Punish Law Abiding Citizens and Ignore Criminals. Great Plan. Fucking Idiots.

[junk]

Our country was founded by us having to fight our government at the time. We used the weapons allowed us to gain our independence. How is this any different?

People also used to churn their own butter.

 

[Minimalist]

The Taliban fought us with only guns and IED's by the way. This idea that people couldn't fight back against our government if neccesary is questionable. It's kind of sheepish. Where there's a will there's a way.

Do I see it happening any time soon? No. I'm not so sure it will ever happen. I don't think it should just be tossed aside and everyone should bend over to the idea that our police force and military own us though.

 

[2233boys]

View attachment 970

:nsis

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Tyranny went out when people no longer had to churn their own butter. We've always know there was a connection between guns and butter.

Just busting your chops a little, Junk. Now if you'll excuse me, I think Chance Warmack might have character issues...

 

[peplaw06]

Pretty sure some people still churn their own butter anyway.

 

[junk]

My point remains.....it is a different time. What series of catastrophic events do you see transpiring that require you to take up arms against your own government?

And do you really feel your stockpile of AR-15s are going to be effective against tanks, drones, helicopters and a better armed/better trained fighting force? This isn't a situation like the 1700s where everyone had muskets.

I have plenty of complaints about our government, but it is far from a tyranny

Like I said, there are plenty of good arguments to use against gun control. This isn't one. It makes you look dumb and reinforces the "gun nut" stereotype

 

[superpunk]

And do you really feel your stockpile of AR-15s are going to be effective against tanks, drones, helicopters and a better armed/better trained fighting force? This isn't a situation like the 1700s where everyone had muskets.

Or Libya where they have rocks.

 

[NoDak]

I keep seeing people referring to the tanks, drones, helicopters, etc... Are people in the military not allowed to go against the govt? To disobey an unlawful order? Do they have to just obey and take that abrahms tank and wipe out a neighborhood?

Only speaking for myself here, but if I was the pilot of an Apache and was told to go mow down a group of American citizens, that would be an order I would not follow.

 

[superpunk]

Unfortunately throughout history in all sorts of nations, we haven't seen alot of that sort of willpower from members of the military. If their commanders can convince them that civilian rebellion represents a threat to the country, they'll mostly do whatever they're told.

 

[peplaw06]

No one believes that their AR-15 is going to be effective against a drone. That's a strawman you're using to minimize our intelligence. But an AR-15 is going to be a lot more effective in defending yourself than a handgun is.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Okay, fine. No way, no how tyranny could ever be a problem in the good ol' US of A from enemies foreign or domestic. Got it.

 

[Iamtdg]

No one believes that their AR-15 is going to be effective against a drone. That's a strawman you're using to minimize our intelligence. But an AR-15 is going to be a lot more effective in defending yourself than a handgun is.

Absolutely 100% correct. Every word.

 

[Minimalist]

My point remains.....it is a different time. What series of catastrophic events do you see transpiring that require you to take up arms against your own government?

And do you really feel your stockpile of AR-15s are going to be effective against tanks, drones, helicopters and a better armed/better trained fighting force? This isn't a situation like the 1700s where everyone had muskets.

I have plenty of complaints about our government, but it is far from a tyranny

Like I said, there are plenty of good arguments to use against gun control. This isn't one. It makes you look dumb and reinforces the "gun nut" stereotype

And you saying that our government could never become oppressive makes you look dumb and like a gun control nut. Should high income neighborhoods with no break ins remove all locks from their door since they live in such protected neighborhoods? Or should they have a worst case scenario plan and take extra precautions with alarms and locks on their doors?

 

[Minimalist]

Okay, fine. No way, no how tyranny could ever be a problem in the good ol' US of A from enemies foreign or domestic. Got it.

We're above that. We're too evolved as a country. We know it all and nothing could ever happen to us. Didn't you know that?

 

[iceberg]

My point remains.....it is a different time. What series of catastrophic events do you see transpiring that require you to take up arms against your own government?

And do you really feel your stockpile of AR-15s are going to be effective against tanks, drones, helicopters and a better armed/better trained fighting force? This isn't a situation like the 1700s where everyone had muskets.

I have plenty of complaints about our government, but it is far from a tyranny

Like I said, there are plenty of good arguments to use against gun control. This isn't one. It makes you look dumb and reinforces the "gun nut" stereotype

ok, if these guns would not be effective, why make them illegal? if you're trying to get the biggest bang for the buck, you're going after the least used weapon used in committing crimes.

it's like getting the top 10 fatal diseases and picking the one least likely to kill anyone and going after it with vigor. more people were killed with shotguns in 2010 than rifles. also, by rifles, this includes *all* rifles, not just assault.

it's crazy to me. so it looks "military" - give me evidence where it causes more harm than handguns. or do most feel you'd never be able to get rid of handguns (of which did the most damage by far on 2010) so go after what you can scare people with?

 

[SixisBetter]

- I sort of get the "protect your home" thing. Maybe I'd be more behind this if I lived in a shitty area where I worried more about that, but home invasion is pretty low on my list of concerns (watch me get burgled tonight)

Google home invasion new mexico.
Of course,if Hos still lived here it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[junk]

I keep seeing people referring to the tanks, drones, helicopters, etc... Are people in the military not allowed to go against the govt? To disobey an unlawful order? Do they have to just obey and take that abrahms tank and wipe out a neighborhood?

Only speaking for myself here, but if I was the pilot of an Apache and was told to go mow down a group of American citizens, that would be an order I would not follow.

Sure, that is probably reasonable should this far flung scenario ever happen. I'm just having issues conceiving a scenario where it happens.

I just think it makes gun advocates come across as a little looney and doesn't really help the argument. Like I said, there are plenty of good arguments many of which have been made in this thread.

 

[junk]

No one believes that their AR-15 is going to be effective against a drone. That's a strawman you're using to minimize our intelligence. But an AR-15 is going to be a lot more effective in defending yourself than a handgun is.

I don't think it is a strawman. I'm legitimately trying to understand this scenario that is being imagined where you'd need a gun for this purpose.

 

[Iamtdg]

Sure, that is probably reasonable should this far flung scenario ever happen. I'm just having issues conceiving a scenario where it happens.

I just think it makes gun advocates come across as a little looney and doesn't really help the argument. Like I said, there are plenty of good arguments many of which have been made in this thread.

When it's the single biggest reason to not want any ban on any gun, this is the strongest argument. It is also the strongest reason, so it works out.

 

[junk]

And you saying that our government could never become oppressive makes you look dumb and like a gun control nut.

Yeah, I'm saying that if you feel you need to own a gun to protect yourself from a tyrannical government, it makes you come across a little looney. Like I've said, what is this scenario that Jethro and Jim Bob are going to save 'merica from a tyrannical government?

The thing to keep in mind is that the people that are pushing for gun control, in most cases, know little to nothing about guns (as has been stated in this thread). So when they hear that gun advocates want them to protect themselves against the government, they probably immediately think of militias and Branch Davidians. I'm just saying that argument doesn't help your cause no matter how much you might believe it.

Should high income neighborhoods with no break ins remove all locks from their door since they live in such protected neighborhoods? Or should they have a worst case scenario plan and take extra precautions with alarms and locks on their doors?

I have no idea where you came up with this. Where did I advocate that people shouldn't have locks on their doors?