this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
659 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] oce@jlai.lu 49 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

Sounds like a similar argument to how christofascists justify owning military weapons. It's very disturbing from a European point of view.

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The countries with nukes get permanent seats on the UN Security Council.

Maybe once the US has been around for a few more centuries it'll be different. in the meantime, if the crazies are armed you should be too.

[–] oce@jlai.lu -4 points 3 months ago

That's military not civilians, it seems justified as long as there are authoritarian regimes with imperialist ideas. Completely unrelated to civilians having military weapons. Unless you're saying civilians should have nukes too.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Unarmed protest will not stop putin

[–] rekorse@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Will they though? Last I checked, the EU mostly underfunds their military. They dont even meet nato obligations

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

This is rapidly changing, all thanks to Putin.

[–] oce@jlai.lu -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Seems Ukrainian stopped it pretty well without having civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Not true at all. Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.

regardless of whether this statement is true or not, it would be because they were expecting and preparing themselves for military invasion.

also there was armed conflict already in progress before start of the "3 day special operation".

Not true at all

so completely true after all... 😆

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No, you said Ukraine fought Russia back without arming their civilian populace, then tried to walk it back by saying they were expecting an invasion. Yeah, no kidding. But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.

Yes, it is absolutely true that Ukraine fought Russia by having ordinary citizens fighting back with military weapons.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

then tried to walk it back

i couldn't have tried to walk anything back for two reasons:

  1. i am not the person you originally replied to.

and

  1. the two statements are not contradictory, so there isn't "taking anything back".

But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.

that is how it works. you are a civilian, until you are given weapons and task to do, such as fight invading armed forces.

how long you were on a army's payroll before is just splitting hair. different para-military and guerilla forces are part of the armed conflicts all over the world.

and from the context of this discussion it is pretty clear that "civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty" refers to some fucking meal team six redneck from some confederate state who only ever saw a war in television and carries his assault rifle to walmart to protect himself against people laughing at his small dick, not people fighting in actual war.

so thanks for playing darling, better luck next time.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, they were given assault rifles, while not being inducted into the military. That makes them civilians in every sense of the word, and not in the military. Civilians have always fought in wars. That doesn't make them part of the military.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

you want to lecture someone on "not considering what i said"? clown

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The hell are you talking about? You keep saying that civilians given rifles are suddenly part of the military, but they are NOT.

I asked you what I should do if white supremacists start hanging minorities again, and you completely ignored the question because you've got nothing, and then I guess you directed me here.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

but they are NOT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary

I asked you what I should do if white supremacists

white supremacist shouldn't have access to automatic weapons (or preferably any weapons), which is exactly what this debate is about.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

And that is not an answer to the question I asked.

Paramilitary is not military.

I asked you, what I should do, if white supremacists, begin lynching minorities. Again. What is your solution to this problem? Not what is your pipe dream for reality?

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago

Paramilitary is not military.

i suggest you take a deep breath and try to decide what you are arguing, because at this point i seriously doubt you know that, you are just in opposition to anything.

What is your solution to this problem?

do you seriously believe that more automatic weapons is going to fix the problem?

[–] oce@jlai.lu -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because they were expecting a foreign military invasion, it still is military duty.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Nope. A civilian fighting in a war does not make them part of the military. It makes them a civilian fighting in a war.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Seeing how 2A it almost took down a fascist it's getting hard to argue against it.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you think arming yourself because there are organized fascists in the country is a similar argument to fascists wanting guns to do fascism you're a fascist and nothing less.

[–] oce@jlai.lu -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ah, didn't know you would consider most of EU and the developed world to be fascist, thanks for the insult.

You would have been the worst kind of fence sitter right up until the germans boarded in your house. You are a fascist.