Guns

[yossarian22c]

I've said before and I'll say again. Banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines will not stop mass shootings but they would lower the body count. Assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no purpose for self defense or hunting.

Is the counter argument the second amendment is absolute and we should quit regulating 50 caliber machine guns? Is it I like my gun and I don't care how many people get killed by AR-15's with high capacity magazines I want to keep mine. I don't understand people supporting the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

I know this only addresses a very small subset of gun violence, but it seems to be the lowest hanging fruit. The bigger step would be to find a way to track guns to find out how gangs and criminals are being armed. Shut down the bad gun dealers and straw purchases and get guns out of the hands of criminals.

[cherrypoptart]

"Assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no purpose for self defense or hunting."

Neither of which is the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

What is the real purpose? Look at Myanmar and the "Everything will be OK" angel protestor.

And I'm leaning towards the "something has to be done" camp when any nut can go on a random shooting spree, and they do. But bringing up hunting and self-defense against criminals is irrelevant since that's not the issue. The issue is how would we prevent a tyrannical government from doing to us what the military is doing in Myanmar?

Nothing our government is doing right now is trust inspiring.

[NobleHunter]

If you're interested in fighting a tyrannical government you should be pushing to legalize IEDs and military grade weaponry. Pontificate all you want about an armed populace but AR-15s will not win many battles if both the cops and military go against you.

[TheDrake]

At the time of the cease fire the ira decommissioned the following

1,000 rifles
2 tonnes of Semtex
20–30 heavy machine guns
7 surface-to-air missiles
7 flame throwers
1,200 detonators
11 rocket-propelled grenade launchers
90 handguns
100+ grenades

Unless you think that the power sharing agreement constitutes breaking free of a tyrannical government, it's just an obsolete argument.

Or are you thinking more about freedom fighter Ammon Bundy?

[yossarian22c]

"Assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no purpose for self defense or hunting."

Neither of which is the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

What is the real purpose? Look at Myanmar and the "Everything will be OK" angel protestor.
...
The issue is how would we prevent a tyrannical government from doing to us what the military is doing in Myanmar?

Nothing our government is doing right now is trust inspiring.

Then you better get on that militia clause. Have state governments take bigger control over the national guard or train up a defense force because a bunch of unorganized yahoos with AR-15's are going to get slaughtered by real military units with air support and armor.

[TheDrake]

Let's also not overstate ineffectiveness of armed resistance. The Vietnamese communists did a pretty good job of holding off a modern army, and so did the afghans. But they were backed by major powers providing supplies and other support, in these cases China and America. You tell me which major power is going to back qanon resistance.

[NobleHunter]

If armed resistance can work it still needs heavier weapons than you can buy at Walmart.

I'm not sure Vietnam and Afghanistan shows that armed civilians or irregulars can hold off today's US military.

[Fenring]

I think we've had a thread about this once before, but it was brought up then that the most likely situation is a splintering of the U.S. military should it come to a full-out open rebellion. Presumably the rebellion is caused by some sort of unacceptable act or decision, and presumably many in the military would find it equally unacceptable. To the extent that this would be a civil war, not every area would have symmetrical dispersion of strength, but a pretty well-armed civilian quarter could well balance the scales if either a small military presence is all that area has, or else the two military forces are comparable in strength and the civilians put one side over the top. The scenario of a U.S. populace alone going against the entire might of the armed forces isn't really a serious scenario. How could that ever happen after all? It would require the civilians to be united against the government, and all of the armed forces united on the side of the government. I can't envision a situation where that happens.

But in the case of split up forces, or small areas of skirmish amidst a larger civil war, a well-armed civilian district could no doubt defend itself against a smallish military force that could otherwise wipe the floor with a passive population.

[yossarian22c]

Let's also not overstate ineffectiveness of armed resistance. The Vietnamese communists did a pretty good job of holding off a modern army, and so did the afghans. But they were backed by major powers providing supplies and other support, in these cases China and America. You tell me which major power is going to back qanon resistance.

Russia and China. The opportunity to cause chaos and civil war in the US. I'm sure they would be finding ways to get weapons in the hands of any armed insurrection that could last long enough to cause damage, destruction, and chaos in the US.

[yossarian22c]

But in the case of split up forces, or small areas of skirmish amidst a larger civil war, a well-armed civilian district could no doubt defend itself against a smallish military force that could otherwise wipe the floor with a passive population.

And hunting rifles for range, shotguns and handguns for close in fighting would have the same impact.

I'm not proposing an all weapons ban. I'm saying that we eliminate the weapon of choice for mass shooters. It won't stop them, the same guy walking into that store with two handguns and a couple magazines probably kills 5 people. But he doesn't kill 10. We lower the body count.

Also we get a handle on the illicit gun trade in the US. Drugs come into the US but guns go out. We need to get serious about keeping guns out of the hands of gangs and cartels.

