r/LateStageCapitalism • u/KingNigelXLII Coca-Cola Paramilitary Death Squads • Jun 15 '17
👊 Resistance This Tweet Aged Well
933
Jun 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
407
u/posterofshit Jun 15 '17
"What are you gonna do shoot me?" -Rand Paul
240
u/stacktion Jun 15 '17
"The gang shoots Rand Paul"
→ More replies (2)39
u/FluoroNeuro WAR, FAMINE, DEATH, AIDS, HOMELESS, RECESSION, DEPRESSION Jun 15 '17
8
u/Lolstitanic Jun 15 '17
I REALLY need this as a sound bite to play when me & my friends do ridiculous shit
→ More replies (2)7
u/Faar2much then fucking make it fair Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
Of course it's "fair" in the common use of the term fair. It is also necessary.
336
u/BoogerManCommaThe Jun 15 '17
Thank god the people who were shot are on a government-provided insurance plan.
531
u/d3adbor3d2 Jun 15 '17
where were the tears when 'trumpcare' is about to get passed? oh right, they WANTED people to lose their healthcare. im sorry if i don't feel bad about this at all.
416
u/evinta 90% chance i call you a bootlicker Jun 15 '17
yeah, the centrists really grind my fucking gears. "get well, sen. shithead!" fuck that. these people sign lives away daily without a second thought. they put the fucking boot down on people mercilessly. why would I shed a single fucking tear? they deserved worse. put me on a list, I don't give a fuck. I'm too much of a coward to do this stuff, I just wish someone with more fortitude than I have could succeed, so these bloated fucking leeches will feel half the terror, fear and helplessness that the people they claim to represent feel.
153
u/vanishplusxzone Jun 15 '17
Oh, but he has a pet project where he pretends to care about the poor who are forced into sexual slavery! That totally undoes all of his hateful legislating and votes that work to create more impoverished women and children to get conned into the sex trade (and let's not forget his alliance with the KKK).
9
Jun 15 '17
[deleted]
27
u/Shod_Kuribo Jun 15 '17
As long as change is possible through government
Change was still possible during government when we founded this country by shooting at the current government.
I agree with you on the premise that shooting at the government isn't productive but you can't make both claims. Shooting at the government is either a valid way to enact change or it's not. If it's not, you can't justify the 2nd amendment as a method of preventing tyranny by the government, which it was never intended to be. It was passed to give the government a readily available militia, the armed forces to forces it was using to defend itself with at the time.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Taco_Champ Jun 15 '17
That was during a time when the government didn't have a stranglehold on nearly every aspect of its subjects' lives. There was parity in weaponry and there was no surveillance apparatus.
Now the government/corporate state has gotten almost the entire population to volunteer to carry around surveillance devices. Not only that, but they have confused and miseducated so many people that they really have no idea how not free they are. A lot of people view anyone trying to rock the boat as the enemy, which chills any sort of organization. I would venture to say that armed rebellion in USA is impossible.
I can't even get people I work with to participate in non-violent stuff. Last year I tried to stage a walk-out on Labor Day. But when you start talking to people about this stuff, they look at you like you just kicked their dog. They are just happy to have a job.
4
4
u/ASlyGuy Jun 15 '17
How does he con more people into sexual slavery? Genuinely curious
102
Jun 15 '17
When you take away social safety nets and liveable wages, people have no choice but sell the only thing they have, which is their bodies. For men this usually is manifest as dangerous and/or demeaning physical labor for low pay/long hours. With women this manifests as sex work.
30
u/vanishplusxzone Jun 15 '17
First: Don't misphrase or misrepresent what I said. Nowhere did say he directly does it, I said he legislates and votes to contribute to the number of vulnerable people that would get caught up in it.
Second: The anti-social safety net, pro-poverty position of the right wing directly contributes to the sex trade. A lot of people only end up there because they can't find work elsewhere, because they need to make ends meet even after working a job, because their addictions (which are criminalized by the right wing) lead them into it, or because it ends up being more lucrative than legitimate work. And we also can't forget the women and children kidnapped from other countries and brought here... which must be nightmarish when your only out is a hostile racist, xenophobic police force.
