Marx was anti-disarmament, to the point of advocating rebellion and violence if a governing body threatened it. Why do so many disregard this?

Once I get to those o start by saying the statistically obviousness , that total gun confiscation would be both impossible and worthless in the US. That makes them angry but they have no evidence against that position.

Then they tend to ask (this has only been 3 of my friend converts, mind you,) why we would want an armed populous when an army would overwhelmingly destroy us. Again, I don’t bother with that fallacy, but instead move on to another easily relatable historical fact: “Black men and women in the south didn’t fight the Union, but they did keep arms to shoot at those with white hoods ready to hang their family in a moment.”

The big problem with most people is to argue with libs in favor of the futility of fighting off the state.

What’s far more effective is arguing for the need for firearms when the state isn’t there. Don’t mention stochastic terrorism, just explain to them that the state sometimes won’t be there, and the reconstruction is a fucking great way to put this forward. Socialists that go full force with pro 2am arguments get my respect but they are far likely to convince hearts and minds in my neck of the woods.

/r/socialism Thread Parent Link -