Please tell us the source of your pic. A link to some kind of encyclopedia would be nice as well.
Pretty sure itâs a reference to the Philly cops dynamite bombing from a helicopter the MOVE compound in the middle of town, burning down a bunch of houses, and killing several people including children.
5 Likes
1 Like
I remember seeing that book in my local library when I was a kid, never did get round to reading it though.
The basic point of this political cartoon is to use something outrageous, which is sort of the same thing as what we already do, to pull us out of our comfort zone and show that maybe the thing we think is normal and OK is not actually normal and OK at all.
One can also take the exact same âgun rightsâ arguments and apply them to other constitutional amendments in silly ways as well, such as freedom of speech and religion. Those two things are also not universally available in the free world, the USA was a pioneer in those two rights as well, and many cultures accept strict limitations on their freedom of religion and speech, just as many cultures accept firearm restrictions. Ridicule can work against anything, really, and isnât a successful mechanism for changing anyoneâs mind. If you hate guns though, itâs a great circle jerk for you and your like-minded friends.
I grew up knowing that the police had a 45+ minute response time, and that they may not come at all, no matter what your problem is. It was a great comfort knowing that a 14 year old kid who was trained to use a firearm was equal to a 25 year old meth head trying to steal to feed the habit while my single mother was 30 miles away at work. It seems to me that in firearm heavy areas it acts as a deterrent against person-on-person crime, with most crime going to less risky property crime. Thatâs why itâs very hard for me to accept loosely-constructed arguments against them, which are near universally focused on urban problems that didnât affect me growing up (live in Houston now) and neglect to address poorly policed and sparsely populated areas where it really is the wild west. Iâm much more interested in hearing moderate arguments, that recognize the needs of both sides, than I am of hearing the âban everythingâ and âanything goesâ arguments.
2 Likes
First of all, actually try substituting âfree speechâ in for âmissilesâ in that comic. No, you canât just make that argument. Secondly with things like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, the US approach to free speech and freedom of religion is also deserving of ridicule.
4 Likes
While they were guerrilla wars, Viet Nam and Afghanistan were also both proxy wars between world powers with money, munitions, training, intel, and support flowing in to support both the rebels and their governments so they arenât examples of independent resistance movements having any success. Without a lot of external support rebel movements seem to have much dicier chances at violent revolution since the government has the upper hand in money, munitions, training, logistics, and intel. At the same time, I could imagine Putin pouring money and weapons to the Tea Party Liberty Resistance Front fighters.
2 Likes
Then there is the Cambodia.
You can succeed without external help if the situation is highly fragile and the power/motivation/resources (and local sympathies) available to you is higher than whatâs available to the Powers That Be. If thatâs not satisfied, you need sufficient influx of resources from the outside.
You cannot hope for a revolution when the human terrain is not ready.
At least the Jeb Bush quote is real, we know for sure.
Bill-O too, Iâm pretty sure. FTW!
1 Like
If you have strong citizen involvement in a (an actual) democratic environment, then itâs not the same thing. We just donât have that now. People all over the political spectrum feel deeply alienated from the political process, because they have little to no control over it.
But I have to agree with @anon15383236 about the power differential involved in those who have large weapons caches and the state. Even taking @shaddackâs examples into account, what was the actual experiences of resistance to powerful military states? Despite losing in Vietnam, a hell of a lot of violence was visited upon the people of that country by the American war machine and it continues to have reverberations today - birth defects from our defoliation programs, for example. That doesnât even start to get into the crimes of the communist party in Vietnam against itâs own people in that battle. You have to ask not only is resistance possible in such situations, but what are the human costs of resistance.
Plus, you have to ask WHO has the weapons in the population, and who do they see as the actually threat to their idea of a proper society. I have no illusions that a major revolt would not be pretty and Iâm not at all certain that all rebels would be on the side that Iâm for, which is that of a fully inclusive society. As weâve seen with places like Somalia, some not so nice people have been empowered by the destabilization of the government there. And that is something to think hard about.
6 Likes
And Iâm sorry if Iâm starting to sound like a broken record, but honestly if a totalitarian government comes into being the US, half the population is going to be in favour of it. Looking at the political parties today and who gun owners usually support, I have a feeling that more gun owners would be with the government than against. But regardless of how it breaks, there will be regular people with guns on both sides. The guns wonât make it harder for the totalitarian government, theyâll just make it more bloody for the population.
8 Likes
Exactly. This is what I mean precisely. I donât think we can say this enough, really. Being anti-government or anti-tyranical doesnât necessarily mean being pro-all people.
And then there is the perception of outsiderness and who fits into that category, something which Elizabeth Hale talked about in her book, A Nation of Outsiders. Outsiderness became yet another concept commodified, and bought into by many of the people who have the most amount of privilege in our society.
2 Likes
But*, in particular, having a stated philosophy of being anti-government and anti-tyrannical doesnât mean you are actually going to oppose any particular tyrannical government. If that tyrannical government happens to be oppressing the people that you donât think much of, maybe youâll be on board with it. How many people still characterize the civil war as a struggle for statesâ rights? People were fighting for slavery while telling themselves they were fighting against oppression.
* This instance of the word âButâ makes no sense
3 Likes
You started with a âBut,â but it seems to me that youâre basically agreeing with what Mindysan said, no?
2 Likes
Whereâs the joke? The Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to military weapons. Ballistic missiles didnât exist in the Eighteenth Century, but if they had, they would have been exactly what the framers were talking about.
Hey, I donât think itâs a good idea either. But itâs the law.
2 Likes
Pennsylvania cops. But yeah.
1 Like
That would be exactly what Iâm doing.
2 Likes
You are correct that it is not a direct, drop in replacement, but that is a failing of imagination rather than a failing of my argument.
I donât personally stand behind the Citizens United or Hobby Lobby decisions, but I also donât discount our entire legal infrastructure of protection of speech and religion because of it, so I also donât feel like thatâs a sufficient reason to dismiss my argument wholesale. A 17 year old kid named Amos Yee went to jail in Singapore for unfavorably comparing their deceased former leader to Jesus in a five minute youtube video, that is what I would consider to be a more major failing of free speech/religion in a westernized democracy.
