• Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
      151·
      5 hours ago

      Yeah, in a modern police state, owning a firearm isn’t gonna help once you’re in their sights. If you think it will, that just means you’re being brought in cold rather than doing time.

      I’m all for self protection, though, and ensuring that it isn’t only the right who’s armed.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      9·
      5 hours ago

      I agree, but counterpoint. If you’re carrying a gun for political protection/self-defense, you also need to be trained and organized on gun safety, community protocols with guns, and collective action.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          3·
          5 hours ago

          That’s fair. Part of organizing community defense is making it absolutely clear that those who are known to be carrying become much more of a target by all fascists.

    • Cris@lemmy.worldOP
      51·
      5 hours ago

      Thats very true. And the start of stricter gun laws in California was under Ronald Regan when he was governor, in response to groups like the black panthers arming themselves

      • Aliendelarge@lemmy.worldM
        2·
        4 hours ago

        While its true Reagan was governer then and supported it, all he really did was sign a veto proof bipartisan bill from the California Legislature. Lets not forget those others like Don Mulford and John Knox.

  • Bearsly@lemmy.today
    16·
    6 hours ago

    Always loved the saying “If you go far enough left you get your guns back”, always gives my friends a chuckle

  • Majorllama@lemmy.world
    31·
    4 hours ago

    I mean you could remove the “minorities” from the post and it would be just as accurate.

    An armed population is harder to oppress.

    Look how dictatorship 101 starts with removing any easy ways for the people to defend themselves.