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

[M14 Shooter]

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.

So... it's -not- a weapon of war.
We get to keep then, right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So... it's -not- a weapon of war.
We get to keep then, right?

They're a weapon of war only when using them other than that useless against those imaginary tanks and f15s

 

[GHook20]

Psst over here, a little closer.
View attachment 698105
FYI I am part of a national communication system I talk with leaders of groups in all 50 states monthly.

I think we went over this. And who you are going to fight is the US government and MILITARY!

 

[GHook20]

So... it's -not- a weapon of war.
We get to keep then, right?

Word like weapons of war, assault rifle etc. all are ambiguous and different meanings to different people.

I personally think all types of guns including full-automatic should be legal. Firearms are put is different classes. Each class of firearms has different requirements. The higher up you go the higher the requirements. There should be no-own or operate lists (e.g. the mental health list, felon list, recognized dangerous person list), with mechanism to have challenge inclusion and removal from list, temporary lists (e.g. going through a divorce, clear and immediate danger), vicarious liability for gun owners, bonding requirements, etc.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think we went over this. And who you are going to fight is the US government and MILITARY!

I just told you how it will be

 

[task0778]

Word like weapons of war, assault rifle etc. all are ambiguous and different meanings to different people.

I personally think all types of guns including full-automatic should be legal. Firearms are put is different classes. Each class of firearms has different requirements. The higher up you go the higher the requirements. There should be no-own or operate lists (e.g. the mental health list, felon list, recognized dangerous person list), with mechanism to have challenge inclusion and removal from list, temporary lists (e.g. going through a divorce, clear and immediate danger), vicarious liability for gun owners, bonding requirements, etc.

Here's the problem with a database of gun owners, it gives a potential tyrannical gov't a prioritized list of people to go after to disarm them. Today's gov't isn't going to do that, BUT whose to say that at some future date that couldn't happen. There are more than a few people right now who want to confiscate every gun in America if they could, and they really don't care about the legalities and the 2nd Amendment. They'd end the manufacturing of guns or make it so difficult and expensive as to be prohibitive, and the same goes for ammunition.

Some say that can't happen here, but what if Manchin and Sinema had agreed to ending the filibuster and the Senate became the same as the House where a simple majority meant the democrats could pass whatever they wanted. They would surely have passed an assault weapons ban with a very liberal definition of what an assault weapon is. Red flag laws would be nation-wide, with judges confiscating guns and not returning them. As stated above, guns and ammunition would become extremely expensive and difficult to get.

Here's what I think: a tyrannical gov't is more likely to be more tyrannical if the public is unarmed. If it gets to the point where gov't officials might get shot for going a little too far with their curtailment of our rights, it might be better if we have guns of our own to keep them somewhat honest. What's to stop them if we are unarmed?

 

[Rogue AI]

I think we went over this. And who you are going to fight is the US government and MILITARY!

Who do you think comprises the military? You tools all think because someone is in uniform they are robots to the current administration.

 

[Dagosa]

Who do you think comprises the military? You tools all think because someone is in uniform they are robots to the current administration.

As well they should be.

 

[Dagosa]

Here's the problem with a database of gun owners, it gives a potential tyrannical gov't a prioritized list of people to go after to disarm them. Today's gov't isn't going to do that, BUT whose to say that at some future date that couldn't happen. There are more than a few people right now who want to confiscate every gun in America if they could, and they really don't care about the legalities and the 2nd Amendment. They'd end the manufacturing of guns or make it so difficult and expensive as to be prohibitive, and the same goes for ammunition.

Some say that can't happen here, but what if Manchin and Sinema had agreed to ending the filibuster and the Senate became the same as the House where a simple majority meant the democrats could pass whatever they wanted. They would surely have passed an assault weapons ban with a very liberal definition of what an assault weapon is. Red flag laws would be nation-wide, with judges confiscating guns and not returning them. As stated above, guns and ammunition would become extremely expensive and difficult to get.

Here's what I think: a tyrannical gov't is more likely to be more tyrannical if the public is unarmed. If it gets to the point where gov't officials might get shot for going a little too far with their curtailment of our rights, it might be better if we have guns of our own to keep them somewhat honest. What's to stop them if we are unarmed?

A lot of subjective , fear generated babble.

 

[Rogue AI]

As well they should be.

Wow. You folks are in for a rude awakening if the shit ever hits the fan. Just saying.

 

[Dagosa]

Wow. You folks are in for a rude awakening if the shit ever hits the fan. Just saying.

The shit hitting the fan ? When is that going to be ? Trump lost the election. You going to break him out of jail. Are you going to give up your Medicare and social security just to “fight the govt ? Ask any vet, especially career vets. You don’t cross the chain of command when your entire livelyhood and retirement depends on you following orders while enlisted. Afterwards it’s a different story. But 65 year olds are of little threat.

 

[westwall]

A lot of subjective , fear generated babble.

Pretty much your whole schtick.

 

[Dagosa]

Here's the problem with a database of gun owners, it gives a potential tyrannical gov't a prioritized list of people to go after to disarm them.

Absolutely. Let’s go after the criminals and people who sell guns to criminals and the underaged along with wife beaters and child abuser and druggies. How about people who harbor illegals ? . These mfkers shouldn't have guns….You think they should ?

 

[Dagosa]

Wow. You folks are in for a rude awakening if the shit ever hits the fan. Just saying.

The Military follows orders…..or you could lose your benefits. You’re funny. Guess you never served in the military.

 

[Rogue AI]

The shit hitting the fan ? When is that going to be ? Trump lost the election. You going to break him out of jail. Are you going to give up your Medicare and social security just to “fight the govt ? Ask any vet, especially career vets. You don’t cross the chain of command when your entire livelyhood and retirement depends on you following orders while enlisted. Afterwards it’s a different story. But 65 year olds are of little threat.

As always you folks are shortsighted. There is an assumption that military would simply remain detached from whatever was causing the internal strife, as though putting on the uniform simply blinds people to the reality around them. The military is comprised of less than 1% of the population, they are incapable of maintaining control of the whole country, the dreams the military would squash a rebellion are just that, dreams. Depending on the breakdown of factions involved, many military members would side with others over the government.

 

[Dagosa]

Here's what I think: a tyrannical gov't is more likely to be more tyrannical if the public is unarmed. I

Who says the public will be unarmed. As gun owners we’re for stronger gun control measures to keep legal owners from selling guns to any breathing humanoid. Is that you ?

 

[task0778]

Absolutely. Let’s go after the criminals and people who sell guns to criminals and the underaged along with wife beaters and child abuser and druggies. How about people who harbor illegals ? . These mfkers shouldn't have guns….You think they should ?

The current background check covers all those people, and obviously they should not have guns. But that does not mean that there should be a national database of the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners. And that database will do absolutely nothing to stop those bad people from getting access to a gun.

 

[Rogue AI]

The Military follows orders…..or you could lose your benefits. You’re funny. Guess you never served in the military.

I have served, and if some asshole ordered me to attack my hometown, I'd say no. That's the sort of thing you folks ignore.

 

[westwall]

The Military follows orders…..or you could lose your benefits. You’re funny. Guess you never served in the military.
[shtick.

The military is required to IGNORE unlawful orders.

Dumbass.

 

[Dagosa]

The current background check covers all those people,

No they don’t. You’re hilarious. You live under a rock. There is no federal requirement anywhere requiring a background check for any sales other then from an FFL dealer. Dufus, you know you can sell a gun privately to any breathing humanoid. Are you trying to move guns to children ? Maybe just gift them to drug dealers and child abusers. You like doing that shit ?