Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[woodwork201]

Tough talk does equal tough

And I am saying your grass roots uprising would be an utter failure!

There's no conservative uprising. The only ones threatening to destroy the United States and the Constitution are the left, the socialists, communists, Antifa, etc. When I talk about taking out the enemy, I am not talking about fighting the constitutional government of the United States; I will fight your attempts to destroy it and, you're right, YOUR grass roots uprising will be an utter failure.

 

[woodwork201]

CommunistFront what would you do if medical technology wasn't there to administer an abortion?

He'd make a fortune selling rusty hangers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And I am saying your grass roots uprising would be an utter failure!

True – but it’s pointless; conservatives are fundamentally dishonest, they’ll never abandon this ridiculous lie.

 

[woodwork201]

View attachment 670077

View attachment 670078

I think the camera was within 8 feet and should have been shot out.

But that second picture raises the question: was the statement a quote from Kamala?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Pol Pot was armed and funded by the US State Dept. As far as those figures you're citing, they've already been falsified. The so-called "black book on communism" is nothing more than capitalist rhetoric against the USSR. The archives never provided evidence for those figures.

Pol Pot was a communist and armed and funded by Russia and China as well as the PRVN, NOT the USA.

 

[miketx]

It makes you sound mentally challenged.

Having guns is not going to protect you from the police or military. With normal police equipment, SWAT teams, police tactics and fire power etc, they can easily neutralize any armed threat or movement. They wouldn't even break a sweat. Not to mention, police surveillance tactics will make it impossible for an anti-government group to organize a big enough threat to the regime. You don't have a chance. And that is only the police. Your little AR-15 isn't going to do anything to a drone, tank, apache helicopter, fighter jet or combat unit (much less special forces). There is a reason you have not seen a people's uprising to over-throw a government even in Africa in decade. And really only Sudan has been overthrown by a military coup.

No, the only reason you want certain guns (such as a AR-15) is because you like to have them.

It is true the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and good people, including AR-15 owners. But that 1% or 0.05% that are not responsible can cause havoc, as we just saw in Highland park (an event I was on my way to attend and an event to which I know many people that were directly effected).

If you want to hunt, then a single shot hunting rifle will suffice. If it is about home defense, then handguns and shotguns (which as both short-range) would be sufficient.

There are many things that can be done, such as arm teachers, have cops in schools, secure soft targets, better mental health facilities, red flag rules and immunity for snitching, involuntary institutionalization, high standards for gun ownership, higher and minimum sentences for illegal gun possession, Federal no buy lists, vicarious liability for guns for the gun owner etc., but stop with the argument that you need guns for tyrannical governments! Because it is foolish.

There should be a ban on all guns other then single shot hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Now I know handguns are by far the weapon of choice in the vast number of homicides, but so called "assault rifles" (yes I know that is a term the liberals made up) it by far a more sufficient weapon to commit mass murder then a handgun, even if they are semi-automatic (vs full).

Keep sticking to these stances that turn off the moderates (e.g. ban on abortion and do nothing on guns) and then cry about how Demorats can win with gas over $5-6, out of control inflation, major blunders in foreign policy and everyone hating woke politics. If the Demorats keep the House and pick up senate seats you are going to see the most radical changes to this country that we haver ever seen.

Come get us. You. You do it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Socialism has proven itself very effective in taking people out of poverty, but the capitalists always attempt to sabotage socialist economies with sanctions and war.

“Taking people out of poverty”? Communism put Russia and all of Eastern Europe INTO poverty, while enriching a few party bosses and their families. All it achieved was to devastate the economies of communist states while destroying the environment and producing small quantities of fourth rate goods and despite ruling some of the most fertile farmland in Europe couldn’t even feed its own people. The communist bloc had to buy food from its enemies to survive.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Practically all of them who know technology, recognize that the end of capitalism is right around the corner.

Gee, that sounds exactly like what the communists kept saying. Real communism was always five years away.

 

[AZrailwhale]

People will continue to work but not for a wage. Technology will make work easier, safer and we will work to maintain the system that is providing us with a high standard of living. Millionaires and billionaires aren't the only people that can work or break a sweat for reasons other than a wage. We will have all of our needs met yet we won't need money. Our work schedules in the future will also be less intensive unless we want to work more.

You’ve been watching too much Star Trek. You are describing Gene Roddenbury’s universe of no want where people only did what they wanted. I always wondered why people wanted to be the expendable red shirts that always got killed off rather than a captain, helmsman or engineer.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No I live in a capitalist economy so I had to sell my labor power and earn an income to purchase this computer. If we were living in a communist society, everyone would get one or two computers per year or once every two or three years.

That’s a nice ideal, but it never seems to work that way in actual communist countries. Nobody has anything except the high party officials who have special stores, western appliances, medicine and the ability to get western educations for their children.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The problem is Nazis reject reality in their zeal for absolute power by the state.

