Gun Control Debate Thread

[VKhaun]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07...world-graphic/


IMHO, the debate is nonsense. Whatever your interpretation of the 2nd Amendament may be, surely you can see that there is one. At some point you need to understand that this country (Constitution meaning, literally, what something is made of) is a place where we can have guns. If you don't like that and the chance for others to shoot you, you should GTFO.

Should we restrict what KIND of weapons citizens can buy and sell?
Why?


Last time I looked into the 2nd amendament it was a debate between people about the nature of the wording connecting the two ideas (militia) and I ended up agreeing with The Right. The argument that they're separate ideas doesn't make sense gramatacally, doesn't make sense in context of the history (they had just won a war as common people using milita against an oppressive government...). Clearly, the statement here is that we must be garaunteed our right to own guns so that we can defend ourselves at the militia level.

The arguments from there tend to center on the 'definition' of militia, a word that has changed greatly over time. But that amendament wasn't written yesterday, or along with any given law that changed something about militia. It clearly is meant to go along with the time period and means a group of armed citizens fighting for what is theirs in an emergency situation, and therefore can't be satisfied by anything government regulated. It must allow the average asshole to OWN a functioning firearm.


That's as far as I get.

Because weapons are so much more destructive today than they were back then, I admit that there's room for discussion on WHERE and WHEN we can bear those arms. You also have to consider that if we were going to fight a government or some part of it (local corrupt police shooting unarmed kids and covering it up?) we wouldn't really care about the laws anymore anyway and would take them wherever needed... so I think that as long as the people can own the weapons the purpose of the amendament is fulfilled. but I'm open minded.

WHAT kind of weapons should be allowed? The same fact -weapons being more powerful- also means you need those weapons to face a modern adversary who will likely have equally powerful munitions. We can't restrict the public to .22 rifles with four round clips because it would deny them the stopping power to fulfill the amendament's purpose. Does that mean we need to let them have AK-47's with extended large caliber mags on full auto? I don't know. I'm not a soldier I couldn't tell you what it takes and at what point you cross a line. If the people defending themselves are truly the majority protecting their rights and not a couple of wingnutts who want to fight over something then they don't need force multipliers. One could argue that even a majority in the right might need something to handle armored vehicles, but I think it's safe to outlaw pre-made weaponized explosives and incindiaries because it's easy enough to make them with common materials.





Discuss.

[Sillywilly]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07...world-graphic/


IMHO, the debate is nonsense. Whatever your interpretation of the 2nd Amendament may be, surely you can see that there is one. At some point you need to understand that this country (Constitution meaning, literally, what something is made of) is a place where we can have guns. If you don't like that and the chance for others to shoot you, you should GTFO.

Should we restrict what KIND of weapons citizens can buy and sell?
Why?


Last time I looked into the 2nd amendament it was a debate between people about the nature of the wording connecting the two ideas (militia) and I ended up agreeing with The Right. The argument that they're separate ideas doesn't make sense gramatacally, doesn't make sense in context of the history (they had just won a war as common people using milita against an oppressive government...). Clearly, the statement here is that we must be garaunteed our right to own guns so that we can defend ourselves at the militia level.

The arguments from there tend to center on the 'definition' of militia, a word that has changed greatly over time. But that amendament wasn't written yesterday, or along with any given law that changed something about militia. It clearly is meant to go along with the time period and means a group of armed citizens fighting for what is theirs in an emergency situation, and therefore can't be satisfied by anything government regulated. It must allow the average asshole to OWN a functioning firearm.


That's as far as I get.

Because weapons are so much more destructive today than they were back then, I admit that there's room for discussion on WHERE and WHEN we can bear those arms. You also have to consider that if we were going to fight a government or some part of it (local corrupt police shooting unarmed kids and covering it up?) we wouldn't really care about the laws anymore anyway and would take them wherever needed... so I think that as long as the people can own the weapons the purpose of the amendament is fulfilled. but I'm open minded.

