Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident?
Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 days ago1776 was the revolution where a bunch of people “bought guns” its the “individual buys a gun” revolution. You know the exact thing you’ve been saying and then getting upset whenever anyone elaborates on it in any way.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
Nobody in any other revolution bought any guns.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 days ago
That’s obviously not what I’m saying. Most revolutions people did not buy the gun they used. The only examples we have of ones where everyone “bought their own guns” sucks. That’s what I’m saying.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
This line of “logic” is so fucking ridiculous I don’t even know how to reason with it.
Let’s say “the army” decides to start handing out guns to people. What if they don’t have enough guns to go around? Because it seems to me, that every gun a person already has is one less gun that “the army” has to procure somehow. It kinda seems like people who did the evil bad “individualist consumerism” of bringing their own guns to the revolution are actually bringing a greater contribution than they would have been able to otherwise, doesn’t it?
Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 days ago
This comes down to ammo. if you have a bunch of guns they’re going to be useful until it runs out of ammo. If you are caching huge amounts of ammo and guns then yes that’s useful as long as you or your allies keep control of it. And caching ammo is harder than just buying a gun.
Like if your “military” is providing .223 ammo that .308 rifle isn’t going to be too useful for very long.
The consumerist stuff isn’t “bad” its just “not useful” to the point I’d say its “deliberate misdirection”.