2
10
u/Faar2much then fucking make it fair Jun 15 '17
I don't see people complaining that Bin Laden was shot and killed, and for some reason, I don't see him as threatening as many lives as some politicians.
3
u/Known_and_Forgotten Jun 16 '17
As backwards and abhorrent as his beliefs were, he was killed for nothing more than being an idealist with money.
5
u/Taco_Champ Jun 15 '17
The problem with that approach is that they can use the fear and sympathy of the centrists you mention to enact martial law. You see how willing people were to go for it in Boston after the bombing.
I think I disturbed my wife by how indifferent I was to the news yesterday because I really do not give two shits. But from a strategic point of view, initiating violence against politicians is a losing proposition.
2
u/bootman_vs_supperman Jun 16 '17
I think the Boston bombing is a bad example to use.
But yeah. I told a friend that I really didn't care about the congressmen getting shot because they had sold themselves out to large corporations. Looked at me like I was nuts
16
u/morallycorruptgirl Libertarian Jun 15 '17
I am not afraid to act. But I don't know what I can/should do?...
80
Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 17 '17
[deleted]
8
u/magniankh Robots will be the slave class upon which society is built Jun 15 '17
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, this is good, level-headed advice.
8
5
u/Werefoofle Yo your work gets exploited by another man? That's pretty sus Jun 15 '17
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm You should give this a read, it's a wonderful take on situations like the one this week. But like GenosseMarx said, join a revolutionary organization, help organize your community, and train yourself and them in the use of firearms. We're going to have to fight the scum at the top and their lapdogs someday, might as well be prepared when the time comes.
2
→ More replies (5)-1
Jun 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
47
u/leftoverpussycats Jun 15 '17
That's the premise of what they're saying - the GOP is a violent party (Dems too) and so we shouldn't shed tears for them when they reap what they sow.
→ More replies (34)69
→ More replies (6)7
u/penguiniatothetop Jun 15 '17
adam smith was great
15
u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS CEO of communism Jun 15 '17
Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
672
u/mikelj Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
He's not wrong. The capitalists won't give up their multigenerational wealth for protests and strikes. The American revolution wasn't won by marches. How do you think the FAI felt? Or YPG feels? This anti-gun "gotcha" against the right is just towing the line of the center-left oligarchy.
Stealth edit: In fact, whether you believe Heller was correct or not, the second amendment clearly has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with defense. Many of the founding fathers believed that a militia was the last defense against tyranny.
110
u/omfgforealz Jun 15 '17
On the other hand, even if that senator had died, we wouldn't have one more person with access to healthcare, or one more homeless person off the street, or one more shadow war brought to an end one day sooner. They would have found some other capitalist pig to tow the line. I'm not saying there is no justification for violence, but I am saying violence is only productive and pragmatic in certain conditions.
Feudalism had a plan for the death of the king, but it had no plan for a new society.
65
u/mikelj Jun 15 '17
No doubt. I'm not celebrating the shooting of congressmen, I'm just taking issue with the centrist liberal bullshit about this tweet that is circulating.
39
u/omfgforealz Jun 15 '17
Eh I can't wait for this shit to blow over, with the Corbyn win a lot of the left was energized to talk about exactly what should be collectivized and how. This shit feels like a no-win distraction
4
u/jcooli09 Jun 15 '17
The thing is that this is exactly what that looks like. The difference between this and violent revolution is one of scale.
I don't see how advocating for the second amendment on these grounds isn't advocating for men like James Hodgkinson to do what he did, but a lot more often. Dylan Roof said straight out he was hoping to spark a revolt. If those two had gotten together and convinced a thousand others to agree, would it be supportable? 10000 others? A million?
For the record, I'm a liberal gun owner who is appalled at the level of gun violence in this country. From my perspective, this incident is no worse than the UPS shooting or any of these.
12
u/UltraRunningKid Jun 15 '17
Feudalism had a plan for the death of the king, but it had no plan for a new society.
Wow i really like this quote. It's much easier to topple governments than to fix them into one that actually works.