[NobleHunter]

I think we've had a thread about this once before, but it was brought up then that the most likely situation is a splintering of the U.S. military should it come to a full-out open rebellion. Presumably the rebellion is caused by some sort of unacceptable act or decision, and presumably many in the military would find it equally unacceptable. To the extent that this would be a civil war, not every area would have symmetrical dispersion of strength, but a pretty well-armed civilian quarter could well balance the scales if either a small military presence is all that area has, or else the two military forces are comparable in strength and the civilians put one side over the top. The scenario of a U.S. populace alone going against the entire might of the armed forces isn't really a serious scenario. How could that ever happen after all? It would require the civilians to be united against the government, and all of the armed forces united on the side of the government. I can't envision a situation where that happens.

But in the case of split up forces, or small areas of skirmish amidst a larger civil war, a well-armed civilian district could no doubt defend itself against a smallish military force that could otherwise wipe the floor with a passive population.

The most likely scenario is something closer to what we saw in January. A bunch of deluded idiots think they've got support in overthrowing the government except instead of a riot enabled by a pathetic police response, they decide to start shooting up Federal buildings or something. At which point they find out that their "well-armed militia" is as about effective as a screen door on a submarine. What happens next is a much more complicated question but it's not going to come down to which side has more AR-15s.

[Fenring]

The most likely scenario is something closer to what we saw in January.

Well that sort of contradicts the premise, which is that in the event that a general revolt is called for (whatever that means) the people can offer real resistance. You could argue that only a few yahoos would ever delude themselves into thinking they're revolting, but that's just negating the premise, rather than a playing out of how the premise would work in practice.

[NobleHunter]

That's because the premise is faulty. And bringing the army into it contradicts the essential belief of the 2nd Amendment rebellion fetishists because it means illegal or highly restricted weapons will be available as armories are opened and shared around.

[rightleft22]

Is there any point in debating this issue when the dead lock in government is not going to anything even if 80% of the population wants change.

I personally agree with John Neely Kennedy who linked gun control to drunk driving.  A person should have to pass a test to get a license and lose it if abuse the right.  Ofcourse he didn't mean that when he pointed to drunk driving. 

Maybe it might be best if as a society we accept the fact that we love our guns and don't really care when people die. Well as long as its not us or anyone close to us. Its the price we pay for loving our guns and worth the cost.

[TheDeamon]

If armed resistance can work it still needs heavier weapons than you can buy at Walmart.

You're fighting a 3rd generation war, in a fifth generation warfare environment. For a domestic insurrection in the United States, small arms and the right knowledge in chemistry and electronics(Improvised Explosive Devices, after all) is all a group needs to wage an effective campaign against the Government. If they use the right strategies. We've been lucky in that nearly all of the bad actors seen to date either were operating at the wrong scale, or idiots, if not both.

I'm not sure Vietnam and Afghanistan shows that armed civilians or irregulars can hold off today's US military.

You're forgetting that matter of who is in the US Military and how they'd possibly respond to certain permutations of a domestic civil war in the United States. They're going to have family members involved on one side or the other of that fight. That's a very different thing to Iraq or Afghanistan where the vast majority of them probably don't have a common ancestor with anyone there that can be traced back to within 500 years. For most of them, you'd probably need to go back thousands. (By current estimations, if you go back to about 3500 BCE a great many men in the 'Stans(in some populations up to 80% of men) and the northern regions of India share a common male-line ancestor with me according to our current understanding of Y Chromosomal DNA; but that hardly makes them "close cousins" in my book)

[TheDeamon]

I think we've had a thread about this once before, but it was brought up then that the most likely situation is a splintering of the U.S. military should it come to a full-out open rebellion. Presumably the rebellion is caused by some sort of unacceptable act or decision, and presumably many in the military would find it equally unacceptable. To the extent that this would be a civil war, not every area would have symmetrical dispersion of strength, but a pretty well-armed civilian quarter could well balance the scales if either a small military presence is all that area has, or else the two military forces are comparable in strength and the civilians put one side over the top. The scenario of a U.S. populace alone going against the entire might of the armed forces isn't really a serious scenario. How could that ever happen after all? It would require the civilians to be united against the government, and all of the armed forces united on the side of the government. I can't envision a situation where that happens.

But in the case of split up forces, or small areas of skirmish amidst a larger civil war, a well-armed civilian district could no doubt defend itself against a smallish military force that could otherwise wipe the floor with a passive population.

It isn't just that. US Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were hard to "Defeat in detail" because the US military is very good at logistics, and most of its logistics train exists in the continental United States, where the Afghans and the Iraqi's couldn't reach it. In a US Civil War scenario? US Citizens are going to be able to attack every step in that process.

