[Obdigore]

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

[Aptorian]

Sure, probably, I'm thinking more of "the night of the long Tweets", when the very fine people March through the streets at night.

[D'rek]

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

I hear this sort of thing said a lot, but hasn't this always been the case? The peasant uprising and/or revolutionaries are always technologically inferior to the government forces. Obviously an assault rifle won't do shit against a tank or predator drone, but the idea is that if there were a big enough uprising there aren't enough tanks and drones to deal with the sheer number of rebels.

(Not that I think this'll ever actually happen in the USA, but that's the idea)

[Obdigore]

D, on 01 June 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

I hear this sort of thing said a lot, but hasn't this always been the case? The peasant uprising and/or revolutionaries are always technologically inferior to the government forces. Obviously an assault rifle won't do shit against a tank or predator drone, but the idea is that if there were a big enough uprising there aren't enough tanks and drones to deal with the sheer number of rebels.

(Not that I think this'll ever actually happen in the USA, but that's the idea)

The reason the second amendment was created was 2-fold.

1) Slaves like to revolt (for some reason). White Owners can't keep them in check without help from the local towns keeping a number of weapons as needed.
2) A large amount of people in the first congress were against a standing military, and wanted most towns/states/hovels to form their own military for defense in times of need, under the direction of the local government.

The second amendment had nothing in it about defending yourself from the government.

And these people had literally just been through a peasant uprising against the british empire, perhaps their views were colored by what they did/witnessed?

[D'rek]

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:28 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

I hear this sort of thing said a lot, but hasn't this always been the case? The peasant uprising and/or revolutionaries are always technologically inferior to the government forces. Obviously an assault rifle won't do shit against a tank or predator drone, but the idea is that if there were a big enough uprising there aren't enough tanks and drones to deal with the sheer number of rebels.

(Not that I think this'll ever actually happen in the USA, but that's the idea)

The reason the second amendment was created was 2-fold.

1) Slaves like to revolt (for some reason). White Owners can't keep them in check without help from the local towns keeping a number of weapons as needed.
2) A large amount of people in the first congress were against a standing military, and wanted most towns/states/hovels to form their own military for defense in times of need, under the direction of the local government.

The second amendment had nothing in it about defending yourself from the government.

And these people had literally just been through a peasant uprising against the british empire, perhaps their views were colored by what they did/witnessed?

I don't think the biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today care about why it was originally created back in 18-whatever. And if they do care about why it's probably about a different why that they've imagined/been taught which conforms better to the reasons they want it to still exist today.

[Obdigore]

D, on 01 June 2019 - 10:49 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:28 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

I hear this sort of thing said a lot, but hasn't this always been the case? The peasant uprising and/or revolutionaries are always technologically inferior to the government forces. Obviously an assault rifle won't do shit against a tank or predator drone, but the idea is that if there were a big enough uprising there aren't enough tanks and drones to deal with the sheer number of rebels.

(Not that I think this'll ever actually happen in the USA, but that's the idea)

The reason the second amendment was created was 2-fold.

1) Slaves like to revolt (for some reason). White Owners can't keep them in check without help from the local towns keeping a number of weapons as needed.
2) A large amount of people in the first congress were against a standing military, and wanted most towns/states/hovels to form their own military for defense in times of need, under the direction of the local government.

The second amendment had nothing in it about defending yourself from the government.

And these people had literally just been through a peasant uprising against the british empire, perhaps their views were colored by what they did/witnessed?

I don't think the biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today care about why it was originally created back in 18-whatever. And if they do care about why it's probably about a different why that they've imagined/been taught which conforms better to the reasons they want it to still exist today.

The biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today are LITERALLY the people who say 'but muh founding fathers'. They seem to believe the 'founding fathers' knew more than any of us ever could and blah blah blah. Those two groups are one and the same.

[D'rek]

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:59 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 10:49 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:28 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

I hear this sort of thing said a lot, but hasn't this always been the case? The peasant uprising and/or revolutionaries are always technologically inferior to the government forces. Obviously an assault rifle won't do shit against a tank or predator drone, but the idea is that if there were a big enough uprising there aren't enough tanks and drones to deal with the sheer number of rebels.

(Not that I think this'll ever actually happen in the USA, but that's the idea)

The reason the second amendment was created was 2-fold.

1) Slaves like to revolt (for some reason). White Owners can't keep them in check without help from the local towns keeping a number of weapons as needed.
2) A large amount of people in the first congress were against a standing military, and wanted most towns/states/hovels to form their own military for defense in times of need, under the direction of the local government.

The second amendment had nothing in it about defending yourself from the government.

And these people had literally just been through a peasant uprising against the british empire, perhaps their views were colored by what they did/witnessed?

I don't think the biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today care about why it was originally created back in 18-whatever. And if they do care about why it's probably about a different why that they've imagined/been taught which conforms better to the reasons they want it to still exist today.

The biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today are LITERALLY the people who say 'but muh founding fathers'. They seem to believe the 'founding fathers' knew more than any of us ever could and blah blah blah. Those two groups are one and the same.

Just like the people who say the Civil War was about "states' rights" ? Just 'cause someone says "but muh tangerines" doesn't mean they are correct about the history of tangerines.

In this particular case, I think there's a sizeable chunk of people who {a} don't know any actual history of any amendment, {b} think the founding fathers loved guns because FREEDOM, {c} think that the 2nd amendment and owning guns NOW is important because of the possibility that the populace need to rise up against a government that has turned into tyranny. And if someone does believe all that, then the argument that the government has tanks/drones so guns are pointless is a bad one.

[Andorion]

D, on 01 June 2019 - 11:35 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:59 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 10:49 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:28 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

I hear this sort of thing said a lot, but hasn't this always been the case? The peasant uprising and/or revolutionaries are always technologically inferior to the government forces. Obviously an assault rifle won't do shit against a tank or predator drone, but the idea is that if there were a big enough uprising there aren't enough tanks and drones to deal with the sheer number of rebels.

(Not that I think this'll ever actually happen in the USA, but that's the idea)

The reason the second amendment was created was 2-fold.

1) Slaves like to revolt (for some reason). White Owners can't keep them in check without help from the local towns keeping a number of weapons as needed.
2) A large amount of people in the first congress were against a standing military, and wanted most towns/states/hovels to form their own military for defense in times of need, under the direction of the local government.

The second amendment had nothing in it about defending yourself from the government.

And these people had literally just been through a peasant uprising against the british empire, perhaps their views were colored by what they did/witnessed?

I don't think the biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today care about why it was originally created back in 18-whatever. And if they do care about why it's probably about a different why that they've imagined/been taught which conforms better to the reasons they want it to still exist today.

The biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today are LITERALLY the people who say 'but muh founding fathers'. They seem to believe the 'founding fathers' knew more than any of us ever could and blah blah blah. Those two groups are one and the same.

Just like the people who say the Civil War was about "states' rights" ? Just 'cause someone says "but muh tangerines" doesn't mean they are correct about the history of tangerines.

In this particular case, I think there's a sizeable chunk of people who {a} don't know any actual history of any amendment, {b} think the founding fathers loved guns because FREEDOM, {c} think that the 2nd amendment and owning guns NOW is important because of the possibility that the populace need to rise up against a government that has turned into tyranny. And if someone does believe all that, then the argument that the government has tanks/drones so guns are pointless is a bad one.

The second amendment is obsolete.

It talks about a well-maintained militia.

Of course it did. The state militias were quite important in the revolutionary war, and the Founding Fathers thought that giving people the right to bear arms guaranteed the continued existence of an armed volunteer force for future needs.

This was made obsolete by the reforms of Elihu Root who turned the state militias into the National Guard and secured them federal funding. By the 30s the Guard was an integral part of the armed forces, making the entire concept of a volunteer militia comprised of freedom loving armed freeholders obsolete.

If this had not been the case, if the army had maintained its volunteer roots, they would not have been able to use tanks against disabled WW1 veterans during the Depression.

[D'rek]

Andorion, on 02 June 2019 - 12:52 AM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 11:35 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:59 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 10:49 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:28 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

I hear this sort of thing said a lot, but hasn't this always been the case? The peasant uprising and/or revolutionaries are always technologically inferior to the government forces. Obviously an assault rifle won't do shit against a tank or predator drone, but the idea is that if there were a big enough uprising there aren't enough tanks and drones to deal with the sheer number of rebels.

(Not that I think this'll ever actually happen in the USA, but that's the idea)

The reason the second amendment was created was 2-fold.

1) Slaves like to revolt (for some reason). White Owners can't keep them in check without help from the local towns keeping a number of weapons as needed.
2) A large amount of people in the first congress were against a standing military, and wanted most towns/states/hovels to form their own military for defense in times of need, under the direction of the local government.

The second amendment had nothing in it about defending yourself from the government.

And these people had literally just been through a peasant uprising against the british empire, perhaps their views were colored by what they did/witnessed?

I don't think the biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today care about why it was originally created back in 18-whatever. And if they do care about why it's probably about a different why that they've imagined/been taught which conforms better to the reasons they want it to still exist today.

The biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today are LITERALLY the people who say 'but muh founding fathers'. They seem to believe the 'founding fathers' knew more than any of us ever could and blah blah blah. Those two groups are one and the same.

Just like the people who say the Civil War was about "states' rights" ? Just 'cause someone says "but muh tangerines" doesn't mean they are correct about the history of tangerines.