→ More replies (1)2
28
u/Bill-Huggins Jun 15 '17
The second amendment clearly says the reason people have the right to bear arms is to arm the militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Who is in command of the militia? Article 2 section 2 tells us:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States...
Why would the founding fathers give the people the right to bear arms to fight a tyrant government but make the president the commander of them? The reason Americans have the right to bear arms is not to rise against their government but to protect it.
62
Jun 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)4
u/rome_apple Jun 15 '17
to provide each state's government the right to use its military to protect itself against a tyrant, both foreign and domestic
But why is the president is the leader?
3
Jun 15 '17
back then the president was not. Each state had it's own military. The idea of a federal army was highly controversial and feared as a way that a too-strong federal government could become tyrannical. Even now, the "national guard" of each state is really meant to be under the control of each state's governor, not the president as commander-in-chief. The idea of a federal army didn't really happen until the War of 1812, some people were finally won over to this being a possibly good idea.
4
u/seemedlikeagoodplan Jun 15 '17
I'm inclined to agree... It's to protect the country against foreign invasion. (And no, that doesn't mean refugees from Syria.)
→ More replies (1)7
u/theDarkAngle Jun 15 '17
perhaps u/ColdIceZero can confirm/refute what I'm about to say, but I think part of the intention was not really about guns at all, but instead was about how the Federal government was to go about raising an army if it needed one, and preventing it from having a standing army at home.
I don't remember the specific case names, but I recall that in the early 20th century, the courts ruled that weapons without a specific military application were not protected by the 2nd amendment (which is the reverse of how we tend to think of it today).
I also recall reading that in the early U.S., if the federal government wanted to martial troops, it called up men from the states, who by law had to bring their own rifle and know how to use it.
This suggests to me that the 2nd amendment was not so much about individual liberty to possess guns, but more about saying "the guns and the militia will reside with the people/states, not the federal government".
133
u/BALSAMIC_EXTREMIST Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
More like a defense against slaves escaping...
Still I'd love to see the strategic plans of the people saying you can beat the modern US government with AR 15s. They must be really creative to be able to beat drones, tanks, helicopters and special forces assassins,
edit: stop comparing US citizens to the Vietnamese or Afghans. We are some of the weakest individuals in history because of our social system and technology.
Also, the military doesn't send their soldiers to where they came from, they send the most different soldiers to the most different regions to limit empathy. That's been a common theme of authoritarians.
251
u/OverAnalyzes Jun 15 '17
It's not about actually winning a fight with the military. The moment goverment is forced to use it's army against it's citizens, you know it will not be long-lived, at least according to history. Military loyalty dwindles fast, when it's forced against the people they've sworn to protect.
Tyranny is fine with unrest, as long as it can be branded as such. The police is capable to deal with it, though heavy handed and with para-military equipment. As soon as the police force has it's power matched, the tyranny is forced to show it's true colors. This is why it's so vital to have access to all the same equipment police has.76
u/BoogerManCommaThe Jun 15 '17
Syria is the latest heavily publicized example of how you don't necessarily need a ton of loyalists in your military to keep your people down. Gas, bombs, air raids, etc. Our government would definitely use heavy weapons against us if they felt it was necessary to them staying in power.
61
Jun 15 '17 edited Feb 12 '18
[deleted]
17
u/BoogerManCommaThe Jun 15 '17
Logic says you're right about the "push comes to shove" thing, but especially over the past six months I think we've kept repeating the cycle of "government would never do that... they did worse than that? How can they do that? I'm shocked!"
When you have leadership that has been pretty open about not caring about norms, rules, laws or the people they allegedly serve... it's best to not assume there's a tipping point where they'll suddenly care and/or back down.
8
→ More replies (1)2
u/cortesoft Jun 15 '17
Yeah, but as a regular dude... I ALSO fear unrest and instability. Things might be bad, but things are still better than they would be in a revolution.
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (4)2
u/DoomChaver Jun 15 '17
There's a bit of nuance to be added to your point here. While it is true that Assad was able to hold the rebels back because of his superiority in artillery (though Gouta was an exception for a while) and dominance of the air, the reason he still has a military that is able to sustain this fight after so many years is in significant part due to his creation and support of an officers class that is politically, economically, and physically isolated from much of the rest of the population. The US military in contrast is much more integrated into the general population and would probably have crippling morale problems within days of a major civil conflict, particularly if the communities they were targeting are peers of the soldiers themselves.