You don't need to attack the Tank. You attack the pipelines and tankers which help get the fuel to the tank. Or you go even bigger and hit the refineries themselves.

You don't need to attack the done, when you can cut the power and supply support to the base that is flying the drones in the first place.

Likewise, good luck keeping your forces supplied with things for very long when you can attack the workers involved in producing those war supplies.

There is a heck of a lot of "tail" involved in making the US Military work, and it works well on the foreign side because getting to the domestic side of things is a major PITA for a foreign power. But in a Civil War scenario? Where you have US Military Veterans(and defectors from the Active Duty side) going against the US Military? The entire logistics chain for the US Military is going to be attacked. From the very start all the way up to the entering the front gates of the Military Base. And they're going to be favoring Logistical targets instead of the hard targets(those tanks and planes people like to talk about).

[NobleHunter]

You're fighting a 3rd generation war, in a fifth generation warfare environment. For a domestic insurrection in the United States, small arms and the right knowledge in chemistry and electronics(Improvised Explosive Devices, after all) is all a group needs to wage an effective campaign against the Government. If they use the right strategies. We've been lucky in that nearly all of the bad actors seen to date either were operating at the wrong scale, or idiots, if not both.

Right! Practising that knowledge is ridiculously illegal. Which kind of makes the whole "we need the 2nd amendment in case we have to overthrow the government" argument moot. It's not protecting the weapons these would-be traitors need.

[yossarian22c]

Is there any point in debating this issue when the dead lock in government is not going to anything even if 80% of the population wants change.

And this goes to the outsized power of a big enough group of single issue voters. If 20% of the population will votes on only one issue then they can have an outsized influence on elections. The Republican party has two large groups of single issue voters, guns and abortion, that will largely vote for them regardless of all other issues. Its how so many things that have 60+% approval in the general populace yet get zero republican support in congress. Because it doesn't matter what a guns rights or anti-abortion advocate thinks about the minimum wage or any other issue their vote is locked in.

[DJQuag]

A patriot died tonight fighting against...something.

Look, some crazy *censored* did some crazy *censored*, but in this difficult time I feel it's really important that we all decide it's Obama's fault because reasons or maybe it's Biden's fault because he's old.

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/myanmar-activists-hold-shoe-protests-043944613.html

"Anti-coup demonstrators in Myanmar fought back with handmade guns and firebombs against a crackdown by security forces in a town in the northwest but at least 11 of the protesters were killed, domestic media reported on Thursday.

Initially, six truckloads of troops were deployed to quell protesters in the town of Taze, the Myanmar Now and Irrawaddy news outlets said. When the protesters fought back with handmade guns, knives and firebombs, five more truckloads of troops were brought in.

Fighting continued into Thursday morning and at least 11 protesters were killed and about 20 wounded, the media said. There was no word of any casualties among the soldiers."

I notice that the debate swirled around how effective, or not, civilians with guns would be against the military but nobody made the case for why that isn't something we'd have to ever be worried about in America, the government turning tyrannical and using the military against us like we're seeing in Myanmar.

I guess it's kind of difficult for the Democrats who want to ban guns to make that case after all the things they just got done saying about former President Trump.

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/myanmar-activists-hold-shoe-protests-043944613.html

"Anti-coup demonstrators in Myanmar fought back with handmade guns and firebombs against a crackdown by security forces in a town in the northwest but at least 11 of the protesters were killed, domestic media reported on Thursday.

Initially, six truckloads of troops were deployed to quell protesters in the town of Taze, the Myanmar Now and Irrawaddy news outlets said. When the protesters fought back with handmade guns, knives and firebombs, five more truckloads of troops were brought in.

Fighting continued into Thursday morning and at least 11 protesters were killed and about 20 wounded, the media said. There was no word of any casualties among the soldiers."

I notice that the debate swirled around how effective, or not, civilians with guns would be against the military but nobody made the case for why that isn't something we'd have to ever be worried about in America, the government turning tyrannical and using the military against us like we're seeing in Myanmar.

I guess it's kind of difficult for the Democrats who want to ban guns to make that case after all the things they just got done saying about former President Trump.

But if people really want to ban guns and get rid of the 2nd Amendment, the purpose of which is to help civilians defend themselves against an evil government gone rogue, it seems like the first step would be to persuade people that such a scenario isn't plausible or one they have to worry about, not with our government and the protections we have in place. Of course making that argument gets a lot harder when the same people say the police are racists out to murder innocent black people and the military is full of rapists and baby killers while the former President was a Russian puppet and one of the most evil, corrupt, racist, unstable, dangerous, narcissistic, power hungry orange people ever to illegally rig an election and seize power. When it comes to making the case for how the American government could never be a danger to the people, kind of shot yourselves in the foot there, as it were.

