Liberals in US wearing Che t shirts

@redredred So if he were around today, he’d be a DeSantis supporter.

@LeopoldBloom No, as an insane murderous socialist he’d be right at home in the democrat party

@redredred what a load of nonsense. Read about che before forming a sentence

@redredred It's the Republicans who celebrate when kids are gunned down at school, and want to fire teachers for saying gay people exist. Vote the DeSantis-Guevara ticket.

@LeopoldBloom I’m sure you can provide a link to an actual celebration of dead kids. Democrats celebrating abortion in the ninth month don’t count. After that the names of teachers actually fired just for saying gay people exist would shore up your spurious claim.

@redredred Sure, as soon as you show me some Democrats celebrating abortion in the 9th month.

I guess you think women have 9th month abortions for fun. You should look up the real reasons.

Here they are celebrating the removal of restrictions in Kansas.@LeopoldBloom

@redredred Yes, we celebrate when women are allowed to choose whether they can have an abortion or not. They're not celebrating abortions; they're celebrating the right to abortion.

By your standard, conservatives who support gun rights are celebrating when children are murdered. Of course, that's not what they're doing. They're just celebrating people being able to choose if they murder children or not.

@LeopoldBloom let’s talk in reasonable terms. Bodily autonomy says women have the right to choose and not rely on a government to tell them when, how or whether.

All people have the right to defend themselves and not rely on a government to tell them when, how or whether.

@redredred I agree with your first position. As to the second, I've read that a "good guy with a gun" only stops a mass shooter in around 3% of cases. The argument against gun control is that there are simply too many of them to regulate. Outlawing something popular rarely is successful. Since the Dobbs decision, the abortion rate in the US has gone up.

@LeopoldBloom You differ in my two positions because you lack intellectual consistency. My gun isn’t important to me because I can protect others, it to protect me and mine. They have their own lives to protect

@redredred The second amendment doesn't envision people using guns for personal protection. It was intended to substitute citizens militias for a permanent standing army. Most people would be better off with pepper spray for personal protection. Without training, very few people would be able to fend off an attacker with a gun.

At least you didn't say that we need guns in case we have to overthrow the government if it gets too oppressive.

@LeopoldBloom “ At least you didn't say that we need guns in case we have to overthrow the government if it gets too oppressive.”

That is my core belief since the Founders hadn’t just finished a hunting trip but they had just overthrown an oppressive government with their personal arms.

You can do you own research but the Founders believed strongly that the people should be armed and they never limited why. SCOTUS agrees since they found that the right is a personal right and limits snd regulations must has a historical basis.

@redredred Federalist #29 lays out the founding fathers' views on citizens militias. The idea that anyone can own any gun for any reason is a very modern one, based on decades of NRA propaganda aimed at nothing more lofty than selling more guns. The Heller decision dispensed with the "well-regulated militia" portion of the second amendment, as if the framers had put that in there for no reason.

The American Revolution didn't overthrow the British Crown, it separated the colonies from it. A civil war with the goal of replacing the current US government with a different one would require more than just a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s. You'd need training, a chain of command, logistics, and supply lines - things the US military is very good at, but don't exist in the private arena to any extent.

The first season of Robert Evans' podcast "It Could Happen Here" imagines how widespread rioting leads to the federal government withdrawing from large parts of the country, followed by their being taken over by local warlords. It would be Syria on steroids, not some national libertarian paradise.

@LeopoldBloom the Revolution overthrew the government of the colonies. Argue that somewhere else if you want. It’s very simple, don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one. Freedom of choice.

@redredred How did it overthrow the government when the British crown still existed afterwards? It was a war of independence, which isn't the same as a revolution even if it's called that. The Soviet revolution overthrew the Tsar's government and replaced it, it didn't leave the Tsar in charge of part of Russia with the communists in charge of another part.

I own a bunch of guns and handload my own ammo, so I'm hardly anti-gun. There's far too many guns in the US to limit them in any meaningful way. But I don't have a problem with gun registration or restricting people from carrying them into certain places.

@LeopoldBloom Okay small words.

Q. Who or what was the government in the colonies of the thirteen colonies of North America in 1773?
A. The British crown in the person of George III

Q. Who or what was the government of that same territory in 1793?
A. The United States Government.

Q. What happened to the previous government?
A. IT GOT FUCKING OVERTHROWN!!!

Got it?

@redredred That is very different from overthrowing and replacing the existing local government. The colonies already had a House of Burgesses that could take over. Overthrowing the US government would mean replacing Congress at the very least unless you're planning on having a dictatorship or breaking the country up into small fiefdoms controlled by local warlords.

Also, the British were overextended, and once they lost, they withdrew and went back home. Overthrowing the current government would be a fight between two or more local armies, not a local one and one based overseas. The American Revolution was very similar to the Vietnam War.

@LeopoldBloom And who came out on top in Vietnam?

@redredred The Vietnamese. It was a similar situation, people fighting for their own country against a distant imperial power. Once we were gone, their existing government took over.

Another thing you're ignoring is that the potential revolutionaries don't have logistics, a chain of command, training, or discipline - all things the US military are experts in. A bunch of disorganized guys with AR-15s can only cause damage. It's a fantasy to think they could form a new government.

It would be more like the French Revolution. You should look into how that turned out.

@LeopoldBloom your engaging in circular logic. the Vietnamese had no logistic, chain of command etc at the beginning but time, home turf and desire led to their development.

@redredred The Vietnamese had been fighting the Chinese for centuries, and the French for decades. They most definitely had an organized military by the time the US got involved.

If you think a bunch of disorganized gun owners in the US could be a match for the military, you're delusional. At best, they could take over isolated rural areas if the central government felt it wasn't worth the effort to maintain control over them.

@LeopoldBloom we’ll see, count on it. And the fight won’t be over quickly. If you think the members of the armed forces and sworn police officers will 100% back the government, you’re delusional.

@redredred It would be brutal, as the US military is fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. You shouldn't expect the military and police officers to 100% oppose the government, either.

And as someone who was never in the military, you probably have a romantic ideal of how it works. In practice, it's drummed into recruits that their personal political views are irrelevant and their oath is to the Constitution. So if Trump is reelected and orders the military to open fire on protesters, don't be surprised when nothing happens.

@LeopoldBloom As someone who never saw, let alone read the US Constitution you’re certainly unaware the the US military is constitutionally barred from domestic law enforcement. Even the National guard of the states is severely limited in term of its role.