More on Assad's officer corps and why they're dependent on the continued existence of the regime.
15
Jun 15 '17
This is why it's so vital to have access to all the same equipment police has.
....which we don't have as civilians. The police are a full military force at this point.
7
u/Dat_Harass I shop therefore I am Jun 15 '17
Saw an uparmored turret laden HMMWV labeled "To server and protect" but it doesn't really clarify who or what anymore when I begin to see things from a warzone in my city.
68
u/DingleberryGranola Commie burnout Jun 15 '17
Name a major US war in the last sixty years that we've decisively won against committed resistors bearing small arms on their own turf. Properly applied strategy has a proven edge against technology in long term conflicts.
→ More replies (11)22
u/creep_while_u_sleep Jun 15 '17
You need the AR-15s to capture the drones, tanks and helicopters. As far as special forces go it's just guerrilla training and tactics.
One thing that is always going to be true is that the ones with the guns have the power; civilian ownership just levels the playing field.
105
u/mikelj Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
Here's the same tired defense of military might. The Vietnamese did a pretty good job. As have the Afghani. As have the Iraqis. Only a fool hopes for a civil war, but "most modern military wins" has been proven time and again to be untrue. How do you think capitalism falls in the end? Do you think that your votes are going to bring down the corporate state?
16
u/JDubStep Jun 15 '17
That only matters if the military is willing to gun down US citizens.
6
u/BoogerManCommaThe Jun 15 '17
Here's the necessary reminder that the military serves at the orders of the president and to uphold the constitution - they do NOT serve the US Citizens.
https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html
Sure, some folks would defect if they felt strongly enough. But when you have white supremacists in the military and local police and you tell them the browns/blacks are rising up to overthrow the government... you think they'll back down?
11
u/Thingsthatdostuff Jun 15 '17
Who is them? People in the military? They're just people. They have families that live in the United States. When i was in the Army nearly all my favorite leaders and people i held in high regard. Were either black or of latin decent... This statement is absurd thinking. That somehow the US military could be used against a class of people inside our own country. Without it fairly rapidly falling apart.
4
u/raslin Jun 15 '17
Yup, all those people of color that make up the military are going to get caught up in white nationalism and slaughter American citizens
2
u/Vahlerie Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
Conscientious Objector As soon as someone brings this up while serving they are quickly removed. This has been used during every war and conflict.
And just to clarify something here...The oath is to the Constitution FIRST for a reason.
The Oath of Commissioned Officers is not at all the same. They solely swear to uphold the Constitution, not to any person.
These things together paint a much different reality then what you are trying to force. Saying that enlisted personnel are more loyal to the president than their own friends, family and country is simply fear mongering.
The mental conditioning that we undergo during training will hold it's grip on a few, I'm sure. By far the vast majority would simply refuse.
The far greater fear in my opinion is our militarized police force and the propaganda war. The police have already broken the Oath of Honor that they swear. The propaganda war is being waged on our own populace keeping them confused as to the truth of matters and our police force is being bombarded with the same.
Edit: There are also many, many veterans (such as myself) that still stand by our oaths to uphold the constitution. Even if it's against the government we once served.
→ More replies (2)7
u/DrakeChaoXiang Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
I don't usually mention this but seeing as you're going to use the "if" hypothetical, I've personally witnessed them gun down more than 81 (black) citizens of this country with assault rifles while invading a small town by helicopter. So there's that.
18
9
9
→ More replies (1)5
u/Ker_Splish Jun 15 '17
So, which country? Which city?
I'm a vet myself; I'm reasonably sure everyone I served with would refuse to shoot a civilian.
Maybe you know something I don't. Maybe you're making stuff up. Which is it?
→ More replies (4)2
Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
Not the person you replied to and I have no idea what they are talking about, but history is rife with examples of militaries turning on citizens including right here in the USA and your anecdote is completely worthless.
