The other reason we have the second Amendment in the US is so we can protect ourselves if the government turns into 1943 Germany. Bennito Mussolini had a famous quote: I would prefer 50,000 rifles to 50,000 votes. Mao: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. These were two of the most infamous tyrants in history. Allowing common citizens to maintain arms is a safety catch.
Freedom USA
Sort:
The criminals can be neutralised by law enforcement. And in many cases, said “law abiding citizens” get into schools and start exercising their “right”.
My definition of "law abiding citizen" may be different to yours. And if criminals can be neutralized by law enforcement, then why haven't they been in recent news?
Maybe the guns aren’t the problem, and maybe it’s the laws and management that the USA. Obviously we’re doing something wrong..
0
#66
BasixWhiteBoy hat geschrieben:
Maybe the guns aren’t the problem, and maybe it’s the laws and management that the USA. Obviously we’re doing something wrong..
too little guns, you guys need more guns
theeldest1 wrote:
The other reason we have the second Amendment in the US is so we can protect ourselves if the government turns into 1943 Germany. Bennito Mussolini had a famous quote: I would prefer 50,000 rifles to 50,000 votes. Mao: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. These were two of the most infamous tyrants in history. Allowing common citizens to maintain arms is a safety catch.
If the government turns authoritarian, guns aren’t doing a thing against it. The government exercises “soft power” over our lives. It can discourage things and promote things, and if the US turns into the Soviet Union, there’s not much guns are going to do.
The government controls the flow of information. China, for example, has banned chrome. It also controls things like your electricity and water. Fun. If you’re not getting to join other people who dislike the government, your firing a gun will just get you arrested.
If push comes to shove, said authoritarian regime sends a team to your house. You cannot compete with trained soldiers who have access to better equipment and are better coordinated than your team. That assumes you have a team at all, but your neighbours won’t be rushing to defend you if the government shows up at your doorstep. Chances are, they’ll remain bystanders.
That’s in less populated areas. In highly populated areas, the government utilises its considerable power over money. 30 million people with guns are nothing if food supplies and transportation is cut off.
Basically, if the government decides to oppress you, chances are you won’t know it or see the situation as desperate enough to launch an armed resistance. If that does happen, chances are you’re cooked.
theeldest1 wrote:
My definition of "law abiding citizen" may be different to yours. And if criminals can be neutralized by law enforcement, then why haven't they been in recent news?
My point is that seemingly ordinary people go into schools and exercise their right.
And the reason that hasn’t happened is because the US is a civilised country which does not eliminate everyone in encounters.
0
#69
AG120502 hat geschrieben:
theeldest1 wrote:
The other reason we have the second Amendment in the US is so we can protect ourselves if the government turns into 1943 Germany. Bennito Mussolini had a famous quote: I would prefer 50,000 rifles to 50,000 votes. Mao: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. These were two of the most infamous tyrants in history. Allowing common citizens to maintain arms is a safety catch.
If the government turns authoritarian, guns aren’t doing a thing against it. The government exercises “soft power” over our lives. It can discourage things and promote things, and if the US turns into the Soviet Union, there’s not much guns are going to do.
The government controls the flow of information. China, for example, has banned chrome. It also controls things like your electricity and water. Fun. If you’re not getting to join other people who dislike the government, your firing a gun will just get you arrested.
If push comes to shove, said authoritarian regime sends a team to your house. You cannot compete with trained soldiers who have access to better equipment and are better coordinated than your team. That assumes you have a team at all, but your neighbours won’t be rushing to defend you if the government shows up at your doorstep. Chances are, they’ll remain bystanders.
That’s in less populated areas. In highly populated areas, the government utilises its considerable power over money. 30 million people with guns are nothing if food supplies and transportation is cut off.
Basically, if the government decides to oppress you, chances are you won’t know it or see the situation as desperate enough to launch an armed resistance. If that does happen, chances are you’re cooked.
2.8mil armed forces vs 300 million americans, not really fair is it?
Basix is right, the guns themselves aren't the problem. A gun is a tool, it can be used to deadly effect... but so can cars. And knives. And just about anything. I mean, should we take away cars because thousands perish every year due to crashes and "road-rage" incidents? No.
0
#71
theeldest1 hat geschrieben:
Basix is right, the guns themselves aren't the problem. A gun is a tool, it can be used to deadly effect... but so can cars. And knives. And just about anything. I mean, should we take away cars because thousands perish every year due to crashes and "road-rage" incidents? No.
yes, take away Every lethal item and fists will be a new problem
What I think we need is a cultural revolution that teaches young people to respect tools and respect life. Too much of our media and entertainment glorifies violence and we should stop that. If we didn't put these violent ideas into the heads of our youth, I would guarantee we wouldn't see as much as we do now.
ImweirdinAT wrote:
BasixWhiteBoy hat geschrieben:
Maybe the guns aren’t the problem, and maybe it’s the laws and management that the USA. Obviously we’re doing something wrong..
too little guns, you guys need more guns
Be careful what you wish for. That only means more harm from them and gun deaths, which we already have enough of.
2.8 million soldiers are more than enough.
1. They’re trained. They’re better.
2. They can coordinate better.
3. They’ll have advantages because of their equipment and the fog of war being less for their side.
300 million Americans? I think you’re overestimating their capabilities. I think you’re overestimating an average human’s capabilities. You hear what the government tells you to. You eat what the government lets you. You don’t go out and rebel. You don’t put your family at risk. And if you do rebel, I don’t think many people will be inspired and join your resistance. Your organised opposition is already bad because the government and the military have better organisation. Nobody actually wants to fight against impossible odds. Most people won’t even think they need to fight.
0
#76
AG120502 hat geschrieben:
million soldiers are more than enough.
1. They’re trained. They’re better.
2. They can coordinate better.
3. They’ll have advantages because of their equipment and the fog of war being less for their side.
300 million Americans? I think you’re overestimating their capabilities. I think you’re overestimating an average human’s capabilities. You hear what the government tells you to. You eat what the government lets you. You don’t go out and rebel. You don’t put your family at risk. And if you do rebel, I don’t think many people will be inspired and join your resistance. Your organised opposition is already bad because the government and the military have better organisation. Nobody actually wants to fight against impossible odds. Most people won’t even think they need to fight.
10 million veterans? and Will all special forces even comply?
I don’t believe the veterans will be a big threat.
The country is the government’s house. It can cut off your electricity. Nobody fights when their mom could have her medical equipment just stop working. Nobody fights when the food might stop being on the table. Nobody fights because there’s no reason to fight at all. After all, if an armed resistance began to defy the orders of the government, the participants would effectively be separatists, and no nation goes easy on separatists.
0
#79
AG120502 hat geschrieben:
I don’t believe the veterans will be a big threat.
The country is the government’s house. It can cut off your electricity. Nobody fights when their mom could have her medical equipment just stop working. Nobody fights when the food might stop being on the table. Nobody fights because there’s no reason to fight at all. After all, if an armed resistance began to defy the orders of the government, the participants would effectively be separatists, and no nation goes easy on separatists.
Youre grossly underestimating he power of lets say 150 million americans that can fight
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
There's a saying: When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns. What that means is that if you make a law restricting guns, criminals won't respect that law or any other law. So all you're doing is removing the law-abiding citizens way of protecting themselves.