• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m mostly in favor of gun ownership, but unless I’m allowed to own RPGs, bombs, and other similar equipment then I’m not going to be able to do much against the military with it. Gun ownership is for self-defense, not fighting the military like so many right wing nuts dream about. The only real option if fighting the military happens is aid from outside or taking the military’s equipment. Both of these do not require prior ownership of weapons. Alternatively, knowledge of bomb making would be another tool, and does not require prior ownership, though this knowledge is controlled already and not defended by typical gun-rights organizations.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Everyone looks at extremes.

      Yeah, a populace armed with AR-15s and Glocks can’t fight bombers, but when a government reaches the point where bombers are being used against the population you’ll also have a military split, so there will be heavy equipment on both sides.

      Imagine something smaller in scale, like if the governor of Texas decided to start execution of liberals while Trump was President. Trump probably wouldn’t directly take part, but also wouldn’t send in the military to stop the governor.

      That’s where small arms for civilians becomes relevant.

      They’re also relevant because they’re distributed. With 100 million+ armed households, there’s no safe way to be a tyrant.

      Trump was almost killed by 1 person who planned poorly. If there were millions of armed people moved to that level of violence it would be impossible to govern without committing the kind of atrocity that would cause a military split/coup.