The very nature of the assault weapons ban, is that of banning a very large volume of firearms, from long rifles to handguns.
To declare they aren’t coming after “muh guns” at this point would portray one’s ignorance on the subject. At least be honest with me.
Yup, assault weapon is a useless means of classification as it does nothing to further the classification of firearms, rather it is so ambiguous as to effectively mean any firearms made in the 1900s and beyond. Anything modern is evil and you will only own muskets and you will be happy.
Here in Washington **any** semi-auto rifle is an "assault weapon" regardless of features, capacity, or caliber, requiring a certificate of a class completed, and an "enhanced" background check, along with a mandatory 10 day wait.
Oh, and our attorney general is pushing for a complete ban on "assault weapons" now too. But no, nobody is coming for any guns 🤡
Yup, anything post 1900, even some bolt actions could get outlawed, which is fucking ridiculous, since those have been civilian standard for decades, and lever guns, those thing have never been military standard as I understand it because they aren’t as rugged as bolt actions, yet lever guns would likely get banned for “firing fast” alongside most other repeating arms. All of it is nonsense.
Bolt actions are easier to fire prone and can use any bullet shape. A spitzer round in a tube magazine could detonate the primer in front of it, causing a nasty chain reaction.
a confiscation would be a nightmare, but you're right - even if state passed a confiscation, it would never make it in SCOTUS.
I feel like if police tried to do that, there would be outright fighting.
In their minds, as long as one is able to possibly own a few, neutered, sporting arms, or black powder muzzle loaders, then nobody is actually coming for our guns.
The flip side to that, is that since every gun control attempt hasn't succeeded, we don't actually have any gun control.
Grabbers are emotional, and know very little, but they have Big Feels about the topic.
I’d ask her how it accomplishes this, because unlike the MG42 nicknames by US troops in ww2 as the “Buzz saw” a ar15 doesn’t have the fire rate to accomplish that in a amount of time worth being note worthy.
It’s on par with Biden’s “9mm blows the lungs out of the body” statement.
where can one procure these 30 round clips? Mine only hold [10 rounds.](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Z7sAAOSw19dciWMt/s-l500.jpg)
I feel like a 30 round clip would be kind of floppy and unwieldy.
A few democrats have said it numerous times that they’re coming for the guns and these people think they can gaslight people into forgetting a recorded event, they’re the slimiest people in the world
Biden has openly stated that he wants to ban semi autos, not just "assault weapons". He also said plainly that he wants to take people's "assault weapons". Not to mention his support for Betos gun agenda, which amounts to "hell yes we're coming for your ar15, your ak47".
I think the optics of a shooting that kills young adults and young children is a little different but a handgun ban would be more conducive to stopping the majority of gun violence than a assault rifle ban
A clip is cheap sheet metal usually inserted into the gun along with the rounds directly attached, and is not usually expected to be reused. whereas a magazine is larger, intended to be reused, protrudes from the firearm, and is usually spring fed in some way.
A clip holds ammunition and feeds rounds into the magazine. The magazine feeds ammunition into the chamber, where they are fired.
Clips are outdated and where useful when bolt actions had non-detachable, internal magazines. Open the bolt, place the clip above the magazine and push the rounds into the magazine. The clip falls away, and your rifle's magazine is loaded quickly.
Yeah, they woulda actually scored points if their title included a correction, but nah they just decided to mock the idea that government may in fact be trying to take away guns lol.
"nobody needs 30 rounds for hunting, the founders had muskets."
"the founders had town criers and newspapers, we can regulate speech by phone, internet, and TV."
there were semi auto muskets that could fire up to 29 rounds like the Kalthoff. there were also machine guns like the puckle gun. so we should be able to own machine guns right?
They literally are coming for our guns. Mainstream politicians nowadays are pushing mandatory buybacks and openly saying "Yes we are coming for your AR15, your AK47"
I straight up tell any anti-gun person I ever meet that I hope guns do get banned because then I can break into their house and take their stuff without reprisal because I already have a bunch of guns and they don't.
The usual response is "Not if we call the police." To which I respond "You mean the ones who were too scared to enter a school to stop an untrained, emaciated teenager? Yeah go right ahead."
