I’m talking about Americans that don’t like what the government is doing (there’s a lot to criticise the American right for, but unwilling to act they are not). There’s plenty of gun ownership among American liberals.
The majority of Americans do not like what the government is doing, as seen from its approval rating, but also armed revolution usually doesn’t happen by killing away everyone who disagrees with you.
The majority of Americans with guns do like what the government is doing though. Gun ownership is well over double for Republicans and they currently strongly support ICE and many other abusive domestic policies.
Please point out an armed revolution that wasn’t just wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control. I can name only one and that was Haiti.
The majority of Americans with guns do like what the government is doing though. Gun ownership is well over double for Republicans and they currently strongly support ICE and many other abusive domestic policies.
Uh… therefore?
Please point out an armed revolution that wasn’t just wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control.
I’m not sure how that’s relevant here. Most revolutions tend to be about wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control, but also: Yemen, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, Mexico, Ireland*2, decolonization in general. There’s also two Frances (1830, 1848) but those are more iffy.
I was just restating what I said already for clarification since that is what we were discussing.
When people talk armed revolution the track record is pretty much shit for human rights. Mythological thinking that an armed rebellion is going to solve our problem is problematic to say the least.
Seems to me that it does in fact mean that that excuse for gun proliferation is pretty useless.
Well that’s one hell of a non-sequitur. To make a sweeping generalization, it’s not the guns’ fault that Americans are cowards.
A majority of US gun owners like what the government is doing, how does that make them cowards?
I’m talking about Americans that don’t like what the government is doing (there’s a lot to criticise the American right for, but unwilling to act they are not). There’s plenty of gun ownership among American liberals.
So they are supposed to kill the majority of Americans who have guns that like what the government is doing?
The majority of Americans do not like what the government is doing, as seen from its approval rating, but also armed revolution usually doesn’t happen by killing away everyone who disagrees with you.
The majority of Americans with guns do like what the government is doing though. Gun ownership is well over double for Republicans and they currently strongly support ICE and many other abusive domestic policies.
Please point out an armed revolution that wasn’t just wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control. I can name only one and that was Haiti.
Uh… therefore?
I’m not sure how that’s relevant here. Most revolutions tend to be about wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control, but also: Yemen, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, Mexico, Ireland*2, decolonization in general. There’s also two Frances (1830, 1848) but those are more iffy.
I was just restating what I said already for clarification since that is what we were discussing.
When people talk armed revolution the track record is pretty much shit for human rights. Mythological thinking that an armed rebellion is going to solve our problem is problematic to say the least.