Comment by Shorel
8 hours ago
It seems protesting a dictatorship, of whatever kind, is pointless and dangerous.
Meaning, the people should be able to defend themselves against the violence directed to them.
8 hours ago
It seems protesting a dictatorship, of whatever kind, is pointless and dangerous.
Meaning, the people should be able to defend themselves against the violence directed to them.
> It seems protesting a dictatorship, of whatever kind, is pointless and dangerous.
Dangerous, probably but they can't stop us all. Pointless? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution.
I was trying to SUBTLY IMPLY they should be armed against the regime. Also, that they should do something different than protesting. While protesting, people become targets.
I suppose subtlety doesn't work with you.
A fighter against the regime who is alive is more valuable than the corpse of a protestor. That's simply logistics, you fake Cthulhu.
Well, those are examples of revolutions against entities which were definitely not dictatorships. The British parliament stopped fighting the Americans over the objection of the King.
Britain and France were not dictatorships. Also, those are from over 200 years ago, having a more recent example might be helpful.
> Meaning, the people should be able to defend themselves against the violence directed to them.
Yes. But not just and not mainly from your government: you are way more likely to get killed by criminals and/or terrorists then by law enforcement officers.
To put things in perspectice in the US there are more than 20 000 homicides per year.
And for women rape and rape attempts are scary, here are the numbers for the UK:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-off...
You cannot really compare 36 000+ people getting killed by an islamist regime that rules the country by sharia law with the number of people killed by law enforcement officers in, say, France or the US. Where the number of people being killed by officials, yearly, can be counted on one hand's fingers.
In the same vein, you cannot really compared terror attacks like the 2024 one in Russia where 145 people where killed in a theater or the 130 people killed by terrorists at the Bataclan in France or the 70 killed in Nice (my sister was there with her two kids that day and she saw the terrorist and her son is still, to this day, traumatized) with the number of people getting killed by law enforcement officers in a country like France or the US (I'm using these two as an example for they are country where, each year, a few people are killed by law enforcement officers).
Unarmed people vs terrorists with kalashnikovs: slaughter.
A great many are highly concerned, for example, that there are now sleeping islamists terrorists cells in the EU. Even mainstream media began reporting the concerns. There are regularly arrests and terrorists plots foiled. And Christmas markets and celebrations have been cancelled this year in many european cities because the risk of islamist terror attacks were too high.
When a country disarms its people, it doesn't just make them vulnerable to the governement's wrongdoings: it makes them vulnerables to criminals and terrorists too. Which, so far in the western world, is definitely a much bigger threat.
Now that said there are more than 10 billion ammo sold, each year, in the US, to civilians. If there's one country where either the government or the terrorists would have a problem should they go "all in", it's the US.
>Yes. But not just and not mainly from your government: you are way more likely to get killed by criminals and/or terrorists then by law enforcement officers.
That's not true globally; in the 20th century governments in Russia, Germany, China and Cambodia collectively killed over a hundred million of their own people.
>it makes them vulnerables to criminals and terrorists too. Which, so far in the western world, is definitely a much bigger threat.
Germany is the western world. Many of six million Jews would probably still be around if they'd been well-armed.
How many poles died?
They had a literal military. This absurdist belief that something like the 2nd amendment would have ANY impact is literal propaganda.
Find me an oppressive government overthrown with private firearm ownership.