In this particular case, I think there's a sizeable chunk of people who {a} don't know any actual history of any amendment, {b} think the founding fathers loved guns because FREEDOM, {c} think that the 2nd amendment and owning guns NOW is important because of the possibility that the populace need to rise up against a government that has turned into tyranny. And if someone does believe all that, then the argument that the government has tanks/drones so guns are pointless is a bad one.

The second amendment is obsolete.

It talks about a well-maintained militia.

Of course it did. The state militias were quite important in the revolutionary war, and the Founding Fathers thought that giving people the right to bear arms guaranteed the continued existence of an armed volunteer force for future needs.

This was made obsolete by the reforms of Elihu Root who turned the state militias into the National Guard and secured them federal funding. By the 30s the Guard was an integral part of the armed forces, making the entire concept of a volunteer militia comprised of freedom loving armed freeholders obsolete.

If this had not been the case, if the army had maintained its volunteer roots, they would not have been able to use tanks against disabled WW1 veterans during the Depression.

So what?

[Tsundoku]

I dunno, does anyone else feel the same way as this? That the gun lobby has peaked and is on the downturn?

https://www.theatlan...e-looms/590857/

And check this out:

"Over Memorial Day weekend, a white Mississippi campsite manager drew a gun on a black couple who failed to properly register before picnicking with their dog. That encounter might once have been tallied by a gun-sympathetic social scientist as a “defensive gun use”—proving the need for firearms. In 2019, the couple bravely recorded the incident, exposing a belligerent jerk needlessly escalating an everyday misunderstanding."

https://www.buzzfeed...n-racism-couple

I did not know having a tanty, taking your bat and ball and going home was a permitted thing in the Oregon State legislature:

"As the political tide turns, the pro-gun cause turns to ever more aggressively anti-majoritarian methods. In 2018, the state of Oregon voted massively blue. It elected a Democratic governor, by a margin of more than six points of the vote. It returned a House with a Democratic supermajority of 38 to 22, and a Senate with a Democratic supermajority of 18 to 12. This spring, the lower house approved a cautious array of new gun-safety measures. The law required gun owners to store their guns safely and imposed liability on them if their guns were used in a crime; outlawed untraceable firearms; required hospitals to provide firearms-injury data to state authorities; and allowed gun retailers to voluntarily limit sales to customers over age 21. It did not restrict ownership of any weapon or weapon component. Unable to defeat the bill, Oregon Republicans walked out of the legislature, denying a quorum, until Democrats agreed to withdraw it. (Republicans also forced the withdrawal of a law ending nonmedical exemptions for vaccination.)"

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 02 June 2019 - 02:55 AM

[Andorion]

D, on 02 June 2019 - 12:59 AM, said:

Andorion, on 02 June 2019 - 12:52 AM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 11:35 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:59 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 10:49 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 10:28 PM, said:

D, on 01 June 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

I hear this sort of thing said a lot, but hasn't this always been the case? The peasant uprising and/or revolutionaries are always technologically inferior to the government forces. Obviously an assault rifle won't do shit against a tank or predator drone, but the idea is that if there were a big enough uprising there aren't enough tanks and drones to deal with the sheer number of rebels.

(Not that I think this'll ever actually happen in the USA, but that's the idea)

The reason the second amendment was created was 2-fold.

1) Slaves like to revolt (for some reason). White Owners can't keep them in check without help from the local towns keeping a number of weapons as needed.
2) A large amount of people in the first congress were against a standing military, and wanted most towns/states/hovels to form their own military for defense in times of need, under the direction of the local government.

The second amendment had nothing in it about defending yourself from the government.

And these people had literally just been through a peasant uprising against the british empire, perhaps their views were colored by what they did/witnessed?

I don't think the biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today care about why it was originally created back in 18-whatever. And if they do care about why it's probably about a different why that they've imagined/been taught which conforms better to the reasons they want it to still exist today.

The biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment today are LITERALLY the people who say 'but muh founding fathers'. They seem to believe the 'founding fathers' knew more than any of us ever could and blah blah blah. Those two groups are one and the same.

Just like the people who say the Civil War was about "states' rights" ? Just 'cause someone says "but muh tangerines" doesn't mean they are correct about the history of tangerines.

In this particular case, I think there's a sizeable chunk of people who {a} don't know any actual history of any amendment, {b} think the founding fathers loved guns because FREEDOM, {c} think that the 2nd amendment and owning guns NOW is important because of the possibility that the populace need to rise up against a government that has turned into tyranny. And if someone does believe all that, then the argument that the government has tanks/drones so guns are pointless is a bad one.

The second amendment is obsolete.

It talks about a well-maintained militia.

Of course it did. The state militias were quite important in the revolutionary war, and the Founding Fathers thought that giving people the right to bear arms guaranteed the continued existence of an armed volunteer force for future needs.

