We don’t have to like it, but it’s undeniable that cops treat protestors in plated vests with rifles different than they treat protestors in tshirts with signs…
Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
The reason Cali has strict gun laws is ole Ronny Reagan got scared when he saw Black men with rifles marching in formation.
Well, it mostly depends on what the protestors are protesting.
protestors in plated vests with rifles
that can be done peacefully, doesn’t really support OP’s point
And this is why I am a proud gun owning liberal.
Armed minorites are harder to oppress.
Didn’t the gun laws in California happen specifically after black Panthers open carried near a town hall?
Could be misremembering
You are not misremembering.
Ya, and this is where they really started to fix the “armed minorities harder to oppress” bug…by making sure the gun possession of POC happened within their constraints. IE gang violence, drug war, commodity fetishism, rugged individualism all to replace grass roots organization and useful gun ownership. YN with the never ending need for for new NIKES, armed with the strap and slinging rock for cash is preferable to armed class conscious community organizers.
I’m a proud gun owning leftist and please don’t confuse me with a liberal
Good for you. Nobody asked.
I, for one, appreciate the distinction! 😃
Nobody cares.
Did someone hurt you?
Edit: checked your bio. Someone definitely hurt you.
Anti-liberal leftists (hereforafter referred to as “leftists” with air quotes) can suck my dick. They are one of the reasons we have the fascist in office.
So I guess they did hurt me. They hurt all of us. And are laughing in accelerationist glee about it. Fuck “leftists”.
::Watches republicans throw the country into turmoil over 30 years with wars, economic collapses, and civil unrest through fascism::
“Goddamn leftists!”
::Watches republicans throw the country into turmoil over 30 years with wars, economic collapses, and civil unrest through fascism::
Proceeds to bitch about Democrats and convince everyone they can that Democrats are just as bad if not worse than Republicans in a year when we’re voting between allowing a fascist in power or a Democrat woman. Doesn’t vote and/or convinces others to not vote.
Are you having a stroke, or is this one of those ““they are responsible for everything bad”” type of thing, where “they” is whoever you happen to want to send to Poland?
Or do you really believe that every single person who sat this election out is a leftist? It’s difficult to tell whether you’re hateful or just very dumb.
Shut the fuck up “leftist”.
I’m a leftist. “Leftists” are idiot puppets of Putin’s regime that don’t realize they are being manipulated like the idiot children they are. Like you.
Oh you sweet summer child.
Oh you idiot child.
deleted by creator
3d printer and some pipe.
If the guy with the splatoon gun can kill the Japanese president, Americans can make a gun at home for sure.
I can confirm you can make a shotgun pretty easily with a trip to the hardware store and as long as you properly rust proof it, it’ll last quite some time. Especially if you have a way to purchase thicker than normal wall piping. If you don’t have a drill press and welder already, it’ll be a little expensive.
Partially 3d printed aemi-auto is slightly harder, but again can confirm quite reliable if done right, and accurate as fuck if you properly rifle the barrel.
wasn’t the united health CEO is also killed by a 3d printed gun?
Yep
deleted by creator
they can try
Democrats really love to take guns from people.
Democratic jurisdictions are usually under may issue laws, meaning, the police can use descretion to deny you a permit, and a permit is required in order to carry a gun.
The. Fucking. Cops. Have the authority to fucking deny you the ability to defend yourself.
Like… what?
Sure, lets let those pigs trample over your constitutional rights. Can we primary all those anti-gun dems?
Edit: So the Supreme Court struck down the most of the “May Issue” laws in 2022. Now its mostly “Shall Issue”. Ironically, the liberal judges wanted to uphold those laws, while the right wing dipshits judges ruled to struck it down. Broken Clock, twice a day, you know.
The Dems are doing their part to facilitate the oligarchs that give both parties their marching orders
Why We’re Organizing No Kings Protests on Saturday–A king is only a king if we bow down
For the would-be dictator, success depends on projecting power and creating an aura of inevitability. They need you to believe that Trump is the new normal, that the MAGA movement will be in power for the long haul, that the only rational move is to go along, keep your head down, and protect your own interests.
