Red states have just as little of your interest at heart. They just know that letting people keep a few rifles and pistols won’t actually have any measurable effect against the US army if there was an uprising. It just makes their constituents feel safe and give them their votes.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, it wasn’t a bunch of morons with rifles in any of those cases.
Korea was pushed all the way north by the U.S. until China came down and push us back out. We withdrew fearing a larger scale war after most countries were still recovering from WWII
Vietnam was dense jungle warfare with a people that had already been fighting the French successfully with Guriella warfare. While the war wasn’t exactly a great time for the U.S., we weren’t losing militarily by any stretch of the terms. We had lost public support for various reasons, student protests and blah blah blah z
Lastly the Middle East, what exactly happened there?
Hmm, about 1 million enemy combatants over 20 years, oh also about 3 million civilian causalities. Compared to about 6000 U.S. service member deaths. How did they inflict that many casualties ? Mainly by reusing weapons we gave them to fight the soviets and the shit that the Soviet left behind was used to blow shit up.
So I don’t what you boys with your second amendment semi auto rifles are gonna do, but good luck with that. The morons on your side of the team, couldn’t even organize a non-jackass raid of the capital building.
Sources: the ability to read, a U.S. History book, Grandfather served in Korea and I served in the U.S. Army.
I’m not with this other guy, but you don’t seem to understand that we lost those wars because there was no end goal. Occupation is not something you can do, the people are either on your side and willing to take up the mantle (Korea and keep you there long term) or want you to GTFO (Vietnam/Afghanistan). The issue with assuming that the army would side with the anti-gun crowd is really not smart, a large portion of the military, which are going to be the ones patrolling the street corners would be gun owners themselves. This isn’t even to bring up the point that if your neighbor is bombed, unless you live a mile from them, your place is also getting destroyed.
Anyone who wants a civil war to show one side or the other they’re right…is insane.
This is actually beautifully telling that that’s what you responded with.
You’ve been convinced that you would obviously take up arms if anything you cared about that much wasn’t fixed by voting.
Anything that sounds like something you would care about probably isn’t true, because you’ve been living in this same world with these same issues that haven’t been solved by voting for (how long has it been?) and you haven’t picked up your gun yet. So obviously that issue isn’t happening or isn’t as bad as people say (or maybe they’re lying to you???), and you can twist yourself into knots justifying and rationalizing why you support it because hey, you haven’t taken up arms about it and you probably never will.
Which states have decided that I, a transgender non-binary individual, have no right to exist?
Edit: No right to exist without changing who I am, accepting my birth sex, and forgoing healthcare, in which case I would have probably died of a second suicide attempt by now…
I get what you’re saying, but I think your definition of right to exist is a bit fallacious there. Like you don’t say that certain places are taking away gay people’s right to exist, or that capitalism is charging money for the right to exist… okay, maybe some people are saying that last one.
Don’t mind me, I’m just not a fan of garnering support via anger-inducing hyperbole because I think there are much healthier ways.
EDIT: Yep, being downvoted, that checks out. I just hope someone would reconsider their approach a bit.
You’re a homophobic racist piece of shit defending shit people (Republicans) with shitty laws, and getting upset when being called out for it, that’s why you’re being downvoted.
Man, everyone just assumes I’m a Republican or something because I scrutinize an LGBT talking point. Which makes sense in this ultra-politicized online world, but still.
I’m not arguing for taking away anyone’s rights. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that certain places ban gay marriage, I’m just pointing out that “right to exist” isn’t a talking point for those scenarios because it’s not accurate. And they’re still able to garner support just fine.
Do you find that everyone who disagrees with you on serious matters is either ignorant or evil? Asking rhetorically.
I won’t deny, there’s some assholes in the GOP. But the entire stance of Democrats is making it harder for minorities to arm themselves, same as it was in 1934.
Tell me, which states are trying to make it harder for black people to arm themselves? Is it the red states or the blue states?
Typical right-winger thinking the only thing that matters is guns.
Woman suffering a Miscarriage is arrested for abuse of a corpse
Book bans
Wisconsin Republicans voting districts are unconstitutional
ETA: fuck the GOP and fuck you
Tell me, which states have taken away women’s rights to bodily autonomy, forcing them to directly endanger their lives if they happen to get pregnant?
Is it the red states or the blue states?
If it mattered so much, and voting didnt work, why not pick up a gun?
Same reply to all of you. FFS, the government does NOT have your interests at heart. Especially in blue states.
Red states have just as little of your interest at heart. They just know that letting people keep a few rifles and pistols won’t actually have any measurable effect against the US army if there was an uprising. It just makes their constituents feel safe and give them their votes.
