• 1 Post
  • 32 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 20th, 2025

help-circle

  • CascadiaRo@lemmy.ziptoComic Strips@lemmy.worldOptical illusion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I do concede that WWII was not fought and won by armed civilians, I was largely responding to “without guns we can’t fight fascism” and can see that, in the greater context of the thread, that might be less relevant. I do think the French Resistance would have been better equipped if they hadn’t had to rely on smuggled or captured weapons. A full scale invasion is going to pan out differently when most civilians are able to shoot back or organize into militia.

    Vietnam is a testament to the fact that multiple military superpowers can still lose to a lesser armed (but still armed) populace.

    And then the american fucking revolution, that I can’t even imagine how to tie in

    This is where you really have me stumped and should maybe do some reading into US history, fighting this war is the foundational experience that led to the creation of the second amendment. Here’s a good place to start:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord


  • CascadiaRo@lemmy.ziptoComic Strips@lemmy.worldOptical illusion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    US - 1765 to 1784

    EU - 1939 to 1945

    Vietnam - 1955 to 1975

    Yes, I’m aware that only one of these cases was literal fascism.

    You can see my other comment in this chain, but firearms are the “last stand” tools to fight oppression. We’re in the midst of a particularly sensitive stage and, in my opinion, haven’t crossed the “tipping point” where a violent response would be wise or justified.


  • CascadiaRo@lemmy.ziptoComic Strips@lemmy.worldOptical illusion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    I see that as a cop-out to engagement in discourse, an alt account and VPN/privacy technologies would be enough to shield someone from “taking the bait”

    My own opinion is that we have not reached a point where that level of response is justifiable, and I think it’s incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to suggest that it is.

    The administration’s current rhetoric revolves around the domestic terrorist threat / violent insurrectionist motif that, while some people may buying into, is not being substantiated with strong evidence.

    At this time, violent response / uprising by those perceived to be “on the left” will add fuel to validate that propaganda machine, it will firmly entrench the beliefs of those who might otherwise have a chance of moving away from it, and it will likely trigger a heavy-handed response leading to a substantial and catastrophic loss of life and liberty.

    Hypothetically, “with how subtle you are, you might as well” be an agitator seeking to be a catalyst to what I just described.


  • In terms of assigning responsibility, this is an easy one.

    “You” refers to the firearm’s owner. Firearm ownership comes with a high degree of responsibility. It means knowing and following the four rules, at least two of which must be broken at the same time for someone to get hurt. It means maintaining a reasonable degree of control over that firearm at all times, whether it’s on your person or being stored.

    If anyone is “finding” a firearm, reasonable precautions were not taken to secure that firearm.

    These cases all boil down to gross negligence on the owner’s part. Legally and logically, the owner should be the one to suffer the consequences.

    Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, the incident gets treated as a “tragedy” and legal consequences do not get applied.



  • CascadiaRo@lemmy.ziptoComic Strips@lemmy.worldOptical illusion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    Man, I see this sort of thing commented all the time as some sort of “gotcha” and really have to wonder what it is you’re envisioning.

    Put yourself in the shoes of a firearm owner for a moment. Evidently, you believe the US has passed a tipping point where violent resistance is necessary.

    Where are you going with your gun and who are you shooting at?