Why would you us a bow? Range is poor, and lethality is also low, esp. with the access the the ultra-wealthy have to medicine. When you hunt deer with a bow, you can usually expect to have to follow a blood trail, as it’s rarely an instant drop.
Use a .300 Winchester magnum from 1000 yards; at that distance, you still have about 850 foot-pounds of energy, which is roughly double a 9mm at point black range. With the right ammo, that’s more than enough to get the job done. You probably want a combined mechanical and ammunition accuracy of about .5 MOA range though, so that you have deviation of less than 6" at that range. It’s a challenging shot, but it’s definitely doable if you know your holds and can call the wind.
I loathe this runaway capitalist system we live in just as much as the next but this violent rhetoric is getting a bit too spicy. Let’s tax the owning class into oblivion. Take away their undeserved wealth and make them work for a living like the rest of us. Riot and rebel if our lives depend on it. But these calls for the outright slaughter of other human beings are going too far.
Capitalists can choose to give up their property and become workers like the rest of us, or they can get the wall and then their property is redistributed. The capitalist class has colonized our society, and their enforcers are the police. And according to Franz Fanon’s books on anticolonial struggle in Algeria, colonial relations never go away unless fought with anticolonial violence to oppose the violence of the colonizers. Ultimately, violence is what is needed to force those in power to give up their wealth, and if they gave up their wealth willingly then violence would not be necessary.
I get the violent rhetoric, I really do. But, at the same time, I can’t help but feel like more people would be more amenable to social reform that benefits the little guy to the mere detriment of the rich, rather than murdering them horribly. I could be wrong, but doesn’t history teach us that violent revolution more often just begets more violence than actually solves problems?
counterpoint:
in all seriousness, no it doesn’t. that’s whitewashing by liberals. good revolutions are often still violent. because guess what, if you want to challenge power, power doesn’t just fucking let you do whatever you want.
power doesn’t just fucking let you do whatever you want.
No, but power can be subverted. Maybe I’m hopelessly optimistic, but I think there’s still a non-violent solution.
not if history is any indication.
I always fall asleep thinking of that scene in dark Knight rises where people are raiding the rich homes. Lovely