Poll of the Day > One gun control arugment I don't understand...

(+) Yeah! (+)

One argument for not taking guns away, is that "We need them in case the government becomes evil and we need to overthrow it."

Alright, say that's true. And say literally every man, woman, and child is equipped with an AR-15 and unlimited ammo, how exactly are we supposed to over throw one of the worlds largest armed forces? How are the common people, even armed with unlimited ammo supposed to go against drones, powerful bombs, aircraft, tanks, etc. Sure, a small handful of military vehicle are owned by civilians, but those aren't going to last long. The general population is hopeless to stand up against death from the skies; not to mention all the possibilities of bioweapons or simply shutting off the utilities the government controls.

Perhaps in the musket days the general population could overthrow the government via force, but I don't think it's possible in today's world.
---

shhh, they'll hear you and come in here to screech about how you're wrong without actually doing anything but drown you out by being louder instead of rationally arguing their point
---

Perhaps in the musket days the general population could overthrow the government via force, but I don't think it's possible in today's world.

---

I've been making fun of these would-be freedom fighters every day since the Florida shooting... It's just a bunch of fucking idiots with some power fantasy clouding their ability to think rationally. If the US government, which isn't even fully mobilized for war, decided to institute a police state, it'd take no time to control every city or town. Very few people would actually resist and even fewer could survive off the land and avoid any drone strikes...

The phrase I used a couple of times was to the effect of "oh, no! They've got AR-15s! Better land the drones, park the tanks, and stow the nukes!"
---

CarefreeDude posted...

how exactly are we supposed to over throw one of the worlds largest armed forces?

Idk, how did Iraqi civilians hold them off for 10 years?

CarefreeDude posted...

How are the common people, even armed with unlimited ammo supposed to go against drones, powerful bombs, aircraft, tanks, etc.

Good luck using that hardware on a civil unrest without global response.

CarefreeDude posted...

not to mention all the possibilities of bioweapons

Outright illegal.

CarefreeDude posted...

or simply shutting off the utilities the government controls.

The civilians run the utilities, in rebellion those utilities are easily requisitioned.

CarefreeDude posted...

Perhaps in the musket days the general population could overthrow the government via force, but I don't think it's possible in today's world.

You don't win by destroying everything you seek to claim, you win by making the government surrender by being so big that if you're destroyed, there's not enough country left to run after the war.
---

^lol nice try

Iraq is nowhere near the US itself, the military operation was not big (even in WWII, it wasn't in full swing, let that sink in). Bioweapons are illegal, but nobody does more than whine about it when they're used... especially if they would lose a war to the user. The civilians run the utilities?! This is just sad....... you're one of these "woo! We the people will protect our democracy!" guys, huh? Guess what? There was no fight and it's already over. Most people won't fight back. The man in the high castle's America is more plausible than a bunch of bumpkins taking down the strongest military ever in home soil.
---

What's so hard to understand? They have to hold on to every excuse because their stance is stupid. They can't just admit they think guns are fun and don't care about other people's safety.
---

VeeVees posted...

What's so hard to understand? They have to hold on to every excuse because their stance is stupid.

I guess that was all that needed to be said. Well done.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Good luck using that hardware on a civil unrest without global response.

Yeah, exactly! I mean, look what happened in Syria when Assad started bombing and gassing his own citizens! There was a huge global response as every other country united, invaded, and deposed him from power...

Oh, wait, no, everyone just kind of sat on their hands and sent thoughts and prayers.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Good luck using that hardware on a civil unrest without global response.

Yeah, exactly! I mean, look what happened in Syria when Assad started bombing and gassing his own citizens! There was a huge global response as every other country united, invaded, and deposed him from power...

Oh, wait, no, everyone just kind of sat on their hands and sent thoughts and prayers.

Not just thoughts and prayers. They also condemned the act.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Good luck using that hardware on a civil unrest without global response.

Yeah, exactly! I mean, look what happened in Syria when Assad started bombing and gassing his own citizens! There was a huge global response as every other country united, invaded, and deposed him from power...

Oh, wait, no, everyone just kind of sat on their hands and sent thoughts and prayers.

One of the incidents wasn't even a gas attack. A bunch of chlorine was blown up in a factory. The rest seem plausible, but the fakest one drew the most outrage... which still amounted to "that's sad" and everyone moving on.
---

So I must have missed the part where our sophisticated military was able to, without challenge, wipe out every rebel group and terrorist cell in the middle east. I mean, they're mostly just armed with rifles and small arms, so surely our modern military can just wipe them out problem free at the push of a button.

Oh wait that's now how it works or worked at all.

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Good luck using that hardware on a civil unrest without global response.

Yeah, exactly! I mean, look what happened in Syria when Assad started bombing and gassing his own citizens! There was a huge global response as every other country united, invaded, and deposed him from power...