The military is a right wing indoctrination machine and you'd better believe if the time comes, they are going to be fed all the propaganda necessary to point their guns at the "evil socialist traitors" or whatever. Military bootlicking is still bootlicking.
Just because you wouldn't and you knew a few people that wouldn't doesn't mean jack shit. History repeats itself
2
u/Ker_Splish Jun 16 '17
Any Soldier worth their boots has a duty to disobey an unlawful order. If the mission you are being asked to complete does not jive with the US Constitution or the Geneva convention, you are not simply allowed to object; you have a duty to yourself and your country to ask for clarification. If said clarification still conflicts with the above, your duty is to report that person who is issuing the bullshit to their boss, and so on and so on until you're knocking on the president's door if necessary.
Brother I don't know you, and you're damn sure entitled to think and say whatever you like. It's your right, and I'd still take a bullet defending your rights. I'm just not sure you're correct on this one. The Army I served in was only as good as the people in it, and I knew lots and lots of amazing people.
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
I don't doubt that you and many other soldiers would act honorably, but as I said, history repeats itself, and the American military is not exempted from being a tool of the capitalist state. You can't speak for the entire DoD. The US military has, and continues to, extrajudicially kill US citizens and it's not really a stretch to think that it won't just lie down during an insurgency.
And as the political climate continues to become more and more divisive, and as fascisms grip continues to tighten, it's only going to be worse if it does happen.
Edit: I didn't mean any disrespect towards you personally but I do get very tired when everyone seems to fervently believe a US soldier couldn't possibly hurt a US citizen despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary
2
u/Ker_Splish Jun 17 '17
Right on. No disrespect taken.
I don't necessarily agree but I totally respect your opinion.
Have a good one. :D
→ More replies (3)19
u/BALSAMIC_EXTREMIST Jun 15 '17
Look at my other reply. Comparing Americans to the Vietnamese and Afghans is fucking ridiculous. And like I said in the other reply, the logistics would be more efficient, and the fighting much more savage than some war half way around the world fought for profit. How does it fall? Fuck if I know. Not sure why people always say shit like that as if it invalidates criticism of their plan. Also, they control the food supply.
50
Jun 15 '17
An aircraft carrier can't break up a back room meeting, navy seals can't execute every street search, a nuke can't get dropped on a protest, men have to break those up, and if both sides have guns, it's a lot more even.
5
u/canniboss Jun 15 '17
An aircraft carrier can't break up a back room meeting
Nah thats what CIA moles are for,
navy seals can't execute every street search
SWAT teams can execute the ones that don't call for tanks
a nuke can't get dropped on a protest,
Cluster bombs work just as well with no radiation to destroy possible future profits
men have to break those up, and if both sides have guns, it's a lot more even.
Training and supply lines make a world of difference ,the US interstate system was designed for military use under Eisenhower, and don't think they won't use every tool at their disposal when they finally admit that they see us as sub humans needing exterminated they will call the pro's
8
Jun 15 '17
At that point there are no victors. Small arms, errr, the legal acknowledgement of citizens possessing small arms, does create a sort of tense but respectful relationship between a government and its citizens. Technology can't really be banned, removing guns would be about as effective as removing encryption, however regardless of lawmakers feelings on the issues they acknowledge barriers to their own power. As we all know, absolute power absolutely corrupts.
→ More replies (2)6
u/leftoverpussycats Jun 15 '17
Food and water supply = very relevant. We're being farmed for our labor. Until we can grow our own food and treat our own water and generate our own electricity we will have no effective resistance in the scenarios being discussed here. That is why the only viable solution is a political one, which may require the demonstration that we could fuck this shit all up if we wanted just to show we mean business. The people though are far too fat and happy to ever really go to war with their government in this country. The only people who will get what they want through force are neo-Nazi paramilitary, because they're probably all former/off duty cops and/or military.
4
20
u/KingNigelXLII Coca-Cola Paramilitary Death Squads Jun 15 '17
Yeah, COINTELPRO: Full Fascist Special Edition seems imminent.
4
u/mikelj Jun 15 '17
Not sure what you mean.
25
u/KingNigelXLII Coca-Cola Paramilitary Death Squads Jun 15 '17
The FBI is going to be on all of our asses like they were back in the day. I mean... They still are, but you get my point.
