Do we really need guns?

[Fenixgoon]

I believe he started out saying that it's ridiculous to think that small arms are going to keep the military at bay when they're more likely to be used for hunting than anything else, and then pointed out that regardless of whether there could be an overall "victory" of the US Military fighting against US citizens in the US, someone running around with an AR-15 and a .45 is going to be red splatter, if and when a US armored division comes rolling through town.

I seriously doubt US soldiers who aren't simply psychopaths would follow orders to fight inside the US, but that's right now. In the future, depending on how much Americans stay divided and think of people they disagree with as "Others", it could happen.

One thing is for sure. It's a hell of a lot easier to put down a rebellion in your own country than it is to put one down when men and material are on the other side of the world, and your average soldier doesn't speak the language of the natives. Just being able to understand verbal communications in a pitched street battle is pretty valuable on the side putting down a rebellion. You have professional soldiers speaking quietly with satellites and tech, and rebels screaming because you can bet the government would turn off ye olde internet access and the electrical grid.

Now add-in the fact that intelligence is a lot easier to gather when the people you're fighting speak, act, eat, drink, recreate, worship, and look pretty much just like you.

Factoring in those two things, I believe that you have to think of any rebellion inside the US with the Civil War in mind, rather than the American Revolution or Iraq. Not to mention that Britain was fighting a world war when it was also fighting the American revolution, and the American rebels had real support from -gasp- France and Spain by proxy. In essence, the US beat Britain here at home, but for Britain, this was just a colony giving them a bunch of shit. Britain maintained a lot of their Caribbean colonies and India even with France and Spain fighting against them. And don't forget that they still gave the US a bunch of shit, burning the capitol in 1812 for the giggles.

Every time I see the "we have to keep the gub'mint from tyrannizing us", I realize that the person defending gun ownership is shooting (pun intended!) right past the most logical and reasonable reasons for protection of gun ownership and going straight into paranoid delusions that they've been trained to focus on - that they're modern day American patriots who are going to protect liberty and freedom from tyranny.

Seriously, I don't want to grab guns (or am I just saying that as an Agenda21 Obamabot plant?!?) but if you asked me to defend the second amendment in the most expansive way possible, I'd say that most people don't use their guns to kill other people, and target shooting is fun, while hunting can also be fun and damn well useful to feed yourself. The whole "but the military is comin' with black helicopters" thing is the last point I'd bring up, because gross.

while i doubt many people seriously buy firearms to defend themselves from the government as an individual, the text of the 2nd amendment indicates that the founding fathers did not want the federal government to completely oppress the states. "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State.."

the constitution addresses what the *federal* government can/can't do for a reason.

 

[nickqt]

while i doubt many people seriously buy firearms to defend themselves from the government as an individual, the text of the 2nd amendment indicates that the founding fathers did not want the federal government to completely oppress the states. "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State.."

the constitution addresses what the *federal* government can/can't do for a reason.

The Framers of the Constitution (a whole other political animal than the Founding Fathers) were blissfully unaware of satellites and GPS-guided munitions.

My point was the guy who pointed out that it's silly to go straight to the "defending liberty" argument has a very valid point. 99% of US guns aren't used to defend liberty from a tyrannical US government. Not that they couldn't be in the future, though. I'm not discounting the reasoning stated in the second amendment, just saying present-day context is a lot more relevant than an abstract idea that most people shrug off as paranoia or delusion.

 

[Chiropteran]

You know who was killed by a gun?

Hitler.

You lunatics don't even realize what you are suggesting. If we didn't have guns in this world, HITLER would still be alive. You are literally suggesting that the world would be a better place if Hitler was still around.

 

[davmat787]

Yes, I need guns.

I can't maintain my iron sight skills or teach gun safety to the youngsters without them.

Let me know when the gun control crowd finally proposes meaningful legislation that will actually address the problems that lie at the root of gun violence.

And besides, as tragic as even a single murder via gun violence is I think we are actually not as bad as many think when you consider there are 300 million firearms in the U.S.