In short, it requires a countless number of people in a countless number of places to do something that the Trump regime doesn’t want them to do, or to NOT do something the Trump regime wants them to do. That’s how we shake off the aura of inevitability and halt the autocratic breakthrough.
For that to happen, people need to feel like we’re part of something bigger. We need to understand that we’re part of a movement. We need to feel like we will win.
https://www.howwefightback.com/p/why-were-organizing-no-kings-protests
I sure felt better at Saturday’s protest. 2,000 people there, in the reddest part of Florida, and that wasn’t the main protest.
Just kept saying, “Thank god thank god. Had no idea there were so many sane people around here.”
And BTW, I conceal carried my Colt .45. What a heavy PITA. The gun pictured (Beretta 92FS) is my next pistol!
That is one of the biggest powers of a protest. It lets people know they are not alone. When we know we have backup, we are a lot more willing to act. If enough people act together, even giants fall.
I’m glad for your sake the event remained nonviolent.
There was one other event where a MAGhat tried to draw a weapon, a peacekeeper with a weapon fired at them, and THEY (the peacekeeper) killed an innocent person in the crossfire.
So while that’s a better turnout than a mass shooting, I fervently hope for tensions not to escalate.
Little known fact that the Nazis were at last turned back at Stalingrad by the wittiest picket sign made in the Soviet Union. The sign, which used a mock spelling of Hitler’s name, simply read “A doof, Hitler”. Many historians believe that the German military never fully recovered from this humiliation.
Head cocked to the left.
Partial verbal wit in battle.
First point of attack.
Two. Eyes. Paralyse vocal cords with astute observation. Stop the speech centers.
Three. Got to be partially deaf. Shrewd retort to the ears.
Four. Finally, draw a facetious sign. Make it sharp.
Summary prognosis: Consciousness lost in 90 seconds
Martial efficacy: quarter of an hour at best.
Full faculty of recovery from psychological damage, unlikely.
Discombobulate
Was that in world revolution II? Or was that a different name? Can’t quite remember…
World day of protest II
They actually are.
Non-violent resistances have historically had double the effectiveness of violent resistance movements. Violent resistances generally just get a bunch of people killed and only makes things worse.
The reason is simple. It’s a numbers game. Only a few psychopaths want violence and those few are easily dealt with by police. Sometimes they can especially troublesome and need to be dealt with by the military (LA isn’t one of those cases, Trump is just an idiot). It’s only the very rare case that a violent resistance topples a government and in those cases it’s just replacing one group of authoritarian psychos replacing another group. The French revolution ended up with a King being replaced by an Emperor after a whole lot of people died.
Meanwhile a non-violent movement can attract more numbers. You only need single digit percentages of the population to participate in things like general strikes to make an authoritarian regime collapse. But you aren’t getting those numbers with a violent resistance, people have families to think about and violent resistances are easily vilified. An authoritarian regime can exercise violence against a violent resistance and kill it. If an authoritarian regime uses violence against a non-violent resistance it’s clear to everyone who the villains are and an every broader number of people will participate and subtle and secretive ways.
History bears this out, a violent resistances don’t work unless there’s foreign backing and even then it’s unlikely to succeed. Non-violent resistances have double the probability of success. Non-violent resistances are just about psychopaths that want to burn things down coming up with bullshit rationalizations for it.
If not for Napoleon we’d still be all ruled by kings in Europe. You can argue the cost wasn’t worth it, but given you didn’t even give a famous textbook example of “peaceful protests work”, it’s safe to say your point is mostly BS.
After what happened in the 40s it’s fucking insulting to say that holding hands can save the world.
First thing coming to mind? East Germany 1989.
But see, that happened after fascism had already been fought off — so it doesn’t count.
/s , since many people here think of moving goalposts as a legitimate tactic for debate.
