then it sounds like you’re very proactive in your life and are seeing the rewards of being well adjusted. I’m glad you didn’t take it as encouragement to constantly push everyone’s boundaries, I worried I had worded it poorly.

I have a spiel I usually like to give about this. But long version short, rejection is really good for us. So is seeking out situations where we can possibly be told no.

who is this feature even serving?

nah I made that up. but he’s definitely spreading more diseases than my mom

yeah, probably. I’d bet on them somehow rolling it into concerns about immigrants and how “only real citizens get 2a rights”.

you’re in luck cowboy, they did!

https://www.thepatrioticmint.com/45th-president-colorized-coin-collection.html

deleted by creator

oh, okay I was confused

no worries. wait what do you mean you agree wth the MOVE approach?

well, it’s definitely easier to get us when we’re alone. that’s how ICE likes to work, grabbing people as they’re arriving or departing from places. notice that they’re not actually going after any gangs though. that’s because gangs are known to shoot back.

so being in groups is good. being armed is good. staying mixed among other civilians is good. preferably people who won’t just sit around if you get dragged away

combat drones use fibre optic cables because signals get jammed. here’s a little reading but that’s besides the point. drones aren’t effective weapons because they can hit anything anywhere, lots of stuff can do that. they’re effective because it costs $400 to destroy a $3 million tank. which is not a priority during an armed insurrection. even if it was, you’re not fighting in the same logistical nightmare that Russia is right now.

instead, consider the MOVE, a state-on-civilian execution. The trick there was picking brown people to bomb. That’s actually way more effective than not picking brown people but using a combat drone. Or the Bundy Standoff where an execution was prevented by holding ranks with women and children (US Gov would not execute because these people were not brown)

okay that’s valid and noble. I would like to live to see society change like that

but why do you think they want us disarmed before the change happens?

Definitely just the USA. I mentioned earlier that I really respect NZ deciding to disarm after their last public shooting. That’s something that could really happen when corruption is that low and people are educated and healthy.

I meant ICE. Or. or the STS in Hong Kong. if you want a more classical example, think the Gestappo. And yes, these risk shootouts. Hence why you should care about being armed during one.

you haven’t seen the fibre cables that combat drones use? you should learn a little more about them. it’s still interesting but it’s not the weapon you think it is.

so that kind of drone use doesn’t really make sense in a civil setting? it works in Ukraine because they’re on a budget and it’s simple in contrast to a war machine. drones really just sound scary because they conjure up years of scifi mythbuilding but I’m sure you’ve seen that Ukrainian drones are running on cable spools that now blanket the land, suicide bombing a 3 million ruble tanks, and cost pocket lint to make. it’s all well and good but that’s not really any of the goals in suppressing a domestic threat. if anything, those are the kind of qualities insurgents world try to pursue.

why not look at an example of anticivilian warfare that’s actually being used in America by the gov right now? it would probably give you a clearer idea of what 2a leftists are actually prepping for

I’ll chime in. So look at how US did drone strikes against an insurgent militia last decade. Yeah. it worked in that it killed somebody. but would you say that was successful in ending that conflict? now imagine a country doing that on its own citizens. sure, if the bar for success is killing someone: kudos. but does that actually work? in real life. against insurgents hiding with civilians.

why mythologize a hypothetical violence when it already is proven to have failed in real life?

I don’t know. I don’t think we really are good at deciding who should and shouldn’t have a right. there seems to be something fundamentally broken in that

if I lived almost anywhere else I wouldn’t. NZ voted away their rights recently and I respect that. Japan probably should have thought it through a little more. but America is insano-country. legal corruption, the wealthy using indirect forms of violence, direct violence from the police. it’s the kind of conditions that require communities to build ways of defending themselves. also the people in power want us unarmed for different reasons than you want to be unarmed.

I tried several times in the last few days to articulate the points you’re making. well said

well 🤓 it worked on reddit when I was surrounded by high iq people who also agreed with me so I can’t imagine why it would be detached from reality

if the police can legally use a weapon on my dog, I shouldn’t be barred by any laws from owning that weapon too. this is the wrong direction to approach gun violence from