Republican men seem massively troubled about their masculinity — and that’s literally causing death and suffering

  • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s not just a fundamental right but the basis by which rights even can exist. Without access to violence, you cannot say no, and you cannot stop other people from doing whatever they want to you, meaning you are without rights without access to weaponry, namely guns.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Violence does not require firearms, nor would our pea shooters do anything to an Abrams or Bradley, or anything else slightly up armored. Unless you think this “fundamental right” includes anti-tank and anti-air weaponry, then the argument is moot. Homemade explosives will be much better for the fight than your “operator firearm” with no tactics training. Then, during the fight, there will be plenty of guns to be looted from those fighting you. Revolutions don’t require armed citizens. They never have. They require smart and inventive citizens who use gorilla tactics.

    • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Idk what world you live in, but i say no all the time to people and i stop them from doing whatever they want to me all the time without resorting to violence, havent resorted to violence at all since i was teenager. If the cops want to arrest me, a gun won’t stop them either.