• taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the majority of the population decided to rebel against the government they wouldn’t need guns

    • Zaroni@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Uh, yes they would? Have you heard of: the soviet union, the ccp or ww2 Germany? All had different rebellions, but all failed because they did not have any firepower. One of the very first things the fascist government of Germany did was remove weapons from anyone that was an enemy of the state. Now in present day ukraine, because none of the citizens were permitted to own arms, Ukrainians have no way to fight an insurgent war on Russian occupiers. Without any means to violently resist a fascist takeover, the people are at the mercy of the government. I love how so many people post about how “if enough trans or nby people arms themselves then the government will enact gun control” and completely miss the irony of that point completely proving correct the points people make against gun control.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        There has virtually never be a revolution in history that had the majority of the population behind it while it was actually happening.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s also never been a successful revolution when the majority opposed it either. They only succeed when the public, at a minimum, says “Can’t be any worse, right?”