Poll of the Day > No guns to be allowed at NRA convention

(+) Yeah! (+)

VioletZer0 posted...

If you're one of those people that believes "Hurr the government would win"

The government has fought many wars against civilian populaces from different countries. From Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan to Syria...

When was the last time they actually WON against civilians?

Your AR-15 isn't gonna do much when an AGM-114 shreds your living room to pieces, buddy. America hasn't had a full-out war since WWII. The reason why it takes so long to do things like root out ISIS is because they can't just go in carpet bombing entire cities. You go and try winning a war while making sure you keep innocent casualties to a minimum.

Not to mention the government could lockdown so much infrastructure if they wanted to

Good luck winning a fight against an enemy that can make it so you cant earn money or find food from a store. People need to stop thinking like we are still in the 1500s
---

GanglyKhan posted...

Your AR-15 isn't gonna do much when an AGM-114 shreds your living room to pieces, buddy. America hasn't had a full-out war since WWII. The reason why it takes so long to do things like root out ISIS is because they can't just go in carpet bombing entire cities. You go and try winning a war while making sure you keep innocent casualties to a minimum.

Do...do you think they're gonna carpet bomb their own country?
---

well to be fair when people ramble on about the government taking over its hard to get a grasp and what kind of scenario they actually envision.

Smarkil posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

Your AR-15 isn't gonna do much when an AGM-114 shreds your living room to pieces, buddy. America hasn't had a full-out war since WWII. The reason why it takes so long to do things like root out ISIS is because they can't just go in carpet bombing entire cities. You go and try winning a war while making sure you keep innocent casualties to a minimum.

Do...do you think they're gonna carpet bomb their own country?

Absolutely 100% not. I was running off of the flawed logic that some (not all!) firearms supporters use. It hasn't been the first time I've heard allusions to "what if the government attacked civilians?! I need my guns if they do that!" We'd all be fucked in that case, but it's never going to happen so it's a moot point. Same goes for if a police department decided to take over a town, that just won't happen.

Smarkil posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

Your AR-15 isn't gonna do much when an AGM-114 shreds your living room to pieces, buddy. America hasn't had a full-out war since WWII. The reason why it takes so long to do things like root out ISIS is because they can't just go in carpet bombing entire cities. You go and try winning a war while making sure you keep innocent casualties to a minimum.

Do...do you think they're gonna carpet bomb their own country?

Theyve got a plethora of weapons that would eliminate a local population while leaving everything else intact.
---

Mead posted...

Smarkil posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

Your AR-15 isn't gonna do much when an AGM-114 shreds your living room to pieces, buddy. America hasn't had a full-out war since WWII. The reason why it takes so long to do things like root out ISIS is because they can't just go in carpet bombing entire cities. You go and try winning a war while making sure you keep innocent casualties to a minimum.

Do...do you think they're gonna carpet bomb their own country?

Theyve got a plethora of weapons that would eliminate a local population while leaving everything else intact.

They kill us with such weapons, they create more insurgents because now they're not just trying to stay safe. They're fighting just to stay alive.

GanglyKhan posted...

Absolutely 100% not. I was running off of the flawed logic that some (not all!) firearms supporters use. It hasn't been the first time I've heard allusions to "what if the government attacked civilians?! I need my guns if they do that!" We'd all be fucked in that case, but it's never going to happen so it's a moot point. Same goes for if a police department decided to take over a town, that just won't happen.

The country would be screwed because they'd be locked in civil war.

The government wants to avoid that as much as we do. But make no mistake, the government wants total submission of the people. You must fight against that at every turn.

VioletZer0 posted...

They kill us with such weapons, they create more insurgents because now they're not just trying to stay safe. They're fighting just to stay alive.

See, I'm of the mindset that when you kill something, you don't make more of them. Because you killed them. If this were the case, Al Qaeda would have multipled into the hundreds of millions by now.

VioletZer0 posted...

Mead posted...

Smarkil posted...

GanglyKhan posted...

Your AR-15 isn't gonna do much when an AGM-114 shreds your living room to pieces, buddy. America hasn't had a full-out war since WWII. The reason why it takes so long to do things like root out ISIS is because they can't just go in carpet bombing entire cities. You go and try winning a war while making sure you keep innocent casualties to a minimum.

Do...do you think they're gonna carpet bomb their own country?

Theyve got a plethora of weapons that would eliminate a local population while leaving everything else intact.

They kill us with such weapons, they create more insurgents because now they're not just trying to stay safe. They're fighting just to stay alive.

It would be unclear that they even did it dude. They arent cartoon villains theyve got some of the smartest people in the world working at freaking DARPA and the CIA and whatever else.

They could easily wipe out an area and make it look like a massive natural gas leak or orchestrate a false flag scenario like the tinfoil hats are always going on about
---

I don't understand why they don't want guns at their convention. More guns = more safety, right? If everyone brought a gun, that would make the convention super safe!
---

Mead posted...

