Current Events > People actually believe that owning a gun can fight off the government?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Firstly. I'm neither for or against on the issue. Maybe some tweaking.

But having a musket back then is probably the same level field of what a soldier would have back then when the amendment was conceived.

But if the government just decided to say fuck it and become a police state RIGHT NOW, in this day and age. I don't think civilians even stand a chance even if armed.
---

better to die on your feet than live on your knees
---

the people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point are the most likely to become fascists and support an authoritarian government
---

foreveraIone posted...

the people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point are the most likely to become fascists and support an authoritarian government

no rights in a fascists authoritarian government
---

Medz1286 posted...

foreveraIone posted...

the people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point are the most likely to become fascists and support an authoritarian government

no gun rights in a fascists authoritarian government

keep telling yourself that
---

Why do people need guns to be legal if you can just print one or slap together parts you can buy at a store should you need to revolt
---

what do you suggest we do if the government becomes tyrannical then?
---

People dumb enough to think a bunch of "freedom fighters" could hold off the best military on Earth (with an authoritarian government controlling it - as that's how their power fantasy works) are also too dumb to be convinced otherwise. As I've said before "better land the drones and park the tanks! They've got AR-15s and a can-do attitude!" As long as the "bread and circuses" remain in place, nobody would care and it'd just be a few hundred rednecks getting blown up.

The romanticized version of the war of independence has emboldened people. They neglect to factor in the massive amount of French support and that the British were busy fighting battles elsewhere that they felt were more strategically important.
---

MakoReizei posted...

what do you suggest we do if the government becomes tyrannical then?

nothing

if the government wants to become tyrannical then we're fucked
---

foreveraIone posted...

Medz1286 posted...

foreveraIone posted...

the people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point are the most likely to become fascists and support an authoritarian government

no gun rights in a fascists authoritarian government

keep telling yourself that

examples please
---

foreveraIone posted...

Medz1286 posted...

foreveraIone posted...

the people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point are the most likely to become fascists and support an authoritarian government

no gun rights in a fascists authoritarian government

keep telling yourself that

But its true though. A fascist government is not going to allow its citizens to keep their firearms. It makes it much easier to revolt.
---

MakoReizei posted...

what do you suggest we do if the government becomes tyrannical then?

Whine about it on Facebook
---

You know how unlikely it is for the majority of the military to start killing their own civilians?
---

Nope, the day they make guns illegal, I'll gladly turn in my AR-15, my 9mm and my 12 gauge shotgun. I just keep them around and stock up on ammo for the eventual zombie apocalypse and the fall of the government and the need for small arms to keep others from taking my stuff and to take stuff from others who won't have guns, and the zombies too.

_wwKd_ posted...

Firstly. I'm neither for or against on the issue. Maybe some tweaking.

But having a musket back then is probably the same level field of what a soldier would have back then when the amendment was conceived.

But if the government just decided to say fuck it and become a police state RIGHT NOW, in this day and age. I don't think civilians even stand a chance even if armed.

gun nuts have weird erotic fantasies
---

Medz1286 posted...

foreveraIone posted...

Medz1286 posted...

foreveraIone posted...

the people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point are the most likely to become fascists and support an authoritarian government

no gun rights in a fascists authoritarian government

keep telling yourself that

examples please

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/
---

MakoReizei posted...

You know how unlikely it is for the majority of the military to start killing their own civilians?

then why do you need guns to protect yourself from the government . maybe personal protection from break ins. maybe you just like guns. But fighting off government is such a nonsense argument
---

People should have the same rights as the leaders. The leaders must follow the same laws as the people.
---

Why do we need to have this topic every other week?
---

Patchwork posted...

Why do we need to have this topic every other week?

Sorry. I'm not here every fucking waking hour of my life. So forgive me if I post a question on a current events board.
---

I just fight them off with my sick karate skills.
---

Why would the military even join Dictator Trump in the first place?
Alright guys, Im taking over this country now and I need your help with destroying the values you are ready to die for. Our economy will hit rock bottom, but I promise that you will all have enough food to never go hungry... most of you...
The first step is to take away the guns from everybody. But if you join me in taking over America, then I promise that you get to keep your guns. You will fight, kill and rape your friends, brothers, sisters and mothers, and a lot of you will die, but who cares about that, you will all keep your guns!
You can be heroes by killing me now before I ruin everything you know, but I know that you will help me to destroy the greatest country in the world just to be able to be the only ones that can own guns!
---

_wwKd_ posted...

Patchwork posted...

