On the “Guns won’t stop the government argument”

Here's how "guns won't stop the government" people imagine an armed uprising: the revolters and the national army meet in an empty field and start shooting at each other with everything they've got Napoleonic Wars style.

Except that's retarded. Most of the revolution won't be fought against cutting-edge military shit. Like said above, guns are extremely useful for killing fascist thugs, pinkertons and policemen. You can seize military storages and other important facilities with nothing but firearms, quite easily. And if it ever comes to the government using bombs, missiles and tanks against the populace, total collapse will be pretty much imminent with parts of the military defecting to the revolutionaries with all the hardware.

Also the argument is completely retarded in the first place. "The government has a monopoly on violence, so you should hand over all of your means of violence and make that monopoly a complete one". Like what?

Reminds me of what is happening in Afrin right now

Elaborate.

It's not about fighting regular government forces. It's about fighting the fascist death squads that the capitalists will inevitably send after revolutionaries and even reformists when shit hits the fan.

For an army that only fought on the weekends they really did a lot of damage.

Attached: 1455410243739-1.jpg (479x199, 16.24K)

I agree

you clearly have never been to south america

What do you mean?

Look up the history of the Pinkertons in the USA.
They haven't gone away, only changed names. Right now the USA is plagued with many thousands of mercenaries, private contractors, not military, who work for porky to suppress leftists on all fronts. See the massacres around the pipeline protests & the Mexican border for clear examples.
These are not soldiers beholden to our constitution or any other rule of law, they do what they're paid to do, which is beat/shoot leftists.

So then there would be no need for citizen armament because everything would be hinging on whether the soldiers defect and bring their gear with them.

This
It helps to compare things to Vietnam, where there was mass class consciousness and organisation. In America any member of the armed proletariat can basically be shot on sight, regardless of revolutionary activity

State war against the masses is fought door to door, house by house; not by a country nuking itself. Liberals are utterly clueless on this issue and spout preprogrammed one liners in response to everything.

Soldiers wouldn't feel the strong sense of self disgust and start questioning their purpose and allegiance if the workers aren't militantly opposing the state/corporate overlords. They need to confront that contradiction head on.

I think soldiers will be much more motivated by their cultural spooks, which are near and dear to their hearts, than their sense of class consciousness, which is almost non existent.

t. come from a military family

What sorts of cultural spooks?

muh flag
muh corps

Oh damn they're still around.

Attached: Screenshot-2018-4-8 Pinkerton (detective agency) - Wikipedia.png (3820x9844, 4.23M)

Even beyond being commanded to kill American civies on American turf? I hold no illusions that a majority would turn, and it would take time, but certainly, some sizeable portion of the military would have to feel some objection to such command.

This former soldier talks about exactly that question in this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ljr9PymgYwA

I just tell them the legend of the Killdozer and they usually shut the fuck up for a while.

I also tell them to go to a shooting range when cops are training. There's a reason why cops have to empty out a magazine on a person; because they cant shoot for shit and are overly reliant on red dot sights and lasers as per policy.

Wait, that shit about the masons is true? Like, I knew it was a vehicle for nepotism in the business world, but I didn't realize it was actually intertwined with the MIC.

Do you live in America? Do a google search for Masonic lodges in your area. And they never ever mention them in the popular media? Why is that?

Attached: MasonicSF.jpg (1695x865, 198.96K)

youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA
Fucking A you bringing me back user. Man was a fucking hero
This dude was smart, he hit em where it hurts, right in the pocket. I think the left can learn a few things from /ourguy/ Marvin Heemeyer

Attached: a hot one.png (753x753, 832.63K)

Don't forget incidents like Oklahoma City. One young man managed to level an entire government building, killing 160+, injure thousands, and he almost got away with it too.

Isn't it ironical that the FG-42, a Light Machine Gun that was used by German paratroopers during World War II and was only produced less than 5000 times, is now worth ca. $300,000.00, ended up in small quantities in the hands of Vietcong during the Vietnam War. And Johnson's Light Machine Gun was used by Che Guevara during the Cuban Revolution. They are both magazine fed from the side, compact, chambered for a full-power cartridge, operate in closed bolt when fired semi-automatically and fired from an open bolt when fired fully automatically, but none of them were based on the other.

