You are comparing an state commanding a military with individual protestors. One of the protections protestors have is the reluctance of the state to use their full capabilities against them because they are not armed.
Peaceful protest movements are highly effective.
I agree that usually the best, and most productive movements have been peaceful ones.
However, governments shouldn't have unanimous power to decide who gets to live or die, they shouldn't be the sole bearer of the ability to engage in violence.
It's simple tit for tat, everyone knows they're worse off if they engage in violence, so they choose peace instead because it's the most beneficial tactic overall.
The strongest pro-gun argument I’ve heard (besides the fact that it’s literally the second amendment of the US Constitution) is that sure the military or police could easily kill a bunch of people trying to defend themselves with their basement arsenals, but those military and police have families and friends, and so do the gun owners.
In other words, once you declare war on your citizens, and 100M of them are armed, you are in big trouble. So an armed citizenry is an effective deterrent. If the government murders a bunch of your family and friends, protesting won’t work. They discovered this in the 20th century communist regimes where they just killed whoever they wanted, and no one could do anything about it.
I'm not against the Second Amendment or private gun ownership. I live in Germany's version of Texas, and many of my neighbors are gun owners.
I'm against people pacifying themselves with comfort pistols instead of actively working to change things.
What the 21st century brought was citizen journalism and online communications, such as Nostr. That shifted effectivity back to peaceful protests. Murdering peaceful protestors can bring down the wrath of the wider citizenry, and international backlash, and destabilize the entire country and economy. You can't just shoot everyone. Not anymore.
There's definitely way more of a spotlight on everything, that's true. But I’m not convinced they wouldn’t shoot everyone if it came to it, and there were no credible threat of force.
Agree owning a gun is not sufficient — you still have to speak up. But I’m sure glad those gun nuts in the US exist!
What the 21st century also brought was 24/7 all-source surveillance.
You can't kill everyone without destroying your tax base, but you can kill everyone who knows or believes something in particular with a precision never before possible.
I'm also of the opinion that peaceful protest is more inherently noble, and that it therefore is a sacrifice that resonates more deeply, with those who witness it. It's a form of martyrdom.
Would Jesus have been more effective with a bunch of guns, instead of a cross? 🤔 Doubt.
Would the founding fathers on the US have been able to create a republic based on human rights and the rule of law had they been unarmed? Doubtful.
I’m dubious of extrapolating Jesus’ teachings to matters of state and politics. If everyone were enlightened, willing to be martyrs rather than complying, maybe. But much more likely they’d just be enslaved.
Hunger strikes and sit-ins against the British Empire didn't become effective until they were broadcast live. Information is the best weapon, now.
Information, yes, but backed by force if it’s ignored.
All governments rule at the consent of the governed.
“Consent” can be coerced which is why the 2nd A was deemed important enough to be put in the Bill of Rights, right after free speech.
Please do not confuse the Constitution, which was designed to limit the power of the federal government, with some general call to violent anarchy.
That’s a a non-sequitur. We’re talking about whether governments necessarily govern via consent. The founders thought otherwise which is why they expressly prohibited theirs from taking away your guns.
Lolwut?
Peaceful protests are useless, unless a good chunk of the elite is already on your side.
Google what happened to people protesting against COVID lockdown here. Govt didn't dare do that in the USA.
Google what happened to people protesting the same thing, here. The protest was effective.
And I said they were effective, not that they were safe for the protestors. Agitating against the government is always dangerous, but peaceful protest is less likely to end up with as many people dead as violent protests.
Skipping peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience and threatening to just kill everyone, instead, is maybe not the best political strategy. But whatever.
"Pen and sword in accord".
I don't suggest skipping peaceful protest, but I suggest it should always be backed by an "or else".
Have you ever read "Public Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich"? I think you'd like it. The "crosses in schools" protests of '34 are particularly salient to this discussion...
Every word is backed by an "or else", unless they person speaking is an absolute pacifist. The "or else" doesn't require everyone to bunker weapons in their house.
On that, ma'am, I must respectfully disagree
Yes, it doesn’t require weapons bunkers.
Provided that is, there’s plenty of guillotines setup and ready to lop heads.
Because without consequences nothing changes and the parasites just become more egregious as evidenced by *waves hand at everything in the fucking world* 
Or fertilizer.
Not on food crops, ma'am, please.
I would treat politician residues the same as other sewage sludge. Always assume infectious, and full of heavy metals (or at least poor-quality cocaine).
Guillotines presuppose you already won, by preventing revenue coercion until the paid security forces disperse or switch sides.
I'd rather see Anthony Albanese in a fenced pool, trying to fill out useless paperwork but theres a hungry Saltie after him. If he does his paperwork right the crowd may throw him a rope.
Nonsense.
Guillotines presuppose nothing. They’re basic contraptions which lop heads - that’s it.
What they *induce* is a parasite class reckoning with the reality of their own flesh-and-bone-ness. Something they’ve spent decades shielding themselves from.
No-one has to have won anything for a guillotine to successfully lop a head - it just requires lifting and dropping a blade.
Security forces aren’t going to risk themselves when a parasite is dragged to the guillotine lest they be lopped next.
You might not like the solution for how far it might go, I get that. But my counter is this class have faced basically zero threats until that CEO was shot 2 days ago - they’ve run rampant for literally decades and forgotten their own flesh-and-bone-ness.
That last paragraph I agree with. But I think buzzing them with a drone would have a stronger effect than the sight of any guillotine.
That’s 5-10 years from now.
The parasites have already been found out. Their only chance at redemption and avoiding the guillotine is joining the Bitcoiners.
This is already baked in.
Maybe the Bitcoiners will be generous and treat them like anyone else with a wholecoin. Maybe not.
My point was more that the decision making is already out of their hands. They can only play this game to where it’s headed. But staying the course is going to get heads lopped, that’s basically certain from here.
You can’t leave a big class of opposition unemployed, ready to agitate against your new system. They’ve got to go.
„Is it not He whose immortal hand... has written there the death sentence of tyrants? He did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery and falsehood. He created the universe to proclaim His power“
That might mean something in a secular world.
It means nothing in this world.
If even 2% decide they’re ready to guillotine parasites, it’s all over.
Again I’m not encouraging sides. I’m just commenting on how precarious the current balance is.