It would be unclear that they even did it dude. They arent cartoon villains theyve got some of the smartest people in the world working at freaking DARPA and the CIA and whatever else.

They could easily wipe out an area and make it look like a massive natural gas leak or orchestrate a false flag scenario like the tinfoil hats are always going on about

And now you're fighting a war against the underground journalists.

The people have primitive printing technology, they have primitive cameras and can be anywhere at any time.

every time the anti gun crowd wants to have a serious discussion on gun control they're told its too soon to talk about such things.

since it seems like a mass shooting happens every 3 days in america, itll always be too soon.

Shootings are literally the only thing they ever say that about too

Very hypocritical
---

VioletZer0 posted...

Mead posted...

It would be unclear that they even did it dude. They arent cartoon villains theyve got some of the smartest people in the world working at freaking DARPA and the CIA and whatever else.

They could easily wipe out an area and make it look like a massive natural gas leak or orchestrate a false flag scenario like the tinfoil hats are always going on about

And now you're fighting a war against the underground journalists.

The people have primitive printing technology, they have primitive cameras and can be anywhere at any time.

Just because they COULD be anywhere at any time doesn't mean they WILL be there at the right time. I appreciate the fact that you keep open minded about possibilities, but at some point, it goes a yard or three too far into the territory of "virtually impossible."

argonautweakend posted...

every time the anti gun crowd wants to have a serious discussion on gun control they're told its too soon to talk about such things.

since it seems like a mass shooting happens every 3 days in america, itll always be too soon.

Every day, actually. A mass shooting is 4+ people. Last year, there were more mass shootings than days in a year for America. It's been time to talk about it since 1980, man.

After certain states start allowing some teachers to be armed in the classroom I wonder what mental gymnastics the NRA is gonna do the first time some overworked and underpaid teacher loses their control in a moment of stress and shoots a student
---

Mead posted...

After certain states start allowing some teachers to be armed in the classroom I wonder what mental gymnastics the NRA is gonna do the first time some overworked and underpaid teacher loses their control in a moment of stress and shoots a student

arm the kids so they can shoot back
---

Great song, right to the heart of the matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSD3brpn2nE" data-time="
---

VioletZer0 posted...

When was the last time they actually WON against civilians?

There's a very, very big difference between an offensive war and a defensive war. Attacking guerrillas? Yeah, that's hard, especially when they hide among civilian targets to take advantage of the "good guys'" relative unwillingness to shoot civilians. Defending against them? A massive disparity in armaments makes that substantially easier.

Really, if you want to push the "the people must be able to defeat the government" angle, it's anti-structure weapons you should be pushing to legalize, not anti-personnel. Especially with the rise of automation making a workforce less and less necessary to maintain function. Anti-personnel stuff isn't good for much in that case.

VioletZer0 posted...

the government wants total submission of the people. You must fight against that at every turn.

It's the government that tells you you shouldn't go murder some random dude. Are you going to fight them at that turn? Or is that just melodramatic rhetoric that you think sounds cool?

VeeVees posted...

Mead posted...

After certain states start allowing some teachers to be armed in the classroom I wonder what mental gymnastics the NRA is gonna do the first time some overworked and underpaid teacher loses their control in a moment of stress and shoots a student

arm the kids so they can shoot back

What about the pets they are still not armed
---

VeeVees posted...

Mead posted...

After certain states start allowing some teachers to be armed in the classroom I wonder what mental gymnastics the NRA is gonna do the first time some overworked and underpaid teacher loses their control in a moment of stress and shoots a student

arm the kids so they can shoot back

Anyone that should be allowed to vote should be allowed to carry a gun for thr exact same reasons.

_AdjI_ posted...

Really, if you want to push the "the people must be able to defeat the government" angle, it's anti-structure weapons you should be pushing to legalize, not anti-personnel. Especially with the rise of automation making a workforce less and less necessary to maintain function. Anti-personnel stuff isn't good for much in that case

I very much disagree because fighting the police state is core to fighting authoritarianism.

_AdjI_ posted...

There's a very, very big difference between an offensive war and a defensive war. Attacking guerrillas? Yeah, that's hard, especially when they hide among civilian targets to take advantage of the "good guys'" relative unwillingness to shoot civilians. Defending against them? A massive disparity in armaments makes that substantially easier.

Same thing actually.

The government wants slaves not corpses. In this case the people is the government's capital, without people the government cannot function. So going on wholesale slaughter of civilians is unwise because it deprives the government of power.

VioletZer0 posted...

I very much disagree because fighting the police state is core to fighting authoritarianism.

VioletZer0 posted...

Same thing actually.

The government wants slaves not corpses. In this case the people is the government's capital, without people the government cannot function. So going on wholesale slaughter of civilians is unwise because it deprives the government of power.

Neither of those answers particularly address the points raised, so I'm going to take that as a an answer of "yes" to the question I closed my post with.
---