Why do we need to have this topic every other week?

Sorry. I'm not here every fucking waking hour of my life. So forgive me if I post a question on a current events board.

It's a stupid fucking question, with the same stupid arguments. You're not forgiven.
---

you can not withstand an insurgency in this country. its not possible. army and police stations are intermixed with civilian populations. there is no front line and fallback points. it would be an endless stream of supply lines being cut off and propaganda disrupted (take down the power grid and youll push more people to your cause). drones and tanks wont do much with most of the populations being in large cities where collateral damage is a massive factor and people very easily able to run and hide in the hills and forests and make do with a vast amount of natural choke points. the US is one of the most diverse and defensible land masses in the entire world.

with that the US has been at war every day to some capacity since our foundation which has amassed a large veteran population. people willing to train and who know how to fight. with that our gun culture has gotten to silly levels. i know people, normal civies who have shot more rounds in their weapons and have camped and done more out doors actives than probably most of any single soldier in the service right now. on top of that because of our gun and military culture and massive capitalistic society normal civilians actually have easy access to a lot of military grade equipment barring heavy weapons even to the point of having newer versions of certain items that the military tends to buy older versions of in bulk to save money. and with no official registry you woudlnt know who has what making everyone a potential threat.

of course the whole thing is one big hypothetical especially when most of the actual military wouldnt stand for that kind of leadership and would most likely start a coup. and this isnt even adding outside forces. the day any of this happens is the day the US dies.

please. The people with all the guns will be the most likely to support a fascist government.
---

Patchwork posted...

Why do we need to have this topic every other week?

Because this topic is currently playing out in the country's political discourse.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

The US is a police state. A state where police throw grenades at babies so they can stop someone from flushing marijuana down the toilet.

https://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/07/us/georgia-toddler-stun-grenade-no-indictment/

Police like that should be afraid to get shot.

There was methamphetamine being sold at that house, and you're disingenuously presenting the case like they intentionally flashbanged a playpen.

Don't blame the drug dealer for selling meth out of the house where his child lives; blame law enforcement.

Fuck off.
---

I never got that logic either. Sure in 1800's people with guns could fight back a bad gov. The gov today has fuckin tanks and jets and ships as big as towns. Good fuckin luck fightin that billy bob.
---

Yes. The greatest irony is that the people who believe that they can take on the army with an AR-15 are the ones that believe the conspiracy theories about the government having super weapons and sniper squads and killer stealth drones. Or they ignore every single instance of martial law in the entirety of history and think that all soldiers will just lay down their weapons, forget all their training and conditioning, and start fighting the government and defending the people.

It's as hilarious as it is sad.

_wwKd_ posted...

But if the government just decided to say fuck it and become a police state RIGHT NOW, in this day and age. I don't think civilians even stand a chance even if armed.

Not every soldier would turn on the people.
---

CarlGrimes posted...

Not every soldier would turn on the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

Mr Hangman posted...

It's called asymmetric warfare. Of course AR-15s don't beat nukes and tanks and F-22s and predator drones. That's why you don't engage them. For all the US's overwhelming military might, the conflicts it's currently engaged in aren't going very well, wouldn't you say?

Except in the case of a conflict on American soil, the government would control all food and medicine production and distribution, power grids, all infrastructure, all water, have perfect recon (including tactical layouts of pretty much every building), have established military presence in strategic locations, having basically the support of most of the world, speak the language, have air superiority, have control of all shipping lanes in and out of controlled areas, control of the borders, and pretty much every single other tactical advantage they could possibly had.

What I don't get is this mentality of "Even with guns, you'd probably lose to a tyrannical government, so you might as well give them up."

I mean, what kind of person is so eager to surrender?
---

Esrac posted...

What I don't get is this mentality of "Even with guns, you'd probably lose to a tyrannical government, so you might as well give them up."

I mean, what kind of person is so eager to surrender?

David Hogg. Sarah Brady. Micheal Bloomberg. Micheal Moore. Jimmy Kimmel.
---

Esrac posted...

What I don't get is this mentality of "Even with guns, you'd probably lose to a tyrannical government, so you might as well give them up."

I mean, what kind of person is so eager to surrender?