Oh, wait, no, everyone just kind of sat on their hands and sent thoughts and prayers.

Implying anybody cares what the third world does.
---

Noop_Noop posted...

So I must have missed the part where our sophisticated military was able to, without challenge, wipe out every rebel group and terrorist cell in the middle east. I mean, they're mostly just armed with rifles and small arms, so surely our modern military can just wipe them out problem free at the push of a button.

Oh wait that's now how it works or worked at all.

They are better at living off the land than America's version. Also: if a government like Kim's commanded America's military, they'd use the secret police to round up anyone related to the rebels and start killing them. Not to mention if the rebels are off in the middle of nowhere, they could just nuke them. It's sovereign territory, not foreign, so it's easier.

It's nice that you enjoy your hopeful fantasy though.
---

We need them in case the government becomes evil

If this is the case they dont seem to be working correctly
---

you know what would make it even harder? not having guns
---

Mead posted...

We need them in case the government becomes evil

If this is the case they dont seem to be working correctly

Agreed 100%. People talk a big game, but that's all it is. There's this romanticized idea that these plucky hoarders will keep the peace if needed, but all they do is sit in their compounds and daydream while reality passes them by.

The Nazis, relative to the time, had a worse military than America possesses today, but partisan activity on foreign soil was only really a thorn in their side and no threat to their rule as the masses largely just wanted to avoid trouble and ride it out...
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

you know what would make it even harder? not having guns

Maybe, but it's like teaching a wimp karate and giving him a false sense of security, and then he just gets beaten up by a better fighter.

Another big difference between the ME and America? The FBI already knows where all the militias are.
---

nobody wants to rule over an irradiated nation of corpses and ruins. also, you are faultily assuming that every single person in the military would be ok with mowing down us citizens, despite the fact that thats not even close to true.

if the us government decided to detonate nukes on its own soil, sure, theyd crush any rebellion. but if theyre really willing to be that stupid, you can bet there are dozens of countries who would send troops in because taking down the us would be a huge windfall for most countries.

Frankly, the government is already evil, people just have enough comforts to not want to do anything about it.
---

Awww! He thinks they'd have the infrastructure to support a war effort! And that Russia would help freedom fighters against an authoritarian regime that would probably ally with them! It's adorable...

Also, that is from "anonymous" and citing something it doesn't source. Anyone could slap that together to support their own narrative...

Ultimately, nobody knows for sure, but lol
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Awww! He thinks they'd have the infrastructure to support a war effort! And that Russia would help freedom fighters against an authoritarian regime that would probably ally with them! It's adorable...

Also, that is from "anonymous" and citing something it doesn't source. Anyone could slap that together to support their own narrative...

Ultimately, nobody knows for sure, but lol

im not sure what you are saying. if the government really is completely capable of 100% demolishing any rebellion effort with ease, why bother outlawing rifles anyway?

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Noop_Noop posted...

So I must have missed the part where our sophisticated military was able to, without challenge, wipe out every rebel group and terrorist cell in the middle east. I mean, they're mostly just armed with rifles and small arms, so surely our modern military can just wipe them out problem free at the push of a button.

Oh wait that's now how it works or worked at all.

They are better at living off the land than America's version. Also: if a government like Kim's commanded America's military, they'd use the secret police to round up anyone related to the rebels and start killing them. Not to mention if the rebels are off in the middle of nowhere, they could just nuke them. It's sovereign territory, not foreign, so it's easier.

It's nice that you enjoy your hopeful fantasy though.

He's talking about the US in terms of North Korea

He's taking about the US nuking itsself

Speaking of fantasy, that's some far left level stupidity bro

KaptainKiro posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Awww! He thinks they'd have the infrastructure to support a war effort! And that Russia would help freedom fighters against an authoritarian regime that would probably ally with them! It's adorable...

Also, that is from "anonymous" and citing something it doesn't source. Anyone could slap that together to support their own narrative...

Ultimately, nobody knows for sure, but lol

im not sure what you are saying. if the government really is completely capable of 100% demolishing any rebellion effort with ease, why bother outlawing rifles anyway?

The point is that they don't have to. I'm mocking that belief as being fucking stupid. This whole topic revolves around some fools who think that makes a big difference against a professional, high tech army. Technology and training are how the vast empires became what they were. Britain, Rome, Mongolia, Japan, etc., all built what they did because of those two factors. It didn't really matter how outnumbered they were or where the fighting was.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The point is that they don't have to. I'm mocking that belief as being fucking stupid. This whole topic revolves around some fools who think that makes a big difference against a professional, high tech army.

Not every war is won with straight confrontations though.

