I really had to bite my tongue

[Fanatical Meat]

Last night I met some people that were friends of friends. They seemed pretty together and educated. They were speaking about people should buy guns now while they're still not tracked. I don't want this to be a gun control discussion. I can't understand what they were thinking.
Are they really that concerned about the government getting out of control?

Would a few people with random guns bought at gun shops really stand a chance against a modern military? People in Iraq seem to be a whole lot better armed and look how that went until US forces left.

You still need a gun permit, I'd bet most people with permits have guns or at least a residence to search

Are you buying these guns with cash, how about all the supplies and ammunition?

Are you visiting multiple gun stores to buy them or do you show ID when you buy them? If the owner was threatened for not reveling who his customers are will he cave and give names?

Are you a member of a gun club, donate to the NRA, ever applied for a hunting permit?

Have you ever mentioned to anyone on FB or any other social media that you are interested in guns, have you ever emailed or text messages something about having guns?

There just seems to be so many different ways this plan can fail I don't understand why someone would think it.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"There just seems to be so many different ways this plan can fail I don't understand why someone would think it."

To agree with others thinking it.

 

[Craig234]

http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

But now there are billionares spending large sums to grow and use the movement.

 

[Moonbeam]

"There just seems to be so many different ways this plan can fail I don't understand why someone would think it."

To agree with others thinking it.

Maybe the verbal equivalent of dressing up like an idiot in clan gear.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Maybe the verbal equivalent of dressing up like an idiot in clan gear.

I think dixy's point was peer pressure or believing everyone without question.

 

[alzan]

I think any issue has the potential to be "useful"; either to those in power or those who lobby to those in power. Fear and doubt or the illusion of them can be propagated to the citizenry and nurtured quite easily. Radio, television and the internet are always anxious to sell time and access with little to no concern of the message content.

The 2A, at least as it's currently interpreted, is a marvelous seed to fertilize and with which to polarize the citizenry.

 

[Greenman]

Those all seem like questions you should have asked your friends. Why speculate when the information was sitting in front of you? Were you afraid of offending them? Is it possible that you're socially awkward and misunderstood what they said? Did you think that since they might have owned firearms they could be prone to violence? Were they alpha males that intimated you?
I think your response to the situation is far more interesting than the questions you posted.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Those all seem like questions you should have asked your friends. Why speculate when the information was sitting in front of you? Were you afraid of offending them? Is it possible that you're socially awkward and misunderstood what they said? Did you think that since they might have owned firearms they could be prone to violence? Were they alpha males that intimated you?
I think your response to the situation is far more interesting than the questions you posted.

Excellent point! I felt it wasn't the proper situation for Politics. Funny you mention this I have either worked in sales or managed people for a long time. I wonder if any of my previous training to avoid Political conversations with customers/employee's had something to do with my reaction?

 

[highland145]

Everything is tracked other than cash/private party sales. The last time you ordered a pizza, your info was noted and saved.

The reason for 2A is obvious but I don't believe the sheep, with all of their guns, would join together to fight the govt. At the same time, I'm not sure the military (made up of citizens) would fire on the citizenry.

 

[TerryMathews]

Hypothetically, if the government goes after guns the first place they will start are the 4473 records at FFLs.

Will their plan completely insulate them from a government run amok? No. It will however keep them from being the first door that is knocked on.

 

[highland145]

Hypothetically, if the government goes after guns the first place they will start are the 4473 records at FFLs.

Will their plan completely insulate them from a government run amok? No. It will however keep them from being the first door that is knocked on.

Just make them illegal, except long guns, and many will roll over instead of spending 15 years in jail for possession.

 

[TerryMathews]

Just make them illegal, except long guns, and many will roll over instead of spending 15 years in jail for possession.

Didn't happen in Connecticut: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/03/c...opments/?utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

[Newell Steamer]

There just seems to be so many different ways this plan can fail I don't understand why someone would think it.

Because fear.

Fear is what gets people to do anything - and usually, it's something stupid.

Also, to your earlier point;

Would a few people with random guns bought at gun shops really stand a chance against a modern military?

Seriously, these herp-a-derps are shooting themselves by accident at gun shows,... and, they are suppose to be the last line of defense for the American citizens?

A modern military machine, up against a random band of anarchists, neck beards and fat bodies would get smeared across the floor.

 

[highland145]

Didn't happen in Connecticut: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/03/c...opments/?utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

Good. More balls than I give the sheep credit for. Myself included if I was looking at 15 years. But I don't own any guns.

CT 1st offense can be reduced to a misdemeanor.

This is the same dilemma Connecticut gun owners found themselves in at the end of 2013. As of December 31, 2013, according to Lt. J. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police (CSP ), the state had received 41,347 applications to register “assault weapons” and 36,932 applications to register “high-capacity” magazines. That means that more than 300,000 Connecticut residents decided not to register their “assault weapons,” moved them out of state, or sold them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...armed-new-yorkers-are-about-to-break-the-law/

 

[Greenman]

Everything is tracked other than cash/private party sales. The last time you ordered a pizza, your info was noted and saved.

The reason for 2A is obvious but I don't believe the sheep, with all of their guns, would join together to fight the govt. At the same time, I'm not sure the military (made up of citizens) would fire on the citizenry.

Why the automatic assumption that it's the government their concerned with? Many people are concerned about a breakdown in civil order. Those things do happen from time to time, and when the veneer of civilization is stripped away, whats left is dangerous and ugly. Look at the Rodney King riots, the looting that goes on after every natural disaster, hell just look at the drunken fools leaving a football game. It seems only prudent to have a firearm and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at home.