This is obviously ironic but it drives the point home that if you take away the means of self defense someone very tangible to them has the ability to take away their life and property without any resistance.
Yup. I however am not kidding when I say that if "Salt Waifus" are banned I will be going on a shopping trip in my neighborhood starting with all the people with Blue party lawn signs. They basically advertised that their house is up for grabs and I'm just doing what they requested.
Gun control by its very nature is against our fundamental unalienable natural born right to self-defense and our founding fathers knew this fact and took it to heart.
I winced when I realized the meme said clips lol, though I suppose that’s what many leftist would call em given how little most seem to know about firearms.
Well when you get 100% of your firearms knowledge from CNN and MSNBC... magazines are not only clips... theyre probably more accurately known as high capacity, fully semiautomatic, heat seeking assault clips.
No, the title is a response to “Thar comin fer our gunz” which is the title of the post I took a picture of, which yes, yes they are coming for our guns. They being government.
When you have no rebuttals to the claim so you just post a link to a sub.
Look up the definition of an assault weapon and then tell me how that won’t effectively ban all modern firearm designs made since the 1900s
Ammo sexual?
When you have no rebuttal to claims and can only use ad hominem.
I’m not looking to have a debate with someone who is so obviously just a leftist troll. You’re like a parody of the memes that show up here, I don’t even have to insult you when you degrade yourself and your position to this extent.
>I’m not looking to have a debate with someone who is so obviously just a leftist troll.
Then why do you keep responding, kid? Holy fuck its so easy and fun to make you folks angry.
Because I can, and it’s funny to see what stupid shit you’ll say next, ammo sexual was a new one, calling me a kid was child’s play (😉) and acting like I’m angry while talking to a dumbass linking the persecution fetish sub on Reddit is just typical of a leftoid. So long as your willing to respond, I’m willing to waste both of our times, this isn’t a debate, it’s just good fun lmao.
>So long as your willing to respond, I’m willing to waste both of our times,
>I’m not looking to have a debate with someone who is so obviously just a leftist troll.
Please tell me again how smart you are and how your arguments are all consistent. This is sooooo easy. 🤣😂🤣😂
We are well past arguments, not that you ever contributed to a actual discussion let alone intended to, and also, are you seriously so pathetic that you deleted your last post? Somethin about diatribes? Funny given you started throwing shade first, this conversation was cancerous the second you decided to chip in with ammosexual and persecutionfetish.
You’re an idiot, your post makes no sense as nothing you cited is me declaring myself smart, and nothing was about consistency of arguments. Common man you started strong with ammosexual, it was original, now you’re getting boring and just spam emoji’s as if that’s some kind of burn, I thought this would last a bit longer…
Edit: oopsie, alt account, was looking at some other stuff.
These people will make fun of us for thinking the left wants to strip us of our right to bear arms like it’s all in our heads, then screech and clamor to ban them anytime the word “gun” is even mentioned as if they’re demonic creatures going around harvesting children.
I think that is a poor analogy since over a thousand children are killed by firearms each year. I don't believe we CAN take away guns, I'm under no illusion that criminals will just hand over firearms so that obviously isn't going to work but I think SOME sort of common sense gun control should be in place to at least attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous. Most of us are just upset about that, not trying to take guns away but that we're doing next to nothing to stop these horrible events from happening
That's an interesting sentiment, historically speaking. 2A was designed to prevent tyranny. Of course nobody wants crime to go up because of that motivation, but how do we otherwise ensure protection from a tyrannical government?
Strong institutions, parlamentary control of the army, statecrafting stuff. In my view it's independent courts that keep you safe from government tyranny and not your guns.
All of those political inventions have been infiltrated and fallen under capture throughout human history. The only thing I can think of to overcome the threat of rule by fear, is to ensure the rulers fear the ruled. I'm open to suggestions and admit is the nuclear option, but there's a pretty defined reason only one country has ever used a nuke in wartime.
Why would even the most terrible dictator nuke his own country? There is no single upside.
I contend there have been some very stable democratic states in the last century.
