this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
202 points (79.4% liked)
Political Memes
11310 readers
1772 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Right, the only people who should be armed are the christian nationalists who are already armed to the teeth and itching to use them. As we all know, nothing bad ever happens when people without guns confront people with guns. It worked out great for the native Americans!
The native tribes had guns
The Cherokee were disarmed just prior to the Trail of Tears. They had to surrender their weapons as invaders broke into their homes, destroyed their crops, and split families apart. They were then reliant on the federal government's soldiers, who rounded them up into camps until they were marched to what was to be only their land forever, Indian Territory. Now Oklahoma. Where we still fight the state and governor Stitt for our treaty rights.
There are still Cherokee in North Carolina because one man, Tsali (pronounced like Charlie), fought back when his wife was being stabbed by a soldiers bayonet and killed him. He then led survivors to the mountains for a hard couple of years of starvation until the government relented. They worked with Yonaguska, a chief, to reach a diplomatic solution to allow the refugees to stay in their homelands. If they executed Tsali and all of his children so no one else would rise up.
They killed him and his son for trying to defend his home and family. They killed many others in the camps and the trail itself. Many children were stolen and enslaved. But the Cherokee wanted a reasonable, diplomatic solution that didn't involve violence when the US government absolutely wanted all of those things.
I'll keep my guns.
You do that, and let me know when you actually do something useful with them
I think I will be dead by that point. Not sure if you read my previous comment or not.
Probably should have organized into a militia then
Your comments so far have been dumb and useless and naive. I'll pass.
The idea is we don't want to ever have to use them, but having them guarantees that any paramilitary leader or fascist movement knows that forceful removal of dissidents will mean a door-to-door meat grinder, and that is a VERY strong deterrent. Read history.
I mean, unless you think you won't be considered a dissident... not like they're not ALREADY making databases of people critical of the administration.
I hope to keep my guns locked away forever. I WANT them to be useless.
In the meantime, figure out what your plan is if this whole shitshow continues to go south, or if you think they'll say you're "one of the good ones" and let you go for some reason.
Exactly. This idea that indigenous people are savages who will go up against an ar-15 with a bow and arrow is nonsense. Even going back to the 1600s there are MANY reports of going from "What is that scary noise maker" to "I want one... and I can get it off this dead fool".
And they used them to great effect. Often against even more heavily armed "whites".
Until the military rolled up.
Gun nuts just don't want to understand (probably because NRA TV doesn't talk about it...). If privately owned firearms were a threat to the government, they would be banned. That is WHY gun control happened (no, it is not all about those uppity Blacks buying glocks on their way to march with Dr King). Many of our modern day laws can be traced back to fears of another "wild west" or even 20s/30s where "gangsters" had literal machine guns and were better equipped than the national guard.
But now? A designated marksman will blow your head off while you are ranting about how you are a sovereign citizen. It doesn't take THAT many people to flank your compound and light you up. And if your militia DOES get your Wildcats on? Mortars and drones and tanks.
Privately owned firearms are only a threat to civilians.
Tell that to Afghanistan.
The "1600s" could be 200 years after the Spanish arrived.
Lol, liberal
You are comparing a professional army to civilians. Like, hell, if other side has a gun and you don't - you will loose. If you have a gun but other side a tank - you will loose again. The point here is to make the confrontation more equal against people equipped with handguns and not anti-tank missiles.
But, there is 1 thing in what civilians have a leverage - they run most of economy and infrastructure. If we are talking about confrontation between government and civilians, civilians don't even have to use guns. They can simply gather resources and then stop doing anything except surviving for a few days. This means that no factories will be working, no commercial transporting, no offices are running. Yes, this is a very unlikely scenario but it will literally cause huge problems to the country without the violence. And what your army gonna do? Come to you home and force you to go to work?
The other thing is if we are dealing with other armed civilians, then having guns can benefit. But only if you can use them. And yes, you are right that having a gun in home without strict discipline leads to more casualties.
So, what I think is that owning guns has bad and good sides, but you don't even need them in most cases.
And who do you think is going to be coming after you if you build up a militia and start screaming "Wildcats"?
And who do we see, time and time again, side with the fat white kids who crossed state lines to murder some n****rs?
So you might even say
L take. Also Glock didn't make a gun until nearly 10 years after MLK was killed by the FBI.
They didn’t have 55% of the population of the country though. Or immunity to the common cold. Or money and clout.
This is not a question of whether someone should or not, but a question of whether doing so will make them feel safer.
The answer to the first question is usually "yes", but the answer to the second question is usually "no".
If the state wants you dead, a gun and a couple boxes of ammo aren't going to be more than a minor inconvenience to the state.
Actually, I'm more concerned about how cool Nazis are again, than the actual government.
I'd rather inconvenience the state than march quietly into the concentration camp, thank you.
Amen to that. I've studied enough of my history to know that, whatever ignoble and unpleasant end awaits me at the end of a fascist's gun barrel will still be vastly preferable to whatever horrors await in a camp. I refuse to die in one outright, by any means necessary, even if that means dying on my front lawn instead.
This is why you organize, the real trick is that they make you think you should be doing it alone.