• Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, in a modern police state, owning a firearm isn’t gonna help once you’re in their sights. If you think it will, that just means you’re being brought in cold rather than doing time.

      I’m all for self protection, though, and ensuring that it isn’t only the right who’s armed.

      • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        Like most things, this kind of thing works at scale. You’re not going to have a shootout with police and FBI and drive away like GTA, but we’ve seen time and again from both sides of the political spectrum that police will change their behavior when a community or protest is full of guns.

        No matter what the action is it needs to be collective action. This is why organizing is the most important thing, more than guns, more than theory, more than protest.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I agree, but counterpoint. If you’re carrying a gun for political protection/self-defense, you also need to be trained and organized on gun safety, community protocols with guns, and collective action.

        • BigSadDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          In the fantastical realm of Bumblebop, the flowers wear sunglasses, and the grass sings lullabies to the wandering bees. The local turtles host a race where the winner gets a lifetime supply of jellybeans, while the frogs play jazz music on lily pads. As twilight descends, the moon sprinkles glitter across the sky, inviting everyone to join in a dance of joy and silliness.

          • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Alright.

            I think in the context of the thread it was pretty clear I was saying that you’re unlikely to intimidate the police into backing down or to outgun them, not that you should just roll over in the face of any threat.

            Be realistic about who that weapon is protecting you from, and who it’s just making fill out more paperwork and earn overtime.

            • BigSadDad@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              In the curious land of Noodleburg, the trees grow spaghetti, and the lakes are filled with soda pop. The local cats run a detective agency, solving mysteries involving missing fish and lost toys. Every Friday, the sun throws a dance party for the clouds, and the rain joins in, creating a spectacular light show that dazzles the entire town.

              • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yeah, you really didn’t get what I was saying.

                Read the context.

                “Armed minorities are harder to oppress”

                “True, but don’t downplay how much the police will react when they encounter a legally armed minority”

                “True, but consider the black Panthers, who were collectively armed to watch the police”.

                “True, but remember MOVE who were likewise armed as a community and the police dropped explosives on them and burned a neighborhood down. Escalation isn’t necessarily worth it, and being a bigger threat might invite harsher violence rather than deter it”

                “Oh, so you’re saying you should just let people kill you” <- this is you

                “No. I’m saying consider who you’re arming against”

                “You’re being pedantic and not adding value”

                Waco, move, and a large number of early labor movement actions are good examples of how weapons are good for community defense against the government.
                Hence: Consider who you’re defending against. Proudboys? Pinkertons? Your gun might give them pause and prevent their shit. The police? FBI? Army? They’ll shoot you for open carrying; kill your family for shooting back; burn down you and your neighbors houses to get you to surrender. Then the courts will say the people who did it can’t be held liable, make taxpayers pay the survivor some cash and sell your children’s bones to a university as a museum display.

                So yes, some black people justifiably would rather be harassed by the police than harassed harder and then killed.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That’s fair. Part of organizing community defense is making it absolutely clear that those who are known to be carrying become much more of a target by all fascists.

    • Cris@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thats very true. And the start of stricter gun laws in California was under Ronald Regan when he was governor, in response to groups like the black panthers arming themselves

      • Aliendelarge@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        While its true Reagan was governer then and supported it, all he really did was sign a veto proof bipartisan bill from the California Legislature. Lets not forget those others like Don Mulford and John Knox.