[NobleHunter]

I'm certainly not making the argument the military is full of rapists and baby killers. Even if it is, that doesn't preclude the military from remaining loyal to the constitution in the event a President goes off the rails. The military also sees itself as part of the American people which would make using it to enforce tyranny rather problematic.

[Aris Katsaris]

In the Arab spring, the only nation that managed to overthrow its dictatorship was the nation whose citizenry was the *least* armed -- Tunisia.

While brutal dictatorships, like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, had most households own a gun. And it never got overthrown in a revolution, only via an external invasion. I mean this gun ownership may have helped them fight against the American invasion, I guess, but I don't think resistance against the American-installed regime is what you're actually talking about.

Anyway, all in all, the above facts make me very dubious about the usefulness of gun possession in regards to resisting a dictatorship.

[yossarian22c]

I notice that the debate swirled around how effective, or not, civilians with guns would be against the military but nobody made the case for why that isn't something we'd have to ever be worried about in America, the government turning tyrannical and using the military against us like we're seeing in Myanmar.

I guess it's kind of difficult for the Democrats who want to ban guns to make that case after all the things they just got done saying about former President Trump.

Standing in the street with an AR-15 against the American military is a death sentence. If they want you dead you'll be hit with a drone strike before you get to fire a shot with your rifle.

If your belief is that civilians need to be well armed enough to form an armed resistance to the military then you should be advocating for the legalization of grenades, surface to air missiles, anit-tank weapons, and heavy machine guns. The majority of Democrats are calling for restrictions on semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. Not a full gun ban. Pistols, shot guns, and hunting rifles would all still be around and you should be able to pretend those will keep you as safe from a tyrannical government as an AR-15. Because in reality both are equally effective in any conceivable armed domestic conflict.

[ScottF]

People like to strawman the idea of rebel civilian forces marching in the streets and directly facing off against an existing US military as a way of demonstrating how silly the 2a origin argument is.

In the beginning, an armed rebellion would attack the edges, infrastructure, and supply chain/logistics of the occupying force. You don't fight tanks, drones and missiles with assault rifles. But you would definitely need them for guerilla tactics to target and cripple the support structure controlling them.

You can argue that we shouldn't have a country whose constitution would even allow that possibility, but that's a different discussion.

[yossarian22c]

You can argue that we shouldn't have a country whose constitution would even allow that possibility, but that's a different discussion.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I would argue that the 2nd amendment was written so that local militias could be established that would play a role like the minute men did to bolster the armed forces in a conflict like the war for independence. I really don't see how people read that and come up with individuals should be armed to possibly overthrow the free state.

[yossarian22c]

People like to strawman the idea of rebel civilian forces marching in the streets and directly facing off against an existing US military as a way of demonstrating how silly the 2a origin argument is.

In the beginning, an armed rebellion would attack the edges, infrastructure, and supply chain/logistics of the occupying force. You don't fight tanks, drones and missiles with assault rifles. But you would definitely need them for guerilla tactics to target and cripple the support structure controlling them.
...

So they need explosives and some small arms to attack soft targets. The explosives are already illegal so this argument kind of falls flat. Also I don't agree the second amendment means that people should be armed to defend themselves from the state but rather they should be armed to help fight an invasion by foreign powers.

Some arms are already restricted. We don't allow people to mount 50 caliber machine guns on trucks and drive around. Nor do we allow any kind of fully automatic rifle or gun. In my mind the only purpose of an AR-15 instead of a pistol, hunting rifle, or shotgun is that an AR-15 is a much better weapon to use in a mass shooting.

Banning them won't stop mass shootings, but they will lower the body count. I really don't understand the rational behind we need keep AR-15s in case we want to fight an insurgency against the US government. That is not what the constitution says nor is it what it intended.

[cherrypoptart]

https://humanevents.com/2022/08/30/breaking-biden-warns-brave-right-wing-americans-if-you-want-to-fight-against-the-country-you-need-an-f-15/

“And for those brave right-wing Americans who say it’s all about keeping Americans independent and safe, you want to fight against the country? You need an F-15, you need something a little more than a gun,” Biden told the crowd, referring to the second amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------

It's sadly funny Biden saying this right after the Taliban beat us without any F-15s or air power at all.

Besides the fact that he's wrong and the Taliban just proved it and rubbed it in his face, is this really a Presidential thing to say? It's like Biden is trying to goad people into proving how wrong he is after the Taliban just did it. Real patriotic Americans won't take the bait of course, but it's irresponsible to offer it nonetheless. It doesn't even make any sense anyway. Is Biden saying he would use F-15s against Americans in America? The guy has said some stupid and dangerous things but this has got to be right there at the top of all of them. Thankfully, just about everyone ignores the ramblings of this lunatic including the press which does it's level best to cover for him lest the people find out the emperor hasn't lost his clothes but he's definitely lost his mind.