A bit beside the point, but might I add, that, looking at Eastern Germany today, fashism hadn’t and hasn’t been fought off.
They work when the dictator knows the alternative is violence and they are outnumbered. Fun fact, MLK’s peaceful protests had armed security provided by an all black militia. They don’t teach that in schools because no government wants their people to think that the threat of violence works on government. That being said, it’s almost always best to try the peaceful options first.
Which ones, name them.
Have a gander if you wish so:.
Fighting back is often the only choice you’re left with when Nazis gain power, but I do wish people would keep in mind there’s a difference between strategizing and being smart about how and when you fight back vs encouraging individuals to run full speed at the entire U.S. military with a bullseye on their forehead.
Also, if you’re bringing fascists and rule of law into this, hopefully you’re not wilfully ignoring how they gain power in the first place, or the fact that the Nazis literally used a legal expert that provided them with the legal shield they needed to carry out a genocide without ever breaking the law.
Or that one of Trump’s biggest defenders against the “crooked courts” that keep getting in his way, and leaving him with no choice but to act like a dictator, is a Harvard Constitutional Law professor who also just happens to be a Carl Schmitt fanboy.
Adrian Vermeule-OUR SCHMITTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Common-Good Constitutionalism Is an Idea as Dangerous as They Come
There are more guns than people in the US. Guns don’t stop fascism, if they did we would not be here now. Furthermore, the majority of 2nd amendment gunholes are ready to support ICE not fight them.
This meme is stupid on so many levels.
“One side has a lot of guns and supports fascism, therefore the other side should disarm, I am very smart.”
Fascism can’t continue if the fascists are dead. You gotta fight smart.
I’m not sure the meme is the stupid one here, you’ve just completely misunderstood the entire thing.
We will see in four years (or less depending if anything horrifically dramatic happens). But when violence has to happen, get ready to exercise your second amendment rights.
How is people being disappeared to concentration camp not already horrifically dramatic?
How is elected officials being arrested for asking for a warrant, or asking questions not already horrifically dramatic?
How is sending our own military and arresting civilians in L.A. not already horrifically dramatic?
Where the fuck is your line?
Unfortunately, there is plausible deniability that allow the US government to do what they’re doing. In spite of some rulings which tell Trump administration that they are wrong, there are still some actions where they have legal backing, moral or not.
Legal =/= moral.
That’s just how the world works I’m afraid.
I’m sorry, I guess my initial reply was too many words to be understood fully. So I’ll be more succinct.
**Something horrifically dramatic has already happened, it’s already time for us to use our 2A rights for communal self defense. **
Otherwise I agree with what you just said, but I felt like you missed my point, so I wanted to say it in no uncertain terms.
I understand what you mean. What I am saying is that people are overlooking because any perceived red lines haven’t been crossed yet.
Why wait? Fascism is here, now! Punch a Nazi today!!
Good luck using your hunting rifle against cluster bombs.
Well, technically, the Germans could have voted in a majority party on the left in the early 1930s and when that did fail they still could have just not voted for literal nazis.
So, Yeah. That was an option.
The vote was taken under gunpoint, quite famously, actually. Even then, the leaders of two of the leftmost political parties made a point of voting against it, making the rather valid point that the nazis were going to kill them anyway.
Okay but before the nazis won the left failed to form a government on three separate elections. Because the left was splintered between the Communists, Social Dems, and Centrists while the Nazi Party swept the entire right.
Proof?
Just gonna link this tired old post over here
I keep seeing that study:
From what I can tell, it works backwards from a conclusion the authors already held. They excluded peaceful events that weren’t “noteworthy,” labeled protests as violent if police instigated violence, and narrowly defined success windows for violent movements while crediting peaceful ones for regime collapses that likely would have happened anyway.
Since the study was published, a wave of high-profile failures—the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, BLM, etc.—has shown that the effectiveness of nonviolence has drastically diminished. Even the study’s lead author has acknowledged that modern authoritarian regimes now use digital surveillance and media control to neutralize peaceful dissent.
