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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, do we all agree that we need machine guns to potentially put down our tyrannical government if needed?

I think we all do, but I could be wrong.

 

[candycorn]

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.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

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.

ROFL!

Some people arm themselves because it's a right in our Constitution.
Some people arm themselves because they live on farms or out in the wild.
Some people arm themselves because they just like weaponry.
Some people arm themselves because they live in ghetto hoods.
Some people arm themselves in these ghetto hoods to kill, maim, and destroy because they are too fucking lazy to get a job.
And some people arm themselves from a tyrannical and corrupt government.

Does this mean they will win a confrontation? Probably not, but they aren't going quietly into prison or a concentration camp because YOU got your feewings butt hurt because of some words!!

If you want to roll over and play whore for the corrupt and evil ones in government, then have at it.
People with guns aren't going to go down without taking a bunch of them OUT first!!!

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 684456

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.....who commit rape, robbery, murder, beatings, stabbings and even mass public shootings...

In the same time period of the Uvalde school shooting, where 400 police officers stood by for 90 minutes and did not enter the room to save the children, two different citizens, one in West Virginia, one in Indiana...used their concealed carry handguns to stop mass public shooters who were also armed with rifles.........

You have no understanding of the issue, and you show this every time you post....

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

I've addressed this on other posts, however, I'll wade into it again.
Almost all of the 90+ million owners of firearms (including semi-automatic magazine fed rifles and pistols) are NOT a threat to you or others and their firearms can't, repeat, can't run out of the house, apartment or, condo, all by themselves to harm people. A small number, in comparison commit the crimes.
Now, on to your talk of civilians not being able to stand against the government.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was so that your everyday citizens can, if needed, form militias and protect the freedom of their particular states against a tyrannical government, whether foreign or "domestic." Apparently, you think that if our government were to become Marxist-Communist, we should just roll over and accept it. Wrong. Can we win against the government if it becomes tyrannical? I wouldn't rule it out.
Our government with its jet aircraft, bombers, C-130 gunships, Apache helicopters, rockets, missiles, artillery, mortars and best trained and equipped troops, spent 20 years fighting a mixed bag of people wearing the equivalent of pajamas, sandals, head scarves, AK-47's, AK-74's, RPG's and Improvised Explosive Devices.
The result: When we pulled out, the Taliban had "gained" back half of Afghanistan and all of it after we left.
As for here in the U.S., if you think that it would be just a handful of rednecks, you would be mistaken. Many of the U.S., servicemen/women, are pro-Constitution and Bill of Rights and also have loved ones who side with our Constitutional Republic. Thus, significant elements of the military would splinter off and fight against those that would push this nation into becoming a Marxist-Communist one.
Why? Because unlike General Milley, most who take the oath to support and defend the Constitution, with their lives, as I did, mean it!

 

[GHook20]

I've addressed this on other posts, however, I'll wade into it again.
Almost all of the 90+ million owners of firearms (including semi-automatic magazine fed rifles and pistols) are NOT a threat to you or others and their firearms can't, repeat, can't run out of the house, apartment or, condo, all by themselves to harm people. A small number, in comparison commit the crimes.
Now, on to your talk of civilians not being able to stand against the government.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was so that your everyday citizens can, if needed, form militias and protect the freedom of their particular states against a tyrannical government, whether foreign or "domestic." Apparently, you think that if our government were to become Marxist-Communist, we should just roll over and accept it. Wrong. Can we win against the government if it becomes tyrannical? I wouldn't rule it out.
Our government with its jet aircraft, bombers, C-130 gunships, Apache helicopters, rockets, missiles, artillery, mortars and best trained and equipped troops, spent 20 years fighting a mixed bag of people wearing the equivalent of pajamas, sandals, head scarves, AK-47's, AK-74's, RPG's and Improvised Explosive Devices.
The result: When we pulled out, the Taliban had "gained" back half of Afghanistan and all of it after we left.
As for here in the U.S., if you think that it would be just a handful of rednecks, you would be mistaken. Many of the U.S., servicemen/women, are pro-Constitution and Bill of Rights and also have loved ones who side with our Constitutional Republic. Thus, significant elements of the military would splinter off and fight against those that would push this nation into becoming a Marxist-Communist one.
Why? Because unlike General Milley, most who take the oath to support and defend the Constitution, with their lives, as I did, mean it!

It only takes and 0.01% to act badly to ruin your argument most gun owners aren’t a threat.

The problem with Afghanistan is the problem with nation building. Very quickly it becomes too expensive to the occupier and building a country’s, especially a 3rd world shithole country like Afghanistan, economy becomes an impossible task.

That would not be the case with a tyrannical government sniffing out an insurrection.

 

[hadit]

I've addressed this on other posts, however, I'll wade into it again.
Almost all of the 90+ million owners of firearms (including semi-automatic magazine fed rifles and pistols) are NOT a threat to you or others and their firearms can't, repeat, can't run out of the house, apartment or, condo, all by themselves to harm people. A small number, in comparison commit the crimes.
Now, on to your talk of civilians not being able to stand against the government.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was so that your everyday citizens can, if needed, form militias and protect the freedom of their particular states against a tyrannical government, whether foreign or "domestic." Apparently, you think that if our government were to become Marxist-Communist, we should just roll over and accept it. Wrong. Can we win against the government if it becomes tyrannical? I wouldn't rule it out.
Our government with its jet aircraft, bombers, C-130 gunships, Apache helicopters, rockets, missiles, artillery, mortars and best trained and equipped troops, spent 20 years fighting a mixed bag of people wearing the equivalent of pajamas, sandals, head scarves, AK-47's, AK-74's, RPG's and Improvised Explosive Devices.
The result: When we pulled out, the Taliban had "gained" back half of Afghanistan and all of it after we left.
As for here in the U.S., if you think that it would be just a handful of rednecks, you would be mistaken. Many of the U.S., servicemen/women, are pro-Constitution and Bill of Rights and also have loved ones who side with our Constitutional Republic. Thus, significant elements of the military would splinter off and fight against those that would push this nation into becoming a Marxist-Communist one.
Why? Because unlike General Milley, most who take the oath to support and defend the Constitution, with their lives, as I did, mean it!