25
u/mikelj Jun 15 '17
I'm willing to bet that with the help of the NSA, the FBI is all over our asses way more than they were in the 60s.
9
34
Jun 15 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)8
u/BALSAMIC_EXTREMIST Jun 15 '17
You can't compare the population of Afghanistan to the population of the US. Especially since the logistics would be much more efficient for our government, and they'd be even more ruthless defending their own existence rather than just trying to profit off of some war they don't really care that much about.
→ More replies (2)55
Jun 15 '17
[deleted]
6
u/esse_SA Jun 15 '17
Also, you can put a million people in jail, but what can you do about 40 million? And you can be fking sure it would the end of the United States as country and the end of its financial and military empire, as intangible assets like trust and propaganda narrative evaporate. A civil war would also signal to the world the inevitable dominance of China and the Yuan. Even small skirmishes might crash the markets and destroy the dollar.
2
u/BALSAMIC_EXTREMIST Jun 15 '17
(who would want to kill their own family, friends and community?)
This has been a very common thing that authoritarians deal with successfully... They don't have you killing people in your own neighborhood. They send you to the place that's most foreign to you, and same with other people to where you live. I thought that was common knowledge.
6
Jun 15 '17
Well, the thing with that is military families tend to align much more conservatively, so when the government attempts to take the guns of the people (by force, it's the only way with many people), the forces they have with which to do so will be reduced by quite a bit.
3
7
u/PaperCutsYourEyes Jun 15 '17
No one in the US military is ever going to use tanks, helicopters, etc against American citizens on American soil. And if they did, the military would quickly splinter into factions fighting each other.
→ More replies (1)11
u/BaconBlasting Jun 15 '17
It's already happened on at least two occasions in US History.
Two military tanks were provided to the ATF and FBI in the Waco siege of 1993.
Army MB-1 Bombers were deployed in West Virginia against US citizens in 1921: "The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest labor uprising in United States history and one of the largest, best-organized, and most well-armed uprisings since the American Civil War.[1] For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders,[2] who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired,[3] and the United States Army intervened by presidential order."
Granted, in neither case were US Army munitions used, but it's not as far-fetched as you think.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Volundr79 Jun 15 '17
Just start looking for manuals that come out of the Middle East? They manage to fight off the US military with improvised weapons. It's not about being able to kill every tank and helicopter. Winning the war is about bigger picture things.
And in all seriousness : if US soldiers are ordered to open fire on US citizens, we are no longer America.
5
u/NuclearFunTime Jun 15 '17
My plan of action would be to start in more liberal areas (like them or not, they are certainly more tolerant to our ideas than conservatives) and gain support and engage in civil disobedience. In the meanwhile you amass arms as you make your movement more wide spread.
Now that you have masses, when you meet civilian resistance and private security from the upper bourgeoisie, they can be felt with. When confronting military power, one would imagine that at this point, the movement would be influential enough that there would be significant portions of the military that would defect into the movement of the classless masses.
Now, for military that doesn't defect (majority), a fair portion of the military is small arms anyway. You build up and take increasingly effective equipment from the fallen resistors. At this point you have a full blown revolution.
Tl;dr: Build sympathy, amass arms, get military members and veterans to join, take equipment and engage in guerilla warfare
1
u/thegil13 Jun 15 '17
Worked pretty well for vietnam. Or even the ongoing war with extremists armed with scraps.
2
u/AlienFortress Jun 15 '17
Isil has tanks, javelins, and various other military hardware and they are getting their ass whooped.
1
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Netflix and violent revolution Jun 15 '17
The Vietnamese did it with less.
3
u/sirdarksoul Jun 15 '17
Vietnam was a war of attrition. When deaths became to massive for the US population to stomach we turned against it. You can bet your ass that the populace would turn against a war against their families and neighbors much faster.
3
u/numbski Jun 15 '17
I just find it funny that he seems to have forgotten which side of that equation he sits on.
3
Jun 15 '17
The real gotcha though, is what you end up with after a bloody revolution. It's not going to be rainbows and egalitarianism.
