Comment by dabluecaboose
8 hours ago
The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment, limiting firearms ownership, and portraying gun owners as paranoid losers. That would drive many on-the-fence gun owners away from supporting them.
Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
Is there any surprise that there's a dearth of armed citizens ready to stand up for them?
"A rifle behind every blade of grass only works if you've been watering the lawn"
I don't know whether you've noticed, but being armed is simply giving the Federales more reasons to kill you first. The woman shot in Minneapolis was shot on the pretext of using her car as a weapon.
How do people really expect this to work? In detail? You show up with an armed militia at a school and the ICE guys just drive on past (and then raid someone else)? Or are they expecting more of an Amerimaidan situation? Jan 6th situation?
Just so we're clear, you're arguing that ICE is already murdering people on the street with impunity, but people shouldn't defend themselves or they'll just get murdered harder?
They're arguing that the fight is precisely what the administration is looking to generate.
It’s a bunch of dudes who think they’re literally Rambo. Like, sure with enough firepower you can maybe take out two before they take you out but any sort of application of your second amendment rights is going to end quickly for you.
The irony of the romanticizing of the "Lone Wolf" is that, in reality, the lone wolf dies alone.
Coordinating with your neighbors and compatriots is essential from the soap box, to the ballot box, to the jury box, and to the cartridge box. And I'd like to emphasize the order of those boxes should be followed.
I'm gonna say the same thing I said the last time you trotted out this opinion (which is far more excusable now that you've outed yourself as a brit BTW). At a societal level the LARPers don't matter. They are a rounding error compared to all the people who have a single daily carry piece or purse gun or whatever. And those people affect the numbers and the risk calculations happening in offices far away.
ICE is thuggishly and sloppily prowling places like Minneapolis because statistically they can get away with it without causing too many bodies. Up the potential body number and their tactics are forced to change for the better.
If the statistical average door they kick in in Minneapolis had the same likelihood of "shit I ain't going back to prison <bang> <bang> <bang> <dives out bathroom window and hops neighbors fence>" behind it as the statistical average door in St. Louis ICE wouldn't be behaving the way they are in MN. They would have specific targets, specific places and times to pick them up, etc, etc. (i.e. operating like the local professional police do) because the risk calculation with even a tiny change you might get shot back at, even if only ineffectively, makes that (much higher) resource expenditure pencil out, with consequences in terms of how much they can get done.
Personal ability to credibly threaten lethal violence if cornered (note: I did not say "firearms") acts much like an ATGM or MANPADS for an infantry squad. You're not gonna take a squad with TOWs on the offensive against a bunch of tanks, but if attacked you've at least got a prayer. The same math holds on the individual level. Making any potential target substantially more prickly to a potentially superior force and doing so for little cost is a huge boon for the little guy. A firearm is a force multiplier same as a bomb carrying drone or a cell phone that records things the government does not like or a media platform that puts those things in front of the eyes of the masses. It forces the superior force to still be much more careful and expend far more resources when engaging. When it comes to domestic policing what this means is that ICE would be under more pressure to "be careful and professional" in every city like the DEA did during the war on drugs we wouldn't even be having this discussion because they wouldn't be employing the tactics that everyone hates.
This math is a large part of why drugs won the war on drugs. There were enough glawk fawtys wit da switch kicking around on the "wrong" side of the law that the cops needed to adopt militarized tactics, the public didn't wanna pay for that shit (monetarily or politically) over weed, and thus drugs won the war on drugs. If they could've rolled up on just about anyone "cheaply" with just a few cheaply (poorly) trained cops, minimal equipment and support, minimal planning and surveillance, etc. it would've gone on way longer (but they couldn't, because that would have yielded too many bodies and cost too much political capital).
ICE is hopefully waiting for any sign of violence against them so that they can escalate even more. They do their best to provoke.
You know where are all NRA and "have gun against govermental tyrrany" guys? In the ICE or supporting from sidelines. And they are itching for when they will finally be able to commit even more violence.
3 replies →
[flagged]
"Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle." [1]
What I see is an ICE agent a half-step away from moving out of the path of the vehicle
[1] https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy...
8 replies →
>Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
One dude in his home with a gun or two versus a 50 billion dollar ICE force that has complete immunity and a massive media and political empire ready to spin any bad incident into an us-versus-them narrative.....
Yeah, it is a fantasy. Oh, and if anything really gets out of hand, that political empire also has nuclear weapons.
Are you familiar with Chris Dorner?
>One dude in his home with a gun or two versus a 50 billion dollar ICE force that has complete immunity and a massive media and political empire ready to spin any bad incident into an us-versus-them narrative.....
How does legal immunity or a media empire affect a dead man?
>Oh, and if anything really gets out of hand, that political empire also has nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are not very useful in a civil conflict... Or pretty much any conflict
>How does legal immunity or a media empire affect a dead man?
If I have complete legal immunity from ANY of my actions, including killing someone, and there's a massive multi-trillion dollar media empire dedicated to creating regime-friendly narratives and supporting the leaders on "my side" at all costs, I can harass, defame, defraud, and kill you without hesitation whenever, wherever, and however I see fit, and I'll get no blowback. I'll get fans and supporters.
Haven't we learned anything from history?
Thew whiplash from "Why isn't anyone fighting ICE???" to "the government will nuke us if we fight back" is frankly stunning
Can't fight ICE because they have no laws they need to uphold, and they have an unlimited budget to buy tools to fight you with.
And the whiplash is quite small, if not nonexistent. Why? Because there's no depths to which this regime, which is openly hostile to its own population, won't go to assert power, as well as to maintain it.
2 replies →
It took me 15 minutes to buy an AR-15 and a pistol in 2025, how did the left do this?
