Alas, First Amendment, I Knew It Well....

Right back at ya, pal

 

Why does Vietnam destroy anything about the argument that guns aren't going to do shit against "an American government and military truly determined to take all of your rights away"?

What Vietnam showed is that the American military in the 1970s had limits in fighting a foreign power on its home turf, when various forces (including Soviet support to the other side, political pressure at home, and limits to how we to conduct warfare) in an age before computers and technology and so forth were commonplace.

Almost none of that applies to what a U.S. government might be capable of in 2021. If America turned full-on fascist, with a majority of the military and the police on the side of the authoritarian government, what exactly good would the right to have as many AK-47s and as much ammo as you might want do against a force that has those, tanks, biological and chemical weapons, planes, drones, stockpiles of supplies of all sorts, control of information flow, etc. etc. etc.?

 

You're thinking force-on-force, a stand up set piece battle. History shows that insurgencies and guerrilla campaigns can defeat superior forces by slow attrition.

 

The 1st Amendment protects speech no matter who it is from, and with very few exceptions, no matter what it is about.

A government trying to regulate the free speech of a company on political matters simply cannot stand.

I assume that DeSantis knows this and just is seeking this to raise his profile and get attaboys from Trump and his followers, who probably don't care about such things as the Constitution, unless it benefits them.

 

I actually was thinking guerrilla war. Because it'd be tough to pull off Red Dawn Wolverines stuff against a domestic government that is equipped with satellites, the ability to stop or alter the information flow on top of having more people and being better armed.

What would be a good example of this that would be at all comparable to the level of force and surveillance that the modern U.S. government would have access to and would be able to direct against its own people? Because I sure can't think of one.

Things like Vietnam and Afghanistan don't apply because, again, those are fights where the power had supply line issues, internal political considerations, diplomatic considerations, etc.

In an internal domestic conflict, there would be a limit to how much other countries might intervene, and by definition, fascist American government is not going to care too much about the people not supporting it or democratic efforts to undo their policies.

 

And how many people have to die in the process? What happens to global leadership? Democracy becomes a hard sell when the country famous for it decides to rip itself to pieces because one side decides they don’t like it anymore. How many governors do think might decide to style themselves as a warlord over their state?

Look at what happened when Yugoslavia went all to shit. You think that the average American is going to fair better than the average Yugoslav? Shit gets ugly in surprising ways real quick in a civil war. Wonder if any of the Mexican drug cartels will decide to get involved? They already control large swathes of some Mexican states, if the US turns to shit, they might decide to expand northward.

 

Out of curiousity at what point will you take up arns, and against who?

 

I don't think anybody on the left or in the media suggested that Trump was a worse dictator than any number of figures since Hitler. Pretty much another straw man.

But putting that aside, it's possible to not trust the government while simultaneously realizing that the ability to have any number of handguns, rifles and shotguns means pretty much nothing when faced with an opponent that has a vast advantage both in the type/number of weapons that they have access to, the type/amount of resources, and the type/amount of information.

Feel free to explain how handguns, shotguns and rifles are going to turn the tide in the face of a fascist American government.

In fairness, they would facilitate the good guys getting some objectives accomplished. But in terms of actually uprooting the fascists? Not so much.

 

I'll be the first to join you and Lanzman's circle jerk when that happens. But I'm not too concerned, so don't grab that lotion yet.

 

...supported by outside foreign influences interested in the outcome. Like have you never played Civilization? As soon as I have enough money or resources, I start bribing the shit out of other countries to go to war with each other so that they weaken each other while I grow stronger.

 

Who was supported by the gun lobby but defeated by the gun grabbing left.

 

It's really odd how your both sides calls only ever seem to come out against one side hey.

 

Yep. Now I'm against it for sure.

 

And Russia is cracking down on Google and Twitter for not taking down 'banned' content, including political speech.

But according to Republicans, that's good, because the tech giants are bad, and government censorship is just fine. And of course Russia is our friend and should help us run our network security.

I'm sure everyone who disagrees with that statement will be able to rationalize why they voted for the Republican POTUS who clearly believes all these things.

 

Texas Senate passes an "all sides" bill about teaching race

 

That's the one thing I...well, I'd be lying if I said I "miss it" per se because he swung so hot and cold and usually was a rabid pissant on any issue, but El Chup was the one poster who I could honestly say did speak up agai at both sides with equal venom.

Lanz's "hit humanity with nukes" bullshit that he trots out when he's called a conservative toadie ain't it.

 

DeSantis knows Florida is attached to tourism, no matter how much fluff is in the papers about Miami becoming “a major tech hub.” Remember when Republicans used to say it wasn’t the government’s job to pick winners and losers? Most do, because it was only about five seconds ago.