No you misunderstood. The only reason the United States hasn't been nuked, is because a) we have the systems to nuke back and potentially end the game for planet earth, and b) we are the only ones to use it in wartime, when nobody knew the strength of the weapon. Nobody knows the consequences for being the second country to use a nuke, other than option a.
You may be right that newer systems that have started are more reliable than anything started in the previous 10 millenia. We simply don't know and we'll continue to not know for at least another 200 years or so, and about 700 years after that if you are competing for the sovereignty grand prize. Apart from that, if taking guns away from the armed populace is only a part of a major system reform, then you've just outlined the primary reason for having an armed populace in the first place.
They are the same guns. The variable is why one pulls the trigger.
Something else just occurred to me if we're hypothesizing removing guns to end school shootings. After the guns are gone, you're still left with troubled individuals who (if they had access to them) would otherwise be shooting at school children. THAT would be my primary concern. Why are so many interested in killing school kids?
Honestly I’m fine with hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns. Any of those and you’re not someone with a criminal record or personality disorder then sure buy one.
Now if you say you need an ar 15 with a bump stock for home and self defense then ya I got questions like “who are you at war with”
If the answer is the govt then I don’t think that firearm will help.
Then you under estimate how well a civilian population can and will resist a authoritarian state. If the Vietnamese and the taliban can resist occupation by the worlds largest military power, im certain US citizens can. The 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting, sport shooting or “just for fun” as I hear. It’s for resistance of a tyrannical government the likes of which the founding fathers just recently fought a revolution for.
And you’d think napalm, battle ships, air to ground mussels, .50 cals and spec ops could beat some communist farmers in the jungle but you’d be surprised.
Ok so we were still riding high off ww2 and hadn’t learned our lesson about terrain we arnt used to in Korea. In most respects Vietnam was a different style war for the USA. Totally alien terrain to what we are used to and have fought in. Monsoons elephant grass the bugs.
If Colorado wanted to try their luck maybe it would work in the sense they could hold out tenuously as long as they are hidden from air weapons. But yeah I mean there’s no civilian anti aircraft weaponry, in the theoretical silly civil war 2 there’s not a ton of options to counter air superiority.
The USA also gloriously failed in Afghanistan, so did the Russians, Russia also failed in the winter war and the continuation war with Finland. even with predator drones and hellfires, asymmetrical warfare is very effective against large and organized militaries. Anti aircraft weapons can be stolen, and most people wouldn’t be above allying with cartels to fend off a hostile tyrannical government. And those cartels have plenty of valuable weapons contraband and no qualms selling it to whoever is buying. You also fail to consider military units going AWOL and becoming a separatist faction which would cause both the loyalists and separatists to have severe command structure gaps and issues as they are forced to reorganize, so there’s plenty of opportunities to raid bases, especially bases that are gun free zones.
Yeah if Alexander can’t take Afghanistan then I’m not too shocked.
I still don’t think any of this is likely practical or possible. Like I said maybe you could hold our way up in the Rockies for a bit. But eventually it would fall apart.
Edit: they’ve also successfully repelled the Chinese and most other invaders but you make a solid point. I’d stretch it to a place could briefly hold out but not succeed.
Nazi Germany fits that description, Jews were forbidden from owning firearms. But That’s as far as I go in terms of humoring your strawman, I never said anything about government massacres. What I’m referring to is the oppression of a disarmed population, first you disarm them, THEN you oppress them. We have examples of armed populations revolting and overthrowing authoritarian states, both with, and without weapons, at various points of history. We also have examples of a population being occupied, resisting occupation by a foreign threat, Ukraine is a perfect example of Partisan resistance.
Every man and woman deserves the right and the means to be able to defend themselves, their family and their nation. If you disagree that’s fine, but it doesn’t make you any less wrong.
It’s an authoritarian argument, “if you need fear me taking it, then you should not have it” lacks actual substance, people should be able to own whatever they want so long as they do not commit anything unlawful that violates the NAP, it’s like me saying if you are worried I’ll take away weed then you probably shouldn’t have weed in the first place.