The study also ignores the reality that mixed-strategy movements—where one faction remains peaceful while another escalates—are often more successful, yet it frames nonviolence as the only legitimate or effective tactic.
Thank you for posting what I’ve wanted to convey about that study. Mixed strategy movements are the ones with true success. The civil rights movement did not succeed on MLK’s back alone. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers becoming militarized is why the U.S. government started thinking about extending an olive branch. Well that and the RIOTS after Dr. MLK was assassinated by the FBI. And those riots were not “peaceful”.
Thanks for the link.
A major issue with your criticism is you don’t directly cite or quote anything, so we can’t readily verify your claims.
A more significant issue is that we have a systematic research study with a clear design & methodology to support its conclusion. Where’s the superior study to support your conclusions?
If I had to choose, then I think I’d stick with the conclusions backed by systematic research.
From what I can tell, it works backwards from a conclusion the authors already held.
Held before the study? Do you think people can only write their thoughts chronologically?
The article I linked states the contrary
Yet Chenoweth admits that when she first began her research in the mid-2000s, she was initially rather cynical of the idea that nonviolent actions could be more powerful than armed conflict in most situations.
But Chenoweth was surprised to find that no-one had comprehensively compared the success rates of nonviolent versus violent protests; perhaps the case studies were simply chosen through some kind of confirmation bias. “I was really motivated by some scepticism that nonviolent resistance could be an effective method for achieving major transformations in society,” she says
They excluded peaceful events that weren’t “noteworthy,”
Where?
The article you linked states they analyzed resistance campaigns, not events.
Our research goals are threefold: first, to determine whether nonviolent or violent resistance campaigns have a better record of achieving stated objectives
We define a resistance campaign as a series of observable, continuous tactics in pursuit of a political objective. A campaign can last anywhere from days to years. Campaigns have discernible leadership and often have names, distin-guishing them from random riots or spontaneous mass acts.
By analyzing campaigns rather than individual events, we are able to make some general observations about campaigns that can be explored further through in-depth case studies. Moreover, resistance campaigns involve much more than just events; they involve planning, recruiting, training, intelligence, and other operations besides their most obvious disruptive activities. Using events asthe main unit of analysis ignores these other operations, whereas analyzing campaigns allows usto consider the broader spectrum of activities as a whole.
labeled protests as violent if police instigated violence
Where? To the contrary, there’s a whole section about that backfiring against the regime opposing a nonviolent movement.
Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime.
How would they be able to make such claims if they label all such movements as violent?
The methodology section states their approach
Labeling one campaign as “nonviolent” and another as “violent” is difficult. […]
To address these difficulties, we established some standards of inclusion foreach of these categories. The list of nonviolent campaigns was initially gathered from an extensive review of the literature on nonviolent conflict and social movements. Then we corroborated these data using multiple sources,including encyclopedias, case studies, and a comprehensive bibliography onnonviolent civil resistance by April Carter, Howard Clark, and Michael Randle. Finally, the cases were circulated among experts in nonviolent conflict who were asked to assess whether the cases were appropriately characterized as major nonviolent conflicts, and also which notable conflicts had been omitted. Where the experts suggested additional cases, the same corroboration method was used. The resultant data set includes major resistance campaigns that are primarily or entirely nonviolent. Campaigns that committed a significant amount of violence are coded as violent.
narrowly defined success windows for violent movements while crediting peaceful ones for regime collapses that likely would have happened anyway
Where?
Success criteria and windows for both were the same.
The outcomes of these campaigns are identified as “success,” “limited success,” or “failure.” To be designated a “success,” the campaign must have mettwo criteria: (1) its stated objective occurred within a reasonable period of time (two years) from the end of the campaign; and (2) the campaign had to have a discernible effect on the outcome. A “limited success” occurs when a campaign obtained significant concessions (e.g., limited autonomy, local powersharing, or a nonelectoral leadership change in the case of dictatorship) although the stated objectives were not wholly achieved (i.e., territorial independence or regime change through free and fair elections). A campaign is coded a “failure” if it did not meet its objectives or did not obtain significant concessions.
has shown that the effectiveness of nonviolence has drastically diminished
Do you have a proper study to support that by the same standards/methodology?