This was made obsolete by the reforms of Elihu Root who turned the state militias into the National Guard and secured them federal funding. By the 30s the Guard was an integral part of the armed forces, making the entire concept of a volunteer militia comprised of freedom loving armed freeholders obsolete.

If this had not been the case, if the army had maintained its volunteer roots, they would not have been able to use tanks against disabled WW1 veterans during the Depression.

So what?

It means that in the original intentions of the Founders, the Right to Bear Arms was linked to and seen foundational as part of the Volunteer militia system.

That system no longer exists. Having the right to bear arms simply does not have the justification which was originally intended.

[Silencer]

D, on 01 June 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 01 June 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 01 June 2019 - 05:45 PM, said:

To be fair, in Trump's America, keeping a military grade weapons stockpile might be prudent.

No ones keeping anything thats going to prevent a tank or drone from eliminating you.

The idea of 'I need guns to stop the government from taking my guns' is amazingly dumb.

I hear this sort of thing said a lot, but hasn't this always been the case? The peasant uprising and/or revolutionaries are always technologically inferior to the government forces. Obviously an assault rifle won't do shit against a tank or predator drone, but the idea is that if there were a big enough uprising there aren't enough tanks and drones to deal with the sheer number of rebels.

(Not that I think this'll ever actually happen in the USA, but that's the idea)

This one always interests me.

You're 100% right that historically an inferior force resorting to guerrilla tactics has had a lot of effect against superior technological and tactical foes. Not so much in the "the number of guns we have makes your tanks incapable of winning" kind of deal, though. It's usually more about picking your battles and harassing strikes that you can then disappear back into the population/forest/caves before they can bring that force to bear.

However, the logic on display in America is still horrifyingly wrong, for a few reasons that their own proclaimed beliefs (stopping a tyrannical government) contradict.

1. Unlike Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the US forces would not be an invading army. They already occupy the country, their supply lines are local, rather than international, and they have perfect satellite imagery, maps, building schematics, airfields, so on and so forth, readily available. There is no problem with intel, navigation, or locating your targets. Unlike the Taliban, who had advantage of local knowledge (and CIA training, lol) and terrain, the US military probably has better knowledge of the country than your average gun hoarder. Hence the typical advantages of a guerrilla force are non-existent in a conflict on American soil.

2. Modern tanks are effectively immune to small arms fire, and carry enough armament to take out a staggering amount of people. Never mind the thermal optics, and the fact that, for example, an M1A2 can move at 40km/h off-road(!!!) and 60km/h on road - all while maintaining near-perfect computer-aided accuracy. They are, of course, not invincible - get a molotov in their engine and they'll overheat and die, and while their resistance to explosives has gone through the roof, immobilising them with home-made IEDs is still quite possible. But neither of those things are really related to the right to bear arms, no?
Then you get to drones and ships and jets. Oh boy. Small arms fire might take down a drone, but it's got nothing on a cruise missile fired from offshore, or an A-10 Warthog deciding it wants to level the street with it's 30mm autocannon, or one of its many bombs or missiles. You need dedicated, modern anti-air facilities to bring down these aircraft and, last I checked, it wasn't even legal to own an RPG in America, like they have in the aforementioned countries been able to obtain. There is no such thing as "enough guns" to bring down the US military. You need your own air force, possibly your own navy, and on land you need modern Stinger missile systems, SAMs, etc. None of which the American people have ready access to (and taking over those facilities by force of arms is the first thing that will be made impossible by presence of tanks and jets if the government were to go all tyrannical). Did I mention the US military is gigantic and has way more people and tanks than is reasonable?

3. Forget all this military fantasy nonsense, what's the biggest internal logic failure of a paranoid gun hoarder? The whole premise!
Is Trump deranged and possibly dangerous? Sure. But it's not him you need to worry about in this scenario. The question is, would the American armed forces shoot their own citizens? Because let's not forget, the people who are hoarding these weapons to fight tyranny aren't predominantly of the, *ahem*, correct skin tone to be the kind of people about to get shot by the US Army - and nor are they likely to object to the US Army shooting the other folk, based on the general strain of racism all gun nuts seem to give off. Remember, America as a nation idol-worships its armed forces. And yet they simultaneously fear them all going along with a dictator? It doesn't reconcile - at all. Someone in power goes crazy and tries to take over the US by force, at most you'll get a small portion of the military going along with it, everyone else would be against it, you'd have a short civil war that largely doesn't involve the civilian population, and the end.
But Silencer! What about a slower, more insidious takeover that doesn't happen overnight so the soldiers all get inured to gradually increasing levels of population control?!?!? Welp, if they manage to pull that off, refer point 2, y'all are fucked anyway. You'd end up relying on external nations intervening like America has been wont to do previously, (already illegal RPGs, etc) weapons smuggled across from Canada and Mexico (lol), until such time as a proper military could arrive to clean things up - even assuming they could, given America's geographical isolation and military hardware. The French resistance were great, and they did a lot with very little, but they didn't liberate France. It took a combined military force to do that. The best a modern guerrilla effort has ever done against a modern military force was Vietnam - and that wasn't getting them out, it was stopping the invasion. If the military is already in your country with control of the government? Good fucking luck. Never mind that the Viet Cong were being supplied and trained by China to boot.

