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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Hangman posted...

We've already seen several armed conflicts the US military is unable to win. Every advantage you give them in a domestic conflict is only one side of a coin.

Because there is a huge fucking difference between a domestic conflict and a foreign conflict.

Mr Hangman posted...

They would have to tiptoe everywhere they go or risk destroying all their own infrastructure. Most of the weapons used in foreign conflicts would be completely out of a question for domestic use.

You completely ignore the whole fucking point. At the point where they are deploying tanks into civilian populations, they are already ready to pull that trigger. They aren't going to risk losing complete control over something they could easily spin later.

Mr Hangman posted...

The government is a parasite that wants to control its host, not destroy it.

So you honestly believe they would just surrender? You realize what you are saying is more in my argument. Why would a parasite let itself die instead of injuring a creature to retain control?

scorpion41 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

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.

the American government doesn't need to take guns to be fascist. our guns are no threat to their power and mostly serve as an illusion make us feel like we've got some form of control.

no American is a threat to the US government as far as guns go. they may protect you from other citizens, but there is no chance of a regime change by a militia of citizens or anything lol.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

If the government gets that despotic and totalitarian, there will be insurrection within the military.

I disagree.

Mr Hangman posted...

I'm not envisioning a conflict with a defined point of surrender, more one with growing frustration and enfeeblement.

Ultimately leading to what?

Mr Hangman posted...

Leading to a diminished federal government.

No, I was asking what appens in your scenario of 'growing frustration and enfeeblement'? Does the government win or lose in that scenario?

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.

YES, THIS IS THE USSR IN 1982 AND THE GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PRODUCTION.

*SVYASHCHNNAYA NSHA DERZHVA*
---

It amazes me every time this topic comes up that people believe that our military, incapable of containing poorly trained and equipped cave dwellers in just the Middle East, would have any ability whatsoever to combat open rebellion in a country as large, varied in terrain, and with such a heavily armed population as America.

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

In the event of a fascist government takeover which seems to be the current fearmonger fantasy since Trumps election, the "people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point" are literally your last line of defense against authoritarian government.

Also still baffles me, the overlap between people who think "The Nazis are coming!" since the election are the same people who think we could never fight the government, think all cops and military are evil but also want to disarm civilians so only cops and military have the guns...

It's like some of you more regressive motherfuckers can't even make up your minds.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

If the government gets that despotic and totalitarian, there will be insurrection within the military.

I disagree.

Lmfao.
"Hey Johnson, kill your family, neighbors, and friends."

"Gee, ok Mr. Trump."
---

gmanthebest posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

If the government gets that despotic and totalitarian, there will be insurrection within the military.

I disagree.

Lmfao.
"Hey Johnson, kill your family, neighbors, and friends."

"Gee, ok Mr. Trump."

Someone doesn't understand how propaganda works;
"Hey Johnson, if you don't stop them, then someone is going to come in the night and kill your family. The longer we sit here and try to talk them down, the more time the terrorists have to come in and kill them all. The military needs to quickly seize control, even if it's hard and seems inhumane, because we need to establish rule of law before things get out of hand."

It's fucking spin doctor 101. If this messed up idiot can figure out, you don't think professional propagandists can?

Mr Hangman posted...

Here's the source of your misunderstanding, framing everything as an absolute win or loss. One battle at a time.

No, you said the government would not take action that could damage the country because it would hurt the country they were trying to damage. I asked who would win if they let the country die to prevent from harming it and possibly losing some control. You changed the topic.

Dash_Harber posted...

gmanthebest posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

If the government gets that despotic and totalitarian, there will be insurrection within the military.

I disagree.

Lmfao.
"Hey Johnson, kill your family, neighbors, and friends."

"Gee, ok Mr. Trump."

Someone doesn't understand how propaganda works;
"Hey Johnson, if you don't stop them, then someone is going to come in the night and kill your family. The longer we sit here and try to talk them down, the more time the terrorists have to come in and kill them all. The military needs to quickly seize control, even if it's hard and seems inhumane, because we need to establish rule of law before things get out of hand."

It's fucking spin doctor 101. If this messed up idiot can figure out, you don't think professional propagandists can?

And the large majority of military will believe that? Lmfao, you're funny. You should do stand up.
---

gmanthebest posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

gmanthebest posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

If the government gets that despotic and totalitarian, there will be insurrection within the military.

I disagree.

Lmfao.
"Hey Johnson, kill your family, neighbors, and friends."

"Gee, ok Mr. Trump."

Someone doesn't understand how propaganda works;
"Hey Johnson, if you don't stop them, then someone is going to come in the night and kill your family. The longer we sit here and try to talk them down, the more time the terrorists have to come in and kill them all. The military needs to quickly seize control, even if it's hard and seems inhumane, because we need to establish rule of law before things get out of hand."

It's fucking spin doctor 101. If this messed up idiot can figure out, you don't think professional propagandists can?