Sauces:
wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/wwii-german-weapons-during-the-vietnam-war/
smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2687

pic 1 is a captured FG-42 held by an American soldier (unfortunately I don't have any pictures of Vietcong operating them)
pic 2 is Johnson's LMG also operated by an American soldier (unfortunately I don't have any pictures of Cuban communists operating them (I thank you for your understanding in not being in the possesion of photographs that were perhaps never taken))

In case you're wondering why I'm not saging Zig Forumsontent it's because I want to remind people that it's not the origin of guns that matter but who's pulling the trigger. Both the FG-42 and Johnson's LMG were designed by imperialistic countries but ended up helping one people in an anti-imperialist struggle and another people against an oppressive puppet state. Also I think

Attached: 58cbe722c4911.jpg (491x400 53.75 KB, 28.2K)

I always thought they were just a fraternity that encouraged nepotism.

As for never being mentioned in popular media, I'm not sure what you want. There are a variety of books about the Freemasons, and there's a goddamn Disney movie that draws on the mythology surrounding them.

Even if you accept the premise that they'll airstrike US citizens - which you fucking shouldn't - and you accept the premise that the arms exist to fight the government rather than to fight the fascist markers - which you fucking shouldn't - then there's still the matter of every plane and tank needing a supply line of some sort.

No fuel means no flight means no bombing. Small arms are sufficient for taking out fuel convoys and sabotaging pipelines.

You say it like insurgents do not use surveillance tech and drones too. For every billion bit of hardware there is a 5 buck work around.

This. Promise a man in a shithole that every ribbon will guarantee a confortable living, and he will kill his own mother.

That if things got to that point then the guns aren't what would defeat "the military/government," but that the tactics, policies, etc that brought us to that point not only necessitates the use of force, but create the conditions that would make it possible. Eg, if we're at the point where people are shooting at "the government" then we're at the point where a leveled city block is going to produce exponentially more insurgents than it kills.

It's not guns that defeat governments, but people who often need guns

People in their spare time build flame throwers and lasers and hatchet-catapults and copious computer virii. Nigga, where we're going, we aren't gonna need guns.

Attached: laser.webm (540x360 1.26 MB, 580.69K)

Didn't help in Iraq, Afghanistan, and they aren't helping Syria.

The British government was the US government and they lost. The Confederates put up a hell of a fight.

The thing about revolutions is there is always some foreign power that helps the insurgents just to stir up shit. France helps the US just to fuck with England. England helped the confederates just to fuck with the US. If the US went into open rebellion they would be getting financial, material, and logistical support from China, Russia, Iran and god knows who else.

federal leos and military has zero qualms about murdering civvies if they are deemed a threat

Unfortunately it's kind of right. It's a horrible argument against civil liberty, but weapons and warfare have changed profoundly over time. Citizens are no longer even close to having the kind of technology and firepower that modern militaries are equipped with, especially nuclear weapons, which are a very effective trump card for the state. Dealing with this

Arguing against anti-gun people is hard because you aren't approaching them from the proper angle. The most important part is to get liberals to understand that the majority of them don't hate guns, they hate conservatives.

Arguing against anti-gun people is hard because they have absolutely no arguments for actually banning guns.

They exist for a reason, though. Gun rights in the US have become a wedge issue and actual debate on the topic is very rare. The pro-gun lobby refuses to engage liberals effectively because it is easier and more reliable to pander to lumpens.
In many cases, it's not even about guns, it's about party symbolism.

They really aren't. As can be seen in most conflicts, a $50 pipe mortar is enough to prevent normal law enforcement operations upon a community, forcing a military response. From there car bombs, backpack bombs and mines have proven incredibly effective in making a military campaign long, messy and inconclusive. This isn't even taking into consideration more exotic things like someone rigging up a gun to an ultralight or DIY guided missiles for engaging drones that are fully feasible with off-the-shelf technology. The original Stinger missile itself runs off a microprocessor less powerful than most digital watches, and is easy enough for illiterate goathearders to effectively use.