Worked in the middle east. And vietnam. And korea.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, it wasn’t a bunch of morons with rifles in any of those cases.
Korea was pushed all the way north by the U.S. until China came down and push us back out. We withdrew fearing a larger scale war after most countries were still recovering from WWII
Vietnam was dense jungle warfare with a people that had already been fighting the French successfully with Guriella warfare. While the war wasn’t exactly a great time for the U.S., we weren’t losing militarily by any stretch of the terms. We had lost public support for various reasons, student protests and blah blah blah z
Lastly the Middle East, what exactly happened there? Hmm, about 1 million enemy combatants over 20 years, oh also about 3 million civilian causalities. Compared to about 6000 U.S. service member deaths. How did they inflict that many casualties ? Mainly by reusing weapons we gave them to fight the soviets and the shit that the Soviet left behind was used to blow shit up.
So I don’t what you boys with your second amendment semi auto rifles are gonna do, but good luck with that. The morons on your side of the team, couldn’t even organize a non-jackass raid of the capital building.
Sources: the ability to read, a U.S. History book, Grandfather served in Korea and I served in the U.S. Army.
I’m not with this other guy, but you don’t seem to understand that we lost those wars because there was no end goal. Occupation is not something you can do, the people are either on your side and willing to take up the mantle (Korea and keep you there long term) or want you to GTFO (Vietnam/Afghanistan). The issue with assuming that the army would side with the anti-gun crowd is really not smart, a large portion of the military, which are going to be the ones patrolling the street corners would be gun owners themselves. This isn’t even to bring up the point that if your neighbor is bombed, unless you live a mile from them, your place is also getting destroyed.
Anyone who wants a civil war to show one side or the other they’re right…is insane.
This is actually beautifully telling that that’s what you responded with.
You’ve been convinced that you would obviously take up arms if anything you cared about that much wasn’t fixed by voting.
Anything that sounds like something you would care about probably isn’t true, because you’ve been living in this same world with these same issues that haven’t been solved by voting for (how long has it been?) and you haven’t picked up your gun yet. So obviously that issue isn’t happening or isn’t as bad as people say (or maybe they’re lying to you???), and you can twist yourself into knots justifying and rationalizing why you support it because hey, you haven’t taken up arms about it and you probably never will.
Removed by mod
Which states have decided that I, a transgender non-binary individual, have no right to exist?
Edit: No right to exist without changing who I am, accepting my birth sex, and forgoing healthcare, in which case I would have probably died of a second suicide attempt by now…
I get what you’re saying, but I think your definition of right to exist is a bit fallacious there. Like you don’t say that certain places are taking away gay people’s right to exist, or that capitalism is charging money for the right to exist… okay, maybe some people are saying that last one.
Don’t mind me, I’m just not a fan of garnering support via anger-inducing hyperbole because I think there are much healthier ways.
EDIT: Yep, being downvoted, that checks out. I just hope someone would reconsider their approach a bit.
You’re a homophobic racist piece of shit defending shit people (Republicans) with shitty laws, and getting upset when being called out for it, that’s why you’re being downvoted.
I’m not doing any of that though?
Removed by mod
Man, everyone just assumes I’m a Republican or something because I scrutinize an LGBT talking point. Which makes sense in this ultra-politicized online world, but still.
I’m not arguing for taking away anyone’s rights. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that certain places ban gay marriage, I’m just pointing out that “right to exist” isn’t a talking point for those scenarios because it’s not accurate. And they’re still able to garner support just fine.
Do you find that everyone who disagrees with you on serious matters is either ignorant or evil? Asking rhetorically.
I love it when the right pretends to actually want black people arming themselves.
You might wanna look up how Gov Ronald Regan reacted when CA Black Panthers started arming themselves.
I won’t deny, there’s some assholes in the GOP. But the entire stance of Democrats is making it harder for minorities to arm themselves, same as it was in 1934.
Removed by mod
Yes, Reagan was an asshole.
Have you heard of red flag laws? It’s the latest attempt by the Democrats at keeping minorities and neurodivergent people from arming themselves.
Yes, black people are subjected to discrimination and prejudice. Black Panthers arming themselves was key to them getting heard.
You have yet to demonstrate how democratic attempts at federal gun control are racist or targeting minorities above anyone else.
Oh, that’s easy. There’s numerous essays, articles, and entire books taking about the racist roots of gun control. Hell, google scholar lists a quarter million articles on the subject. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gun+control+racism+history&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
I don’t have single article in particular for you to read, but any article in that list of results should be sufficient.
I did find this nice article on google, seems to back up my claims that gun control is racist. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2022/08/racism-gun-rights
Red states.