The point of an armed populace is not whether they can stand against a tyrannical government armed with nuclear bombs. The point is making such tyranny more expensive than it's worth and hundreds of millions of firearms in civilians' hands can do that.

This is why locally grown tyranny doesn't happen overnight. First, those attempting to impose it convince the populace that they NEED a stronger government to protect them against all manner of evil, dangerous things and groups of evil people out to get them. Then, after the government is granted more power to impose stronger controls, disarmament becomes primary. It's too dangerous, you see, for private citizens to possess weapons, so for everyone's good the government has to take them away. In this process, however, the populace is never to question why it's not safe for them to be armed but quite safe and expected for government agents to be heavily armed. Finally, tyranny is imposed on a populace unable to resist in any meaningful fashion, and some even welcome it, believing that they are somehow safer. This is when we see heavily armed LEO and military personnel standing guard over people trying to live what's left of their lives. Not to protect them, but to control them.

 

[hadit]

It only takes and 0.01% to act badly to ruin your argument most gun owners aren’t a threat.

0.01% is ludicrously far from over half, which is the standard when you say "most".

The problem with Afghanistan is the problem with nation building. Very quickly it becomes too expensive to the occupier and building a country’s, especially a 3rd world shithole country like Afghanistan, economy becomes an impossible task.

That would not be the case with a tyrannical government sniffing out an insurrection.

In America, we have an "insurrection" every time a president loses an election. It's bloodless (at least until the sky screamers turn violent), but by every definition, the voters determine that they don't like the president or don't like the way he's doing his job, kick him out of office and install a new president. A large part of the administration leaves with him and a new one is installed. In most other countries, they call that a coup, or insurrection.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It only takes and 0.01% to act badly to ruin your argument most gun owners aren’t a threat.

You defeated yours own claim.
Well done.

 

[Stryder50]

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.

Way things have gone last few years to decades we appear to need "guns" to protect ourselves from the lawless insurrectionists of AntiFa and other Leftist~socialist anti-social sorts whom it seems the local police, National Guard and our Democrat mayors and governors refuse to defend us from.

When our governments fail to defend against violent enemies Domestic, than we citizens need to defend our selves, families, and other loved ones.

BTW, I'm totally okay with you being a victim of violence since you think no one should have appropriate tools for self-defense. Your death/absence will be no loss to the species or gene pool.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

By the way, did I mention....

We need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government...

 

[GHook20]

By the way, did I mention....

We need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government...

Did I mention when people say that they sound mentally ill!

First, an AR-15 is not going to do much against a drone, tank or modern military equipment. Heck you see how easy we whoop third world fighters with much more powerful guns! Yes we can build functioning economies from this shithole countries… that is much different then over throwing a 1st world or even developing countries!

 

[M14 Shooter]

First, an AR-15 is not going to do much against a drone, tank or modern military equipment.

But... it's a weapon of war.
It's -useless- in war?

 

[Esdraelon]

You need to study some military history.

He must have missed that whole Vietnam and Afghanistan dust up. The truth is those who push this kind of rhetoric are so cowardly that they cannot conceive of a person being willing to die, even totally alone, for the sake of a cause. People like that deserve their chains and for their grandchildren to spit on their graves.

 

[Esdraelon]

Did I mention when people say that they sound mentally ill!

First, an AR-15 is not going to do much against a drone, tank or modern military equipment. Heck you see how easy we whoop third world fighters with much more powerful guns! Yes we can build functioning economies from this shithole countries… that is much different then over throwing a 1st world or even developing countries!

And every time that government shoots, the numbers of the revolution grows. Just because YOU are obviously a coward does not mean there aren't millions of Americans that would be willing to fight back against the filth like what occupies DC today.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

 

[GHook20]

View attachment 694802

Who will happen to be the military… so good luck

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who will happen to be the military… so good luck

Who said the military will be on the side of the anti America DNC cultist?

 

[GHook20]

Who said the military will be on the side of the anti America DNC cultist?

If the military is not supporting the tyrannical government, then there won't be a tyrannical government for you to overthrow and your AR-15 isn't needed. So your red herring is irrelevant.

Rather the point people make for needing AR-15 and other like guns is to fight against a tyrannical government (which requires supported of the military), but your little AR-15, which can cause great havoc on civilian opponents, is no match (to the point of being meaningless) for the US military: drones, tanks, special forces, regular military forces, fighter jets, etc. Not to mention in order to organize an armed resistance of any scale you need large communication networks, but with modern surveillance or monitoring tactics, it is near impossible to organize large resistance movements.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If the military is not supporting the tyrannical government, then there won't be a tyrannical government for you to overthrow and your AR-15 isn't needed. So your red herring is irrelevant.

Rather the point people make for needing AR-15 and other like guns is to fight against a tyrannical government (which requires supported of the military), but your little AR-15, which can cause great havoc on civilian opponents, is no match (to the point of being meaningless) for the US military: drones, tanks, special forces, regular military forces, fighter jets, etc. Not to mention in order to organize an armed resistance of any scale you need large communication networks, but with modern surveillance or monitoring tactics, it is near impossible to organize large resistance movements.

Psst over here, a little closer.

FYI I am part of a national communication system I talk with leaders of groups in all 50 states monthly.