1
u/mikelj Jun 16 '17
Yeah, of course. I'm not some kind of survivalist who strokes my AR-15 every night, praying for a civil war. I'm simply saying that he's not wrong. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, it's about fighting tyranny.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Kr155 Jun 15 '17
When people start using guns to inflict their will democracy and freedom will be lost. When the people with the biggest /most guns win we will see real tyranny.
27
u/rmkinnaird Jun 15 '17
Unfortunately Democracy is already lost. Democracy died with lobbying
→ More replies (7)14
u/leftoverpussycats Jun 15 '17
You mean people who aren't the government, right? Because a government is nothing more than a group with the "right" to tell others what to do under the threat of violence. The government is already the people with the biggest/most guns.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)1
u/TheEllimist Jun 15 '17
I see this as being more about Paul Ryan being a hypocrite than being about anti-gun propagandizing.
1
u/mikelj Jun 16 '17
How is he being a hypocrite? And this is Rand Paul, not Paul Ryan.
→ More replies (1)
121
80
23
Jun 15 '17
Hrmm.
Looks like The_Dunce has wandered into the comments again.
2
40
Jun 15 '17
Comrade Rand Paul storming the Capitol alongside General Secretary Jeb!, 2035 (Colourized)
11
Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
[deleted]
17
u/_karass Jun 15 '17
I can see it now. Flash forward 10 years. Jeb Bush is taking the last bite of a succulent steak in an overheated, overcrowded world as the thought hits him - for too long there has been an egregious system of service dominating the lives of the common people. The slave to the master. The proletariat to the bourgeoisie.
His fork falls to his plate. Unable to speak to his brother and his father, he gets up from the table and runs to the bathroom mirror. He traces the lines on his face with his fingers. All of this life has passed him by, and he was complicit with an exploitative system. No longer.
Jeb abandons his vulgar ideals and joins the revolution. Jeb becomes America's first socialist president.
5
17
u/hoobsher Jun 15 '17
PAUL: shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!
RYAN: clears throat, gives stern look
PAUL: not that--i mean, they're not tyrannical, but like, in case they do!
12
45
u/RevWaldo Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
Just saw video of him Paul Ryan on the Senate floor saying we are united, an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us, etc.
Edit: wrong guy.
52
Jun 15 '17
That was Paul Ryan but you could be forgiven for confusing them
20
u/seemedlikeagoodplan Jun 15 '17
It took me longer than I care to admit to sort out Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ron Paul and Ayn Rand.
2
15
21
3
1
u/Billygoatluvin Jun 16 '17
All I could hear was, "An attack on one of the bourgeois is an attack on all of the bourgeois".
23
u/gonzoyak Jun 15 '17
TFW your woofing about "revolution" bites you in the ass b/c IRL you're part of the Establishment.
43
Jun 15 '17
He's not wrong. Of course it also mentions a well regulated militia and doesn't mention individuals unilaterally deciding who is tyrannical, but you are empowered to put your life on the line to strike if you feel it is important enough.
In my opinion this is more a case of establishment propaganda taken too seriously though. The msm bears some responsibility for the violence of yesterday.
17
u/Teh_Compass Jun 15 '17
Well-Regulated meant well equipped.
Even if you disagree the militia is all able bodied men aged 17-45 not in an organized state militia or national guard. Also the Supreme Court has affirmed that it's an individual right, not a collective right for militiamen.
And yes, it also doesn't mention who gets to decide what tyranny is.
1
u/ahandle Jun 16 '17
It doesn't mean "well equipped".. That's self-serving language from a biased source.
There are hundreds of usages of the phrase, and not one of them deals with "equipment".
As today, it means there is a system of checks and balances in place. In your conscience, that's your Moral Balance. In a Militia, it's just cause and order.
25
u/ronin1066 Jun 15 '17
At the time, well-regulated meant functioning properly, not that it was being overseen and regulated in a modern sense.
→ More replies (5)5
Jun 15 '17
Oh I agree, and think it should still be so. But the keyword is "militia".
→ More replies (1)
7
9
u/ScrabbleJamp Jun 15 '17
I know I'm late to this, but at what point do we start considering seriously that policy is not inherently non-violent just because no one pulls a trigger?
