Except that it won’t. The two classes are directly in opposition to each other. Social democracy would be unstable, because it would be a capitalist system that restricts profits. Welfare and a safety net does not stop the underlying root of poverty, merely alleviates the symptoms.

As long as the symptoms are alleviated. All is fine.

I live in Australia, which isn't even a social democracy, and our living standard is quite high. A mixed economy is a good balance between equality and prosperity.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Except that it won’t. The two classes are directly in opposition to each other. Social democracy would be unstable, because it would be a capitalist system that restricts profits. Welfare and a safety net does not stop the underlying root of poverty, merely alleviates the symptoms.

As long as the symptoms are alleviated. All is fine.

I live in Australia, which isn't even a social, and our living standard is quite high. A mixed economy is a good balance between equality and prosperity.

If you are diseased, do you want it removed? Or merely lessen the intensity? And prosperity and equality are not mutually exclusive.

[Ardoki]

As long as the symptoms are alleviated. All is fine.

I live in Australia, which isn't even a social, and our living standard is quite high. A mixed economy is a good balance between equality and prosperity.

If you are diseased, do you want it removed? Or merely lessen the intensity? And prosperity and equality are not mutually exclusive.

If the cure is worse than the disease, then alleviating the symptoms is the best choice.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Australia has a higher living standard than places like North Korea.

[Torrocca]

If you are diseased, do you want it removed? Or merely lessen the intensity? And prosperity and equality are not mutually exclusive.

If the cure is worse than the disease, then alleviating the symptoms is the best choice.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Australia has a higher living standard than places like North Korea.

North Korea's pretty much the quintessential, "we call ourselves Socialist but we're really not," state. They've got more in common with monarchism than Socialism, ffs.