Surely we can’t fight the military since they have tanks and planes. I mean, we could vietnam it at massive casualties, but that’s pretty suboptimal. I’d rather do like lenin’s build a militia strategy since at least a militia might have like anti air guns.
To be pragmatic, guns are a highly-accessible (depending where you live) and potent form of power. I don’t mean power as a dirty word. Guns are a tool.
Some ‘lefties’ [as an aside, the left-right spectrum makes no sense and has differing definitions from person to culture to region. are liberals leftists? always have been!] have a very real and immediate need for guns. Consider the classic minorities like African-Americans in racist USA communities, or LGBT/etc. peoples who are physically unsafe, or even socialists in the US altogether in some places. I’m not fully convinced of a gun’s general application to self-defense in the sense that the NRA would claim, but it’s certainly useful as a symbol to make enemies know you can protect people and each other, to show you, that you’re not vulnerable or far outmatched. If you want to call that intimidation, so be it.
Look at the Black Panthers’ copwatching. Imagine them without guns. See the difference? Similarly, antifascists might feel a need for self-defense if fascist groups rise significantly and engage in violent harassment. Redneck Revolt can be a case study of anti white-supremacy using open-carry weapons.
Do you think those people have the luxury of saying ‘you know, I’d rather not fight a guerilla war against a world superpower!’ Yeah, it would be nice, of course, but it’s not like there’s often much choice. Guerilla insurgency like the Vietnamese and other nations did is a method of desperation in asymmetric warfare. And yes, it makes sense when you only have guns and they have tanks and planes and drones!
But ultimately, there are enemies who aren’t as powerful as the military still worth fighting. And guns help. And not having guns when others have guns leaves you vulnerable.
thanks!