[Wayward Son]

Real patriotic Americans are also not against making it a bit harder for violent people to obtain AR-15s, even if it makes it a bit harder for them to get one, too--but that's another topic. 

What Biden was pointing out is the ridiculous claim that AR-15's could be used to fight against, and defeat, the U.S. government if it became a tyranny.  If our government really wanted to suppress it's people, it could use all sorts or military equipment (F-15s, 50-calibre machine guns, attack helicopters, napalm, nerve gas, etc.) that would make the difference between having an AR-15 or a single-shot hunting rifle negligible.  Stocking up on AR-15s won't change the tide if the U.S. government was determined to suppress the population and willing to use all of it's military arsenal against us.  So making sure that everyone has quick and easy access to AR-15s is negligible to protecting our freedom, too.

I do not believe he was suggesting that he would use F-15s against our population.  If he did so, I would call for his immediate impeachment.  Fortunately, I can't think of any recent President that ever called for the use of the U.S. military against our citizens--except maybe one? 

[msquared]

Or maybe a Senator who threatens riots if other certain ex Presidents are indited.

[TheDrake]

https://humanevents.com/2022/08/30/breaking-biden-warns-brave-right-wing-americans-if-you-want-to-fight-against-the-country-you-need-an-f-15/

“And for those brave right-wing Americans who say it’s all about keeping Americans independent and safe, you want to fight against the country? You need an F-15, you need something a little more than a gun,” Biden told the crowd, referring to the second amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------

It's sadly funny Biden saying this right after the Taliban beat us without any F-15s or air power at all.

Besides the fact that he's wrong and the Taliban just proved it and rubbed it in his face, is this really a Presidential thing to say? It's like Biden is trying to goad people into proving how wrong he is after the Taliban just did it. Real patriotic Americans won't take the bait of course, but it's irresponsible to offer it nonetheless. It doesn't even make any sense anyway. Is Biden saying he would use F-15s against Americans in America? The guy has said some stupid and dangerous things but this has got to be right there at the top of all of them. Thankfully, just about everyone ignores the ramblings of this lunatic including the press which does it's level best to cover for him lest the people find out the emperor hasn't lost his clothes but he's definitely lost his mind.

Do you think maybe there might be more motivation to wipe American rebels from the doorstep of the US government, more so than Afghan rebels on the other side of the Earth? A sufficiently motivated person with a stick can probably chase a US soldier away from a drainage ditch in Zimbabwe. That's a league away from an existential threat. Let me point out, for hopefully the last time, the South had cannons, machine guns, explosives, rifles, and pistols. And they lost. Partly because Sherman was willing to burn entire cities to the ground in order to win and punish the rebels. We didn't want to genocide the Afghan people in order to win, in fact we didn't even want to keep plowing money into their corrupt government. But Americans would be a lot bloodier trying to decide who gets control of our flag and make the rules.

Believe me when I say that F-15s (a little dated, but okay) would absolutely bomb Texas if it seceded and taking the primary assembly plant for nuclear weapons with them.

[cherrypoptart]

That's fighting the last war. Or even a war over a hundred years ago.

We can see in Ukraine hints of what the new wars will be like.

[Wayward Son]

Yeah, I could see the Russians supporting the Texan Separatists. 

Because after a few weeks, they would need the support.

After all, how effective will those AR-15 be against Abram tanks?

You think the Ukrainians are stopping T-14 Armata tanks with AK-47's?

[cherrypoptart]

Drones.

[Wayward Son]

Unfortunately, there is no right to bear drones (or it is bare drones?  )

[msquared]

Put a gun on a drone.  Oh yeah, the military already has those.

[TheDrake]

That's fighting the last war. Or even a war over a hundred years ago.

We can see in Ukraine hints of what the new wars will be like.

Speaking of Ukraine...

Handguns are illegal except for target shooting, those who hold concealed carry permits, and handguns awarded for service.[1] Concealed carry licenses are available, but are not normally issued unless a threat to life is present and can be proven.[2]

A license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;
has no criminal record;
has no history of domestic violence;
has no mental illness or history of mental illness;
has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).
Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe.

Wow, how are they defending themselves with restricted gun ownership!

[cherrypoptart]

The better question would be about gun control in Russia. Their media seems to have fake newsed the populace enough that there isn't widespread support for overthrowing Putin, but if there was such support would there be enough citizen owned firepower to back it up?

Our gun laws aren't primarily to fend off an invasion although they might be useful for that. They are mainly for overthrowing a tyrannical government like Putin's. If a U.S. President tried to stay in power past his second term the way Putin added on more terms after his had ended, that's when the 2nd Amendment would come into play. There is a deterrent effect as well. Maybe all of our Presidents have just been of the highest moral character so would never think about staying in power but the 2nd Amendment ensures if the thought ever does enter their mind it exits just as quickly.

