When you use armed resistance to fight a fascist government with a military. You are attacking your enemies greatest strength. Wouldn’t it be better to attack their weaknesses?
An armed protest is about checking police involvement more-so then attacking the agencies. Usually an insurgency would attack infrastructure.
Let me put it this way, what wars has the US won against an insurgency on their home turf? And consider that these past wars were waged with an uncontested military industrial complex, technological advantage, uninterruptible supply lines, a functionally infinite budget, the vast resources of one of the largest countries in the world, a US hegemony and control over all markets. Complete intelligence dominance from the sea, land, air and space.
Then factor that the us has the single most armed citizenry of any nation on the planet by an unreasonable degree, a volunteer military, and the infrastructure to wage a war that is in the open protected only by societal contract and the threat of incarceration…
You are factually wrong. Police do not push on armed protestors, they may be able to single out a single armed protestor but an armed protest does not get fucked with by police historically
An open carry protestor is not the same thing as one pointing a gun at police. If there is a situation where you felt compelled to use that gun, or to at least use it as a warning against brutality, do you really think police won’t shoot you on the spot?
Even in non violent protests, people with gas masks or supplies of any kind become a higher value person of interest and more likely to face arrest and brutality.
If you really want to bring a gun to a protest, then I suggest to keep it concealed until you think something worth your life will happen if you don’t use it.
If you shoot at police, prepare to get shot. If it’s legal to open carry then you should not expect to get shot by exercising that right. But that doesn’t change the fact that an armed protest forces police to strongly consider de-escalation.
They are brutalizing people in the streets and disappearing people for exercising their 1st amendment rights. Why would they respect the 2nd?
I hate to say it, but we no longer have rights. This is a struggle in which nothing can be claimed we are owed, not by law.
I disagree with your argument, not because I don’t want to fight them too. But because this method seems destined to lead to more death and a longer resistance then I hope to raise my child through.
Non-violent resistance is a proven method of toppling regimes. They need our obedience to remain in power and there are ways to deny them with less bloodshed.
Because the 2nd Amendment comes with an implicit threat. Its very purpose is to be the final check on government power. We only have the rights we’re willing—and able—to protect.
Peaceful protest today has no leverage. It relies on media buy-in and elite shame or schism, of which we have neither. We just saw one of the largest nonviolent protests in U.S. history, and it was either buried or blamed for violence. Lawmakers—even the ones who claim to represent us—have said nothing. ICE still disappears people. Nothing has changed.
I understand why you want a path that avoids more bloodshed. I want that too. But the regime has already chosen brutality, and peaceful resistance alone has no foothold.
I don’t say that because I want violence. I say it because I don’t see any way forward that avoids it. The Piper must be paid. Better on our terms than theirs.
When you use armed resistance to fight a fascist government with a military. You are attacking your enemies greatest strength. Wouldn’t it be better to attack their weaknesses?
Yes elaborate? I’m curious to find the path to success here
A general strike would be the most direct path.
An armed protest is about checking police involvement more-so then attacking the agencies. Usually an insurgency would attack infrastructure.
Let me put it this way, what wars has the US won against an insurgency on their home turf? And consider that these past wars were waged with an uncontested military industrial complex, technological advantage, uninterruptible supply lines, a functionally infinite budget, the vast resources of one of the largest countries in the world, a US hegemony and control over all markets. Complete intelligence dominance from the sea, land, air and space.
Then factor that the us has the single most armed citizenry of any nation on the planet by an unreasonable degree, a volunteer military, and the infrastructure to wage a war that is in the open protected only by societal contract and the threat of incarceration…
You will not be able to “check” police in an armed protest.
If you point a gun at police that are beating a protestor, the following things will happen.
Your hypothetical is contrived. The point of an armed protest is to have the police chicken out from beating protestors in the first place.
You have local police, ICE, DHS, and the national guard at these protests. I do not recommend a game of chicken.
You are factually wrong. Police do not push on armed protestors, they may be able to single out a single armed protestor but an armed protest does not get fucked with by police historically
An open carry protestor is not the same thing as one pointing a gun at police. If there is a situation where you felt compelled to use that gun, or to at least use it as a warning against brutality, do you really think police won’t shoot you on the spot?
Even in non violent protests, people with gas masks or supplies of any kind become a higher value person of interest and more likely to face arrest and brutality.
If you really want to bring a gun to a protest, then I suggest to keep it concealed until you think something worth your life will happen if you don’t use it.
If you shoot at police, prepare to get shot. If it’s legal to open carry then you should not expect to get shot by exercising that right. But that doesn’t change the fact that an armed protest forces police to strongly consider de-escalation.
They are brutalizing people in the streets and disappearing people for exercising their 1st amendment rights. Why would they respect the 2nd?
I hate to say it, but we no longer have rights. This is a struggle in which nothing can be claimed we are owed, not by law.
I disagree with your argument, not because I don’t want to fight them too. But because this method seems destined to lead to more death and a longer resistance then I hope to raise my child through.
Non-violent resistance is a proven method of toppling regimes. They need our obedience to remain in power and there are ways to deny them with less bloodshed.
Because the 2nd Amendment comes with an implicit threat. Its very purpose is to be the final check on government power. We only have the rights we’re willing—and able—to protect.
Peaceful protest today has no leverage. It relies on media buy-in and elite shame or schism, of which we have neither. We just saw one of the largest nonviolent protests in U.S. history, and it was either buried or blamed for violence. Lawmakers—even the ones who claim to represent us—have said nothing. ICE still disappears people. Nothing has changed.
I understand why you want a path that avoids more bloodshed. I want that too. But the regime has already chosen brutality, and peaceful resistance alone has no foothold.
I don’t say that because I want violence. I say it because I don’t see any way forward that avoids it. The Piper must be paid. Better on our terms than theirs.
198 methods of nonviolent action
The updated list - Civil-Resistance-2.0
I also recommend this book.
Bro! Did you just link me a free book!?!!
Holy cow you win Lemmy today!!!
May I introduce you to annas-archive.org
https://annas-archive.org/search?q=Gene+Sharp
Wild thing, I think I love you.