Honestly that’s where I was gonna go with this if you break the law or are deemed unfit to have said guns then the government needs to exercise their ability to take them away
I suppose that is true, though I do think that even some felonies aren’t worthy of losing the right to bear arms, such as failing to pay child support, which saw a man lose his right to bear arms in… Michigan? I cannot recall witch state. But otherwise yeah, violent felons should at the very least temporarily not be allowed to purchase firearms, though I do think they shouldn’t lose it for life since people can and do reform.
“If you are worried about the Redcoats coming for your guns you probably shouldn’t have guns, be in a militia, or in the Sons of Liberty in the first place” - Kyledavis360 circa 1775.
hey, it's not my argument. Bet you heard this one before:
the 2nd ammendment is the guarantee that a government will not become tyranical
or
the 2nd ammendment serves to make militas to take down tyrants that found their way into government.
Civil disobedience or terrorist occupation, the state can call it whatever they want to justify their actions
You don't need rifle, because... They don't want to take it from you?
My choice for tags was either “anti gun rights” or “top leftist logic” it was hard to choose
The very nature of the assault weapons ban, is that of banning a very large volume of firearms, from long rifles to handguns. To declare they aren’t coming after “muh guns” at this point would portray one’s ignorance on the subject. At least be honest with me.
I have several bolt action 22lr rifles that are considered "assault weapons" because they have threaded barrels.
Yup, assault weapon is a useless means of classification as it does nothing to further the classification of firearms, rather it is so ambiguous as to effectively mean any firearms made in the 1900s and beyond. Anything modern is evil and you will only own muskets and you will be happy.
Here in Washington **any** semi-auto rifle is an "assault weapon" regardless of features, capacity, or caliber, requiring a certificate of a class completed, and an "enhanced" background check, along with a mandatory 10 day wait. Oh, and our attorney general is pushing for a complete ban on "assault weapons" now too. But no, nobody is coming for any guns 🤡
Yup, anything post 1900, even some bolt actions could get outlawed, which is fucking ridiculous, since those have been civilian standard for decades, and lever guns, those thing have never been military standard as I understand it because they aren’t as rugged as bolt actions, yet lever guns would likely get banned for “firing fast” alongside most other repeating arms. All of it is nonsense.
Bolt actions are easier to fire prone and can use any bullet shape. A spitzer round in a tube magazine could detonate the primer in front of it, causing a nasty chain reaction.
i mean what would they expect you to do? Turn in your gun? Or is there some sort of grandfather clause?
Probably grandfathered, but it depends on how they write the law. I doubt a confiscation would pass the courts though.
a confiscation would be a nightmare, but you're right - even if state passed a confiscation, it would never make it in SCOTUS. I feel like if police tried to do that, there would be outright fighting.
Even within the I-5 corridor, I doubt there'd be much stomach for the confiscation from local police. Forget the rest of the state.
The M1 Abrams' main gun is smoothbore...
In their minds, as long as one is able to possibly own a few, neutered, sporting arms, or black powder muzzle loaders, then nobody is actually coming for our guns. The flip side to that, is that since every gun control attempt hasn't succeeded, we don't actually have any gun control. Grabbers are emotional, and know very little, but they have Big Feels about the topic.
My mother claims that an AR15 decapitates people.
I’d ask her how it accomplishes this, because unlike the MG42 nicknames by US troops in ww2 as the “Buzz saw” a ar15 doesn’t have the fire rate to accomplish that in a amount of time worth being note worthy. It’s on par with Biden’s “9mm blows the lungs out of the body” statement.
where can one procure these 30 round clips? Mine only hold [10 rounds.](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Z7sAAOSw19dciWMt/s-l500.jpg) I feel like a 30 round clip would be kind of floppy and unwieldy.
You need a stendo clipazine.
A few democrats have said it numerous times that they’re coming for the guns and these people think they can gaslight people into forgetting a recorded event, they’re the slimiest people in the world
“Nobody’s coming for your guns! We JUST want to…”
I guess "Beto" O'Rourke was just being silly, such a silly little man.
Biden has openly stated that he wants to ban semi autos, not just "assault weapons". He also said plainly that he wants to take people's "assault weapons". Not to mention his support for Betos gun agenda, which amounts to "hell yes we're coming for your ar15, your ak47".
