Unfortunately, because the French gave up their rights to own weapons that are useful for defense against would-be oppressors, they stand no chance against their oppressors.
We see this time and time again, humongous protests, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, always in areas populated by predominately unarmed sheep, always with no resulting effect on policy. Standing in the street screaming is no different than posting on the Internet. It can help to spread the word and bring awareness to your cause, but ultimately, if you have no actual means of gaining power, you lose.
An armed society is a polite society for more than one reason; you don't see these giant protests, peaceful or violent, in areas predominately populated by armed citizens. Every place in the US that sees these giant protests is largely unarmed (New York, California, blue cities with very low semi-automatic rifle ownership numbers, etc.). "Adults" without the means to defend themselves and their communities are only adults insofar as they're permitted them to be.
@pkvi you should think about heading to the US, the writing is on the wall - you await inevitable disaster in Hong Kong - get real and get here asap
Exactly. If the policy was so unpopular that it caused 100000+ people to take to the streets, whoever implemented it probably knew it was going to be devicive/unpopular beforehand, and knew that people were going to run around screaming about it once it was in place. Macron removed the citizenship of un vaxxed French because he knew it would get a rise; he's basically trolling IRL. They aren't surprised that people find their edicts to be totalitarian; they aren't stupid, authoritarianism was the whole point. The whole "just stop complying" LARP is the same imo. Just ask pot heads from the 80s and 90s how "just not complying" with drug laws worked out.
Well I get what you’re saying, but I don’t agree that’s true in all cases. They were definitely going to do a major crackdown on guns in the US after newtown but they tucked tails after all the very nasty letters they received. THAT isn’t what stopped them, it’s that they weren’t ready to go that hard before the endgame, IMHO. Must of recalculated odds at that point and decided to delay.
The other thing I’ll point out is that at a minimum, non-compliance forces their hand. Otherwise, compliance is what they want, is it not?
Unfortunately, because the French gave up their rights to own weapons that are useful for defense against would-be oppressors, they stand no chance against their oppressors.
We see this time and time again, humongous protests, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, always in areas populated by predominately unarmed sheep, always with no resulting effect on policy. Standing in the street screaming is no different than posting on the Internet. It can help to spread the word and bring awareness to your cause, but ultimately, if you have no actual means of gaining power, you lose.
An armed society is a polite society for more than one reason; you don't see these giant protests, peaceful or violent, in areas predominately populated by armed citizens. Every place in the US that sees these giant protests is largely unarmed (New York, California, blue cities with very low semi-automatic rifle ownership numbers, etc.). "Adults" without the means to defend themselves and their communities are only adults insofar as they're permitted them to be.
@pkvi you should think about heading to the US, the writing is on the wall - you await inevitable disaster in Hong Kong - get real and get here asap
Exactly. If the policy was so unpopular that it caused 100000+ people to take to the streets, whoever implemented it probably knew it was going to be devicive/unpopular beforehand, and knew that people were going to run around screaming about it once it was in place. Macron removed the citizenship of un vaxxed French because he knew it would get a rise; he's basically trolling IRL. They aren't surprised that people find their edicts to be totalitarian; they aren't stupid, authoritarianism was the whole point. The whole "just stop complying" LARP is the same imo. Just ask pot heads from the 80s and 90s how "just not complying" with drug laws worked out.
On the other hand, never comply.
Oh of course, of course lol.
It will take more than that alone is what I'm saying
Well I get what you’re saying, but I don’t agree that’s true in all cases. They were definitely going to do a major crackdown on guns in the US after newtown but they tucked tails after all the very nasty letters they received. THAT isn’t what stopped them, it’s that they weren’t ready to go that hard before the endgame, IMHO. Must of recalculated odds at that point and decided to delay.
The other thing I’ll point out is that at a minimum, non-compliance forces their hand. Otherwise, compliance is what they want, is it not?
Obviously non-compliance is essential. It is the most basic step, without other forms of action though, it won't accomplish anything