- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Donald Trump on Sunday proposed a new policy that many critics said is equivalent to legalizing “The Purge.”
Trump spoke at a rally in Pennsylvania, where he admitted that his attendees were “falling asleep” at one of his earlier rallies. Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign noted that, as Trump was still speaking at the swing-state event over the weekend, rallygoers placed directly behind the former president started to funnel out of the building.
One comment Trump made drew condemnation on social media, as well as numerous comparisons to The Purge, a film series based on a dystopian world in which the government makes all crimes legal for a 12-hour period.
As reported by Sebastian Smith, AFP Washington desk chief, “Trump in Erie, PA, says in US ‘the police aren’t allowed to do their job.’ To stop crime, you need ‘one really violent day.’ He says: ‘One rough hour and I mean real rough, the word would get out and it would end immediately.’”
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
So just let the cops go out and hit the streets free of ethics and legal restraint to just do whatever the fuck they want for an hour to beat the public in submission. That’s not at all dictatory. Nope. Not one bit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity_Battalions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Percenters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers
Yeah, his suggestion is actually worse than the Purge.
Isn’t that basically where we are already?
Just goes to show how awful he thinks it should be.
They forget that the people have guns too. As a matter of fact, this is the exact reason the second ammendment exists in America. To defend against those like Shit Stain Donnie.
What are your guns going to do against a fucking tank? Or grenade launchers? Or just a generally much more equipped militarized police force who will call the national guard in (who have even more fire power) like the little bitches they are?
You’re right. Better let them just have their way instead. I don’t know what I was thinking. There is no point in defending the country from a fascist takeover.
/s
Yes. Defend the country. Fight for the country.
Don’t pretend that having a tacticool gun is going to accomplish anything. Whoever controls the military controls the country. No amount of firearms stashed throughout the house are going to change that because the cops will literally drive a tank through your house and shoot you and your family’s corpses.
Cops have families too. Generals need to buy groceries. There are plenty of ways to resist a fascist government given the proper motivation. Firearms are just one (pretty effective when used correctly) way to accomplish that goal.
Vietnam and Afghanistan are both great examples of how a guerilla force with access to primarily small arms can force a much more powerful army to expend so many resources fighting a war of attrition that it eventually becomes untenable to continue. It’s not glamorous or particularly quick but it’s an option that isn’t on the table if the most resistance you can muster is trying to get close enough to stab the right people.
So… your assault rifle exists just to pop Mrs O’Coppy in the face and not much else?
And Vietnam and Afghanistan ARE great examples.
The Vietcong basically only stood a chance because they were entrenched in a low visibility jungle that negated most of the advantages the other side had. And Afghanistan? The Brave Men And Women Of The Mujahideen ™ were getting slaughtered until they were given stinger missiles to counter soviet air superiority (wonder who gave them those…). And the more recent conflict was more about IEDs than any form of stand up combat.
Also: If you are at the point where you have no hope of progress and just want to bleed an occupying force dry? Assault rifles are bulky. What you want is a high velocity pistol round that you can conceal and unload point blank on. Also you want to roll back time ten or twenty years and get rid of all those cameras that will immediately trace you back to the neighborhood you are hiding out in.
Yes guns are used to shoot people in the face in war. What’s odd about that to you?
We get it, you don’t like guns and you don’t think they have any place in society. However, you haven’t made any other statements than that. In this hypothetical situation that’s looking more and more like our future reality every day, your plan to resist fascism is what exactly? Because at the end of the day I think you know that having a gun opens up more options than you would otherwise have and you’re just having a hard time picturing guns in any other context than you’re used to talking about them in.
I mean… someone with basic literacy might key in on a way that actually can cause damage to an occupying force. And the reality that the US has so much surveillance that hit and run tactics fundamentally won’t work.
Unlike some people, I am not going to talk about becoming a domestic terrorist on message boards because… I wish that were obvious. But I have yet to see anything suggesting how all the assault rifles people NEED to fight against tyranny are going to do… anything against even the militarized police force, let alone the national guard or the army. Its just people being pissy and larping that they are Patrick Swayze and are going to scream “WILDCATS” while heroically defeating an entire army through the power of their after school NRA classes.
Also many of the people with guns will be using the guns to help the police murder poor minorities (and call that “fighting tyranny”).
When the Russians did their trip to Kyiv they partly got stopped by unarmed civilians with Molotov’s.
Just saying.
Only in the most stupid and overextended of positions.
Everywhere else? It was modern ATGMs that halted their advances and evened the battlefield enough that borderline WW1 levels of (en)trench(ed) warfare became viable.
That’s what they do now and we live in a free and democratic society so no it’s not.