Highlights: One of the defining features of the rise of American neofascism is violence. This is in no way surprising: violence is one of the primary tools that enemies of democracy use to impose their will, undermine institutions, and prevent the types of consensus-seeking that’s foundational to a healthy democracy and society. Contrary to what right-wing leaders and their disinformation media would like to suggest, this violence is not on “both sides.” The data and other evidence show that political violence and extremism in the Age of Trump (and from the late 1980s to the present more generally) is a phenomenon almost exclusive to the right-wing and “conservative” movement.
National security experts and law enforcement are continuing to warn that right-wing political violence as seen on Jan. 6, in mass shootings and other acts of terrorism, hate crimes, and other such actions – up to an including the possibility of a sustained insurgency to remove President Biden and the Democrats from power – is the greatest threat to the country’s domestic safety and security.
Removed by mod
When “the fascists come knocking” and you pull out one of your guns, you will be made an example of. “They” will come with bigger guns than yours and they will be more than one person and you will quickly realize how silly your idea of fighting back “the fascists” really is. Maybe before you die in your own front door, you’ll have time to realize how your silly idea helped mentally ill people kill kids in schools because guns are so easily available and nobody really wanted to do anything about it. You probably won’t, though, and thus kids will keep being killed in schools because stepping back and questioning the heroic vision of yourself you were told to strive for is unpleasant.
It’s a deterrence thing not a defense thing. The guns aren’t there to stop a fascist raid in progress; they’re there to prevent it from starting in the first place.
Yes, and I’m saying the deterrence is useless when it’s you and your forty guns against a beefed up semi-military police force. If you had thermo-nuclear warheads, that would be a deterrence.
Removed by mod
Your point is dying a meaningless death in an imagined heroic act in an imagined fascist overthrow? Please excuse me for not arguing with that, I wouldn’t know where to start, seeing our diametrically opposed views on the meaning of life in general.
Kids are being killed in schools which is bad. Having guns as easily accessible as they are now helps kids being killed in schools which is bad. Not having guns as easily accessible as they are now would be better.
Do fight back when the imaginary fascist overthrow takes place. Do not make guns easily accessible so someone can kill kids in schools. It’s not that difficult of a concept, really.
How do you think the fascists might be held back? By pointing a useless stick at their army equipment? Grow up. You hold back fascist shit by not letting it take root. The US leaves systemic issues unsolved which benefits fascist shit. “Oh, but it’s our evil politicians, don’t yo-” Then go protest and don’t stop until they do what you tell them to do. Other, allegedly less “free” and “great” countries have done it.
I don’t disagree with the facts, I disagree with your deduction. Protesting and striking now is the way, not preparing for the “inevitable” fascist overthrow somewhere down the line while shrugging off the piles of dead kids.
This sort of this isn’t possible in the US because the police forces are equipped like armies.
Which is why they will come in bigger numbers and equipped with bigger guns. Come on, what would you do in their place? Imagine living in a fascist hellhole and finally the people voted in a left-wing government that is willing to clean up the country of actual fascists. Oh, but the fascists own private guns, you know! Some of them up to 40! Do you think there’s a small possibility you might have a chance with unlimited money and resources at your disposal?
If you’re scared of a fascist overthrow, act now. Don’t watch more kids die just to keep up an illusion.
I know this is a weird way to look at it, but the meaning of that death manifests in the past.
It is before that death that, because it would involve danger to the attacker even if it’s death for the defender, the willingness to die has its effect.
I’m not trying to sound mystical or esoteric here. I’m just trying to use new language to describe the same concept because it just doesn’t get through for some reason.
Like deterrence is one kid saying “If you smash my xbox, I’ll smash yours”.
Smashing the second xbox doesn’t save the first xbox. Promising to smash the second xbox is what saves the first xbox. The second smashing happens after the first smashing and therefore cannot affect the first smashing since causality goes forward in time. The purpose of the second smashing is to keep, ie validate, the promise made before the first smashing.
