give me an example of a modern uprising where the protesters used weapons to achieve their goals.
Uprising was maybe the wrong word. But off the top of my head, the Black Panthers and the IRA both used lots of weapons to achieve their goals. The Black Panthers were considered by the FBI to be the biggest threat to the US government in the 60s. They were eventually stopped with counter-intelligence, infiltration, criminalizing, and disarmament rather than military action.
You bring up good examples of uprisings that didn’t use weapons and times that uprisings were suppressed with military force. I guess I would slightly walk my original claim back. However, I still think that the people having guns is better than not. I can’t find an article, but during the 2020 BLM protests, there were plenty of armed counter protesters. The police were harassing the protesters and leaving the counter protesters alone. Lots of ink was spilled about how this showed which side the police were on. That’s probably true. But there was also some Texas BLM protests where the protesters showed up armed and the police didn’t fuck with them. They didn’t need enough firepower to win a battle. They just needed enough to deter aggression.
Neither the black panthers nor the IRA overthrew a state, or defended a territory against a modern army. Both movements were contained, infiltrated, and suppressed by states using overwhelming force/tactics. Their guns didn’t protect them from a modern government’s means of action (which is far more than just the military).
The only reason the IRA was able to last so long was the UK deliberately tolerating a small conflict in order to avoid political escalation. They thought it was preferable to have a rowdy Belfast than to flatten it like Russia flattened Chechnya, the terror attacks on the mainland did much more for the IRA than the armed resistance. The good friday agreement was the IRA giving up out of exhaustion, not a win for armed resistance at all.
guns in BLM
Well yeah, a handful of cops will be reluctant to escalate against a rowdy crowd. The same happens in France without guns, when protesters start throwing rocks the police backs away and waits for the CRS (riot police with military grade weapons) to take over.
Guns wouldn’t do much to deter SWAT, the national guard, etc.
I might be wrong (non-USA perspective here), but wasn’t there also a big political angle? Since BLM were protests against police brutality, it would have been really bad PR wise for the police to escalate with more police brutality, therefore they showed more restraint than usual, no? Optics of shooting back at protesters would have caused a huge nationwide mess. Wouldn’t call this a case of guns working, rather of politics constraining the states’ options. If the government had wanted to do Kent State 2.0, I doubt guns would have stopped them, but they chose not to.
I also don’t recall guns stopping rubber bullets shot at journalists, cars rammed into crowds, entire neighborhoods being gassed, activists being kidnapped in unmarked vans, tac units being sent in Portland, doing anything to protect Rittenhouse’s victims, etc…
The IRA kiiiinda did though. The map looks different than it did. It was an anti-colonial struggle, so winning looks different, but yeah, they did the thing.
And I think things like swat would be substantially deterred by going after pigs at their dens in retaliation for every act of violence. Nobody’s doing this right now.
And I think things like swat would be substantially deterred by going after pigs at their dens in retaliation for every act of violence
MOVE bombing?
LA riots crushed in blood?
Waco obliterated?
Modern states don’t get deterred when you attack their symbols of power. They reply in kind with overwhelming force. SWAT isn’t scared of retaliation, they exist for this exact purpose.
I don’t mean symbols and I don’t mean the whole state.
Doing nothing is also larping my own suicide, and it should be noted that I have no friends+am bad at violence. Really just trying to make outcomes where I might not die palatable to others. Thanks for helping BTW.
To be clear, just because I’m rough in my disagreement doesn’t mean I dislike you.
I have friendly feelings towards most people who decide to engage in lefty communities (some exceptions apply).
Even towards that other person who’s feeling overconfident about geopolitics and made my blood boil a little… in the end we’re all on the same side of the class war and I strongly believe in empathy, mutualism, togetherness. Whatever happens in the world, you have communities of people all around the world who would let you join them and consider you their friend without a second thought.
Uprising was maybe the wrong word. But off the top of my head, the Black Panthers and the IRA both used lots of weapons to achieve their goals. The Black Panthers were considered by the FBI to be the biggest threat to the US government in the 60s. They were eventually stopped with counter-intelligence, infiltration, criminalizing, and disarmament rather than military action.
You bring up good examples of uprisings that didn’t use weapons and times that uprisings were suppressed with military force. I guess I would slightly walk my original claim back. However, I still think that the people having guns is better than not. I can’t find an article, but during the 2020 BLM protests, there were plenty of armed counter protesters. The police were harassing the protesters and leaving the counter protesters alone. Lots of ink was spilled about how this showed which side the police were on. That’s probably true. But there was also some Texas BLM protests where the protesters showed up armed and the police didn’t fuck with them. They didn’t need enough firepower to win a battle. They just needed enough to deter aggression.
Neither the black panthers nor the IRA overthrew a state, or defended a territory against a modern army. Both movements were contained, infiltrated, and suppressed by states using overwhelming force/tactics. Their guns didn’t protect them from a modern government’s means of action (which is far more than just the military).
The only reason the IRA was able to last so long was the UK deliberately tolerating a small conflict in order to avoid political escalation. They thought it was preferable to have a rowdy Belfast than to flatten it like Russia flattened Chechnya, the terror attacks on the mainland did much more for the IRA than the armed resistance. The good friday agreement was the IRA giving up out of exhaustion, not a win for armed resistance at all.
Well yeah, a handful of cops will be reluctant to escalate against a rowdy crowd. The same happens in France without guns, when protesters start throwing rocks the police backs away and waits for the CRS (riot police with military grade weapons) to take over.
Guns wouldn’t do much to deter SWAT, the national guard, etc.
I might be wrong (non-USA perspective here), but wasn’t there also a big political angle? Since BLM were protests against police brutality, it would have been really bad PR wise for the police to escalate with more police brutality, therefore they showed more restraint than usual, no? Optics of shooting back at protesters would have caused a huge nationwide mess. Wouldn’t call this a case of guns working, rather of politics constraining the states’ options. If the government had wanted to do Kent State 2.0, I doubt guns would have stopped them, but they chose not to.
I also don’t recall guns stopping rubber bullets shot at journalists, cars rammed into crowds, entire neighborhoods being gassed, activists being kidnapped in unmarked vans, tac units being sent in Portland, doing anything to protect Rittenhouse’s victims, etc…
The IRA kiiiinda did though. The map looks different than it did. It was an anti-colonial struggle, so winning looks different, but yeah, they did the thing.
And I think things like swat would be substantially deterred by going after pigs at their dens in retaliation for every act of violence. Nobody’s doing this right now.
MOVE bombing?
LA riots crushed in blood?
Waco obliterated?
Modern states don’t get deterred when you attack their symbols of power. They reply in kind with overwhelming force. SWAT isn’t scared of retaliation, they exist for this exact purpose.
You are LARPing your own suicide.
I don’t mean symbols and I don’t mean the whole state.
Doing nothing is also larping my own suicide, and it should be noted that I have no friends+am bad at violence. Really just trying to make outcomes where I might not die palatable to others. Thanks for helping BTW.
To be clear, just because I’m rough in my disagreement doesn’t mean I dislike you.
I have friendly feelings towards most people who decide to engage in lefty communities (some exceptions apply).
Even towards that other person who’s feeling overconfident about geopolitics and made my blood boil a little… in the end we’re all on the same side of the class war and I strongly believe in empathy, mutualism, togetherness. Whatever happens in the world, you have communities of people all around the world who would let you join them and consider you their friend without a second thought.
We’re all tired of capitalism and violence.
Peace.