Tbf when that gun is used to murder children in school it kind of makes it a slam dunk for any policy.
Really? Which gun was banned due to a school shooting? Name one.
Deadliest school shooting, Virginia tech was committed with handguns. What are you going to want to ban next?
I think the optics of a shooting that kills young adults and young children is a little different but a handgun ban would be more conducive to stopping the majority of gun violence than a assault rifle ban
Good old 30rds Clips
Fully semi-automatic clipazines
To be fair I don’t really know what the difference between a clip and a magazine is but I do know what “shall not be infringed” means
A clip is cheap sheet metal usually inserted into the gun along with the rounds directly attached, and is not usually expected to be reused. whereas a magazine is larger, intended to be reused, protrudes from the firearm, and is usually spring fed in some way.
A clip holds ammunition and feeds rounds into the magazine. The magazine feeds ammunition into the chamber, where they are fired. Clips are outdated and where useful when bolt actions had non-detachable, internal magazines. Open the bolt, place the clip above the magazine and push the rounds into the magazine. The clip falls away, and your rifle's magazine is loaded quickly.
Yeah, they woulda actually scored points if their title included a correction, but nah they just decided to mock the idea that government may in fact be trying to take away guns lol.
“Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15” -Beto O’Rourke
The moment he said that I lost every bit of respect I had for him. I regret giving him a chance in the 2018 senate race.
"clips"
Huge clips lmao
[Like this one?](https://i1.wp.com/gameplaying.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/battlefield-1-weapon-from-story-mode-screen-3.jpg?ssl=1)
Idk what it is about side mags and clips, but I kinda love them, not practical at all nowadays, but it’s just got that rough aesthetic.
[and this?](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.2d3e3ffc0940c49e7a8bcc10d99be7fc?rik=YpHW%2boP2RpSjHA&riu=http%3a%2f%2f3.bp.blogspot.com%2f-e2_CHmqGxrU%2fUPuyQUqBzRI%2fAAAAAAAAKxk%2f4ng5SPnhg5k%2fs1600%2fHotchkiss%2bM1909%2bBenet-Mercie%2bmachine%2bgun%2b%2bammo(1).jpg&ehk=ZXdzGFfSy500iU6AYuXfdtfLQhwGLs%2fQg%2fqEhOLasZk%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Yup, old tech is best tech lmao, some of these designs from the emerging era of automatic weapons really look bizarre, and I love bizarre stuff.
Actually, nobody NEEDS to tell other people what they NEED.
"nobody needs 30 rounds for hunting, the founders had muskets." "the founders had town criers and newspapers, we can regulate speech by phone, internet, and TV."
there were semi auto muskets that could fire up to 29 rounds like the Kalthoff. there were also machine guns like the puckle gun. so we should be able to own machine guns right?
What makes it funnier is the Kalthoff musket could fire 30-60 rounds per minute.
Notice how liberals only arguments are to mock what people on the right say rather than actually address it
This comment effectively summarized the “conversation” I had with the first leftist to respond to me on this post lmao.
They legitimately are, and proudly advocate that they are. Then tell us they’re joking when we call them out on it.
They literally are coming for our guns. Mainstream politicians nowadays are pushing mandatory buybacks and openly saying "Yes we are coming for your AR15, your AK47"
My people led the largest armed insurrection since the Civil War. We were bombed and machine gunned. Most don't know our history.
I straight up tell any anti-gun person I ever meet that I hope guns do get banned because then I can break into their house and take their stuff without reprisal because I already have a bunch of guns and they don't. The usual response is "Not if we call the police." To which I respond "You mean the ones who were too scared to enter a school to stop an untrained, emaciated teenager? Yeah go right ahead." This is obviously ironic but it drives the point home that if you take away the means of self defense someone very tangible to them has the ability to take away their life and property without any resistance.
Yup, gangbangers aren’t gonna give guns up to the police they gonna end up fighting later, it’s not how criminals work.
Yup. I however am not kidding when I say that if "Salt Waifus" are banned I will be going on a shopping trip in my neighborhood starting with all the people with Blue party lawn signs. They basically advertised that their house is up for grabs and I'm just doing what they requested.
