this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
756 points (95.0% liked)

Comic Strips

22984 readers
125 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (3 children)

So where is the well-regulated militia defending the United States with their huge arsenal of guns? We're not hearing anything about valiant protectors of the constitution taking up arms against the domestic enemies that are ICE, MAGA, etc...it's almost as if the whole spiel about needing guns to resist a tyrannical government was BS all along. 🤔

[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You didn't see the like 3 or 4 multiple attempts at taking the pedophilic orange man out?

They tried. Maybe one of them will eventually succeed.

Also I'd like to point out that I noticed the ICE goons haven't went to the hood yet. Let's see how that plays out for them.

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Unfortunately this man is not the issue. It's the culture that allows him to do what he is doing. Everybody knows who he is and what he stands for. But he's still not dangling from the gallows, so clearly the system has failed to correct itself.

He will die eventually, probably from one hamberder too many but the troubles won't be over then.

[–] CascadiaRo@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Man, I see this sort of thing commented all the time as some sort of “gotcha” and really have to wonder what it is you’re envisioning.

Put yourself in the shoes of a firearm owner for a moment. Evidently, you believe the US has passed a tipping point where violent resistance is necessary.

Where are you going with your gun and who are you shooting at?

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And just like that, we went complete route from "without guns we can't fight fascism" to "guns are actually completely useless in fighting fascism" in two comments.

[–] CascadiaRo@lemmy.zip -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

US - 1765 to 1784

EU - 1939 to 1945

Vietnam - 1955 to 1975

Yes, I’m aware that only one of these cases was literal fascism.

You can see my other comment in this chain, but firearms are the “last stand” tools to fight oppression. We’re in the midst of a particularly sensitive stage and, in my opinion, haven’t crossed the “tipping point” where a violent response would be wise or justified.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Bloody hell, are you for fucking real, WWII, seriously? The global war fought by armies has something to do with public having guns?
Fucking Vietnam? US losing a military campaign on the other side of the world is a testament of how useful it is for Americans to have guns? And then american fucking revolution, that I can't even imagine how to tie in.
I just hope for the sake of sanity that you're trolling.

[–] CascadiaRo@lemmy.zip -1 points 3 days ago

I do concede that WWII was not fought and won by armed civilians, I was largely responding to “without guns we can’t fight fascism” and can see that, in the greater context of the thread, that might be less relevant. I do think the French Resistance would have been better equipped if they hadn’t had to rely on smuggled or captured weapons. A full scale invasion is going to pan out differently when most civilians are able to shoot back or organize into militia.

Vietnam is a testament to the fact that multiple military superpowers can still lose to a lesser armed (but still armed) populace.

And then the american fucking revolution, that I can’t even imagine how to tie in

This is where you really have me stumped and should maybe do some reading into US history, fighting this war is the foundational experience that led to the creation of the second amendment. Here’s a good place to start:

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

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Are you saying you're suffering a dearth of targets?

Again, if this is not the time to exercise your supposed God-given right to bear arms to ward off a tyrannical government then the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is moot.

I've said it before: You guys aren't going to vote your way out of this pickle. I hate to say this (sincerely!) but this is going to end in violence one way or another. 🙁

[–] CascadiaRo@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

You didn’t answer the question.

Am I to infer that you think that right now is an appropriate time to actively seek out and shoot ICE agents?

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

You could try flowers and hugs instead, I guess? Whatever works best.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

With how subtle you are you might as well work for the FBI.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 days ago

no he got a point. If someone started doing that they would just get captured and tortured or killed. What can you meaningfully achieve with random violence, alone?

[–] CascadiaRo@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 days ago

I see that as a cop-out to engagement in discourse, an alt account and VPN/privacy technologies would be enough to shield someone from “taking the bait”

My own opinion is that we have not reached a point where that level of response is justifiable, and I think it’s incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to suggest that it is.

The administration’s current rhetoric revolves around the domestic terrorist threat / violent insurrectionist motif that, while some people may buying into, is not being substantiated with strong evidence.

At this time, violent response / uprising by those perceived to be “on the left” will add fuel to validate that propaganda machine, it will firmly entrench the beliefs of those who might otherwise have a chance of moving away from it, and it will likely trigger a heavy-handed response leading to a substantial and catastrophic loss of life and liberty.

Hypothetically, “with how subtle you are, you might as well” be an agitator seeking to be a catalyst to what I just described.

[–] wakko@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

The option going unused doesn't invalidate the need for the option to be there, moron.

Some people make it pretty clear that the only thing they understand is forced behaviors. Almost like what they're really after is eradication of individual choices on favor of top-down uniformity.

I'm pretty sure there's a name for that kind of centrally held power....