What matters is social consent. If a majority of society do not have faith in the state, the state will cease to have power even if they put troops on every street. Israel is learning this as they expand through the West Bank.

Attached: afghanistan.jpg (620x434 35.24 KB, 75.52K)

The gun lobby engages with liberals all the time, for example there's a LOT of people who would happily have another Federal AWB so long as the Hughes Amendment is repealed so machine guns and ARs are made available through a $200 tax stamp. Democrats refuse this because it'd mean compromising, and they want full prohibition. Republicans are prone to the same thinking in regards to drugs, where they take a prohibition-only stance. Unsurprisingly the net result is an overloaded prison system full of blacks and mexicans.

I'm talking about the core of the issue, which is not politically expedient to address. Fear of crime is the main motivation behind gun control, but it's also a significant cause of gun ownership. The gun lobby is mainly concerned with sales, so it benefits more from controversy than it would from an effective pro-gun campaign. Neocons also tend to look like retarded hypocrites because they don't actually care about civil rights, i.e. the surveillance state and militarization of police.

the whole gun control issue is irrelevant to the left. look at the people who have the guns in the first world. it s fascist future-deathsquads roaming the country and no one else. the very moment the left wing in the first world reaches any significance, they still wont be allowed to have guns.

I mean there's this to consider.

Attached: MURRICA.png (1158x1393, 136.95K)

Here's a question. How much of the united states would need to be pacified to ensure the continued operation of the financial and military industrial system?

Lets assume that a large portion of the us populations 30-50% is in open rebellion and things have gotten bad enough that the government is willing to starve off or kill directly large portions of the us population to keep control. The elites are already evacuated to safe zones, government can import substantial amounts of food and supplies from abroad. They also change the laws and bring in large forces of foreign troops from allied nations such as Britain and the EU. These are further supplemented by private military companies. They grab as many key points as they can, ports, power plants, manufacturing hubs and then attempt to shut off power, communications, water and food in the rest of the country they can't hold. Wouldn't the government win in this scenario? They can't reconquer the country but if they blow up water and power lines and firebomb the crops wouldn't that kill off enough people to stop any meaningful opposition?

There are more effective scorched earth policies than that (neutron bombs for instance). The question is how do they manage desertion. Going full bore omnicidal would make the desertion rate spike, including in the command structure. Even before going that far, you would likely get a balkanization of the military itself with certain factions deserting and reforming in an effort to stop the government. Given how much US troops get moved around, you'd have a lot of operations where the target population includes the family of someone in the unit, and everyone in the unit probably would know this when it happened because the troops usually talk to each other about their families. As soon as you start killing civilians on a significant scale with military ops, you have infighting and people going apeshit when they find out their hometown got droned.

even if you have guns there's going to be about 1,000 of you commiecucks fighting against the entire US armed forces as well as the rest of the population who will be against you

a sustained general strike and non-violent protest with the majority of the public on side, with the intent that the army does not side with the government is the only feasible revolution in a country as powerful as the US.

Dear America: PLEASE START HUNTING AND KILLING THE TERRORISTS YOU CALL COPS

true if big

Step One: SECURE THE KEYS!

"LOL teh military has DRONES and stuff you troglodite!"- Baby Boomer liberals everywhere

"Drones" aren't going to do any good when the enemy blends in with the general population and you can't tell who's who.

...

You think other countries will intervene, when the us starts bombing its own people?

People always talk about civil wars or revolutions and have no idea exactly what that entails. Their minds are stuck in the past. Or in tv or movies.
The reality is that if a civil war happened in america it would be very low intensity and asymmetrical. And as proven by the taliban, vietcong, and alqueda, all the shiny toys dont mean shit to some peasant with nothing to lose.

If there is ever war in the first world it would be most similar to the drug war in mexico. Kidnappings, assassinations, hacking, a brutal tit for tat.

Another childish thing is to expect that revolutions happen spontaneously and arent funded by some shadowy figure

Attached: 1496948820002.png (335x261, 2.75K)

We had a civil war in Yugoslavia less than 30years ago.
I imagine it would look similar to that

Also to note is that each US state has large national guard armories, many of which aren't heavily guarded
armories on or near "reb" territory would be raided long before the start of open hostilities