And the large majority of military will believe that? Lmfao, you're funny. You should do stand up.

Yeah, you are right. They never ever indoctrinate people to believe in the chain of command. That's totally an imaginary thing. Even worse, no country has ever descended into martial law before. How could I be so misguided? >_>

Mr Hangman posted...

You're deliberately conflating totally different kinds of "damage". In the first use, I'm saying the government will not take action that will result in a significant net loss to the wealth it can extract from its population. In the second, the damage being resisted is totalitarian levels of control. The second part of your post makes no sense to me.

Um, no, I'm saying that any idiot in the government would take a small loss in profit over losing completely control over the entire country in an inevitable loss and thus losing all profit. You basically said the reason they wouldn't win is that they wouldn't want to risk losing their control, whereas I pointed out that they'd quickly realize if they didn't act at all they would lose all control instead of just temporarily losing a small advantage.

Mr Hangman posted...

Once again you are falling into the same framing where resistance is all or nothing and anything less than total overthrow of the government is not up for consideration.

No, I'm not. Here, I'll show you;

Mr Hangman posted...

I'm not ignoring any of this. I'm telling you it doesn't matter because you don't engage the enemy on their terms where they will win. We've already seen several armed conflicts the US military is unable to win. Every advantage you give them in a domestic conflict is only one side of a coin. They would have to tiptoe everywhere they go or risk destroying all their own infrastructure. Most of the weapons used in foreign conflicts would be completely out of a question for domestic use. The government is a parasite that wants to control its host, not destroy it.

Here you say that the government would not engage because it would 'cost them too much'.

They would have to tiptoe everywhere they go or risk destroying all their own infrastructure.

So I ask you to clarify if you are saying that would lead to a government defeat and you say;

Mr Hangman posted...

I'm not envisioning a conflict with a defined point of surrender, more one with growing frustration and enfeeblement.

Mr Hangman posted...

My point is that they cannot disrupt those services at any scale without doing as much harm to themselves. The government needs well functioning economy and infrastructure to operate.

So I ask again, if the government would lose a conflict because of that. You refuse to answer because you realize that no matter what you answer, it makes your argument wrong;

If it would result in the government losing the conflict, they would go through and do the action they were avoiding in the first place because losing some control is better than losing all control, because even you and me realize that, or ...

It would result in the government winning the conflict, I was right in the first place, and your arguments are null anyway.

Mr Hangman posted...

If the government stops no-knock raids because police are getting shot when invading peoples homes, did they "lose"? Yes, but it hasn't been overthrown. Armed resistance limited the power of government and we didn't have to escalate to a full civil war that ends with them losing all control. There's just one example.

There you go changing the subject again.

Do they win if they refuse to deal damage to their own infrastructure or not?

Mr Hangman posted...

Answering the question in a way you didn't expect and which doesn't validate you isn't the same thing as changing the subject.

No, because it's a yes or no question and your response is to aks a completely unrelated question.

Mr Hangman posted...

Because the government doesn't want to damage its own infrastructure, it can be forced into a situation where it's preferable for the government to make some concessions than to violently put down any resistance to whatever it's doing.

So if forced into the situation, what happens? Does it surrender or does it risk losing some of its control?

Mr Hangman posted...

When resistance to government action is successful, it loses some of its control no matter what it does. It gives up less by conceding to at least some of what protesters want than it would by attempting to completely stomp out the protest. Being armed can raise the stakes and force the government to bargain out of a situation that it wouldn't have otherwise.

So does the government win or lose in the situation outlined in the original post?

scorpion41 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

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.

I always thought that guns were allowed by citizens in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Only jews weren't allowed guns in Germany.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

You mean in some fantasy scenario in which the government turns 100% totalitarian overnight?

Yes, like the one presented in the OP that we've been talking about this entire time.

So do they win or not?

VectorChaos posted...

It amazes me every time this topic comes up that people believe that our military, incapable of containing poorly trained and equipped cave dwellers in just the Middle East, would have any ability whatsoever to combat open rebellion in a country as large, varied in terrain, and with such a heavily armed population as America.

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

In the event of a fascist government takeover which seems to be the current fearmonger fantasy since Trumps election, the "people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point" are literally your last line of defense against authoritarian government.

Also still baffles me, the overlap between people who think "The Nazis are coming!" since the election are the same people who think we could never fight the government, think all cops and military are evil but also want to disarm civilians so only cops and military have the guns...

It's like some of you more regressive motherfuckers can't even make up your minds.

When anyone of these nutjobs conflates 2a supporters to NAZIS and facism and being pro authoritarian government then you know they have zero fucking clue what they're talking about.

It's because they don't realize that a lot of the evil words they use are in common with suppressive governments that took rights AWAY.

And everyone who thinks the men and women of the military would openly gun down their own civilians cause the government says so, doesn't understand WHY we have a civilian military in the first place.