WHAT kind of weapons should be allowed? The same fact -weapons being more powerful- also means you need those weapons to face a modern adversary who will likely have equally powerful munitions. We can't restrict the public to .22 rifles with four round clips because it would deny them the stopping power to fulfill the amendament's purpose. Does that mean we need to let them have AK-47's with extended large caliber mags on full auto? I don't know. I'm not a soldier I couldn't tell you what it takes and at what point you cross a line. If the people defending themselves are truly the majority protecting their rights and not a couple of wingnutts who want to fight over something then they don't need force multipliers. One could argue that even a majority in the right might need something to handle armored vehicles, but I think it's safe to outlaw pre-made weaponized explosives and incindiaries because it's easy enough to make them with common materials.





Discuss.

Man now I gotta like your ass from now until your next post most likely, but yeah you said it perfectly. The entire point of owning guns is so that the gov can't just walk in and kick the shit out of the people without a fight. There was a young lady gave a speech in Texas before a city council who also made her point really clear, she said something to the effect of "it doesn't matter if my assault rifle is useful or necessary for deer hunting, the 2nd amendment wasn't made to protect deer hunting it was created so that out of necessity I could use it on people like you in case of an oppressive government take over". (she was talking to a city council or something).

You definitely made some food for thought about to what extent should we be able to arm ourselves. Honestly I don't think it matters in a realistic sense. I know for a fact it's possible to buy semi-automatic weapons and get your hands on the equipment to convert them over to full auto. So with the laws that are currently in place we can get the necessary equipment to go full auto and a lot of other things that would be beneficial from a revolting militia standpoint.

2ndly I don't think any laws created in the future could do a damn thing to stop or even reduce violent out bursts like we saw at Aurora, Colorado simply because I can't think of a single person that acquired their weapons of destruction (guns to bombs, etc) legally in the first place. There might have been some of these school shooters and other mass murderers that acquired some of their weapons through legal channels, I don't know. But it's not like someone who is willing to commit acts like these are going to not commit them because they weren't willing to break the law and acquire guns illegally. Respect for the law is long gone when they started making their plans.

[Ero Elohim]

But it's not like someone who is willing to commit acts like these are going to not commit them because they weren't willing to break the law and acquire guns illegally. Respect for the law is long gone when they started making their plans.

This.

It boggles my mind that people think enacting gun control laws is going to suddenly cause criminals to abandon their guns. Prohibition sure didn't stop anyone from drinking alcohol and drug control laws don't do much against marijuana or cocaine. Banning law abiding citizens from owning guns just means they'll have less defense when a criminal pulls one. There exists evidence that, in locations where civilians are allowed concealed carry privileges, the occurrence of multiple victim shootings actually decreases.

[Valec]

This.

It boggles my mind that people think enacting gun control laws is going to suddenly cause criminals to abandon their guns. Prohibition sure didn't stop anyone from drinking alcohol and drug control laws don't do much against marijuana or cocaine. Banning law abiding citizens from owning guns just means they'll have less defense when a criminal pulls one. There exists evidence that, in locations where civilians are allowed concealed carry privileges, the occurrence of multiple victim shootings actually decreases.

+1

Gun control (more than we have now) would only serve to keep guns out of law abiding hands.

I don't see a purpose when it comes to the idea of using them against our government though. The populace of America can't stomach killing our enemies, I sincerely doubt you'll ever convince enough of them to raise arms against fellow Americans(even if they are oppressive). Not to mention the whole volunteer army bit adds another layer of protection between the government and civilians.

[Draconian]

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, deff more on the side of fewer restrictions, however I will say this: wtf is an assault rifle gonna do for you if you really needed protection from the military/gov't turning on its citizens?

If the main reason you're in favor of open gun access is focused on the philosophy of keeping your gov't in check should something happen... well you'd think we should be able to buy RPGs, mines, Stingers, explosive ordinance supplies, etc... why can't I fly a weaponized remote drone? Why am I not allowed to listen to military radio frequencies? The list goes on - are you sure maintaining a reasonable martial threat to the US military is a good thing to promote considering the actual reality of modern weaponry?

