Gun ownership itself is a slight mental illness

Not really. Most of that hardware can be brought down electronically or via software from the inside. Look how taxed the US military was dealing with military actions in two nations with less than 80 million people between them, Iraq and Afghanistan. There are other strategies that would tax the government to the point of gridlock. And of course I don't see anyone dropping nukes on US soil (unless they manage to push all the rebels into Arkansas or Alabama).

 

I completely disagree. If the US full went on a full out offensive against every peckerwood and brier hopper with a gun it would be over in less than a year.

 

Ah man I live for trolls!

 

I wonder if the military would take up arms against American citizens.

 

Damn I missed the fun. Appreciate you taking care of business.

 

Rock on! That's TWO knowledgeable sensible chics in a couple days. Yer makin the others look kinda silly.

 

Well she doesn't sound to knowledgeable to me, if she thinks we're going to over throw a tyrannical government with guns. The founding fathers made that as clear as mud by a preamble linking the right to service in a well-ordered militia.

 

Speaking of clear as mud... :-/

 

I see what you mean. I don't think that just because the government has bigger guns, people should forfeit their constitutional rights. To be fair, the people were intended to have the same weapon capability that the government does. The only restriction way back then was laws against owning canons, otherwise the people should be just as equipped as the government. I mean, we know that today people aren't going to start owning nuclear missiles, but we can still very easily overthrow the government. Statistically it has always taken only 10% to 15% of the population to revolt to completely overthrow a government. The yellow vest movement nearly did this in France with only a few hundred thousand people, who only even came out on the weekends, without guns, and merely in concentrated tiny areas. The US government would never stand a chance against unrest all over the country, ESPECIALLY if these people were armed. There simply wouldn't be enough force to stop Americans from overtaking political buildings and big points of interests all over every state.

Also in terms of self-defense, there is this debated quote by a Japanese Navy commander that supposedly goes "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." There is a lot of controversy around the statement, but in terms of outlining the incredible value of self-protection, I think it says a lot!

Edited for a little more clarity.

 

Holly

Oh hell yet more politics by slogan rather than thought

So when do you start killing police officers?

You can protest that you never would do that but sorry you can’t pussy foot around that – if you are going to use guns to stop what you see as ‘tyranny’ then at some point you will have to start killing police officers and to accept that is your intention.

So when?

I mean if someone really thought the US was been taken over or invaded by ‘bad people’….or if they though certain politicians or journalists were truly ‘enemies of the people’, then under the banner of defending the country with their gun against such threats - then wouldn’t they be right to act and use their guns against such people?

And you think you are living in a state of nature do you?

LOL sorry so you can’t be a ‘real’ man if you don’t have a gun – wow I suppose that is another way of advertising guns.

So let’s see you feel people should have guns because you are paranoid about the government becoming ‘tyrannical’ and you fear you could be attacked at any moment, but the idea behind Americans owning guns out of fear and paranoia is unfounded?

 

Again it isn't just about "fear and paranoia". I already made that clear and why. Being prepared for anything isn't about being afraid. I don't prepare for an exam because I'm afraid of the test. I prepare so I'm ready for the event of taking it.

Also, you seem to think that taking over tyranny is going to result in two walls of people with guns, closing in on each other and blasting away. It never happens like that. People revolting on a large scale and being armed is enough to make a government submit. It's interesting that you think in such a case, the government will dispatch police officers to attack others as a mob.

War and power isn't about military might. There are objectives in war and points of interest. The US bailed from the Vietnam war because of a loss of morale from the American people who weren't even fighting in it. If the US became tyrannical and led toward civil unrest, do you really think 100% of police officers would stand behind the government? The government would be FAR too afraid to make tyranny too obvious because they couldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against a revolt.

As for "being a man", you can't twist what people are saying to make it look like you have a high ground. I'm not attacking people for not having guns - your choice not to have one doesn't affect me. I'm only saying that I would not want to raise a family with a partner who put himself at such a disadvantage in terms of defense by giving up one of the greatest rights a person could have in any country on the planet. In a dog-eat-dog world, I wouldn't want to be with someone who felt more moral than others by automatically making himself and his family more vulnerable. That's my opinion, not everyone's.

 

Holly

You talk of taking over ‘political buildings’ but what happens if those protecting those building resist? I mean if you didn’t have the ability to take over such building isn’t the logical step to take out those buildings?