Never mind all that, it still doesn't explain why there can't be reasonable bans on automatic or military-style semi-automatic rifles in the country. If "numbers of guns" is the answer, does it matter if they are only shotguns and bolt-action rifles? If so, why? Is it that the automatic and MSSA's can put more bullets down range faster? How will that help against tanks or jets? If it won't, then why worry, just use the tried and tested weapons that we know work against infantry - for a guerrilla fight, a bolt-action rifle is just as useful as a semi-auto, because you shouldn't be engaging in open combat anyway.

This is all a long, roundabout way of saying what you already know - the position is illogical. Obdi's post, while perhaps a bit dismissive, is right. It's nonsensical to believe that a stockpile of small arms (bearing in mind the US has more guns per capita than it can use already) would help to rise up against the US government gone rogue.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if it is illogical, it's what these people believe, right? Even so, entertaining the idea because historically there have been loosely related examples (and mostly prior to the perfection of the tank, mind) is just lending credibility to their position that it doesn't deserve. At least if they were acting worried about a foreign military invading them, it'd be more reasonable!

[Gorefest]

To be honest, I'm not even sure they actually believe that, it is just a handy excuse to allow continuation of their destructive hobby. And pigheadedness, i.e. the harder someone shouts that you are being naughty/reckless and should give up your toys, the harder you rebel against it. Anyone in this day and age who still cincerely believes in the validity of a "right to bear arms" is either poorly educated or indoctrinated.

[Tsundoku]

I'm so lucky to live in a country where this sort of thing is deeply disturbing and thankfully far away.

https://www.news.com...ae824d147722c17

[Tiste Simeon]

Gorefest, on 02 June 2019 - 08:23 AM, said:

To be honest, I'm not even sure they actually believe that, it is just a handy excuse to allow continuation of their destructive hobby. And pigheadedness, i.e. the harder someone shouts that you are being naughty/reckless and should give up your toys, the harder you rebel against it. Anyone in this day and age who still cincerely believes in the validity of a "right to bear arms" is either poorly educated or indoctrinated.

I think they do believe it:

https://i.redd.it/mzlk5gly6v131.jpg

[D'rek]

Silencer, on 02 June 2019 - 05:07 AM, said:

This one always interests me.

You're 100% right that historically an inferior force resorting to guerrilla tactics has had a lot of effect against superior technological and tactical foes. Not so much in the "the number of guns we have makes your tanks incapable of winning" kind of deal, though. It's usually more about picking your battles and harassing strikes that you can then disappear back into the population/forest/caves before they can bring that force to bear.

However, the logic on display in America is still horrifyingly wrong, for a few reasons that their own proclaimed beliefs (stopping a tyrannical government) contradict.

1. Unlike Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the US forces would not be an invading army. They already occupy the country, their supply lines are local, rather than international, and they have perfect satellite imagery, maps, building schematics, airfields, so on and so forth, readily available. There is no problem with intel, navigation, or locating your targets. Unlike the Taliban, who had advantage of local knowledge (and CIA training, lol) and terrain, the US military probably has better knowledge of the country than your average gun hoarder. Hence the typical advantages of a guerrilla force are non-existent in a conflict on American soil.

Great, you can locate your targets, it's the hundreds of thousands of citizens storming buildings in the streets in the middle of the city. I don't think that helps...?

Silencer, on 02 June 2019 - 05:07 AM, said:

2. Modern tanks are effectively immune to small arms fire, and carry enough armament to take out a staggering amount of people. Never mind the thermal optics, and the fact that, for example, an M1A2 can move at 40km/h off-road(!!!) and 60km/h on road - all while maintaining near-perfect computer-aided accuracy. They are, of course, not invincible - get a molotov in their engine and they'll overheat and die, and while their resistance to explosives has gone through the roof, immobilising them with home-made IEDs is still quite possible. But neither of those things are really related to the right to bear arms, no?
Then you get to drones and ships and jets. Oh boy. Small arms fire might take down a drone, but it's got nothing on a cruise missile fired from offshore, or an A-10 Warthog deciding it wants to level the street with it's 30mm autocannon, or one of its many bombs or missiles. You need dedicated, modern anti-air facilities to bring down these aircraft and, last I checked, it wasn't even legal to own an RPG in America, like they have in the aforementioned countries been able to obtain. There is no such thing as "enough guns" to bring down the US military. You need your own air force, possibly your own navy, and on land you need modern Stinger missile systems, SAMs, etc. None of which the American people have ready access to (and taking over those facilities by force of arms is the first thing that will be made impossible by presence of tanks and jets if the government were to go all tyrannical). Did I mention the US military is gigantic and has way more people and tanks than is reasonable?