That's not the attitude. The attitude is the realization that a government is not an autonomous, hivemind and it's much better to stay involved and do something productive than to play GI Joe in the woods with a K-Mart brand firearm waiting for a collapse so I can act out some sort of Call of Duty fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance
---

Mr Hangman posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Except in the case of a conflict on American soil, the government would control all food and medicine production and distribution, power grids, all infrastructure, all water, have perfect recon (including tactical layouts of pretty much every building), have established military presence in strategic locations, having basically the support of most of the world, speak the language, have air superiority, have control of all shipping lanes in and out of controlled areas, control of the borders, and pretty much every single other tactical advantage they could possibly had.

Except that disrupting any of those things at scale does more damage to the government's interests than to resisting organizations.

Oh, so you think they are going to just go, "Yeah, this city has been taken over by insurgents, but we are going to keep shipping them ammunition, food, power, water and anything else they want. Hell, we won't even set up a perimeter or anything like that. We are just going to let them arm themselves and dig in".

Dash_Harber posted...

Yeah, this city has been taken over by insurgents, but we are going to keep shipping them ammunition, food, power, water and anything else they want.

Cutting off food, power, and water is a pretty quick way to garner support for the insurgency. Especially if they have a way to distribute those things and do so.
---

Crazyman93 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Yeah, this city has been taken over by insurgents, but we are going to keep shipping them ammunition, food, power, water and anything else they want.

Cutting off food, power, and water is a pretty quick way to garner support for the insurgency. Especially if they have a way to distribute those things and do so.

Why do you think they need support at the point where they have enacted martial law? At that point they have literally decided there is no support. They are not going to keep strengthening insurgents. That's incredibly stupid. Not only that, but they would literally control the media. They could spin it anyway they wanted.

Dash_Harber posted...

CarlGrimes posted...

Not every soldier would turn on the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

And? You do realize our military is not full of robots?
---

Mr Hangman posted...

I just think that "oh the US military is the ultimate world power, nothing can challenge them" is laughably simplistic and completely ignorant of what any civil conflict looks like.

True. I mean, we still haven't won Afghanistan. Never really won Iraq since as soon as we left an Al-Qeda offshoot took over.
And to top all that off, once upon a time, there was this world power called the British Empire that no one thought could be beaten by anyone but another world power. Then a bunch of people in a rather backwater colony kicked their teeth in and made them leave them alone, almost 200 years before any of his majesty's other colonies got freedom.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Not only that, but they would literally control the media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty
US Organization, but they originally broadcast propaganda at communist countries, where the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact... Controlled the media. Your point is invalid. Hell, I could probably dig some shit up from WWII from partisans that destroys it further if I felt like indulging your military worship.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

I just think that "oh the US military is the ultimate world power, nothing can challenge them" is laughably simplistic and completely ignorant of what any civil conflict looks like. There are infinitely many ways to resist the government. Armed resistance is only a tiny piece of that. The effect can be as small as a minor deterrent, a bargaining chip, or just raising the cost of the government to do a particular thing.

Cities don't get "taken over by insurgents". People just stop going along with what the feds order. You already have cities that refuse to commit resources to assist ICE, purge databases that ICE might seize, warn citizens when they're about to take action. You have states legalizing drugs in direct defiance of federal law. You don't have to go to war with an entire agency like ICE or DEA to stop them, but the fact that they may encounter armed resistance is an encumbrance on them, raising their costs and forcing them to move more slowly.

You are ignoring everything I'm saying. Look at it this way; there is an armed conflict in a foreign country. One side has tactical control of all strategic locations. They have vehicles including aircraft, artillery, tanks, planes, transports, helicopters, ships, etc. They have weapons not available to the other side, such as grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft launchers, etc. They have perfect recon of every single area and have been planning for this sort of conflict. They also have a trained military already on the ground capable of being deployed at any moment to any location. They have a perfect military hierarchy already in place. They have control of all essential services and transport overall food, medical supplies, and ammunition. They have pre-existing recon on every location, with control over many of the live-feed cameras already installed in those locations. They also have control over all means of communication including the media. They also have international support from pretty much every other country's government, and control over the shipping lanes in and out of the country.

The other side has commercially available weapons, zero pre-existing organization or leadership, and small pockets of militiamen in remote locations.

Who do you bet on?

Crazyman93 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Not only that, but they would literally control the media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty
US Organization, but they originally broadcast propaganda at communist countries, where the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact... Controlled the media. Your point is invalid. Hell, I could probably dig some shit up from WWII from partisans that destroys it further if I felt like indulging your military worship.

I'm not worshipping the military. I'm pointing out that if you let the government get to that point, you've already lost.

Also, fair point about the media. However, things are a bit more complicated now than radio, especially since most people get all their information off the internet, which is much easier to cut off.