Time to break free of traditional political ideological labeling and divisions. Time to abandon old, divisive sociopolitical labels like "liberal" and "conservative".
A new political party based on a vastly, commonly held virtures lends itself to embrace over 66% of Americans, and it clearly embraces progressive principled thinking. In the most ideal American sense of unity, a political party should not be able to be defined or placed as "to the left" or "to the right" of where the Democratic or Republican parties currently are. Just let it exist organically based on present-day principled thinking. The American Progressive Majority.
Originally Posted By u/Atlanticbboy At 2025-03-23 04:38:18 AM | Source
Are there differences? Yes.
Are rifles effective in both cases? Yes.
The efficacy of rifles isn't dependant on the nationality of your adversary.
I'm not saying it's different because of nationality, I'm saying one of those conflicts is a defensive war against a stronger force. Where as what was being talked about is more of a resistance or revolution against an already established government. They are different kinds of conflicts and at least in modern times we haven't really seen revolutions succeed in large countries with sophisticated militaries without the support of the military or that military eventually deciding to leave in the case or the US in the Middle East. And since this would be happening in the US the military isn't just going to give up so you need them to actually switch sides or let you win to actually win and stop the fascists. And at least my personal opinion is having guns and using them tends to make it easier to justify to the military to kill you compared to if you're an unarmed protestor.
Pacifism is a noble cause, sure. Have fun with that. I for one think having rifles is better than having no rifles, and history shows that to be true. Sure, the larger force often wins against rifles, but it always wins against nothing.