No no no, that's not how peasant rebellions work. You don't have to shoot down the drones or fight the tanks head-on. The US Army might have 8000 tanks (not that they have 8000 tank crews or the infrastructure to actually operate all those tanks at once), a hundred drones, etc, but all of those require a ton of support and infrastructure to continuously operate. You don't attack the high tech weaponry, you attack the bases and the administration. 50 000 000 rifle-armed peasant rebels vs 100 000 army infantry guarding the bases, the airstrips, the Pentagon, the White House, etc. Sure, every trained soldier will take down 20 rebels before dying, but that's not nearly enough. And it's not like you're going to cruise missile a bunch of rebels storming the White House.

In the Red Turban Rebellion or the French Revolution or whatever the peasants didn't just line up in a field and engage the professional army as if they were also a military force. They went after the army's ability to field itself with all its fancy superior tech, and went after the leadership.

Silencer, on 02 June 2019 - 05:07 AM, said:

3. Forget all this military fantasy nonsense, what's the biggest internal logic failure of a paranoid gun hoarder? The whole premise!
Is Trump deranged and possibly dangerous? Sure. But it's not him you need to worry about in this scenario. The question is, would the American armed forces shoot their own citizens? Because let's not forget, the people who are hoarding these weapons to fight tyranny aren't predominantly of the, *ahem*, correct skin tone to be the kind of people about to get shot by the US Army - and nor are they likely to object to the US Army shooting the other folk, based on the general strain of racism all gun nuts seem to give off. Remember, America as a nation idol-worships its armed forces. And yet they simultaneously fear them all going along with a dictator? It doesn't reconcile - at all. Someone in power goes crazy and tries to take over the US by force, at most you'll get a small portion of the military going along with it, everyone else would be against it, you'd have a short civil war that largely doesn't involve the civilian population, and the end.
But Silencer! What about a slower, more insidious takeover that doesn't happen overnight so the soldiers all get inured to gradually increasing levels of population control?!?!? Welp, if they manage to pull that off, refer point 2, y'all are fucked anyway. You'd end up relying on external nations intervening like America has been wont to do previously, (already illegal RPGs, etc) weapons smuggled across from Canada and Mexico (lol), until such time as a proper military could arrive to clean things up - even assuming they could, given America's geographical isolation and military hardware. The French resistance were great, and they did a lot with very little, but they didn't liberate France. It took a combined military force to do that. The best a modern guerrilla effort has ever done against a modern military force was Vietnam - and that wasn't getting them out, it was stopping the invasion. If the military is already in your country with control of the government? Good fucking luck. Never mind that the Viet Cong were being supplied and trained by China to boot.

Never mind all that, it still doesn't explain why there can't be reasonable bans on automatic or military-style semi-automatic rifles in the country. If "numbers of guns" is the answer, does it matter if they are only shotguns and bolt-action rifles? If so, why? Is it that the automatic and MSSA's can put more bullets down range faster? How will that help against tanks or jets? If it won't, then why worry, just use the tried and tested weapons that we know work against infantry - for a guerrilla fight, a bolt-action rifle is just as useful as a semi-auto, because you shouldn't be engaging in open combat anyway.

This is all a long, roundabout way of saying what you already know - the position is illogical. Obdi's post, while perhaps a bit dismissive, is right. It's nonsensical to believe that a stockpile of small arms (bearing in mind the US has more guns per capita than it can use already) would help to rise up against the US government gone rogue.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if it is illogical, it's what these people believe, right? Even so, entertaining the idea because historically there have been loosely related examples (and mostly prior to the perfection of the tank, mind) is just lending credibility to their position that it doesn't deserve. At least if they were acting worried about a foreign military invading them, it'd be more reasonable!

If you can convince them of the pink part, then you don't need to argue the blue part. But if you can't change their mind on the pink part, then going by what they believe the blue part is a bad argument. If someone believes the citizenry needs to be allowed to own guns in case of a possible future peasant rebellion, then it makes sense for that person to also believe everyone should be allowed to keep more advanced, more dangerous weaponry.

[Aptorian]

I think you vastly underestimate just how deadly modern warfare is now a days, D'rek.

Any mass grouping of resistance is effectively impossible with the kind of tech America has, if it was in the hands of somebody cold-blooded enough. And it's pretty easy to cold-blooded when you're looking at a screen with white blobs from a thousand miles away.

Give it another decade or two and any human element is removed from the equation and you'll just be fighting a computer system.


The point of the militias weapon collection isn't so much to be able topple a government, but to be able to defend yourself, when the man comes to take your land or force you to pay tax or what ever. It's about resistance and protecting what's yours because they believe that at the end of the day it's every man for themselves.

