BoycottUnitedStates

hideshow 14 child comments

parent

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Do You think that doesn't involve guns?

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Uh... the French Revolution had a lot of guns. Like seriously, look up the women's march on Versailles l, the fall of the Bastille, or all the insurrections.

parent

[–] Deceptichum 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Did the French not use guns?

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It seems so as well as other weapons. However, they were on more equal footing than the general population is now.

Most of the population of america does not have access to the ridiculous armaments or vehicles that the military or other armed forces have, nor the legal authority to use them. Such is the monopoly of violence.

If they want this to work they need to be clever, plan well and use violence tactically, have access to technology and knowledge that will aid them, and do good opsec.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Soooo. What's the best way to disable drones from a distance? Anyone know?

parent

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Either physically 😏 or with a long radio transmitter/jammer. 😉

parent

[+] reluctant_squidd@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

If every American citizen stocked up, they still wouldn’t beat the American military.

It doesn't work like that. That's why the U.S. didn't achieve their goals in Vietnam and the Middle East.

You only need small arms to eliminate the higher ranking individuals to collapse the command structure.

parent

[–] Kickforce@europe.pub 1 point 1 year ago

Indeed, no need for large scale battles.

parent

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

We need a hostile foreign power with nukes to take us out before we hurt anyone else any worse.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Just start with D.C. That would be enough to solve a lot of problems.

parent

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago

But how could they pull such a thing off? Those roaches would scatter before anything lands.

parent

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

rise up collectively and topple this craziness before it comes to the point of needing guns.

Too late. We had that opportunity in November and failed.

Fascism is here, now, in America. That is undeniable. And fascism has never, ever in history, just given up and gone home when asked. It has ALWAYS required force. A lot of people probably aren't ready to hear this, but the only way this ends is with bloodshed. Probably a lot.

Unless you have other ideas. The only other one I can think of is a general strike. Shutting the country completely down until our demands are met. But that requires the type of solidarity you wouldn't even see in a functional society, which we are not. So that's not a realistic option.