Human nature and society hasn’t changed since then. Hell, it hasn’t changed since wide spread written history. Go read ancient Greco-Roman graffiti. We are not fundamentally different than our ancestors, and it is the height of arrogance to pretend we are the enlightened peak so far above them.
The reasons for Marx’s statements and the reasons the founders wrote the 2nd amendment have not changed, and technology has not changed sufficiently to invalidate that.
Human nature might not have changed, but warfare definitely has. The tools of war that might have made it possible for a peasant army to rise up and overthrow a government are no longer suitable in an age of satellites, tanks, bombers, drones, etc.
Somewhat true, though the US loosing for 30 years to peasant armies in the Middle East proves military technology hasn’t changed as much as you might feel it has, but that wasn’t my point. Disarming and giving all power to the elite is still neither preferable nor a good idea.
Labor gave up their economic weapons (unions) because times were peaceful and prosperous and their overlords promised they’d be safe, and now they are debt slaves working gig jobs with shit or no benefits. The monopoly of economic violence belongs to the FAANGs and Walmarts.
Doing the same for guns and the government is rolling out the red carpet for the jackboots to break in because there is nothing to fear. Giving up freedom for safety means you will get neither still holds. A government that doesn’t righteously fear (as in healthy respect) it’s governed is not of and for the people, but over and above the people.
Those “peasant armies” that were un-tightening the US had access to machine guns, grenades, RPGs, unguided rockets, mortars, IEDs, surface-to-air missiles.
You’re making a leap by saying that disarming is giving all power to the elite. The elite already have power, and guns in the hands of civilians are not actually power, they’re the illusion of power.
Labor gave up their economic weapons (unions) because times were peaceful and prosperous
Not in France. France doesn’t have a gun problem, but they have strong unions, and in France people are happy to use their power to hold strikes and force the government to acknowledge their demands.
Doing the same for guns and the government is rolling out the red carpet for the jackboots to break in because there is nothing to fear.
That’s my point, there never was anything to fear for the rich. They don’t fear guns in the hands of the people because they know that they’re safe. They know a few AR-15s are not a threat to them. What’s a threat is unions, taxes on the ultra-rich, limits on the use of money in politics, etc. Plus, as we’ve seen recently, even when there’s a actual fascist taking power and trampling on people’s civil liberties, people aren’t actually going to use their guns.
That’s my point, there never was anything to fear for the rich. They don’t fear guns in the hands of the people because they know that they’re safe. They know a few AR-15s are not a threat to them.
Looking at the difference in how the police handled peaceful protests when the protesters were openly and obviously armed compared to when they weren’t, the boots on the ground doing the enforcement are the ones who care.
It’s not the rich who will be breaking into your house in the middle of the night to disappear you.
Plus, as we’ve seen recently, even when there’s a actual fascist taking power and trampling on people’s civil liberties, people aren’t actually going to use their guns.
Do not trust that the amount Americans will bend in the face of tyranny is infinite. They colonists attempted years of bargaining and peaceful solutions before the revolution. Only 20-30% of the population at the max think Trump is an actual fascist who will seize power and overthrow the democracy, and that group is both the least armed and most violence averse. It will take something completely overt and undeniable to get people to throw what comfort they have in life away to initiate armed rebellion.
This doesn’t mean the right move is to give up that option completely and hope that capitulation isn’t too bad.
Human nature and society hasn’t changed since then. Hell, it hasn’t changed since wide spread written history. Go read ancient Greco-Roman graffiti. We are not fundamentally different than our ancestors, and it is the height of arrogance to pretend we are the enlightened peak so far above them.
The reasons for Marx’s statements and the reasons the founders wrote the 2nd amendment have not changed, and technology has not changed sufficiently to invalidate that.
Human nature might not have changed, but warfare definitely has. The tools of war that might have made it possible for a peasant army to rise up and overthrow a government are no longer suitable in an age of satellites, tanks, bombers, drones, etc.
Somewhat true, though the US loosing for 30 years to peasant armies in the Middle East proves military technology hasn’t changed as much as you might feel it has, but that wasn’t my point. Disarming and giving all power to the elite is still neither preferable nor a good idea.
Labor gave up their economic weapons (unions) because times were peaceful and prosperous and their overlords promised they’d be safe, and now they are debt slaves working gig jobs with shit or no benefits. The monopoly of economic violence belongs to the FAANGs and Walmarts.
Doing the same for guns and the government is rolling out the red carpet for the jackboots to break in because there is nothing to fear. Giving up freedom for safety means you will get neither still holds. A government that doesn’t righteously fear (as in healthy respect) it’s governed is not of and for the people, but over and above the people.
Those “peasant armies” that were un-tightening the US had access to machine guns, grenades, RPGs, unguided rockets, mortars, IEDs, surface-to-air missiles.
You’re making a leap by saying that disarming is giving all power to the elite. The elite already have power, and guns in the hands of civilians are not actually power, they’re the illusion of power.
Not in France. France doesn’t have a gun problem, but they have strong unions, and in France people are happy to use their power to hold strikes and force the government to acknowledge their demands.
That’s my point, there never was anything to fear for the rich. They don’t fear guns in the hands of the people because they know that they’re safe. They know a few AR-15s are not a threat to them. What’s a threat is unions, taxes on the ultra-rich, limits on the use of money in politics, etc. Plus, as we’ve seen recently, even when there’s a actual fascist taking power and trampling on people’s civil liberties, people aren’t actually going to use their guns.
Looking at the difference in how the police handled peaceful protests when the protesters were openly and obviously armed compared to when they weren’t, the boots on the ground doing the enforcement are the ones who care.
It’s not the rich who will be breaking into your house in the middle of the night to disappear you.
Do not trust that the amount Americans will bend in the face of tyranny is infinite. They colonists attempted years of bargaining and peaceful solutions before the revolution. Only 20-30% of the population at the max think Trump is an actual fascist who will seize power and overthrow the democracy, and that group is both the least armed and most violence averse. It will take something completely overt and undeniable to get people to throw what comfort they have in life away to initiate armed rebellion.
This doesn’t mean the right move is to give up that option completely and hope that capitulation isn’t too bad.
It’s not the poor either. In fact, it’s nobody.
Why not?
Which of they colonists are you talking about?
Which is why it will never happen.