[Andorion]

D, on 02 June 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

Silencer, on 02 June 2019 - 05:07 AM, said:

This one always interests me.

You're 100% right that historically an inferior force resorting to guerrilla tactics has had a lot of effect against superior technological and tactical foes. Not so much in the "the number of guns we have makes your tanks incapable of winning" kind of deal, though. It's usually more about picking your battles and harassing strikes that you can then disappear back into the population/forest/caves before they can bring that force to bear.

However, the logic on display in America is still horrifyingly wrong, for a few reasons that their own proclaimed beliefs (stopping a tyrannical government) contradict.

1. Unlike Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the US forces would not be an invading army. They already occupy the country, their supply lines are local, rather than international, and they have perfect satellite imagery, maps, building schematics, airfields, so on and so forth, readily available. There is no problem with intel, navigation, or locating your targets. Unlike the Taliban, who had advantage of local knowledge (and CIA training, lol) and terrain, the US military probably has better knowledge of the country than your average gun hoarder. Hence the typical advantages of a guerrilla force are non-existent in a conflict on American soil.

Great, you can locate your targets, it's the hundreds of thousands of citizens storming buildings in the streets in the middle of the city. I don't think that helps...?

Silencer, on 02 June 2019 - 05:07 AM, said:

2. Modern tanks are effectively immune to small arms fire, and carry enough armament to take out a staggering amount of people. Never mind the thermal optics, and the fact that, for example, an M1A2 can move at 40km/h off-road(!!!) and 60km/h on road - all while maintaining near-perfect computer-aided accuracy. They are, of course, not invincible - get a molotov in their engine and they'll overheat and die, and while their resistance to explosives has gone through the roof, immobilising them with home-made IEDs is still quite possible. But neither of those things are really related to the right to bear arms, no?
Then you get to drones and ships and jets. Oh boy. Small arms fire might take down a drone, but it's got nothing on a cruise missile fired from offshore, or an A-10 Warthog deciding it wants to level the street with it's 30mm autocannon, or one of its many bombs or missiles. You need dedicated, modern anti-air facilities to bring down these aircraft and, last I checked, it wasn't even legal to own an RPG in America, like they have in the aforementioned countries been able to obtain. There is no such thing as "enough guns" to bring down the US military. You need your own air force, possibly your own navy, and on land you need modern Stinger missile systems, SAMs, etc. None of which the American people have ready access to (and taking over those facilities by force of arms is the first thing that will be made impossible by presence of tanks and jets if the government were to go all tyrannical). Did I mention the US military is gigantic and has way more people and tanks than is reasonable?

No no no, that's not how peasant rebellions work. You don't have to shoot down the drones or fight the tanks head-on. The US Army might have 8000 tanks (not that they have 8000 tank crews or the infrastructure to actually operate all those tanks at once), a hundred drones, etc, but all of those require a ton of support and infrastructure to continuously operate. You don't attack the high tech weaponry, you attack the bases and the administration. 50 000 000 rifle-armed peasant rebels vs 100 000 army infantry guarding the bases, the airstrips, the Pentagon, the White House, etc. Sure, every trained soldier will take down 20 rebels before dying, but that's not nearly enough. And it's not like you're going to cruise missile a bunch of rebels storming the White House.

In the Red Turban Rebellion or the French Revolution or whatever the peasants didn't just line up in a field and engage the professional army as if they were also a military force. They went after the army's ability to field itself with all its fancy superior tech, and went after the leadership.

Silencer, on 02 June 2019 - 05:07 AM, said:

3. Forget all this military fantasy nonsense, what's the biggest internal logic failure of a paranoid gun hoarder? The whole premise!
Is Trump deranged and possibly dangerous? Sure. But it's not him you need to worry about in this scenario. The question is, would the American armed forces shoot their own citizens? Because let's not forget, the people who are hoarding these weapons to fight tyranny aren't predominantly of the, *ahem*, correct skin tone to be the kind of people about to get shot by the US Army - and nor are they likely to object to the US Army shooting the other folk, based on the general strain of racism all gun nuts seem to give off. Remember, America as a nation idol-worships its armed forces. And yet they simultaneously fear them all going along with a dictator? It doesn't reconcile - at all. Someone in power goes crazy and tries to take over the US by force, at most you'll get a small portion of the military going along with it, everyone else would be against it, you'd have a short civil war that largely doesn't involve the civilian population, and the end.
But Silencer! What about a slower, more insidious takeover that doesn't happen overnight so the soldiers all get inured to gradually increasing levels of population control?!?!? Welp, if they manage to pull that off, refer point 2, y'all are fucked anyway. You'd end up relying on external nations intervening like America has been wont to do previously, (already illegal RPGs, etc) weapons smuggled across from Canada and Mexico (lol), until such time as a proper military could arrive to clean things up - even assuming they could, given America's geographical isolation and military hardware. The French resistance were great, and they did a lot with very little, but they didn't liberate France. It took a combined military force to do that. The best a modern guerrilla effort has ever done against a modern military force was Vietnam - and that wasn't getting them out, it was stopping the invasion. If the military is already in your country with control of the government? Good fucking luck. Never mind that the Viet Cong were being supplied and trained by China to boot.

