I think it's more a protection against them moving too far, too fast. There's always that thought in the back of their minds "is this going to be the thing that finally makes people snap and fight back?"
On the other hand, things like the Oklahoma City bombing, which was a retaliation for Waco, didn't involve guns at all. Presumably if the English wanted to rise up, they would be planting IEDs, stabbing cops in the back while they ate breakfast at a cafe, throwing acid in their faces, etc. and wouldn't be terribly disadvantaged by not having firearms.
The real issue is that they probably won't be in a uprising in either England or the US. The politicians are skilled at ratcheting back when needed, and allowing performative "debate" and controlled opposition.
Eh, I think the public should be armed. That puts the fear in the parasite, to the point they're willing to use nuclear munitions on a population center. You know about that case, right?
Of course. The public must also develop information distribution, countermeasures to electronic warfare and complete self-defense network systems which yes - does involve capturing, interrogating and removing the state-sponsored terrorists they send to silence what they deem "wrongthink".
Guns will protect you, at least in some situations, at least sometimes. That means that whoever wants to subjugate you will avoid these situations and will have a more difficult job.
We have seen Owen Shroyer and President Trump jailed for speech.
Guns won’t protect us if the media and big tech are weaponized against us.
I think it's more a protection against them moving too far, too fast. There's always that thought in the back of their minds "is this going to be the thing that finally makes people snap and fight back?"
On the other hand, things like the Oklahoma City bombing, which was a retaliation for Waco, didn't involve guns at all. Presumably if the English wanted to rise up, they would be planting IEDs, stabbing cops in the back while they ate breakfast at a cafe, throwing acid in their faces, etc. and wouldn't be terribly disadvantaged by not having firearms.
The real issue is that they probably won't be in a uprising in either England or the US. The politicians are skilled at ratcheting back when needed, and allowing performative "debate" and controlled opposition.
Eh, I think the public should be armed. That puts the fear in the parasite, to the point they're willing to use nuclear munitions on a population center. You know about that case, right?
Most western citizens agree.
But we cannot ignore the information war because our ancestors won a ballistic war for us.
Of course. The public must also develop information distribution, countermeasures to electronic warfare and complete self-defense network systems which yes - does involve capturing, interrogating and removing the state-sponsored terrorists they send to silence what they deem "wrongthink".
Guns will protect you, at least in some situations, at least sometimes. That means that whoever wants to subjugate you will avoid these situations and will have a more difficult job.