I'm all for being able to own a fully automatic, I'd love to have all sorts of CS inspired weaponry someday to play with out at the range... but if you're not in favor of going much further than that, don't use the "domestic threat" rationale. It doesn't make any sense if you don't support insanely increased ordinance proliferation, cause right now if any one of us truly wanted to arm up enough to protect ourselves from some marines coming through the door, we are automatically terrorists.



So... the hardline gun control person can easily say since the spirit of the 2nd amendment (protection) is so unattainable with today's weaponry in any reasonable fashion, we might as well not make it easy for people to go 37:1 in a shopping mall when they finally snap. Is my enjoyment of fully automatic weaponry in a responsible manner worth increasing the frequency and tendency for large scale killing? It's a valid argument.

[Boxy Brown]

I've always supported the second amendment and I always will. One of the things that makes America great is the fact that if you're a law abiding citizen, it's easy to acquire a firearm for recreation or self-defense.

[Ziel]

"Gun control" (this seems to involve banning things, rather than actual control?) might be beneficial if the guns hadn't already proliferated and if there wasn't a nigh-on religion built around them. We have about a fifth of your population over here, but about a 150th of your gun-related deaths.

What seems to be needed is actual control. Making sure that people who buy guns know how to use them...Brief google searches seem to show accidental gun deaths being about three times higher than murder-by-gun (though as to how dubious that "accidental" is, I don't know). You need a driving license in order to drive, so it makes sense to me that people should need a gun license in order to own a gun, but it seems people can just buy them from a shop?

Also, I know it's blasphemy, but as VKhaun said, the second amendment was written in a different time. Eventually parts of the constitution will clearly be culturally outdated and make as much sense to follow as not eating shellfish because Leviticus says so. In terms of military expenditure, the US spends more on it's military than the next 10+ countries combined...The idea that the people could somehow defend themselves from that in the never-going-to-happen event of the US becoming some kind of monster is already a joke. There may be arguments for owning guns, but the justification in the second amendment is no longer one of them.

[Sillywilly]

"Gun control" (this seems to involve banning things, rather than actual control?) might be beneficial if the guns hadn't already proliferated and if there wasn't a nigh-on religion built around them. We have about a fifth of your population over here, but about a 150th of your gun-related deaths.

What seems to be needed is actual control. Making sure that people who buy guns know how to use them...Brief google searches seem to show accidental gun deaths being about three times higher than murder-by-gun (though as to how dubious that "accidental" is, I don't know). You need a driving license in order to drive, so it makes sense to me that people should need a gun license in order to own a gun, but it seems people can just buy them from a shop?

Also, I know it's blasphemy, but as VKhaun said, the second amendment was written in a different time. Eventually parts of the constitution will clearly be culturally outdated and make as much sense to follow as not eating shellfish because Leviticus says so. In terms of military expenditure, the US spends more on it's military than the next 10+ countries combined...The idea that the people could somehow defend themselves from that in the never-going-to-happen event of the US becoming some kind of monster is already a joke. There may be arguments for owning guns, but the justification in the second amendment is no longer one of them.

Stay where you are or go to hell. That is all.

But in all serious what you said is actually blasphemy. If we start abandoning portions of the constitution we may as well not have one at all.

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, deff more on the side of fewer restrictions, however I will say this: wtf is an assault rifle gonna do for you if you really needed protection from the military/gov't turning on its citizens?

If the main reason you're in favor of open gun access is focused on the philosophy of keeping your gov't in check should something happen... well you'd think we should be able to buy RPGs, mines, Stingers, explosive ordinance supplies, etc... why can't I fly a weaponized remote drone? Why am I not allowed to listen to military radio frequencies? The list goes on - are you sure maintaining a reasonable martial threat to the US military is a good thing to promote considering the actual reality of modern weaponry?

I'm all for being able to own a fully automatic, I'd love to have all sorts of CS inspired weaponry someday to play with out at the range... but if you're not in favor of going much further than that, don't use the "domestic threat" rationale. It doesn't make any sense if you don't support insanely increased ordinance proliferation, cause right now if any one of us truly wanted to arm up enough to protect ourselves from some marines coming through the door, we are automatically terrorists.