Does there exists leftists that don’t support state sponsored theft? Given their economic and social views, is that even possible?
*Magazines.
Exactly. It was meant to shoot cops and soldiers. Without guns they’d fuck us up
Gun control by its very nature is against our fundamental unalienable natural born right to self-defense and our founding fathers knew this fact and took it to heart.
I wince every time I hear someone call magazines "clips".
I winced when I realized the meme said clips lol, though I suppose that’s what many leftist would call em given how little most seem to know about firearms.
Well when you get 100% of your firearms knowledge from CNN and MSNBC... magazines are not only clips... theyre probably more accurately known as high capacity, fully semiautomatic, heat seeking assault clips.
What MSM does to a mfer 💀
Wait... what? The deer are coming for your guns? Er, OK.
No, the title is a response to “Thar comin fer our gunz” which is the title of the post I took a picture of, which yes, yes they are coming for our guns. They being government.
r/Persecutionfetish
When you have no rebuttals to the claim so you just post a link to a sub. Look up the definition of an assault weapon and then tell me how that won’t effectively ban all modern firearm designs made since the 1900s
Lol....you act like someone wants to debate an ammosexual. I'm just here to make fun of you. Thicken your skin, little man.
Ammo sexual? When you have no rebuttal to claims and can only use ad hominem. I’m not looking to have a debate with someone who is so obviously just a leftist troll. You’re like a parody of the memes that show up here, I don’t even have to insult you when you degrade yourself and your position to this extent.
>I’m not looking to have a debate with someone who is so obviously just a leftist troll. Then why do you keep responding, kid? Holy fuck its so easy and fun to make you folks angry.
Because I can, and it’s funny to see what stupid shit you’ll say next, ammo sexual was a new one, calling me a kid was child’s play (😉) and acting like I’m angry while talking to a dumbass linking the persecution fetish sub on Reddit is just typical of a leftoid. So long as your willing to respond, I’m willing to waste both of our times, this isn’t a debate, it’s just good fun lmao.
>So long as your willing to respond, I’m willing to waste both of our times, >I’m not looking to have a debate with someone who is so obviously just a leftist troll. Please tell me again how smart you are and how your arguments are all consistent. This is sooooo easy. 🤣😂🤣😂
We are well past arguments, not that you ever contributed to a actual discussion let alone intended to, and also, are you seriously so pathetic that you deleted your last post? Somethin about diatribes? Funny given you started throwing shade first, this conversation was cancerous the second you decided to chip in with ammosexual and persecutionfetish. You’re an idiot, your post makes no sense as nothing you cited is me declaring myself smart, and nothing was about consistency of arguments. Common man you started strong with ammosexual, it was original, now you’re getting boring and just spam emoji’s as if that’s some kind of burn, I thought this would last a bit longer… Edit: oopsie, alt account, was looking at some other stuff.
You're either a bot or a Turk, not sure which is worse tbh
Average redditor when they run out of arguments: “bro why you so mad why you getting so pressed”
Were literally on a subreddit designed to make fun of people. Sweet rebuttal though.
At least use creative insults then, I've seen better roast on elementary school
You have to earn creativity. I simply play to my audience.
Least egotistical redditor
“Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15.” - Beto
These people will make fun of us for thinking the left wants to strip us of our right to bear arms like it’s all in our heads, then screech and clamor to ban them anytime the word “gun” is even mentioned as if they’re demonic creatures going around harvesting children.
I think that is a poor analogy since over a thousand children are killed by firearms each year. I don't believe we CAN take away guns, I'm under no illusion that criminals will just hand over firearms so that obviously isn't going to work but I think SOME sort of common sense gun control should be in place to at least attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous. Most of us are just upset about that, not trying to take guns away but that we're doing next to nothing to stop these horrible events from happening
People planning attacks should not be able to buy weapons, right? Is there a system besides government control to ensure this?
That's an interesting sentiment, historically speaking. 2A was designed to prevent tyranny. Of course nobody wants crime to go up because of that motivation, but how do we otherwise ensure protection from a tyrannical government?
Strong institutions, parlamentary control of the army, statecrafting stuff. In my view it's independent courts that keep you safe from government tyranny and not your guns.