 

[ivwshane]

You know who was killed by a gun?

Hitler.

You lunatics don't even realize what you are suggesting. If we didn't have guns in this world, HITLER would still be alive. You are literally suggesting that the world would be a better place if Hitler was still around.

Uh if we didn't have guns hitler wouldn't either.

 

[etrigan420]

Let me know when the gun control crowd finally proposes meaningful legislation that will actually address the problems that lie at the root of gun violence.

We, as gun owners, should be the one's doing this.

Otherwise we get things like I594, magazine restrictions, and "Assault Weapons Ban"s, which you and I both know does fuck all to slow or stem gun violence.

From their perspective, *something* has to be done about it, and us gun owners standing around decrying how "a few mass killings are simply the price we pay for freedom" is not going to cut it for too much longer.

I have no doubt that people will eventually get tired of the mass shootings and we'll go full Australia.

 

[davmat787]

We, as gun owners, should be the one's doing this.

Otherwise we get things like I594, magazine restrictions, and "Assault Weapons Ban"s, which you and I both know does fuck all to slow or stem gun violence.

From their perspective, *something* has to be done about it, and us gun owners standing around decrying how "a few mass killings are simply the price we pay for freedom" is not going to cut it for too much longer.

I have no doubt that people will eventually get tired of the mass shootings and we'll go full Australia.

You are probably correct, but I feel the issue is too venomous right now for gun advocates to be heard by the gun control crowd in the manner you suggest. Lack of knowledge is also a barrier to meaningful discussion of potential legislation.

It would be better if it could be done, the knee jerk and emotional based legislation that often comes up also does not give me confidence that the gun control advocates really want a meaningful discussion and resolution over feel good legislation that instead punishes legal and law abiding gun owners who aren't the problem anyway.

 

[ivwshane]

We, as gun owners, should be the one's doing this.

Otherwise we get things like I594, magazine restrictions, and "Assault Weapons Ban"s, which you and I both know does fuck all to slow or stem gun violence.

From their perspective, *something* has to be done about it, and us gun owners standing around decrying how "a few mass killings are simply the price we pay for freedom" is not going to cut it for too much longer.

I have no doubt that people will eventually get tired of the mass shootings and we'll go full Australia.

I've made a similar point and it just falls on deaf ears and excuses. Hell look at the very next post after yours and he already has excuses at the ready why something can't be done.

 

[cubby1223]

If it were to come to armed rebellion, how effective do you think your collection of firearms will be against the weaponry of the United States military forces? They have tanks, helicopters, jets, submarines and nuclear warheads... and you think the threat of some Berettas and AR-15s is keeping them at bay? That's delusional paranoia so thick and rich I want to bottle it and sell it as pancake syrup.

Ummm, if you haven't noticed, fighters no longer line up in formation on an open battle-field anymore

 

[davmat787]

I've made a similar point and it just falls on dead ears and excuses. He'll look at the very next post after yours and he already has excuses at the ready why something can't be done.

Identifying previous issues that were barriers or showstoppers for previous attempts to discuss meaningful reform is not laying down excuses.

Your abrasive and immature schtick you have developed makes it impossible to discuss and compromise.

I've no evidence you possess even the basic knowledge regarding guns in the U.S. that is a prerequisite to meaningful conversation as well. An example of this is how quickly the AR-15 was demonized and many wanted to ban it or enacted legislation that required ridiculous changes, like the pistol grip issue. Why ban the AR-15 but the AR-10 or Ruger semi auto .223s are never mentioned?

And based on your body of work here I have zero faith you can keep emotions at bay.

Those aren't excuses, but it doesn't matter anyway its not like we're going to hammer out a bill and send them to the hill.

 

[ivwshane]

Identifying previous issues that were barriers or showstoppers for previous attempts to discuss meaningful reform is not laying down excuses.

Your abrasive and immature schtick you have developed makes it impossible to discuss and compromise.