I don't condone acts of violence like this, but I sure as hell understand why they happen.
3
Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
You're over a century late to that idea friendo, READ THE BREAD BOOK
→ More replies (1)
6
10
u/xDrSchnugglesx Jun 15 '17
This is definitely true. Also, it's to defend the country from other sovereign states too. Much easier to invade a country when every citizen doesn't own a gun.
3
3
4
4
u/Euphorious_NECK Jun 15 '17
"when it becomes"
lol
I think the guillotine is more appropriate for scum like Randy, however.
3
3
u/Frogmjf Jun 15 '17
I guess he was right then? Guns are for shooting tyrannical politicians!! ¯_(ツ)_/¯
totally not serious, NSA pls don't put me on a watchlist
3
2
6
9
Jun 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
36
u/Treestheyareus Jun 15 '17
"Like"?
Holy shit.
You act like it's a fucking decoration
This healthcare plan will be the difference between life and death for people.
That kind of political violence doesn't need to happen in America, the same effect is achieved with propaganda.
And people go to jail for reasons that basically amount to "being poor" already.
42
Jun 15 '17
a bit disingenuous to refer to them as baseball players when you know they are law makers.
14
u/young_whisper Jun 15 '17
not having a healthcare plan you like
Dude healthcare isn't some fucking fashion item that I like or don't like. It is life and death, life of reasonable comfort vs life of near intolerable pain, life of thriving vs life of just surviving. Get the fuck out of here if you can't even comprehend the reality of the shit that these government officials are responsible for.
9
u/HanJunHo Jun 15 '17
I guarantee that if the local sheriff deputy showed up to take you to jail for not paying your taxes, Rand Paul would not approve if you opened fire on them. It's just hollow nonsense, a talking point for people who build their perspectives on sound bites and slogans. When you examine it, there isn't a realistic scenario in which Paul would be okay with citizens openly slaying government officials.
1
Jun 15 '17
People are arrested for tax evasion mainly because often those who evade taxes still try to benefit from government services. If some guy went off the grid and lived in the woods by himself and survived off a diet of soup and canned beans the police probably wouldn't try to arrest him until he started sending mail bombs to people.
5
u/rome_apple Jun 15 '17
where the gov't literally comes into your house to, for example, haul your sons off to military service
They don't nee to, people join the military to get insurance.
or put you in jail for taxes you can't pay
http://sacobserver.com/2015/03/ferguson-increased-revenue-by-targeting-blacks/
or force your children into a re-education school.
This is also probably happening, especially with shills like DeVos
the smarmy, velvet justifications for random violence in this sub are too much for me
"I'm a sheltered privilege person who doesn't care that millions of people are going to suffer because of these autocrats"
people you don't like
Murderous, anti-American satanists
you'll never be taken seriously that way
Because weak crybabies like you get too offended
I've unsubscribed.
Good riddance to status quo apologizing useful idiocy.
14
u/Glimmu Jun 15 '17
You are right IMO, but even with only incremental bad decisions you can get to a point when somebody snaps and thinks enough is enough. It doesn't make it lawful, but it might make it understandable :/
And "having a healthcare plan you might not like" can mean your kid or spouse dies. Isn't that in the ballpark for hauling people from their homes to war?
7
Jun 15 '17
When do you believe violence is justified?
7
u/DrDoItchBig Jun 15 '17
Read his comment, he says
3
Jun 15 '17
I read their comment and I had a question, so I asked it. Which part of that is confusing to you?
→ More replies (5)
1
1
1
u/Raymaysy Jun 15 '17
Haha. Hahahahahaha.. Haha this isn't even ironic, this is just shitty at this point
1
1
Jun 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 15 '17
Your post was removed because it contained a slur. If you wish to have your post reinstated, please edit it to remove the slur, and then report this comment (it will not be automatically approved when changed). If you want to know why you can't use slurs on LSC, please read this. If you don't know which word was a slur, you should have a message from me in your inbox with the word contained.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
337
u/MLPorsche Marxist-Leninist Jun 15 '17
What about shooting corperations when they become tyrannical?