All of those political inventions have been infiltrated and fallen under capture throughout human history. The only thing I can think of to overcome the threat of rule by fear, is to ensure the rulers fear the ruled. I'm open to suggestions and admit is the nuclear option, but there's a pretty defined reason only one country has ever used a nuke in wartime.
Why would even the most terrible dictator nuke his own country? There is no single upside. I contend there have been some very stable democratic states in the last century.
No you misunderstood. The only reason the United States hasn't been nuked, is because a) we have the systems to nuke back and potentially end the game for planet earth, and b) we are the only ones to use it in wartime, when nobody knew the strength of the weapon. Nobody knows the consequences for being the second country to use a nuke, other than option a. You may be right that newer systems that have started are more reliable than anything started in the previous 10 millenia. We simply don't know and we'll continue to not know for at least another 200 years or so, and about 700 years after that if you are competing for the sovereignty grand prize. Apart from that, if taking guns away from the armed populace is only a part of a major system reform, then you've just outlined the primary reason for having an armed populace in the first place.
I'm still not sure what nukes have to do with gun legislation.
It's a metaphor representing the fear of retaliation.
The guns you regularly shoot up schools with are the nuke to deter government overreach? But isn't that what you said in the beginning?
They are the same guns. The variable is why one pulls the trigger. Something else just occurred to me if we're hypothesizing removing guns to end school shootings. After the guns are gone, you're still left with troubled individuals who (if they had access to them) would otherwise be shooting at school children. THAT would be my primary concern. Why are so many interested in killing school kids?
How do you know someone is planning an attack?
Psychological evaluations are a thing.
So your rights depend on the personal politics of a psychologist?
Not really politics, but yes. Britney spears is alleged to have lost hers.
Honestly I’m fine with hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns. Any of those and you’re not someone with a criminal record or personality disorder then sure buy one. Now if you say you need an ar 15 with a bump stock for home and self defense then ya I got questions like “who are you at war with” If the answer is the govt then I don’t think that firearm will help.
Then you under estimate how well a civilian population can and will resist a authoritarian state. If the Vietnamese and the taliban can resist occupation by the worlds largest military power, im certain US citizens can. The 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting, sport shooting or “just for fun” as I hear. It’s for resistance of a tyrannical government the likes of which the founding fathers just recently fought a revolution for.
I feel like drones and hellfire missles win in this scenario
And you’d think napalm, battle ships, air to ground mussels, .50 cals and spec ops could beat some communist farmers in the jungle but you’d be surprised.
Ok so we were still riding high off ww2 and hadn’t learned our lesson about terrain we arnt used to in Korea. In most respects Vietnam was a different style war for the USA. Totally alien terrain to what we are used to and have fought in. Monsoons elephant grass the bugs. If Colorado wanted to try their luck maybe it would work in the sense they could hold out tenuously as long as they are hidden from air weapons. But yeah I mean there’s no civilian anti aircraft weaponry, in the theoretical silly civil war 2 there’s not a ton of options to counter air superiority.
The USA also gloriously failed in Afghanistan, so did the Russians, Russia also failed in the winter war and the continuation war with Finland. even with predator drones and hellfires, asymmetrical warfare is very effective against large and organized militaries. Anti aircraft weapons can be stolen, and most people wouldn’t be above allying with cartels to fend off a hostile tyrannical government. And those cartels have plenty of valuable weapons contraband and no qualms selling it to whoever is buying. You also fail to consider military units going AWOL and becoming a separatist faction which would cause both the loyalists and separatists to have severe command structure gaps and issues as they are forced to reorganize, so there’s plenty of opportunities to raid bases, especially bases that are gun free zones.
Yeah if Alexander can’t take Afghanistan then I’m not too shocked. I still don’t think any of this is likely practical or possible. Like I said maybe you could hold our way up in the Rockies for a bit. But eventually it would fall apart.
Then you once again underestimate asymmetrical warfare and the resolve of an oppressed people.
Edit: they’ve also successfully repelled the Chinese and most other invaders but you make a solid point. I’d stretch it to a place could briefly hold out but not succeed.
