He is describing what you are implying

Because the 2nd Amendment comes with an implicit threat. Its very purpose is to be the final check on government power. We only have the rights we’re willing—and able—to protect.

Peaceful protest today has no leverage. It relies on media buy-in and elite shame or schism, of which we have neither. We just saw one of the largest nonviolent protests in U.S. history, and it was either buried or blamed for violence. Lawmakers—even the ones who claim to represent us—have said nothing. ICE still disappears people. Nothing has changed.

I understand why you want a path that avoids more bloodshed. I want that too. But the regime has already chosen brutality, and peaceful resistance alone has no foothold.

I don’t say that because I want violence. I say it because I don’t see any way forward that avoids it. The Piper must be paid. Better on our terms than theirs.

If you shoot at police, prepare to get shot. If it’s legal to open carry then you should not expect to get shot by exercising that right. But that doesn’t change the fact that an armed protest forces police to strongly consider de-escalation.

You are factually wrong. Police do not push on armed protestors, they may be able to single out a single armed protestor but an armed protest does not get fucked with by police historically

The fact it’s a three pack is just… chefs kiss

An armed protest is about checking police involvement more-so then attacking the agencies. Usually an insurgency would attack infrastructure.

Let me put it this way, what wars has the US won against an insurgency on their home turf? And consider that these past wars were waged with an uncontested military industrial complex, technological advantage, uninterruptible supply lines, a functionally infinite budget, the vast resources of one of the largest countries in the world, a US hegemony and control over all markets. Complete intelligence dominance from the sea, land, air and space.

Then factor that the us has the single most armed citizenry of any nation on the planet by an unreasonable degree, a volunteer military, and the infrastructure to wage a war that is in the open protected only by societal contract and the threat of incarceration…

I keep seeing that study:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil_Resistance_Works_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Nonviolent_Conflict

From what I can tell, it works backwards from a conclusion the authors already held. They excluded peaceful events that weren’t “noteworthy,” labeled protests as violent if police instigated violence, and narrowly defined success windows for violent movements while crediting peaceful ones for regime collapses that likely would have happened anyway.

Since the study was published, a wave of high-profile failures—the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, BLM, etc.—has shown that the effectiveness of nonviolence has drastically diminished. Even the study’s lead author has acknowledged that modern authoritarian regimes now use digital surveillance and media control to neutralize peaceful dissent.

The study also ignores the reality that mixed-strategy movements—where one faction remains peaceful while another escalates—are often more successful, yet it frames nonviolence as the only legitimate or effective tactic.

Eeehh, so yes, after basic i did not march anywhere really. And you do need to brush up on it to keep in the swing of things…. But honestly, you know your unit is going to march in a parade months in advance, and for better or worse are going to represent the armed forces, you schedule mandatory training time.

Is it wasteful? Arguably under normal circumstances, definitely under this circumstance.

So i can only conclude that either they did not care, or do care a lot, or someone who was supposed to plan this fucked up and they just grabbed people.

Great now we get to argue what nothing and something is…

And i don’t think that The no kings protest succeeded in that goal. I went and was a part of it, and i am very frustrated with its reporting. And those who did not go, it was just another protest. And people are talking more about two lawmakers in Minnesota killed by a no king protestor.

Yes i know that’s spin, but that’s what was talked about. And trumps parade was given more time over all. Its just frustrating as fuck

I would say that worrying that the protest appears non violent is a waste of time. If the protestors refuse to get violent to lend sympathy for the boot, then violence can be manufactured. It happens alot in protesting, and the whole shtick of the non violent protest is it REQUIRES media buy in. If the media is captured by oligarchs for example then the message will be drowned out or perverted. Even a neutral reading of “this protest happened, it has 1 billion people in it, now to John for the weather” the protest will fail.

Are you talking about the report or ….

Armed protestors

And that pushing apparently includes activities the report defines as “nonviolent”

So then by any reasonable metric it was a failure. Just that the failure was at the leadership level and had zero chance at success because of that no matter what happened

Well… ok… then let’s do the “NONVIOLENT” protests and stop doing these sit ins.

Listen if it’s true, but the democrats are not willing to fight the results, then i don’t care. At that point the cheated election becomes legitimate. And Democratic leaders are on their non intervention kick, probably either because they are complicit, or want to really rub it in to the disenfranchised voters that It voters the blue no matter who, or else it gets the tyrant again.

Without huge media buy in, a billion people is just a number they throw out. I don’t see any change from the number one protest on the list. I don’t think protests are working, even as i still go to them.

He’s saying that if the police don’t bother then the protest has no teeth.

They based that on a study https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil_Resistance_Works_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Nonviolent_Conflict

And from what it seems they worked backwards from a position they held and got to exclude events that were peaceful but were not noteworthy, considered peaceful protests that the police instigated violence as “violent”. Narrowly set the windows for change for violent protest. And counted peaceful protests that happened in situations of concurrent government collapse as successful regardless of the reason the collapse was happening.

It points out that the media is the largest contributor of success for peaceful protests, as IT is the pressure. But fails to consider an adversarial media presence, as in our case with a full captured media apparatus. If all protests are framed as both ineffective and violent regardless, then that leaves only riots as effective pressure.