[yossarian22c]

… If a U.S. President tried to stay in power past his second term the way Putin added on more terms after his had ended, that's when the 2nd Amendment would come into play. There is a deterrent effect as well. Maybe all of our Presidents have just been of the highest moral character so would never think about staying in power but the 2nd Amendment ensures if the thought ever does enter their mind it exits just as quickly.

Tell that to Trump. He tried everything to overstay his first term. The thought still hasn’t left his mind.

[Seriati]

Real patriotic Americans are also not against making it a bit harder for violent people to obtain AR-15s, even if it makes it a bit harder for them to get one, too--but that's another topic. 

Sure they are.  If you're in favor of banning a rifle for a largely imaginary reason then you're actively using sophistry to undermine the civil rights of American citizens.  Ergo you're not patriotic. 

The number of murder victims killed by AR-15s is small.  More people are murdered by people wielding blunt objects - (bats and hammers, for example) every year than are murdered by all rifles (of which AR-15s are only part).  50-100% more people are murdered by physical attacks with fists and other body parts.  https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

When you consider that there are estimated to be over 20 million AR-15s in America the idea that you're doing anything but virtue signaling or trying to open a slippery slope to ban all guns with this demand is provably false.  Eliminating every AR-15 will have effectively a zero percent change on the murder rate, yet will remove a weapon that 20 million people (minus what 20 or less in an average year) reasonably own.

What Biden was pointing out is the ridiculous claim that AR-15's could be used to fight against, and defeat, the U.S. government if it became a tyranny.

No, he's just lying to try and convince low-information voters that it's a ridiculous claim.  Here's what actually is a ridiculous claim - that removing 20 million rifles for a zero percent impact on murder rates has no impact on the ability of that population to resist tyranny.  In fact, the argument that 20 million rifles in the hands of the citizens of a country would NOT have an impact on the ability of those citizens to resist tyranny is so far beyond any concept of logic as to be absurd on its face.  You seem to think that owning an AR-15 magically grants the power to kill hundreds of civilians but that what the soldiers of an abusive government would be immune to its bullets?

If our government really wanted to suppress it's people, it could use all sorts or military equipment (F-15s, 50-calibre machine guns, attack helicopters, napalm, nerve gas, etc.) that would make the difference between having an AR-15 or a single-shot hunting rifle negligible.

Lol.  If our government wanted to massacre its citizens (which generally doesn't bode well for its ability to continue to produce things) you are correct that it has access to mass casualty weapons and even weapons of mass destruction.  Of course in many cases they'd be destroying their own communities, making them toxic or radioactive and generally wiping out their own family and friends.  But sure they could do it.

If Sleepy Joe decides to take out the Ultra-Magas exactly how effective is it going to be to use weapons of mass destruction?  Are there really enough progressive crazies in NY to let Joe nuke Florida without repercussions?  Seriously doubt even you believe that.  His own supporters are going to limit the abuses and atrocities he can commit because they believe they are the good guys.

Whatever sleepy Joe says, he knows that if he actually gave that order it would mean street by street fighting, and there's nothing wrong with any firearm in that situation.

Stocking up on AR-15s won't change the tide if the U.S. government was determined to suppress the population and willing to use all of it's military arsenal against us.  So making sure that everyone has quick and easy access to AR-15s is negligible to protecting our freedom, too.

Sure, and the full might of the US government means exactly nothing if the Empire sends a Death Star to kill us either, so we should throw out all of our country level weapons.  As any person of logic understands, there are hundreds of thousands of scenarios that don't rise to the government choosing to massacre its entire civilian population and in virtually all of them, 20 million AR-15s would have a significant impact. 

I do not believe he was suggesting that he would use F-15s against our population.  If he did so, I would call for his immediate impeachment.

Don't believe you.  He's crossed more lines than you specifically said Trump was crossing and you haven't called for impeachment.  Nope, you'd be on here explaining how the F-15 bombing run was the only reasonable response to the situation and it was really those that were killed that were at fault.

Fortunately, I can't think of any recent President that ever called for the use of the U.S. military against our citizens--except maybe one? 

Sort of true, President Obama expressly ordered military drone strikes despite having full knowledge that US citizens were likely to be killed in the strikes (and in fact were so killed).

And you played the progressive trick of limiting the argument just to the one part of the government - the military - when we have multiple agencies that have been militarized in whole or in part.  Both Biden and Obama deliberately weaponized multiple governmental agencies to act in military style engagements against political opponents. There's no legitimate excuse for the way in which those agencies are conducting themselves today.  I mean seriously, raids with heavily armed agents, in overwhelming numbers, in dawn assaults, including with frogmen against primarily senior citizens that just happen to be political opponents of the regime but that pose zero threat.  Intentionally seize attorney client materials and reviewing them deliberately knowing full well they can't use them in a trial but that they can leak them to the media (illegally) and will never "identify the culprit"? 