It's just all fucking ridiculous rhetoric. It makes absolutely zero sense. And it just further proves these morons have absolutely zero clue how reality works.
---

VectorChaos posted...

In the event of a fascist government takeover which seems to be the current fearmonger fantasy since Trumps election, the "people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point" are literally your last line of defense against authoritarian government.

There's no contradiction. If there is a fascist government takeover, it will be by republicans, and their base will suopport it with their guns.

And I want more guns in the hands of liberals and democrats anyways
---

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/

In hindsight, Terrell said at the time, officers would've conducted the raid differently had they known there was a child inside the home, but there was no sign of children during the alleged drug purchase that prompted the raid.

It helps to read the article youre referencing.
---

Google your local Special Forces association charter. Go over there and ask the veteran green berets from Vietnam and onward what they can do to take down a government with just a bunch of AR-15s and some ammo.

If every adult in the US was armed, they could easily thwart a fascist government. The US military is designed for destruction, not occupation. Much smaller, armed populations in Vietnam and Afghanistan held off the US military, so they have no chance of controlling an area as large as the US.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

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

---

There are some people who believe that every type of weapon is covered by the second amendment and that citizens should be allowed to but all of it to defend themselves.
---

The Admiral posted...

If every adult in the US was armed, they could easily thwart a fascist government. The US military is designed for destruction, not occupation. Much smaller, armed populations in Vietnam and Afghanistan held off the US military, so they have no chance of controlling an area as large as the US.

if/could... all fantasy talk.

you're all too comfortable to actually get up and go at anything but other suffering citizens. blaming SJWs is much easier than making good on that "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric, lol.

doesn't matter what the military was designed for. American citizens have been conditioned to be afraid and submissive.
---

The Admiral posted...

If every adult in the US was armed, they could easily thwart a fascist government. The US military is designed for destruction, not occupation. Much smaller, armed populations in Vietnam and Afghanistan held off the US military, so they have no chance of controlling an area as large as the US.

That requires us getting along but well we are too divided, just like the corrupt government you support wants. They don't want the right and the left working together. That's why we ended up with Trump, to keep the American people divided and it worked. It would have worked just as well if Hilary won. Really why can't people see that?
---

Mr Hangman posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

So does the government win or lose in the situation outlined in the original post?

You mean in some fantasy scenario in which the government turns 100% totalitarian overnight? The point of rights like the right to bear arms is that it prevents that from happening in the first place, not to enable rebels in some fictional dystopia.

Look, you clearly can't answer the fucking question, so I'll drop it.

The topic posited such a scenario. I pointed out that the scenario was ridiculous much earlier and simply followed that if the scenario did play out, the government would win. You told me I was wrong because the government wouldn't risk losing some control and instead would let the other side slowly chip away at it and lose complete control.

You can pretend like it's not a real scenario all you want now, but the only reason we were talking is because I listed all the advantages the government would have in said fantasy scenario, and you told me I was wrong, only to turn around and go, "well actually, what I meant by you were wrong is that the topic doesn't make sense" and spend the rest of the time dodging the fucking question.

Mr Hangman posted...

I don't know what topic you're reading, but I don't see how I dodged answering anything.

Here, I'll break it down;
- I pointed out all the obvious advantages that the government would have if martial law was declared.
- You said that they weren't advantages because the government wouldn't risk doing damage to the country.
- I ask you if that means that the government would purposely not take advantage of those advantages to the point that they would lose the conflict.
- You changed the subject.
- I asked again who would win the conflict, in your opinion.
- You changed the subject.
- I asked again.
- You said the entire premise was fantastic and therefore I was silly for pointing out that the premise (which, by the way, came up because the entire topic was created specifically for it) and again, dodged the question.

History suggests that America's gun-owners will do very little about unjust government.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

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.

No, but they like being able to have the idea that they could. Of course this type of situation would never happen, but they enjoy the fantasy element of being a Rambo type that can fight off a potential oppressor.

American is a war-like country. They always need something to fight, even if it's imaginary.
---

If you think owning a gun to fight off the government is a silly notion, then don't buy one. If you think owning a gun because you're interested in mechanics, hunting, sport shooting or self defense makes sense, then go buy one. It's pretty simple, really.
---

r4X0r posted...

If you think owning a gun to fight off the government is a silly notion, then don't buy one. If you think owning a gun because you're interested in mechanics, hunting, sport shooting or self defense makes sense, then go buy one. It's pretty simple, really.

Sounds kind of like meme I heard liberals spamming for years.

Dont support abortion? Dont have one.

Dont support gay marriage? Dont get gay married.

Well, appropriately:

Dont support guns? Dont buy one.
---

Patchwork posted...

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

Because it's a tried and true method to get 100+ posts each time it's made
---

only cops should have guns
---

MakoReizei posted...

better to die on your feet than live on your knees

That's right.
---