It’s a weird, abstract thing. To me it kinda feels like imaginary numbers in math. Like they don’t exist but using them works on things that do exist.
There’s no causal arrow from the second smashing back to the first smashing, but doing your “math” as if the second smashing is a reality, like as if it “already” exists there in the future, changes the probability of the first smashing.
I keep going long-winded with this but what I’m really trying to say is, do you really not grok how “If you do this thing I’ll punish you for it” shapes behavior?
I know what deterrence means. I’m telling you deterrence doesn’t work if one side has access to unlimited amounts of Xboxes. They don’t care if you smash their Xbox because they simply buy a new one and then they kill you anyway.
Lol claimed that you didn’t touch guns and then that irrational tirade pro guns… yeah right.
Also, I haven’t seen any democrat trying to take your guns or anyone’s, but they want to make sure that deranged individuals don’t have access to them.
Basically, the only ones that should fear that rhey are taking their guns are criminals and/or people with mental health problems. If you are so sure they are coming to get yours, then, which one are you? A criminal or a person wirh mental health issues?
Removed by mod
You are assuming many things. Is like me assuming that you will shoot someone because you are deranged.
But the fact is that many people who has mental health problems have access to guns, and many people who are criminals also have access. You think that by removing the right to people who is in those 2 groups the government would take yours too, that is simply insane, you are just like any other conservative that only think in absolutes, because your group is willing to remove rights from others and justify it so hypocritical that is not funny.
Yhr issue is the same, ate one of those 2 groups? And for the way you write I think you are.
Lol, you vote democrat riiiiight. If you were doing that you’d understand why they want to remove criminals and insane people for owning a gun, but your group of sociopaths are more concerned on keeping your toys than the lives of people. That is why conservatives suck, and no matter what, your lies are easily disproved.
Just compare the amount of shootings to other countries that have more guns per capita, and understand that a gun is a responsibility.
It’s not only the fear that the categories of people will expand beyond “mentally ill” and “criminal”, to also encapsulate “people who didn’t vote for me” or “people who aren’t government officials”.
It’s not only a matter of the law’s scope expanding to new categories. It’s also a matter of agents of the law, or private enemies of other private people, deliberately framing people who aren’t in those categories, as being in those categories.
Like to get a sane person’s guns taken away, is it easier to change the law to allow for taking sane people’s guns, or to simply work to apply the label of “insane” to the person whose guns you want?
I think the latter is more what people are worried about. It worries me too. I’ve been described as mentally ill because I believe in a right to be armed, and for disagreeing with people on all sorts of other topics as well.
It’s scary to see (a) people arguing for taking away crazy people’s guns and (b) those same people calling me crazy more and more casually as the years go by.
Why would that be? And even so, I o ly see the conservatives doing that.
I mean only the conservatives are trying to remove rights, many democrats use guns byt don’t display them like the conservatives. And that is not the issue here, claiming that the law can change the definition is stupid, because we only see people with mental health problems doing the massacres.
Basically for conservatives is more important to keep guns for criminals and people with mental health problems than the lives of innocents. That is insane.
Lol, being called insane is not the same as being diagnosed. So you are just afraid of having a mental health problem, but you do not have any empathy for people losing their lifes because of insane people kill them… way to have priorities there man.
Some people, when you present them with counterexamples to their model of how the world works, simply assume you are lying.
With your 40+ hands.
With his 40+ neighbors
Removed by mod
Must be fun to live in fear.
Removed by mod
You have three guns to protect yourself in case something bad happens. That sure sounds like living in fear to me.
Removed by mod
Why do you need three fire extinguishers? Once again, sounds like living in fear. Most people have one at most.
Reading between the lines here, the guy has a big house
Removed by mod
https://youtu.be/45glq7huJJc?si=Ll4VNDntLd9KB99i
Removed by mod