OK, now what happens when you show up in front of an ICE agent while carrying an AR-15? How, specifically, do you use the gun to effect political change?
I wasn’t suggesting that. The post I responded to basically said the left alienated people by restricting 2a, and it’s really not at all restricted. Some states are more restrictive than others but that’s not an overall “The Left” problem to be called out.
3 replies →
Sure, but this has nothing to do with gun ownership policy or the political left.
Edit: oh, you were responding to the second half of their comment, not the first. I see.
Well done! Step one is getting armed, and step two is training. There are a lot of good resources out there for non-right-wing shooters, such as InRangeTV.
Yep I practice and watch much of guntube.
You'd have to be pretty insane to see opposing raids on journalists as supporting "The American Left".
At this point, unfortunately, that appears to be where the Overton window is resting. I didn't intend any sideswipes or sarcasm in my comment, I was just trying to characterize the opposition to the 2nd Amendment in broad terms.
Adding this on as a separate thought:
If you genuinely think we're at the point that we need to start shooting, the onus is on YOU to get armed, get trained, and take action. Don't expect anyone else to come and fight for you, especially those you perceive as your political enemies.
> Is there any surprise that there's a dearth of armed citizens ready to stand up for them?
We may have the most armed citizenry in the world. If the second amendment advocates cared as much about our protected rights as they claim, they’d be all over this. All you’re saying is that our liberties only matter to them as regards people who agree with them politically. Which is absolutely true.
> If the second amendment advocates cared as much about our protected rights as they claim, they’d be all over this.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment, and all intersections with other civil rights are seen through our respective lenses.
There is a lot of attention being paid to this within that community, but it's largely supportive. Everything the left is upset about falls into two categories: it's either something with broad support (deportation of those not legally present) or there's more to the story that significantly changes the situation, at least from their perspective (Renee Good).
To be clear, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or even state my own views with this comment; I'd just like the various sides to understand each other a bit better.
> All you’re saying is that our liberties only matter to them as regards people who agree with them politically. Which is absolutely true.
What I'm saying is that "Gun owner" shouldn't be a political statement, and we'd be a lot better off if more Democrats owned and trained with guns.
> Is there any surprise that there's a dearth of armed citizens ready to stand up for them?
Forget the left. Why don't they stand up for themselves?
You’re right, owning a hand gun will be effective means to rebel against the most militarized government in the world.
Vietnamese farmers would agree with you.
[dead]
> The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment, limiting firearms ownership, and portraying gun owners as paranoid losers. That would drive many on-the-fence gun owners away from supporting them.
No we didn't. Promoting safe and conscientious gun ownership is a good thing, and it's the right thing for society. It's actually a pretty common feeling among gun owners. But gun lobbies has polluted people's minds into believing that the "left hates guns." Which isn't really true.
For sure, there are people whose opinion is colored by the frequency of mass shootings and having their kids deal with active shooter drills, etc. But this isn't always a political issue - my hard right-wing grandma hated guns and forbade their ownership in her house.
I frequent a gun club with a bunch of the leftest, gayest, socialistest, DEIest people you could meet, and we always find like-minded people to chat with. We are a minority, sure, but not a small one.
> Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
And I still believe this - more than ever. You'd have to be insane to stand up to the current government right now. They will disappear people to gulags or just shoot them in the face for practically no reason. Imagine what they do to people they genuinely believe are threats.
"Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47"
The words of the last Democrat that seemed to really have a chance to win a senator seat in my state. His support really dropped after such a statement in this state.
> We are a minority, sure, but not a small one.
So you are actually supporting my point. Conscientious, civically-minded people who own guns are unfortunately a minority on the (American) Left.
> And I still believe this - more than ever. You'd have to be insane to stand up to the current government right now.
Then you should be quibbling with my parent commenter who is smugly asking why the "gun people" aren't shooting back, not me.
> The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment
That's doing a lot of heavy lifting. I know Republicans who unironically say shit like "We can't do background checks. What if I'm trying to buy a gun really quick for a hunting trip?" I would imagine your idea of "attacking" the second amendment is just common sense laws.
> Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
In your heart of hearts, do you really believe this has anything to do with it? If we were to take your comment seriously, it just illustrates the right never actually cared about standing up to oppressive governments, they just wanted to be the oppressive government. That is actually pretty consistent with how the left clocked them.
But in reality, it has nothing to do with what you wrote. The biggest 2A fanatics, as someone related to quite a few of them, just have a fantasy of shooting people. They are openly celebrating the death of Renee Nicole Good because that's the kind of thing they want to do.
> I would imagine your idea of "attacking" the second amendment is just common sense laws.
I would imagine your idea of "Common Sense laws" is actually just petty attacks on law-abiding citizens that do nothing to stop crime, so I guess we're even.
> it just illustrates the right never actually cared about standing up to oppressive governments,
My comment was not trying to argue that the Right did or does care. My comment was saying "This is the reason there are comparatively so few gun owners on the (American) Left". Because the American Left (speaking broadly) discouraged it for almost a century.
The American left is very much in favor of the second amendment. You seem to confusing it with liberal centrists, the sort of people who say 'violence is never the solution' and wrings their hands wondering why someone doesn't arrest bad actors in government.
I specifically used the phrase "American Left" to try and head off this trite quip.
I was referring, in general terms, to the left wing of mainstream American political discourse without narrowing it down to just "Democrats". I was trying not to trigger the waves of "Ackshyually karl marx says under no pretext" comments that one usually gets.
Then why not just say 'Democrats'? There's a large political community to the left of the Democratic party that is underrepresented electorally, as has been demonstrated at the ballot box over and over. Flattening everything together is an over-simplification.
1 reply →