Many wars on history against superior forces were won with small groups using gorilla tactics, including the American Revolution. But you still need decent weapons for that.
---

TigerTycoon posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The point is that they don't have to. I'm mocking that belief as being fucking stupid. This whole topic revolves around some fools who think that makes a big difference against a professional, high tech army.

Not every war is won with straight confrontations though.

Many wars on history against superior forces were won with small groups using gorilla tactics, including the American Revolution. But you still need decent weapons for that.

*Guerrilla

Also: France won America. Without them it'd be sipping tea.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

*Guerrilla

Also: France won America. Without them it'd be sipping tea.

France largely supplied arms and trade. They provided few troops compared to the American forces.

But we already have the arms now, so we're good.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Also: France won America. Without them it'd be sipping tea.

interesting. its as though the opportunity to destabilize a world leader is tempting for other powers with their own interests.

Smarkil posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

*Guerrilla

Also: France won America. Without them it'd be sipping tea.

France largely supplied arms and trade. They provided few troops compared to the American forces.

But we already have the arms now, so we're good.

France also supplied some much needed military training
---

TigerTycoon posted...

Many wars on history against superior forces were won with small groups using gorilla tactics

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/587/Navy_Seal.jpg

KaptainKiro posted...

nobody wants to rule over an irradiated nation of corpses and ruins

Assad seems OK with it.

Smarkil posted...

France largely supplied arms and trade. They provided few troops compared to the American forces.

ITP: 63,000 allied troops from France and Spain is "few", compared to the ~80,000 Americans.

And that's not even counting the fact that Spain and France were waging war against Britain overseas and preventing her from deploying the full strength of Britain's forces against the revolutionaries. Had France and Spain stayed out of it, the American revolution would have been crushed in short order.
---

darkknight109 posted...

ITP: 63,000 allied troops from France and Spain is "few", compared to the ~80,000 Americans.

around 200k americans served in the revolution lol. and despite being the mightiest empire on earth the brits still hired 30k mercenaries to help them.

And that's not even counting the fact that Spain and France were waging war against Britain overseas and preventing her from deploying the full strength of Britain's forces against the revolutionaries.

interesting. so again we see that when superpowers go to war and stretch themselves thin, others will try to take advantage of that. funny.

also, fun fact, the american revolution literally kicked off with the brits attempting to take weapons away from the colonies.

CarefreeDude posted...

Alright, say that's true. And say literally every man, woman, and child is equipped with an AR-15 and unlimited ammo, how exactly are we supposed to over throw one of the worlds largest armed forces? How are the common people, even armed with unlimited ammo supposed to go against drones, powerful bombs, aircraft, tanks, etc. Sure, a small handful of military vehicle are owned by civilians, but those aren't going to last long. The general population is hopeless to stand up against death from the skies; not to mention all the possibilities of bioweapons or simply shutting off the utilities the government controls.

....because the US has done soooooo well against entrenched insurgencies >_> That's why Vietnam was such a massive success and why we were able to remove terrorism from the Middle East. And, you know, because using the same tactics in those nations here totally wouldn't spur a much larger rebellion and soldiers absolutely wouldn't disobey their orders when forced to potentially kill loved ones. And social media depictions of the government's brutal actions certainly wouldn't change hearts and minds against the government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_mrNQBLSMU" data-time="

CarefreeDude posted...

Perhaps in the musket days the general population could overthrow the government via force, but I don't think it's possible in today's world.

...says a dude who is profoundly ignorant when it comes to US military history.
---

HellHole_ posted...

shhh, they'll hear you and come in here to screech about how you're wrong without actually doing anything but drown you out by being louder instead of rationally arguing their point

Yeah you dont understand combat.

CarefreeDude posted...

One argument for not taking guns away, is that "We need them in case the government becomes evil and we need to overthrow it."

Alright, say that's true. And say literally every man, woman, and child is equipped with an AR-15 and unlimited ammo, how exactly are we supposed to over throw one of the worlds largest armed forces? How are the common people, even armed with unlimited ammo supposed to go against drones, powerful bombs, aircraft, tanks, etc. Sure, a small handful of military vehicle are owned by civilians, but those aren't going to last long. The general population is hopeless to stand up against death from the skies; not to mention all the possibilities of bioweapons or simply shutting off the utilities the government controls.

Perhaps in the musket days the general population could overthrow the government via force, but I don't think it's possible in today's world.

Because ruling over ruins and corpses is pointless.
Because not everyone in the military will be okay shooting at their own civilians.
Because anyone from who issued the order, to who passed along the order, to who carried out the order would most likely come home and find their family murdered. Followed by being strung up from a lamp post with a sign around their neck.

America has a pretty bad track record when it comes to counter insurgency. From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are far off places that have no link to the US that can be indiscriminately bombed with zero effect on US.