Never mind all that, it still doesn't explain why there can't be reasonable bans on automatic or military-style semi-automatic rifles in the country. If "numbers of guns" is the answer, does it matter if they are only shotguns and bolt-action rifles? If so, why? Is it that the automatic and MSSA's can put more bullets down range faster? How will that help against tanks or jets? If it won't, then why worry, just use the tried and tested weapons that we know work against infantry - for a guerrilla fight, a bolt-action rifle is just as useful as a semi-auto, because you shouldn't be engaging in open combat anyway.

This is all a long, roundabout way of saying what you already know - the position is illogical. Obdi's post, while perhaps a bit dismissive, is right. It's nonsensical to believe that a stockpile of small arms (bearing in mind the US has more guns per capita than it can use already) would help to rise up against the US government gone rogue.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if it is illogical, it's what these people believe, right? Even so, entertaining the idea because historically there have been loosely related examples (and mostly prior to the perfection of the tank, mind) is just lending credibility to their position that it doesn't deserve. At least if they were acting worried about a foreign military invading them, it'd be more reasonable!

If you can convince them of the pink part, then you don't need to argue the blue part. But if you can't change their mind on the pink part, then going by what they believe the blue part is a bad argument. If someone believes the citizenry needs to be allowed to own guns in case of a possible future peasant rebellion, then it makes sense for that person to also believe everyone should be allowed to keep more advanced, more dangerous weaponry.

The current population of the US is 300 million.

You are not going to have 50 million - 1/6th of the population rise in armed rebellion. That sort of mobilization simply does not happen.

For context, in 1914, the French population was 39 million, and their army was 1.3 million including all reserves. That is what the government could mobilize while trying its best. They would go on to mobilize 8.8 million in a literal fight to the death war, where the army was run ragged and mutiny was spreading through the ranks. There is a percentage of the population beyond which mobilization becomes unworkable.

Also, given the politico ideological basis of the gun control debate, look up the population distribution in the United States? A huge chunk live in the NW, in California, in the NE and around the Lakes.

Also rising in rebellion itself is not enough. You have to be organized coordinated, you have to have a logistical supply chain, you have to have command and control. The military has all of these, is trained to create and maintain these. Your average citizen is not.

Storm a base? If the US army actually cuts loose, do you have any idea of the type of slaughter a single naval ship can cause using only its gun?

Lets say you have a couple of thousand people trying to take an army base - leave out tanks and artillery, mortar fire is going to decimate them.

Another important aspect of warfare is morale. An untrained civilian combat element is going to turn and run when they lose 10% of their number in 30 seconds.

A countrywide rebellion requires a degree of forward planning, coordination and organization that is so extensive, that it will be detected by the FBI. And if its a regional rebellion, it will be stamped out fast and ugly.

[D'rek]

Aptorian, on 02 June 2019 - 05:03 PM, said:

I think you vastly underestimate just how deadly modern warfare is now a days, D'rek.

Any mass grouping of resistance is effectively impossible with the kind of tech America has, if it was in the hands of somebody cold-blooded enough. And it's pretty easy to cold-blooded when you're looking at a screen with white blobs from a thousand miles away.

Give it another decade or two and any human element is removed from the equation and you'll just be fighting a computer system.

Doesn't matter what I think though does it? Do you think the average Arizonan who owns 8 guns believes the above?

Aptorian, on 02 June 2019 - 05:03 PM, said:

The point of the militias weapon collection isn't so much to be able topple a government, but to be able to defend yourself, when the man comes to take your land or force you to pay tax or what ever. It's about resistance and protecting what's yours because they believe that at the end of the day it's every man for themselves.

True dat

[Silencer]

All I can say, D'rek, is you appear to be vastly overestimating the efficacy of civilian soldiers and underestimating the devastation of modern military hardware. Carpet bombing one city would wipe out your civilians while they're storming buildings.

That sort of uprising would simply not work. Hence why I focused on guerrilla warfare and why it also would not work.


To your point that it doesn't matter what you think - again, it does. Playing Devils Advocate for the perspective of these people lends them legitimacy and makes them more emboldened. Pointing out that their fantasy is unrealistic and doomed isn't just logical, it's helping.

And more importantly it's about taking excuses off the table. If armed rebellion against the suddenly tyrannical US government is accepted as impossible, as it should be, then the lie of why guns are "needed" is peeled back another layer. Eventually the excuses run out. But not when people entertain the delusion that enough guns can topple a modern military force the size of the US!