Nazi minions like Saul Goodman believe that if they can disarm the peasants, then the tyranny they dream of will be a reality.

The US Military was driven from Vietnam by insurgents with small arms

The US Military was driven from Iraq by insurgents with small arms

The US Military was driven from Afghanistan by insurgents with small arms

But the Nazis are utterly convinced that citizens with small arms are powerless to stop their Reich.

The US totally defeated the NVA and destroyed the VC. It then cut off all travel from the PRC by destroying the road and rail bridges between North Vietnam and China and cut off travel from the USSR by mining Haiphong Harbor. The PRVN was completely out of munitions and was starving. It couldn’t sign the Paris Peace Accords fast enough. In other words the USA defeated the PRVN and destroyed its economy. The US conquered Iraq and only left when the government that the US installed refused to sign a status of troops agreement. We left Afghanistan after twenty years because our politicians finally realized that no matter how long we stayed the Afghani tribesmen weren’t going to give up. None drove us out.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Sure...that's why you Communists have to build walls around your nations so your own populace won't try to escape! If you didn't have them then your citizens would have left en mass to escape Communism! Don't make me laugh!

Capitalist countries need to build walls to keep people out, communist countries need to build walls to keep people in. Why do you think that is?

 

[Oldestyle]

Capitalist countries need to build walls to keep people out, communist countries need to build walls to keep people in. Why do you think that is?

Pretty obvious...isn't it? Yet some idiots on here STILL think Communism is the way to go!

 

[Red Front]

That’s a nice ideal, but it never seems to work that way in actual communist countries. Nobody has anything except the high party officials who have special stores, western appliances, medicine and the ability to get western educations for their children.

First of all, there's never been a communist state. That's an oxymoron. Communism according to Marx is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. There can be a socialist state, but not a communist one, according to Marx. The USSR was the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics.

More, you are completely ignoring the fact that every single country that has ever identified itself as having a socialist, Marxist, centrally planned economy, has been systematically targeted in the most brutal, inhumane fashion by the United States and its allies. Economic sanctions and embargoes, blockades, threats of war, being bombed and invaded..etc. They're isolated and forced to become more authoritarian, politically centralizing power in an effort to survive. Your assertion that all of the politicians in socialist countries are living in opulence while everyone else in their country is supposedly living in squalor, better describes third-world capitalist-run nations, not socialist ones.

Are members of the communist party, especially during wartime, eligible for more benefits than the average citizen that isn't a member of the revolutionary party? Yes, because the members of a revolutionary communist party, of a socialist country under the encirclement of the United States, must sacrifice more of their labor, time, and their very lives to defend the nation. Anyone in the country can become a member of the communist party, however.

Whenever socialism isn't being sanctioned and forced into a state of war and austerities, it does very well. Even being besieged by capitalist-imperialist powers, like the United States, these countries survive. Your comment also assumes that socialism must appear in the world and take over capitalism in one quick swoop if it's an effective and valid economic system. Did capitalism appear on the scene and immediately replace slavery and feudalism? No. It took centuries. So why are you demanding that socialism take over capitalism immediately if it is an effective mode of production? Isn't that a bit disingenuous on your part? As we advance technologically, wage labor will be reduced and eventually eliminated, thereby eliminating capitalism. The result of that is socialism, and eventually communism.

 

[Red Front]

You’ve been watching too much Star Trek. You are describing Gene Roddenbury’s universe of no want where people only did what they wanted. I always wondered why people wanted to be the expendable red shirts that always got killed off rather than a captain, helmsman or engineer.

What part of what I said is "star trek"? Was it my mention of atomic precision manufacturing machines? Why are you ignoring the fact that technology is expected to eliminate a significant % of wage-labor in the next twenty years? That's not just my opinion, capitalists themselves are admitting this. What do you think is going to occur when wage-labor is replaced with automated and autonomous systems, robotics, artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles.etc? Parelegals are being replaced with AI. Even the specialists who look for cancer on CT scans are going to be replaced with AI soon. We're even moving now towards having completely autonomous, robot surgeons in about twenty years. You're just misinformed.

 

[Oldestyle]

First of all, there's never been a communist state. That's an oxymoron. Communism according to Marx is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. There can be a socialist state, but not a communist one, according to Marx. The USSR was the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics.

More, you are completely ignoring the fact that every single country that has ever identified itself as having a socialist, Marxist, centrally planned economy, has been systematically targeted in the most brutal, inhumane fashion by the United States and its allies. Economic sanctions and embargoes, blockades, threats of war, being bombed and invaded..etc. They're isolated and forced to become more authoritarian, politically centralizing power in an effort to survive. Your assertion that all of the politicians in socialist countries are living in opulence while everyone else in their country is supposedly living in squalor, better describes third-world capitalist-run nations, not socialist ones.