A modern insurgency/civil war in the US would make the Yugoslav Wars look like the Velvet Revolution.
---

I don't know why so many Americans live in total fear of a tyrannical government takeover. Literally nobody in Canada lives in fear like that.
---

faramir77 posted...

I don't know why so many Americans live in total fear of a tyrannical government takeover. Literally nobody in Canada lives in fear like that.

because a lot of older people haven't died off yet & just in general like shooting things when they have nothing better to do.
*another example as to why amendments need to be constantly revised and not wait and sit thing*
---

faramir77 posted...

I don't know why so many Americans live in total fear of a tyrannical government takeover. Literally nobody in Canada lives in fear like that.

We dont forget history.

Im not necessarily someone who would ever argue what the op is saying but you also have to remember our military are also American citizens
---

faramir77 posted...

I don't know why so many Americans live in total fear of a tyrannical government takeover. Literally nobody in Canada lives in fear like that.

Probably because not too long ago, we won our independence by overthrowing a tyrannical government. Not to mention, less than 100 years ago, multiple major countries' governments rounded up and killed millions of people. Just because everything's peachy now doesn't mean it'll be that way forever.
---

holy crap the heads in the sands.

"Tyranny will never happen to my government, even though it's happening all around the world right fucking now, has happened many times over in the last 100 years."
---

I think Ive asked this ten times this year on these boards without getting a serious responds...
Why would the whole military join Dictator Trump and slaughter their own brothers and sisters?
---

Because a few things:

1. Infantry has been and always shall be the end all be all of warfare. This is why we lost Vietnam in spite of vastly superior firepower.

2. The military is actually at a distinct disadvantage compared to the citizenry. There are 300 million civilians in the US. And they can't even beat insurgents in the middle east.

3. We don't need a total military victory where we fight our way through to the white house and behead the president at the gallows. All we have to do is make it more worth it to serve citizen's interest than it is to fight them.

4. In the case of the military fighting its people, you now have military men fighting their own families and communities. There's no way they could keep loyalty.

Remember, the United States was literally formed by beating the greatest empire in the world at the time. The way they did it was by losing battles repeatedly until the British just gave up.

Noop_Noop posted...

So I must have missed the part where our sophisticated military was able to, without challenge, wipe out every rebel group and terrorist cell in the middle east. I mean, they're mostly just armed with rifles and small arms, so surely our modern military can just wipe them out problem free at the push of a button.

Oh wait that's now how it works or worked at all.

Oh wait the logistics of invading a country that isn't yours and where you don't have all your military equipment. It's almost like it's hard.

At the end of the day it is more of a preventative measure than anything. We're armed so it does not ever have to get to the point where we have to make an armed revolution.

Without any leverage, the government has zero reason to listen to its citizens. It could choose not to obey the laws in place and instill total power.

Okay, say the government is coming for you. They want to kill you on sight.

Would you rather have a semi auto rifle, or have nothing?
---

That's even stronger support for gun control. If the military won't join the dictator then why the fuck would you need guns. Are people so stupid they can't understand that it's so much easier (and more profitable) to take control through "legal" means. Corporations run your entire country. They never needed to fire a single shot nor can you take them down with your guns. Ruling a desert shithole with an iron fist is not the same as ruling a developed country. Sacrificing actual, current security to prepare for some paranoid, apocalyptic future is stupid.
---

This is an advertisement for the Thompson Machine gun.

A fully automatic, portable machine gun that was freely available for over 60 years. No background check, no license.

All you had to do was put in a money order and it was yours.

Yet there wasn't a gun problem up until around the 1980's when machine guns were (effectively) banned.

VeeVees posted...

That's even stronger support for gun control. If the military won't join the dictator then why the fuck would you need guns. Are people so stupid they can't understand that it's so much easier (and more profitable) to take control through "legal" means. Corporations run your entire country. They never needed to fire a single shot nor can you take them down with your guns. Ruling a desert shithole with an iron fist is not the same as ruling a developed country. Sacrificing actual, current security to prepare for some paranoid, apocalyptic future is stupid.

Because more often than not they do join the dictator. That's why dictators like Kim Jong Un are still kicking today.

Also you have no clue what you're talking about. The government is immensely corrupt. If you even knew half the shit that the CIA did you wouldn't say this.

LMAO, ya, keep comparing shithole 3rd world countries to a developed country.

Everyone knows your government is corrupt as fuck. For example, NRA is paying millions to keep outdated laws that benefit them.
---

Venezuela was a developed country 10 years ago.

Honestly between played by the NRA for profit, and being played by the government so they can monopolize firearms, I'll take the former.

Just remember, members of the govvernment are no more trustworthy than civilians are. They are armed to the teeth, and commit atrocities every day.