Even the study’s lead author has acknowledged that modern authoritarian regimes now use digital surveillance and media control to neutralize peaceful dissent.
Where? How does that affect
Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.
or make violent campaigns any more effective?
The study also ignores the reality that mixed-strategy movements—where one faction remains peaceful while another escalates—are often more successful
Do you have studies as credible as this to support that conclusion?
it frames nonviolence as the only legitimate or effective tactic
Does it? The study seems to merely compare outcomes of resistance campaigns in an unopinionated fashion as stated in the design & methodology.
Your argument would improve with stronger support.
Throughout history, like 99% successful rebellion against authoritarianism has been violent.
Source: Historian.
The only successful non-violent over-throwing of an authoritarian occupation either had the leverage of violence, or brought attention to the issue by those who used violence :/
I sure don’t have any qualms about nonviolence succeeding because the oppressors realize they don’t want to see the violence.
this is not the conversation ending truth-bomb some people make it out to be.
scholars have contested the selection methods and conclusions reached in that original survey/article. for example, several of the “successful” countries on their list have since regressed into dictatorships/unrest.
not trying to debate or be contrarian, but I think folks who lean heavily on the non-violence strategy should consider that the success of nonviolent moderate protest movements may have something to do with them being perceived as more palatable to the ruling class than the violent opposition alternatives. therefore, simply making violent alternatives widely known and believed to be credible threats, actually serves to push moderate people towards the less scary less radical faction of the movement.
I mean that’s how the civil rights movement succeeded here in the US. I know we get a heavily sanitized version basically reduced to “I have a dream” but the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were extremely active and militarized. It was either deal with MLK’s peace movement or deal with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.
lol right? Yeah they ARE famous for that ACTUALLY
This reminds me of a discussion I was having with Hexbear members on Lemmy recently.
I was suggesting that perhaps it makes sense for the UK to have nukes, for self-defence against other nuclear countries like Russia, China, and potentially even the US, given their unpredictable behaviour. People from Hexbear got angry at this suggestion. One of them suggested that it’s immoral to have nukes because nukes are “threatening civilians”.
Maybe the OP image of this thread is right though: megalomaniacs are not deterred by words, but they are deterred by weapons (such as nukes). Ukraine was invaded because they didn’t have enough deterrents. Iran is currently being bombed because I suppose they also didn’t have enough deterrents.
Ukraine actually gave their nukes on the promise of future safety. We all saw how that worked out.
Exactly. If Ukraine had their own nukes by the time of 2014, or if they had been part of NATO, then maybe Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine.
“More nukes” is never a good solution to any problem
Perhaps not a good one, but still a solution, when a bear gets overly familiar.
Bear
Beets
Battlestar Galactica
what if your nuclear weapon collection is looking too small? How, other than getting more nukes, does on remedy this problem?
I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. “Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities.”
You’d think so, but it worked out surprisingly well during the cold war.
Bet they also think Russia should have nukes to stave off western imperialism
All weapons of war threaten civilians.
Potentially. I think it depends on how they’re used. If a country decides to completely disarm itself though, then it’s entirely possible that other countries will seek to invade and subjugate.
Ah yes war mobilized state of Germany with the support of majority of Germans behind it famously known to be stopped by violent protests.
Exactly, it was the peaceful protests that did it. 🙄
And if you see someone being taken away by fascists, make sure you and everyone else watching dont do anything except film it to post on social media. Maybe if you’re feeling adventurous you can tell the brown shirts what theyre doing is bad, just make sure you dont do anything to actually stop them.
worked out for this guy:
although to be fair he did get shot to death right before.