So... the hardline gun control person can easily say since the spirit of the 2nd amendment (protection) is so unattainable with today's weaponry in any reasonable fashion, we might as well not make it easy for people to go 37:1 in a shopping mall when they finally snap. Is my enjoyment of fully automatic weaponry in a responsible manner worth increasing the frequency and tendency for large scale killing? It's a valid argument.

The short answer to your "what good is an AK-47 against the US military" question is the Vietnam conflict.

Anyone who thinks gun control laws will help against mass shootings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ut%C3%B8ya

[Ziel]

Stay where you are or go to hell. That is all.

But in all serious what you said is actually blasphemy. If we start abandoning portions of the constitution we may as well not have one at all.

Staying where I am.

[Sillywilly]

Staying where I am.

Where are you actually? I guess I assumed you were in the U.S.

[Alex Mars]

As a gun owner (I own over 20 firearms including antiques and curios, and my wife owns three more) I think that they should be regulated about the same as vehicles. You should have to prove competence and get a license to own a gun (similar to what I had to do to get a hunting license, for example). I have seen too many fucking morons with guns who were not safe and had no idea what they were doing with them.

As to assault rifles and such, sure, go ahead, you can have them. If someone annoys me with an AK-47 I can kill them from 300 to 500 metres distance with a bullet to the back of the head from my 100+ year old unregulated bolt action Mauser rifle.

[Ziel]

Where are you actually? I guess I assumed you were in the U.S.

England.

Now I check, we've only really had two "mass-shootings"...The 1987 Hungerford massacre (which actually resulted in tighter gun control) and the Cumbria shootings in 2010.

[Draconian]

The short answer to your "what good is an AK-47 against the US military" question is the Vietnam conflict.

The quick rebuttal to your summation is body armor being standard issue rather than polyester blend fatigues and combat drones didn't exist. We were still taking recon photos from planes back then and then using those photos to send bombers to manually drop explosives. Not to mention that the fact that the AK-47 was fully automatic had very little to do with effectiveness in jungle combat. Their tactics, not having automatic weapons, is what caused problems. For the same reason the Red Coats got wtfpwned cause they wouldn't rethink how to run their army, we got mired in Vietnam. The fact that they had automatic weapons is really why you think we had such a hard time in Vietnam?

I'm gonna need a more educated and insightful argument than that.


Anyone who thinks gun control laws will help against mass shootings:

I'm confused, you seem to imply "See Norway has tight controls and look what happened here!"... except a quick look over the wiki shows that he had nothing but a pain in the dick trying to get weapons in Norway and had to go to several other European countries and scam his way into weaponry - and he still didn't get the level of weapons he desired.


You also didn't really offer any sort of argument here. No one is arguing that gun control will stop such acts, just that perhaps allowing easy access to weapons that can kill many unarmored people in a minute isn't the best thing to promote. If you can't use it for hunting and it won't protect you against the gov't, why do you need it? You still haven't convinced me an AK would do anything more for me compared to my M-14 when I have to take up arms against my own gov't. I'm on the side of being able to buy an automatic weapon if I want one, I just really am confused by people who think that the only justification you need is because it will protect you from the gov't - cause it won't!

So Silly, are you in favor of being able to buy explosive chemicals to make bombs and RPGs and Stingers being available at your local gun show swinging thru town? Cause now we're actually talking about things that would make the military worry about invading your private property.


I basically am tired of people quoting the 2nd amendment when really all they care about is the hobby and enjoyment of owning and firing awesome weaponry. I don't fault anyone for that, I love it too, but stop pretending your reasoning and basis for supporting gun ownership is the same as a late 1700's patriot.

[Alex Mars]

Yep, the AK 47 was irrelevant in Viet Nam, the real factor is that the VC and NVA and the earlier Viet Minh had been in the field fighting since WWII and were experts in insurgent warfare. People here need to read some books rather than forming uninformed opinions.