I mean if you really believe the government is becoming tyrannical isn’t that OK?

I mean Timothy McVeigh believed the US federal government was becoming tyrannical and he was in favour of Americans been armed to fight such tyranny as well.

He distributed pro-gun rights literature and had a bumper stickers bearing slogans such as, "When guns are outlawed, I will become an outlaw" And he told a student reporter:

The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control

Wikipedia

So when do you start killing people?

 

Holly

You didn’t explain why

But the only reason you feel you need to be prepared is because you are fearful and paranoid if you were not you wouldn’t feel you needed to be prepared.

We are taking of wanting lethal weapons and intending to kill people with them not a school quiz

Oh I see you think all armed revolutions are peaceful, then why do you need the guns if the government will just submit?

But now you are taking about war?

Some 1,353,000 people were killed in the Vietnam War

So the only reason you want the guns is to threaten never use, so why have them at all if you never intended ever to use them?

 

Holly

As I say I can see the advert now – scene of family life, cute puppy been played with by blond haired little girl watched on by a smiling couple arm in arm and your dialogue going on in the background as MS -13 thugs break into the house and begin killing everyone the final shot is of the puppy hanging by its neck from a tree on the front lawn of a nice suburban house that is burning in the background.

‘Brought to you by the gun lobbyists of America’

No fear or paranoia in any of that LOL

 

Haha, come on now. What is up with you trying to push, "Everything is an ad for guns!"

No, not all conflicts are peaceful, and not all conflicts are violent. The point (which I know you understood but voluntarily misinterpret) is that by being armed and having a much greater means to resist and revolt, you can potentially diffuse conflict before it even begins. If any criminal with a brain were choosing which home to break into, they would certainly choose the home that they know for a fact would not be armed. This is totally logical. Japan saw first hand what the US was capable of at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and immediately surrendered. I don't know how else to help you understand the concept that having the ability to defend yourself improves your survivability. It's one of the most basic laws of nature found on every single level of the natural world and comes to people instinctively.

I could make analogies all day, but I know you're a smart person. I feel you're intentionally going to try to have some form of rebuttal, no matter how wacky and petty to everything I say. I don't want to argue like that.

 

Holly

Well this is the thing many people that are pro-gun seem to be trying to sell guns mainly through fear and paranoia while claiming that gun ownership has nothing to do with fear and paranoia.

So you agree you would likely have to kill police officers and your political opponents – I again ask the question when?

I get it you are totally aware that it might mean killing police officers – so again when?

So how do they know and the vast majority of burglaries take place when no one is at home and in that case if the gun isn’t properly secured you’ve just given a gun to a criminal.

Again you go back to war, around 36 million people were casualties in the Pacific War

And I ask again do you think you live in a state of nature?

 

I think there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat or use of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mind set gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

Because if someone thinks that way they can believe that is how others think that it is a dog-eat-dog world,

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

 

Things is when people say they need guns to fight government ‘tyranny’ they are admitting they believe in politically motivated violence to achieve outcomes they desire.

The thing is what are the outcomes they wish for?

It should also be noted that in the US the majority of gun owners also identify as leaning to the right and most of the more vocal gun right champions I’ve meet are right wing. And many of those hint that they would be happy to use their guns to ‘defend’ the US against what they see as their political opponents.

I remember seeing an interview with a gun owning tea party supporter saying that if Obama tried to bring ‘socialism’ into the US he would have to use his gun to stop it and the other tea party supporters around him all nodded and we have Timothy McVeigh justifying his actions by saying I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government.

And in Nevada, it was reported that Sharron Angle who was a member of the Nevada assembly warned that if elections didn’t force Democrats like Harry Reid out of office, the people may be forced to turn to “Second Amendment remedies”

Someone brought up the Vietnam War protests well it has to be remembered that when 4 students were killed in an anti-war demonstration many Americans dismissed them as socialist agitators.

Anyway the thing is that many of the people I’ve meet here that champion the idea of having guns to protect against government ‘tyranny’ also attack socialism.

It’s not that I think they will go out and commit acts of political violence but they have accepted that they would if they thought they should - my questions to them is when?

When would they act, what would cause them to act, why would they pick up their gun and use it to attack their political opponents and even the police?