Single issue ammosexual voters allowed all our other rights to be stripped, watered down, limited and degraded while they deified their gun fetish.
Leopards are indiscriminate.
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
519 points (98.7% liked)
News
29765 readers
2497 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm for certain gun regulation, I'm not for an outright ban however.
Consider these two events:
-
Before the holocaust the jews had to surrender in their weapons
-
before the nakba, the same happened to the Palestinians, they had to surrender their weapons.
Being able to have weapons to protect yourself from everyday threats but also for if things go south is very important.
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you'll need weapons.
Consider these two events
I don't think that's what the SCOTUS was thinking about when they reached this ruling.
More likely it was California man arrested near Kavanaugh’s home, charged with attempted murder of justice
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you’ll need weapons
I guess. But you also need widespread popular support. Randos with guns acting independently aren't any better at repelling fascist governments than unarmed protestors.
What American liberals lack isn't merely guns, it's militias.
The Spanish Civil War was Anarchists, Communists, and Liberals vs. a Hitler and Mussolini backed fascist Dictator, Franco.
The resistance had popular support, but the lack of weapons did severely hinder the left's effectiveness, and caused them to become reliant upon Soviet Russia for weapons supplies, which ultimately spelled their downfall as the Soviets betrayed everyone else and began rounding everyone up to execute them.
I'm not saying having a surplus of small arms in the hands of the leftists would've changed the outcome of the war (they also needed tanks, airplanes, and artillery), but it would've been a pretty big asset, had they been able to fulfill those other needs some other way as well.
The Spanish Civil War was Anarchists, Communists, and Liberals vs. a Hitler and Mussolini backed fascist Dictator, Franco.
It was Anarchists vs Communists vs Liberals, some of whom aligned with a fascist military commander because they didn't like how the Anarchists and Communists were treating the Catholic Priesthood.
The resistance had popular support, but the lack of weapons did severely hinder the left’s effectiveness
The Communists were running the country by the 30s. They had all the weapons they could have desired. What they lacked was a petite bourgeois willing to accept their socialist economic reforms. That friction split the military and resulted in a grisly civil war.
I’m not saying having a surplus of small arms in the hands of the leftists would’ve changed the outcome of the war
The anarchists, in particular, had sizable caches of small arms. It was the lack of tanks, airplanes, and artillery that seriously fucked them.
Incidentally, the Soviets were willing to support the Spanish Communists with some number of tanks, airplanes, and artillery. But accepting aid from Stalin meant pissing off the Anarchists (who would ultimately need those weapons when fighting the Fascists).
But the single biggest asset that the fascists enjoyed and the anarchists/communists lacked was trust in one another. Franco built his brand on the back of the Catholic Church in retreat and won the faith of the faithful. Manuel Azaña and Niceto Alcalá-Zamora lost the confidence of key supporters and were forced to watch the Second Republic disintegrate because the fractious caucuses of local independent groups couldn't align under a single national banner.
Also didn't hurt that Franco gleefully took favors from German, Italian, and American fascists, while the Spanish Anarchists and Communists were reluctant to accept more than token aid from friendly leftist groups abroad.
I don’t think that’s what the SCOTUS was thinking about when they reached this ruling.
There was no ruling... the case was not taken up, so the ruling of the lower court stands as a precedent (for now).
You mean some sort of well-regulated militia? That's crazy, just flood the fucking streets with lead. /s
I think having weapons is purely a stress reduction tool, similar to xanax. Makes you calm to have them around, but when you need them they won't help much. Incredibly risky things to have around in any sort of quickly usable manner as well.
Consider Waco, TX. And that was 30 years ago before the massive leaps forward in drone, communications, satellite and digital technology.
Having guns does not protect you from the government. It may even barely protect you from an armed burglary. Guns are largely used for hunting deer shooting stationary paper indoors.
If you actually want to use guns to fight back against the government you needed to have built your fortified underground structure which is completely sound proof and infrared proof, and fully self sustaining for air, food, water and sewer filled with hundreds of people by now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›