[Valec]

Yep, the AK 47 was irrelevant in Viet Nam, the real factor is that the VC and NVA and the earlier Viet Minh had been in the field fighting since WWII and were experts in insurgent warfare. People here need to read some books rather than forming uninformed opinions.

Shit covered punji stick trapps didn't help either.

[Sillywilly]

Yep, the AK 47 was irrelevant in Viet Nam, the real factor is that the VC and NVA and the earlier Viet Minh had been in the field fighting since WWII and were experts in insurgent warfare. People here need to read some books rather than forming uninformed opinions.

Which is exactly my point. I have no idea how he got off on the "auto" thing except strawmen TKO easily. The Vietcongs didn't have much in the way of military issued gear except Ak-47s were a common weapon for them. However their guerrilla style warfare, knowledge of the land and their ability to blend in because they weren't all running around with stars, bars ans insignia meant you never knew where you might get your ass shot from. Having to use 22 caliber target shooting rifles and 5 shell shotguns would have made their hit and run and hide and seek practically useless except for their improvised explosives and traps which a hobbyist can pull off as is illustrated by Timothy Mcveigh, Breivik, the Colorado shooter, etc. There's a big difference between using a machete to fight a guy with a sword, and having to take him on with a broom handle.

I don't know about the rest of the country but in the south you'd be in hell on earth trying to wage warfare against these rednecks on their own turf, especially if they were given a few basics that can't be manufactured at home like the bare bones assault rifle, etc. The rest they can pull off on their own.

Yep, the AK 47 was irrelevant in Viet Nam, the real factor is that the VC and NVA and the earlier Viet Minh had been in the field fighting since WWII and were experts in insurgent warfare. People here need to read some books rather than forming uninformed opinions.

That depends on who wrote the book. I'll take the word of someone who did two tours in Vietnam over some liberal hippy professor of history at Berkley who was 5 years old at the time any day, week or month of any year. If someone thinks replacing all the VC assault rifles with 22 caliber rifles and 5 shell shotguns wouldn't have been a major advantage for our forces then they should get their head checked.

The quick rebuttal to your summation is body armor being standard issue rather than polyester blend fatigues and combat drones didn't exist. We were still taking recon photos from planes back then and then using those photos to send bombers to manually drop explosives. Not to mention that the fact that the AK-47 was fully automatic had very little to do with effectiveness in jungle combat. Their tactics, not having automatic weapons, is what caused problems. For the same reason the Red Coats got wtfpwned cause they wouldn't rethink how to run their army, we got mired in Vietnam. The fact that they had automatic weapons is really why you think we had such a hard time in Vietnam?

I'm gonna need a more educated and insightful argument than that.

See above. If I wanted to see someone butcher straw men I'd go start a debate with Sam Harris. The AK-47 certainly gave the VC an advantage over being armed with some kind of bullshit shotgun or hunting rifle lol. Various models of the AK-47 have been the most reliable, easily maintained and effective fire arm weapons used in warfare PERIOD. A friend of mine who was a Spec Ops Marine even talked about how a lot of US military ditched their M16s for AK-47s they acquired in the field for various reasons including it's a shorter gun so it was easier for them to get in and out of their vehicles with, it was reliable, you can muddy those mother fuckers and they still fire like a champ and because they are so common it was easier to get ammo/parts for them, even if it was off a piece acquired from a dead combatant.




Anyone who thinks gun control laws will help against mass shootings:

I'm confused, you seem to imply "See Norway has tight controls and look what happened here!"... except a quick look over the wiki shows that he had nothing but a pain in the dick trying to get weapons in Norway and had to go to several other European countries and scam his way into weaponry - and he still didn't get the level of weapons he desired.

I don't know who wrote the wiki info but the news here in Norway has said he was registered for a glock and a semi automatic Ruger which was legal to own in Norway. He did acquire high capacity rounds from a few US companies that he could have gotten in Sweden but didn't because of the cost, from what I remember. Either way, he got his hands on enough shit to kill 77 people. There's your gun control laws at work. Way to go firearms control.