Every abuse by this government is on the Democrat voters who delude themselves into thinking its evil Republican bogey men trying to take their rights, when its actually autocratic and fascist Democrats they voted for that do so.

Truth is the progressive left hates that Americans have actual rights and their number one goal is to eliminate actual rights in favor of "created" rights that in reality are limitations and weapons to oppress others.  Pretending to do good while doing it is just a lie progressives tell themselves to relieve cognitive dissonance.

[cherrypoptart]

There is also the relatively new issue of guns being necessary not to overthrow a tyrannical government that has gone too far in abusing its power but instead for protection against a government that has gone in the entirely opposite direction, refusing to use its power to protect good citizens from bad ones. We saw that in the BLM riots and we're seeing it now in the wholesale release of violent criminals along with open borders. We see it in the calls to defund and abolish the police and to hamstring them so they can't do their jobs and protect law abiding citizens from dangerous criminals.

[msquared]

Or in the riotous mob that tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power on Jan 6 2021. Or in the threats by certain politicians if they do not get their way.

[Tom]

There is also the relatively new issue of guns being necessary not to overthrow a tyrannical government that has gone too far in abusing its power but instead for protection against a government that has gone in the entirely opposite direction...

Is this a vocal defense of Breonna Taylor's boyfriend?

[NobleHunter]

There is also the relatively new issue of guns being necessary not to overthrow a tyrannical government that has gone too far in abusing its power but instead for protection against a government that has gone in the entirely opposite direction, refusing to use its power to protect good citizens from bad ones. We saw that in the BLM riots and we're seeing it now in the wholesale release of violent criminals along with open borders. We see it in the calls to defund and abolish the police and to hamstring them so they can't do their jobs and protect law abiding citizens from dangerous criminals.

You're missing a step. There's plenty of evidence the cops already don't protect law abiding citizens. Defunding the police is just suggesting that citizens stop paying for the privilege.

[msquared]

Just ask the sleeping unarmed black man in Columbus OH who was shot dead in his bed less than 2 seconds after a bunch of cops burst down the door. That was just this week.

[Tom]

The idea that police protect law-abiding citizens is actually one of those pervasive but easily disproven myths. Literally all you have to do is look at the statistics.

It is for this reason that I have always been at least slightly sympathetic to the "I need a gun to defend myself" argument, even though I am completely unsympathetic to the "I am a delusional white guy who needs a gun to protect me from the gubmint when I decide to start shooting at the Revenooers" argument. However, at the end of the day, I think the costs to society are high enough when you start expecting people to engage in an arms race for self-defense -- especially if the concept of self-defense extends to property -- that I'm willing to concede that an unlimited right to proactive self-defense should not exist.

The police don't bother to protect people, but that doesn't mean that you get to own a tank and a grenade launcher to protect yourself and your family. It just means that you have to acknowledge that your safety is never and can never be wholly guaranteed.

[TheDrake]

The better question would be about gun control in Russia. Their media seems to have fake newsed the populace enough that there isn't widespread support for overthrowing Putin, but if there was such support would there be enough citizen owned firepower to back it up?

Our gun laws aren't primarily to fend off an invasion although they might be useful for that. They are mainly for overthrowing a tyrannical government like Putin's. If a U.S. President tried to stay in power past his second term the way Putin added on more terms after his had ended, that's when the 2nd Amendment would come into play. There is a deterrent effect as well. Maybe all of our Presidents have just been of the highest moral character so would never think about staying in power but the 2nd Amendment ensures if the thought ever does enter their mind it exits just as quickly.

2A was absolutely designed to fend off an invasion. The militia wasn't there to keep Jefferson in line, it was there to stop King George without maintaining a standing army. As for Russia, I wonder what else widespread support could do other than shooting their oppressors? A national strike could certainly be effective. Widespread support would mean that loads of Russian Army Officers would be against Putin as well, and have the hardware to remove him. Widespread support would mean that the gears of government could clang to a halt. Without shooting anyone in the face. South Africans were not heavily armed, didn't have a right to carry guns under apartheid, and won. Cyber attacks are more effective than toting a semi-automatic rifle.

[rightleft22]

In the resent past political change in Russia occurred with protest not armed uprising. When the Russian mothers and grandmothers march - change happens.

[Wayward Son]

Quote from: Wayward Son on August 31, 2022, 04:45:19 PM

Real patriotic Americans are also not against making it a bit harder for violent people to obtain AR-15s, even if it makes it a bit harder for them to get one, too--but that's another topic. 

Sure they are.  If you're in favor of banning a rifle for a largely imaginary reason then you're actively using sophistry to undermine the civil rights of American citizens.  Ergo you're not patriotic.

