>It's not a model country,
Yeah sure its not, which is why its HDI rivals the USA in every positive regard, and has massive popular support. Ordinary people will fight you for insulting Castro.
Do you hear yourself?
>you think its problem-free
Don't put words in my mouth liar
ironic to hear from a "muh gunz" fag
>this applies to institutions not individuals
Its the same concept, stop nitpicking, you're not addressing the crux of the argument at all.
>Castro's ability to win a conflict is irrelevant to the gun issue
Except it is relevant since gun policy was hardly supportive for Castro's guerilla war, yet he still succeeded, because guns weren't the main aspect of victory, it was popular support and competent military strategy
>I've been in a war, and you haven't
Plenty of people have BEEN in a war. Syrian refugees have been in a war. Average grunts have been in a war. This doesn't give you the whole picture. Have you LEAD a war? A military campaign with long-term political goals of your own?
>you have no idea how insurgencies work
Tell me how well an insurgency would work in the USA or any country that isn't unstable and with a high HDI.
>US still had to make deal with Taliban Because Afghanistan is on the other-side of the planet and isn't home turf. US soldiers there aren't fighting for themselves or their people, they're fighting because Commander X - following overseas orders - tells them to execute Mission Y, the only agency an individual soldier there has is their direct actions during combat or patrols or whatever.
>You do not get to dictate what I "need"
<fuck you got mine!
A burger mentality. Do you understand what a collective decision means?
>self defense is valid
Personal gun ownership in the USA seems to only ENCOURAGE violent crime. The USSR's low levels of violent crime like murder and armed assault compared to the USA, demonstrates this all the more. Regardless, no home needs a machine-gun for self-defense. Moreover you're speaking in general terms when the specified situation is society under a revolutionary government, and thus a people's government. Bourg gun control =/= socialist gun control.
>we have Afghanistan
<imperialist invasion is the same as fighting a civil conflict or an individual going gun-ho against the government.
Amazing logic... seriously, stop intentionally misinterpreting my words, it only discredits you more
> in denial.
The irony is great
If you're using a word, understand its meaning before spamming it.
>Castro is a dead man
A dead man who fought wars, commanded a country under embargo and political pressure under threat of a Cold War and survived over 600 assassination attempts and was an avowed communist and people's man, especially at the moment of the quote. There are plenty of soldiers who know how to handle weapons who are idiots, just as there are those who do not who are intelligent and vice versa, Vietnam is a good demonstration of that, with some Vietnam Vets being utter cads and others being reluctant fighters who fought for their men bravely in an otherwise unjust war. Being a soldier means you understand the experiences of war, but does not automatically make you the end all be all of military and weapons.
>Not only can his ideas not apply to the current battlefield
You're taking his words out of context however.
1) His words refer to Post-revolutionary conditions
2) His words are logically sound
3) His words are based on experience
4) His words are made more valid by the ever developing systems of modern warfare and are demonstrated as such repeatedly. If people truly want revolution weapons are not the deciding factor in that decision. And after the revolution is fought, there is no point in continued weapons use except to DEFEND the revolution, rather than fight civil conflict.
Marx's famous quote about guns means that as a CLASS the proletariat should be armed, as in the class should have arms at it's disposal for purposes that vary depending on the situation. Under a capitalist state, the proletariat should remain armed in order to keep open the possibility of a future revolution. Under a socialist state, the proletariat should be armed in order to resist foreign or domestic capitalist aggression. This does not mean everyone being able to freely buy lots of weapons for no specific purpose.
>Still parroting 20th century history
<Donetsk and Lugansk are 20th Century
I followed that conflict quite closely. They did not start off with ANY weapons at all. The most people had was an AK or two brought back as souvenirs from being soldiers.
>Venezuela's armed militias keep the military in line?
<equating indivudal ownership with a militia
A militia also keeps its members inline with collective ownership of most weapon stocks
Moreover the Venezuelan military is largely in support of Maduro, as has been demonstrated since it had several opportunities to CRUSH any pro-Maduro militias if it wanted to.
>Do you not see that this is what frustrates an invasion attempt
And you're confirming my point.
>your ideas on gun control are so liberal
I did not state my ideas on gun control whatsover. I stated that gun control itself is necessary. If anything my ideas on gun control follow the Soviet model: In the 1930s and 1950s after conflict and fear died down, commercial ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles was re-started for urban and rural areas, with there being restrictions in the 1960s following the use of civilian handguns in the hijacking of several passenger jets by terrrorists. Regardless, throughout the entire USSR training with guns was MANDATORY in school for all children and men went through 2 years of conscripted service. I.E. the entire population had Basic Military Training. Having guns and being untrained is more dangerous to yourself than having few guns but knowing how to use them, as US accidental gun-death rates show.
In other words training and limited gun ownership trumps chaotic ownership of weapons and no formal training. I know an ex-marine. He and his team were challenged by the best local paintball players (who were gun owners too) to a match. They beat those "pros" easily. Because the military teaches vectoring and tactics far better than anything one can teach themselves.
>You can't win with just tactics
Without them you can't win either.
>insurgents are a nightmare for any modern military
In third-world countries that lack infrastructure maybe. In any developed country like the USA any HINT of insurrection is monitored and quick to be snuffed out. The internet makes this phenomenally easy, to where even /pol/ and /b/tards can track down the most obscure locations in hours
>You have no perspective outside of the books
Wrong. You know nothing about me.
>Muh 20th century
The 20th century was 2 decades ago, not two centuries ago. Moreover information as old as a millenia remains useful today. Moreover if you bothered to actually read my argument and not nitpick like a lib, you'd notice that my entire argument is precisely based on the fact that this is not the 20th century and that is why this personal firearm obsession is obsolete when even the average SWAT team is likely to be better armed and armored than most civilians, and that arming yourself to the teeth is just a good way to be shot to pieces and villifed in the eyes of the majority of the people.
>You are not qualified to talk on the topic of war.
Yet neither are you. Moreover I base my statements not on my personal opinion, but on the knowledge, experience and thoughts of people and experiences that are certainly qualified in that regard, both modern and historic.
TL;DR: The proletariat being armed doesn't mean everyone gets to rock about with whatever weapons they want. That was Castro's point. And while I may not have military experience, Castro definitely did and I refer to the conclusions drawn of both recent and historic military experiences that set precedent. There is no argument to be had here unless you're a gun nut. End of discussion.