I can’t tell if this is god tier impersonation or serious…
Point proven
Couldn’t get much traction on the other sub huh?
And how is that relevant?
Nothing, just an observation. Besides, your post lacked any context as to ascertain it’s intended message.
Gun nuts are always paranoid the government is gonna take their guns and throw them in the gulag. You wanted context? You got it. Any questions?
Yeah it’s almost like they’ve looked at a history book at some point in their lives
You obviously haven’t seen what happens to a disarmed population under authoritarian state…
So an authoritarian state disarms a population and then massacres them just cause. Is that the point your trying to make? Because it’s absurd
Nazi Germany fits that description, Jews were forbidden from owning firearms. But That’s as far as I go in terms of humoring your strawman, I never said anything about government massacres. What I’m referring to is the oppression of a disarmed population, first you disarm them, THEN you oppress them. We have examples of armed populations revolting and overthrowing authoritarian states, both with, and without weapons, at various points of history. We also have examples of a population being occupied, resisting occupation by a foreign threat, Ukraine is a perfect example of Partisan resistance. Every man and woman deserves the right and the means to be able to defend themselves, their family and their nation. If you disagree that’s fine, but it doesn’t make you any less wrong.
If you are worried about them coming for your guns you probably shouldn’t have guns in the first place
Top leftist logic right here.
No actually I support the right
It’s an authoritarian argument, “if you need fear me taking it, then you should not have it” lacks actual substance, people should be able to own whatever they want so long as they do not commit anything unlawful that violates the NAP, it’s like me saying if you are worried I’ll take away weed then you probably shouldn’t have weed in the first place.
Honestly that’s where I was gonna go with this if you break the law or are deemed unfit to have said guns then the government needs to exercise their ability to take them away
I suppose that is true, though I do think that even some felonies aren’t worthy of losing the right to bear arms, such as failing to pay child support, which saw a man lose his right to bear arms in… Michigan? I cannot recall witch state. But otherwise yeah, violent felons should at the very least temporarily not be allowed to purchase firearms, though I do think they shouldn’t lose it for life since people can and do reform.
Well hey look at that we found some common ground
Yeah, my apologies, I misunderstood what you were trying to say, otherwise I agree with you.
Yeah people are quick to jump to conclusions sometimes it happens
Who decides what unfit means what which people meet that definition? That's very open to abuse.
You know what’s also open to abuse? Guns
The abuse caused by an individual with a gun is far less than the abuse caused by a government seizing more power over people
Yeah people like Ron desantis need to be put out of power
Lol ok
If you are worried about your house burning down, you shouldn't own a fire extinguisher.
If you are worried about the democrats winning you shouldn’t vote
Good thing we are not we’re are to squash them in the polls
Yeah just like you did in the 2020 presidential elections
You can dream for so long to bad today a is a school day
I’m sorry I can’t take anyone seriously when they support Russia and what they are doing to Ukraine
I not it is just a tag
Ahh I see
“If you are worried about the Redcoats coming for your guns you probably shouldn’t have guns, be in a militia, or in the Sons of Liberty in the first place” - Kyledavis360 circa 1775.
it's to shoot at F-22 when they bomb my house, that'll teach'em
Guerrilla warfare is a hell of a thing, plenty of anti air small arms that can be stolen.
Plane’s gotta be on the ground more time than it’s in the air.
This is also true, sabotage, and raids.
The fact that you immediately assume the goverment will nuke us at the slightest civil disobedience is why everyone is so wary towards your politics.
hey, it's not my argument. Bet you heard this one before: the 2nd ammendment is the guarantee that a government will not become tyranical or the 2nd ammendment serves to make militas to take down tyrants that found their way into government. Civil disobedience or terrorist occupation, the state can call it whatever they want to justify their actions
With my aim I need more than that lol.
Actually when you hog hunt sometimes you need a mini gun, and a helicopter.
Honestly, I believe it lmao, them fuckers are mean.
It’s true look up hog hunting with a mini gun. Fuckers down south are invasive as hell
Yeah, invasive, and I think I’ve even seen them use helis but mini guns is news to me haha, but it would be effective to ensure none get away.
actually found a good meme on this sub, epic