Are members of the communist party, especially during wartime, eligible for more benefits than the average citizen that isn't a member of the revolutionary party? Yes, because the members of a revolutionary communist party, of a socialist country under the encirclement of the United States, must sacrifice more of their labor, time, and their very lives to defend the nation. Anyone in the country can become a member of the communist party, however.

Whenever socialism isn't being sanctioned and forced into a state of war and austerities, it does very well. Even being besieged by capitalist-imperialist powers, like the United States, these countries survive. Your comment also assumes that socialism must appear in the world and take over capitalism in one quick swoop if it's an effective and valid economic system. Did capitalism appear on the scene and immediately replace slavery and feudalism? No. It took centuries. So why are you demanding that socialism take over capitalism immediately if it is an effective mode of production? Isn't that a bit disingenuous on your part? As we advance technologically, wage labor will be reduced and eventually eliminated, thereby eliminating capitalism. The result of that is socialism, and eventually communism.

What a crock! Communist countries need to build barriers to keep it's citizens from fleeing because the quality of life is always so bad under Communist rule. The only people that do well under Communism are the elite. They live in palaces while the common people suffer.

 

[AZrailwhale]

First of all, there's never been a communist state. That's an oxymoron. Communism according to Marx is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. There can be a socialist state, but not a communist one, according to Marx. The USSR was the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics.

More, you are completely ignoring the fact that every single country that has ever identified itself as having a socialist, Marxist, centrally planned economy, has been systematically targeted in the most brutal, inhumane fashion by the United States and its allies. Economic sanctions and embargoes, blockades, threats of war, being bombed and invaded..etc. They're isolated and forced to become more authoritarian, politically centralizing power in an effort to survive. Your assertion that all of the politicians in socialist countries are living in opulence while everyone else in their country is supposedly living in squalor, better describes third-world capitalist-run nations, not socialist ones.

Are members of the communist party, especially during wartime, eligible for more benefits than the average citizen that isn't a member of the revolutionary party? Yes, because the members of a revolutionary communist party, of a socialist country under the encirclement of the United States, must sacrifice more of their labor, time, and their very lives to defend the nation. Anyone in the country can become a member of the communist party, however.

Whenever socialism isn't being sanctioned and forced into a state of war and austerities, it does very well. Even being besieged by capitalist-imperialist powers, like the United States, these countries survive. Your comment also assumes that socialism must appear in the world and take over capitalism in one quick swoop if it's an effective and valid economic system. Did capitalism appear on the scene and immediately replace slavery and feudalism? No. It took centuries. So why are you demanding that socialism take over capitalism immediately if it is an effective mode of production? Isn't that a bit disingenuous on your part? As we advance technologically, wage labor will be reduced and eventually eliminated, thereby eliminating capitalism. The result of that is socialism, and eventually communism.



Yeah right, that’s the communist apologists only excuse. You always say but, but, but we’ll get it right next time. You never recognize that the totalitarian misery for the proletariat is a feature, not a bug.
The only way communism would ever work is if you idiots somehow figure out how to turn humans into ants.

 

[AZrailwhale]

What part of what I said is "star trek"? Was it my mention of atomic precision manufacturing machines? Why are you ignoring the fact that technology is expected to eliminate a significant % of wage-labor in the next twenty years? That's not just my opinion, capitalists themselves are admitting this. What do you think is going to occur when wage-labor is replaced with automated and autonomous systems, robotics, artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles.etc? Parelegals are being replaced with AI. Even the specialists who look for cancer on CT scans are going to be replaced with AI soon. We're even moving now towards having completely autonomous, robot surgeons in about twenty years. You're just misinformed.

If you know anything about the Star Trek universe, there is no need, no want, plentiful resources for the taking, no poverty. That’s your imaginary communism.

 

[Red Front]

If you know anything about the Star Trek universe, there is no need, no want, plentiful resources for the taking, no poverty. That’s your imaginary communism.

Advanced technology exists, it's not just in sci-fi movies. Automated systems, robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, biotech, all of these technologies are going to in the not too distant future, replace much of the wage labor. It's estimated that up to 85% of menial jobs are going to be replaced by technology within the next twenty years. Even more skilled, professional jobs are also going to be seriously cut by technology.

No wage labor (or too little of it) = No paying consumers (massive unemployment) = No Capitalism
​

Capitalism relies on wage labor.

 

[Red Front]

What a crock! Communist countries need to build barriers to keep it's citizens from fleeing because the quality of life is always so bad under Communist rule. The only people that do well under Communism are the elite. They live in palaces while the common people suffer.

Repeating your bullshit doesn't make it true. Vietnamese, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, and Bolivians, can all leave and they do. The US and its allies are imposing strict economic sanctions on most of the mentioned countries. Bolivia is now about to be sanctioned as well. These countries are not just sanctioned and isolated economically but often threatened with war and actually attacked by the United States. American politicians were threatening to invade Cuba about a year ago during the protests. Marco Rubio was pushing for an American invasion. This is the standard operating procedure of the United States towards socialist nations.