You also didn't really offer any sort of argument here. No one is arguing that gun control will stop such acts, just that perhaps allowing easy access to weapons that can kill many unarmored people in a minute isn't the best thing to promote.

If you're not arguing that gun control will stop such acts then exactly what the fuck are you arguing? That you're a lefty and have to back any dumbass argument the pacifist special interest parties make in this country? The ONLY god damn point of stricter gun control laws is if it would stop or at least severely slash the number of mass murder occurrences. If anything it just means bombings will become more prevalent. If you're suggesting we step on our 2nd amendment rights out of some ridiculous far left ideological bullshit then do us a favor and turn one of your own guns on yourself.

If you can't use it for hunting and it won't protect you against the gov't, why do you need it? You still haven't convinced me an AK would do anything more for me compared to my M-14 when I have to take up arms against my own gov't. I'm on the side of being able to buy an automatic weapon if I want one, I just really am confused by people who think that the only justification you need is because it will protect you from the gov't - cause it won't!

So Silly, are you in favor of being able to buy explosive chemicals to make bombs and RPGs and Stingers being available at your local gun show swinging thru town? Cause now we're actually talking about things that would make the military worry about invading your private property.

Why? Breivik, Mcveigh and a whole boat load of Muslims have proved time and time again you don't need a university lab and a PHD and/or military grade C4 to create anything from a car bomb that can level a building to a simple homemade grenade/pipe bomb. Lack of access to and ability to create explosives will not be the downfall of a citizen resistance movement I can assure you.


I basically am tired of people quoting the 2nd amendment when really all they care about is the hobby and enjoyment of owning and firing awesome weaponry. I don't fault anyone for that, I love it too, but stop pretending your reasoning and basis for supporting gun ownership is the same as a late 1700's patriot.

Ok right anyone who disagrees with you is pretending. All anti-gays are secretly closet queers too.

The reasons we should be allowed to own more advanced weaponry than the typical hunting tools are listed above. There is a big difference in fighting someone when you can have an Ak-47 that you converted over to full auto or other upgrades and having to shoot at someone with your 12 gauge bird hunting shotgun.

I'm not a firearm hobbyist, the only firearm I currently own is a 20 gauge shotgun my dad got me for my 12th birthday and my younger brother has probably claimed it by now lol. (although I do plan to collect a few once I get back state side).

[Draconian]

I have no idea how he got off on the "auto" thing except strawmen TKO easily.

Because "where is the line" is the primary sticking point of the gun control debate, and there is a ton of discussion about boundaries on the caliber, fire rate, ammunition type, etc that should be legal in firearms.

You must herp before you derp.

I don't know about the rest of the country but in the south you'd be in hell on earth trying to wage warfare against these rednecks on their own turf.

Yes because sporting confederate flags and regular use of firearms for hunting and sport is equivalent to decades of warfare. Also, topographical maps - feel free to compare them sometime. If you think any portion of the citizenry of the united states offers any sort of realistic martial deterrent towards the US Military or the FBI you are living in the past man.

[Alex Mars]

Yep, the first time mortar rounds or artillery landed on some citizens uprising, or a gunship opened up with a chain gun, it would all be over. This is not to say that lone snipers and such would not cause problems and kill soldiers, but real effective resistance would be laughable.

[Valec]

Once again people are ignoring the fact that we have a volunteer army composed of American citizens who might just find it hard to wage war on their own people.

They'll bring a lot of hardware with them when they defect to the 'rebellion'.

[Sillywilly]

Once again people are ignoring the fact that we have a volunteer army composed of American citizens who might just find it hard to wage war on their own people.

They'll bring a lot of hardware with them when they defect to the 'rebellion'.

NO NO it's black and white. There is no fucking way any of those US soldiers would defect and do any sabotage, etc on the citizens behalf. We citizens would be shit out of luck because we'd be standing in a straight line vs a straight line of US military and then it would be all over when the military brought out the chain guns.