I've no evidence you possess even the basic knowledge regarding guns in the U.S. that is a prerequisite to meaningful conversation as well. An example of this is how quickly the AR-15 was demonized and many wanted to ban it or enacted legislation that required ridiculous changes, like the pistol grip issue. Why ban the AR-15 but the AR-10 or Ruger semi auto .223s are never mentioned?

And based on your body of work here I have zero faith you can keep emotions at bay.

Those aren't excuses, but it doesn't matter anyway its not like we're going to hammer out a bill and send them to the hill.

Lol! You got me! You totally didn't just prove my point!


/s

 

[davmat787]

Lol! You got me! You totally didn't just prove my point!


/s

But I didn't prove your point, and my long winded reply spells out exactly why.

Your using the term "excuses" erroneously, it simply doesn't apply. Pointing out that a lack of firearm knowledge has previously caused problems when debating the issue is not an excuse.

If we're disagreeing on this how can we even begin a discussion?

This is why my original reply was so pessimistic.

 

[ivwshane]

But I didn't prove your point, and my long winded reply spells out exactly why.

Your using the term "excuses" erroneously, it simply doesn't apply. Pointing out that a lack of firearm knowledge has previously caused problems when debating the issue is not an excuse.

If we're disagreeing on this how can we even begin a discussion?

This is why my original reply was so pessimistic.

Oh but you certainly did!

Excuse #1:

the issue is too venomous right now for gun advocates to be heard by the gun control crowd in the manner you suggest.

Excuse #2:

I've no evidence you possess even the basic knowledge regarding guns in the U.S. that is a prerequisite to meaningful conversation as well.

Excuse #1 is the default response by gun nutters. As if there is some magical period of time between too soon - before the next tragedy.

Excuse # 2 is the standard retort when excuse # 1 doesn't stop the discussion. It's a particularly odd argument to make here when the poster and I were saying that it's pro gun advocates that need to be the ones coming up with solutions otherwise the pro gun control crowd will put forth ideas they don't like.

The only barriers you've pointed out were the ones gun nutters put up anytime the topic of guns come up.

Do a search in this forum about guns and the pattern will be quite clear.

Perhaps you could levy another personal attack on me as to why you can't come up with solutions

 

[cubby1223]

I've made a similar point and it just falls on deaf ears and excuses. Hell look at the very next post after yours and he already has excuses at the ready why something can't be done.

A comprehensive solution is not going to come from any single person. It will take several people not only with extensive expertise & experience in a range of fields (law enforcement, gun sales, mental health, government management, etc.) but also with purity of intentions.

(1) none of us here possess the knowledge to create a comprehensive solution
(2) I'd be surprised if any here on this forum possess the knowledge & experience to be one of the meaningful participants in a solution
(3) the only thing any one here can do is guess at the reasons why those who may be in a position to form a better solution, are not currently doing so

Perhaps you could levy another personal attack on me as to why you can't come up with solutions

Grow up, you're the one who started the back-and-forth with a personal attack.

 

[ivwshane]

A comprehensive solution is not going to come from any single person. It will take several people not only with extensive expertise & experience in a range of fields (law enforcement, gun sales, mental health, government management, etc.) but also with purity of intentions.

(1) none of us here possess the knowledge to create a comprehensive solution
(2) I'd be surprised if any here on this forum possess the knowledge & experience to be one of the meaningful participants in a solution
(3) the only thing any one here can do is guess at the reasons why those who may be in a position to form a better solution, are not currently doing so

What exactly are you expecting to gain with your put-down?

Ah, so now asking for solutions from this forum, which hosts a number of topics with a number of posters offering their non expert opinions/solutions, is expecting too much?

That would be a variation of excuse # 2. I also suspect that, going forward you won't be offering your opinion on any topic because you aren't an expert. Sounds good to me! See ya!

 

[ivwshane]

Grow up, you're the one who started the back-and-forth with a personal attack.

lol, nice edit. It seems that you don't even know what a personal insult is (hint: pointing out an example as part of the point being made isn't a personal insult).