It is a certainty that if you got your way that a cop would be killed, and at that point, it’s a massive shootout with the police that will end only in the death of the cop killer or revolution. It is insanity to think this solves anything or is a stable state preferable to the status quo.
That’s because there is a difference between soft targets and hard targets dumbshit.
Of for fucks sake, what is the difference between vigilante justice and anarchy Micro?
I think I get it now and it’s so obvious I should’ve seen it long before. The harder someone tries pounding on the ridiculous notion of how easy peasy it would be to drone and just missile shoot thousands of people into submission without massive counter productive results, the less they know about guns, the military, or how the police operate
You’re arguing for armed insurrection and think it will be successful because of how effective surprise gunman are against crowds of people unprepared for the attack. Again, this is gun nut porn and you seem really attached to it.
1 Like
It is not about getting my way. You keep making the attacks personal when I’m talking about a very commonly held principle among hundreds of thousands if not millions of gun owners. It’s one you don’t agree with and don’t have to like, but stop making it about me
Totally believe the gun lover has been assaulted and had his “minority friends” assaulted by cops despite the implicit threat of Cactus mowing them down in retaliation. Would say that invalidates his point except I would have to pretend that he is not a pathological liar that is just making up whatever shit he thinks supports the weird argument he is making at the moment.
What if the desire is to disrupt the current status quo and create an unstable situation where we have no choice but to change? What if the choice is between the appearance of order or the realization of justice?
Take away the right of responsible people to own guns? Nah, REGULATE the right of responsible people to own guns and LIMIT it to responsible people. You’re outing yourself as more and more of a gun nut as opposed to a series/open-minded person. It all boils down to: “I want my guns!!! (But I’ll pretend I don’t mind that much and would happily give them up if some ridiculously impossible scenario played out…)”
What I’m most concerned with is very different from what I understand is politically possible to achieve in the short term. You’re trying to turn everything into a hypothetical moral argument and pretending it’s reality. In the real world, demilitarization is impossible right now. In the real world, minorities shooting at a cop in a traffic stop is going to be a net negative for the safety of minorities in traffic stops.
We can improve policing in 2021 if we win all three levers of power, but we probably can’t demilitarize it. We can do body cams, we can establish an independent investigative agency/task force, we can add new laws that legislate the use of lethal force by police, etc…
But none of that has jack shit to do with the Second Amendment or gun control.
“You libruls just don’t know enough about military strategery and gun fighting tactics to have a conversation with me about how dangerous a bunch of Second Amendment loving 'Muricans with AR-15’s in both hands would be to a tyrannical government and it’s army and air force. Boy, I tell ya, I’d shoot those drones out of the sky like it was nothin! What do you know about marksmanship? Do u even shoot, bro?”
- Cactus, circa 2019
1 Like
Taking you at your word about your policy proposals isn’t a personal attack. That there are people who agree with you doesn’t make your ideas any more acceptable (and you vastly overstate the number of people who think cops should be killed by vigilantes).
1 Like
I thought you had me blocked. Google Anarchy FFS. It’s a school of political thought going back to the 19th Century. The people more or less considered founders are Proudhon and Bakunin, but Kropotkin is up there and better imo. Americans like Emma Goldman were Anarchist activists. Henry David Thoreau is a sort of early Anarchist thinker. Noam Chomsky is an Anarchist. George Orwell was an Anarchist. David Graeber is an Anarchist. Food Not Bombs is Anarchy.
There’s a big difference ffs.
2 Likes
What’s the practical difference? In both cases “justice” is being dished out without oversight or consent.
"I pretend to be uh progessrive librul cuz ah know all muh talking points like a good little sheep. But really ah’ma fascist Trump lova cuz LAW & ORDER BABY!
And when I say I care about all da bruthers gettin locked up and killed cold like, pleeze believe me cuz ah really do kare about llibrul polocees and muh fellow citizens rights. It’s just that it’s no big deal if sum of em get kidnapped, extorted, and locked up for a while cuz they mostly brown and black anywayz. They don’t do dat shit to white peeple"
-cuserounder, circa 2019 the librul progessrive party
Idiot. Flag me. Ban me. I don’t care. This piece of work is straight out of 4chan morondom
Nailed it, that pretty much sums up my posting history in a nutshell. Well done!
Lol, this nerd has a stash of weapons to deter the cops, “his brothers are getting kidnapped,” and all he is doing about it is advocating for white supremacists to also be armed w/ whatever the hell they want so that they can mow down “his brothers” along side the cops. What a pathetic loser and/or a lying troll. I got my money on troll.
In Anarchist systems justice is not dished out without oversight or consent. It’s much more likely to require near consensus and have more oversight. The Democratic Republic of Northern Syria has an Anarchistic justice system which first has the community attempt to mediate between parties in a dispute or if one person is wronged by another. There is a process for bringing disputes to committees/councils that could not be settled through mediation. The process is imperfect obviously and is happening in the middle of a war.
During the period in Spain when the Anarcho-Syndicalists dominated they had a justice system, but it wasn’t vigilante. It was just community based rather than run by the State.
Justice without oversight and consent is what happens in tyranny or authoritarian systems. We’re somewhere in between, but (especially for poor people and minority groups) we aren’t that far from having no oversight or consent.
1 Like
The reason people think anarchy means chaos isn’t because anarchy means chaos, it’s because people in power in Europe in the 19th century, ie a bunch of Kings, really didn’t like the idea of people who thought you could live without rulers and they were sure to indoctrinate people against it.
Microbet I dont think you were there for the ACist era of politics but let’s just say this convos been had ad nauseum and it’s exhausting