Except I never said that.  I said I wanted to make it a bit harder for people to obtain that gun.  Because while most people who want to kill someone will use whatever weapon is available--knife, blunt object, a pistol, even a hunting rifle--those who want to kill multiple scores of people want the most efficient weapon possible for doing so.  And besides, it looks cool, like Rambo or SWAT.   Do you think it is just coincidence that the many of the most recent mass shooters--Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Uvalde--chose military rifles for their slaughtering?

At the least, we should find out why people want an AR-15 instead of more innocuous rifle for self-defense.  And if this makes it a bit harder to obtain one--well, that little inconvenience might just save the life of your kid.

Here's what actually is a ridiculous claim - that removing 20 million rifles for a zero percent impact on murder rates has no impact on the ability of that population to resist tyranny.  In fact, the argument that 20 million rifles in the hands of the citizens of a country would NOT have an impact on the ability of those citizens to resist tyranny is so far beyond any concept of logic as to be absurd on its face.  You seem to think that owning an AR-15 magically grants the power to kill hundreds of civilians but that what the soldiers of an abusive government would be immune to its bullets?

Incorrect and a strawman argument.

Obviously, since people are killed by AR-15's, the murder rate for them is not zero.

And while AR-15's would be effective in killing soldiers, it is unlikely that they would be effective in overthrowing the government and defeating the military.  As the people of Ukraine are finding out.

If our government wanted to massacre its citizens (which generally doesn't bode well for its ability to continue to produce things) you are correct that it has access to mass casualty weapons and even weapons of mass destruction.  Of course in many cases they'd be destroying their own communities, making them toxic or radioactive and generally wiping out their own family and friends.  But sure they could do it.

If Sleepy Joe decides to take out the Ultra-Magas exactly how effective is it going to be to use weapons of mass destruction?  Are there really enough progressive crazies in NY to let Joe nuke Florida without repercussions?  Seriously doubt even you believe that.  His own supporters are going to limit the abuses and atrocities he can commit because they believe they are the good guys.

First off, Joe Biden isn't suggesting using the military on the civilian population.  He was legally and duly elected President by the people of the United States.  Why would he need to attack the population unless there was an illegal insurrection?  And if "Sleepy Joe" was going to listen to his liberal supporters, he wouldn't be much of a tyrant, and wouldn't need to be overthrown with AR-15s, would he?

Second, why are you limiting the military response to WMD?  There are a variety of weapons--attack helicopters, high-caliber machine guns, tanks, armored personnel vehicles, etc.--that would be very effective against AR-15s and would be far more limited against regular civilians.  Those are the weapons I was talking about.  Ones that wouldn't massacre entire civilian populations.

Both Biden and Obama deliberately weaponized multiple governmental agencies to act in military style engagements against political opponents. There's no legitimate excuse for the way in which those agencies are conducting themselves today.  I mean seriously, raids with heavily armed agents, in overwhelming numbers, in dawn assaults, including with frogmen against primarily senior citizens that just happen to be political opponents of the regime but that pose zero threat.  Intentionally seize attorney client materials and reviewing them deliberately knowing full well they can't use them in a trial but that they can leak them to the media (illegally) and will never "identify the culprit"?

However, remember that there is no legitimate excuse for organized attacks against these law enforcement agents during peace time.  If these agencies are so corrupt that they can get away with murder, then the entire government is corrupt and must be removed.  But then, if you have to resort to violence to change the government, you are talking about an armed insurrection and/or a civil war.  Something like that requires a very high bar, one that we have not reached yet, in either in Trump or Biden administrations.  And certainly not from "Intentionally seize attorney client materials and reviewing them deliberately knowing full well they can't use them in a trial but that they can leak them to the media (illegally)..." even if that were true. 

In fact, that is exactly why normal, patriotic Americans are afraid of the MAGA crowd.  That they will find some lame incident, blow it completely out of proportion, and then use that as an excuse to start killing people "in the name of FREEDOM!!!!!"    That this overblown rhetoric will make some people feel justified into starting shooting other Americans.  That these lies will enrage a crowd so that they might--I don't know--attack the Capitol and threaten the lives of our duly-elected Congressmen.

AR-15s are a symbol of this sick mind-set of those who believe their beliefs trump our laws and the facts and that they have both the right and power to enforce those beliefs on the rest of America.  They think that having AR-15s gives them the power to do whatever they want, and the Constitution and the Courts be damned.  They think that military rifles are all they need to overthrow our nation.

Biden is just reminding them that they are wrong.

[TheDeamon]

Standing in the street with an AR-15 against the American military is a death sentence. If they want you dead you'll be hit with a drone strike before you get to fire a shot with your rifle.

If you're "standing in the street" openly brandishing a weapon in opposition to the American Government for all to see while it has US Military backing, you pretty much deserve a Darwin Award.

You seem to have a very poor conception about how most people with said guns would be going about conducting their armed rebellion.

Idiots are called idiots for a reason.