Because "where is the line" is the primary sticking point of the gun control debate, and there is a ton of discussion about boundaries on the caliber, fire rate, ammunition type, etc that should be legal in firearms.

You must herp before you derp.




Yes because sporting confederate flags and regular use of firearms for hunting and sport is equivalent to decades of warfare. Also, topographical maps - feel free to compare them sometime. If you think any portion of the citizenry of the united states offers any sort of realistic martial deterrent towards the US Military or the FBI you are living in the past man.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how 6k US troops have died in Afganistan and Iraq at the hands of a bunch of goat herders and poppy farmers with 3rd grade educations if the US military might is so damn insurmountable?

I'm pretty sure American citizens stand a better change of hacking drones, etc as well than a bunch of goat herders.

You might want to rethink your application for General of the Army.

[Boxy Brown]

Perhaps you'd care to explain how 6k US troops have died in Afganistan and Iraq at the hands of a bunch of goat herders and poppy farmers with 3rd grade educations if the US military might is so damn insurmountable?

Probably because the US military trained and equipped them.

[Garal]

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the plus side of firearms? If there's 88 firearms per person in the USA that's a SHITLOAD of money that people are pumping into the economy. For a lot of people gun ownership is a hobby and not really about defending themselves from the government. I really don't see any reason to enforce more limits of the types of firearms people can own. I mean seriously how many homicides have been by assault rifle in the USA since their invention?

[Marou]

Once again people are ignoring the fact that we have a volunteer army composed of American citizens who might just find it hard to wage war on their own people.

They'll bring a lot of hardware with them when they defect to the 'rebellion'.

This, the Army is composed of huge portions of poor black kids from the ghetto and rednecks from the deep south and midwest. Tell them to go put down a rebellion on their home turf and see how it goes. If it comes down to that we'll need all the guns we can get, because while plenty will defect, more will follow orders. The US covers a shit load of surface area, and if the population rebelled there is no way the US government could hold it's shit together. Look how much difficulty they have with tiny places like Iraq. Then you have the fact that tons of hackers and techies would be hacking drones, shutting down military communications, building RMP/EMP devices to K/O heavier military equipment, scores of chemists making IEDs and other incendiary devices, basically everyone fucking the military in ways the population of countries like Afghanistan couldn't dream of.

The reason England has 80% less shootings than the US is because it has less than 1/6th the population. Eventually any given government gets corrupt to the point that it tries to control every facet of the citizens existence, and imprison people over anything and everything. At that point it needs to be put down. It's a reality of human nature our forefathers were well aware of. Whether the lazy populace of this country could ever be compelled to rebel is another discussion, if it actually happened though, the US would be over.

[Draconian]

Perhaps you'd care to explain how 6k US troops have died in Afganistan and Iraq at the hands of a bunch of goat herders and poppy farmers with 3rd grade educations if the US military might is so damn insurmountable?

Did those 6k deaths deter us from what we were doing and intending to do there? No, and that's the point. How many deaths are we responsible for? Even the most conservative estimate is in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions if you count incidental civilian deaths related to invasion. Wow, what an effective resistance! Even if we are able to provide insurgency to the level of Iraq and Afghanistan (PROTIP: we aren't), we would still lose just by the numbers!


I'm not against gun ownership or ownership of automatic weapons. I am against people pretending they want to protect the 2nd amendment so they can keep the gov't afraid of instituting martial law if some shit goes down. Its disingenuous at best, but more than likely just plain ol misinformed thinking. If you disagree, that's fine. You also seem to think our rednecks that have never acted as a militia could take on "goat herders" that have been trained and have decades of first hand experience being soldiers and fighting in rough terrain.


I lol'd at the hacking drones part. Cause the gov't doesn't have any control over our data and communications infrastructure, amirite? The internet would be shut down so fast, organization and data transmission capacity crippled in one fell swoop.

[VKhaun]

I don't like where the AK debate is going.
There are semi-auto AK's as well as shotgun AK's.

You don't have to give a person a full auto weapon just to get reliability or stopping power.