 

[silicon]

Last night I met some people that were friends of friends. They seemed pretty together and educated. They were speaking about people should buy guns now while they're still not tracked. I don't want this to be a gun control discussion. I can't understand what they were thinking.
Are they really that concerned about the government getting out of control?

Would a few people with random guns bought at gun shops really stand a chance against a modern military? People in Iraq seem to be a whole lot better armed and look how that went until US forces left.

You still need a gun permit, I'd bet most people with permits have guns or at least a residence to search

Are you buying these guns with cash, how about all the supplies and ammunition?

Are you visiting multiple gun stores to buy them or do you show ID when you buy them? If the owner was threatened for not reveling who his customers are will he cave and give names?

Are you a member of a gun club, donate to the NRA, ever applied for a hunting permit?

Have you ever mentioned to anyone on FB or any other social media that you are interested in guns, have you ever emailed or text messages something about having guns?

There just seems to be so many different ways this plan can fail I don't understand why someone would think it.

I would read the second amendment and become acquainted with tyranny of government as envisioned by the founding fathers. No one says you need a gun but with so much crazy stuff happening a gun in the home can give security especially when law enforcement cannot react in time. The gov't has become a monster and there is little we do that is not recorded somewhere. the day of reckoning is coming!!

 

[smackababy]

People who buy the guns "before the tracking" are just trying to bank on those guns getting grandfathered into legal status if a "trackable" gun is ever actually mandated. It is the same if people started clamouring about cars being limited to 70MPH via unmoddable chip. Everyone who cared about having the freedom to go faster would advocate going out and buying a car now, in hopes it would be grandfathered once the regulation is passed.


As far as standing up to a modern military, it has merit. Our military is filled with volunteers, many of which don't see combat. In the event military action is to be taken against your home town, are you going to start killing off people you grew up with? How many defect? Do you believe the government would drop bombs on their own cities? Nuclear action is certainly out of the picture. Guerrilla tactics would work very well against even our own military (same as it does in Iraq / Afghanistan), even more so when it comes down to "do I really want to shoot my cousin because some jerkoff in Congress signed a paper making him an outlaw"?

 

[Greenman]

Excellent point! I felt it wasn't the proper situation for Politics. Funny you mention this I have either worked in sales or managed people for a long time. I wonder if any of my previous training to avoid Political conversations with customers/employee's had something to do with my reaction?

It's pretty easy to form a polite question, I would have asked.

 

[highland145]

Why the automatic assumption that it's the government their concerned with? Many people are concerned about a breakdown in civil order. Those things do happen from time to time, and when the veneer of civilization is stripped away, whats left is dangerous and ugly. Look at the Rodney King riots, the looting that goes on after every natural disaster, hell just look at the drunken fools leaving a football game. It seems only prudent to have a firearm and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at home.

From the OP.

They were speaking about people should buy guns now while they're still not tracked.

It seems only prudent to have a firearm and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at home.

If I were betting, I'd expect to need these against the citizenry before the govt storm troopers, too.

 

[Greenman]

From the OP.



If I were betting, I'd expect to need these against the citizenry before the govt storm troopers, too.

I stepped right over that part. My apologies for being obtuse.

 

[highland145]

I stepped right over that part. My apologies for being obtuse.

We're on the same page with civil disorder.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Are they really that concerned about the government getting out of control?

Yes, and with some reason I think. Our nation was founded on the very concept that governments when allowed too much power always get out of control and eventually turn on it's own citizens. Our government in the last few decades have certainly increased it's power over it's citizenry, and we hear every day of another abuse of that power against it's citizens.

Would a few people with random guns bought at gun shops really stand a chance against a modern military?

No. It is largely symbolic. The hope is that if they show that they are well armed, and take ownership of those guns seriously enough, that the government will realize that the cost of implementing authoritarian control is just too high. Could they win, sure, but the cost just might be high enough to turn the rest of the nation against them.
This is where I think their argument fails. A hundred years ago this was an effective deterrent for a government. Today real power resides in control of the media. If they wanted to preserve freedom they would fight for things like freedom of speech and net neutrality, not the right to bear arms.

 

[DrPizza]

You still need a gun permit

Depends on the type of gun & state. Even in ridiculous NY, you don't need a permit to purchase long guns. You do, however, have to pass a background check. I presume that due to the background check, a record is kept of what gun you purchased.

 

[Kadarin]

Centralized firearm registration databases are the first step towards confiscating those firearms if the government chooses to do so. Some people purchase guns as a matter of principle, because the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution allows us to do so, and the thought of the government forcibly disarming citizenry and taking away rights is something they feel should be fought against.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Centralized firearm registration databases are the first step towards confiscating those firearms if the government chooses to do so. Some people purchase guns as a matter of principle, because the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution allows us to do so, and the thought of the government forcibly disarming citizenry and taking away rights is something they feel should be fought against.

Car registration is the first step toward confiscating cars, if the government chooses to do so. Some people drive around yelling political things out their window as a matter of principle, because the 1st amendment of the Constitution allows them to do so, and the thought of logic or reason causing them to restrict their behavior is something they feel should be fought against.

I feel that since the above follows the logical structure of your argument it provides a thoughtful argument for the counter-point by what is called Reductio ad absurdum.

I am not making fun of you, as I can see precisely where you are coming from and know you to be an intelligent person, I just ask that you reflect on the lack of logical cogency that seems present in your existing line of argument. Alternatively perhaps you can reconstruct your thoughts in a way that do not rely on the tenuous assumptions needed to make the logical leaps that you have.

Alternatively, if you were not presenting your own views but simply providing the best possible defense of a known-false stance: I applaud your efforts.