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

[Red Front]

You raise some interesting points, but the LGBT stuff you mention is pushed by people who align politically more with Communists and Socialists than Capitalists.

And profit is a great motivator. Without it, the successful are not motivated to make great improvements, as the profit gets confiscated and redistributed.

Really? You actually believe that people only draw motivation to work, committing themselves to a cause, only for money? You have a very skewed if not naive opinion about human nature. I and other political activists, don't do this for the money. People work for meaning and purpose, for brotherhood, for family, for country..etc. Many billionaires work, but they don't do it for the money or even for profits anymore, they do it because they feel that's their life mission, whatever that might be.

American liberals might identify themselves as leftists, even Marxists, but if they're not promoting actual Marxist principles and ideology, then they're not really Marxists. A synthetic left was created durring the coldwar here in the United States, by the CIA, to act as a counterbalance to the actual leftists who were pro-USSR. The "free love" of the 1960s, the drug culture, all of that liberalism, really has nothing to do with Karl Marx or communism. What is behind the present LGBTQ movement and all of the transgenderism, is the medical industry and big pharmaceutical companies. There are also capitalist elites who like the idea of a male population that is completely emasculated and less rebelious. More subservient and morally defeated men ensure that wealthy and powerful men remain in power. Emasculated men are easier to control and capitalize on. Effeminate men are great for retail sales and selling Starbucks coffee. A masculine man is satisfied with a black and perhaps a brown pair of boots, where an effeminate man will buy black, purple, pink, burgandy, bright red, bright yellow and green. Metrosexual, effeminate men, buy more of everything from skin moisturizer to nail polish. Everything.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's actually us white folks who are getting most of the bailout money. We get government-backed loans, contracts, facilities, tax cuts..etc. So what are you talking about? We exploit and enslave people to serve our lusts and fill our stomachs. Those black folks worked hard in those plantations. It was the sweat and blood of slaves that built America. Even the white house was built by blacks. Go get an education, Bubba.

All reviaaionist fiction.

Slavery did not build america

 

[Red Front]

All reviaaionist fiction.

Slavery did not build america

" The argument has often been used to diminish the scale of slavery, reducing it to a crime committed by a few Southern planters, one that did not touch the rest of the United States. Slavery, the argument goes, was an inefficient system, and the labor of the enslaved was considered less productive than that of a "free worker" being paid a wage. The use of enslaved labor has been presented as premodern, a practice that had no ties to the capitalism that allowed America to become — and remain — a leading global economy.

But as with so many stories about slavery, this is untrue. Slavery, particularly the cotton slavery that existed from the end of the 18th century to the beginning of the Civil War, was a thoroughly modern business, one that was continuously changing to maximize profits. To grow the cotton that would clothe the world and fuel global industrialization, thousands of young enslaved men and women, the children of stolen ancestors legally treated as property, were transported from Maryland and Virginia hundreds of miles south, and forcibly retrained to become America’s most efficient laborers. As they were pushed into the expanding territories of Mississippi and Louisiana, sold and bid on at auctions, and resettled onto forced labor camps, they were given a task: to plant and pick thousands of pounds of cotton.


The bodies of the enslaved served as America’s largest financial asset, and they were forced to maintain America’s most exported commodity. In 60 years, from 1801 to 1862, the amount of cotton picked daily by an enslaved person increased 400 percent. The profits from cotton propelled the US into a position as one of the leading economies in the world, and made the South its most prosperous region. The ownership of enslaved people increased wealth for Southern planters so much that by the dawn of the Civil War, the Mississippi River Valley had more millionaires per capita than any other region. "

Source:

How slavery became America’s first big business

Historian and author Edward E. Baptist explains how slavery helped the US go from a “colonial economy to the second biggest industrial power in the world.”

www.vox.com

The scholarship doesn't agree with your revisionist, KKK version of American slavery and its important contribution to our nation's rise to power. You can out of spite and racism, pretend otherwise, but only your fellow country bumpkins will agree with you. Believe whatever nonsense you want Bubba.

 

[IM2]

So how come Ukrainian citizens using personal firearms against Russians is admirable, but Americans wanting to be able to do the same thing makes us sound unhinged?


I'd rather have a small chance, than no chance at all. Partisans are extremely irritating and damaging to military forces.

Are you really this dumb?

 

[IM2]

All reviaaionist fiction.

Slavery did not build america

You are wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are you really this dumb?

Clearly this is rhetorical.

 

[IM2]

Now what does race have to do with this?

 

[IM2]

Clearly this is rhetorical.

The guy compared a nation being invaded by another country to his right to bear arms here. I can't believe I read that.

 

[Soupnazi630]

" The argument has often been used to diminish the scale of slavery, reducing it to a crime committed by a few Southern planters, one that did not touch the rest of the United States. Slavery, the argument goes, was an inefficient system, and the labor of the enslaved was considered less productive than that of a "free worker" being paid a wage. The use of enslaved labor has been presented as premodern, a practice that had no ties to the capitalism that allowed America to become — and remain — a leading global economy.

But as with so many stories about slavery, this is untrue. Slavery, particularly the cotton slavery that existed from the end of the 18th century to the beginning of the Civil War, was a thoroughly modern business, one that was continuously changing to maximize profits. To grow the cotton that would clothe the world and fuel global industrialization, thousands of young enslaved men and women, the children of stolen ancestors legally treated as property, were transported from Maryland and Virginia hundreds of miles south, and forcibly retrained to become America’s most efficient laborers. As they were pushed into the expanding territories of Mississippi and Louisiana, sold and bid on at auctions, and resettled onto forced labor camps, they were given a task: to plant and pick thousands of pounds of cotton.


The bodies of the enslaved served as America’s largest financial asset, and they were forced to maintain America’s most exported commodity. In 60 years, from 1801 to 1862, the amount of cotton picked daily by an enslaved person increased 400 percent. The profits from cotton propelled the US into a position as one of the leading economies in the world, and made the South its most prosperous region. The ownership of enslaved people increased wealth for Southern planters so much that by the dawn of the Civil War, the Mississippi River Valley had more millionaires per capita than any other region. "

Source:

How slavery became America’s first big business

Historian and author Edward E. Baptist explains how slavery helped the US go from a “colonial economy to the second biggest industrial power in the world.”

www.vox.com

The scholarship doesn't agree with your revisionist, KKK version of American slavery and its important contribution to our nation's rise to power. You can out of spite and racism, pretend otherwise, but only your fellow country bumpkins will agree with you. Believe whatever nonsense you want Bubba.

Thew scholarship is revisionist tripe.

It is economic fact andn proven factyy that slavery was and remains inefficient. It makes nothiing lasting and builds nothing.l The so called scholarship is spin and fiction and does not alter gyhe objective and neutral fact that slavery was in the hands of a few and accompoolished nothing.

Hanging the word " SCHOLARSHIP " on something is meaningless.


Much like hanging the word " SCIENTIFIC " on the end of marx's dialectic view of history. Or the words " OF THE PROLETARIATE " after the word dictatorship.

The fact that you must resort to throwing out KKK as a descriptor proves you are lacking incholastic accuracy and repeating fringe and extremist propoganda.

Objective and intelligent historians do not agree with you and prove you wrong boy

 

[Soupnazi630]

You are wrong.

I am correct

 

[Soupnazi630]

When I use the term "capitalist" I'm not referring to mom-and-pop stores, although yes they are technically also capitalists, if they own a private business enterprise and have employees. The dictatorial employer-employee relationship is also found in those small businesses but the real problem is the large corporations, the billionaires, and bankers, those are who we criticize and work to overthrow. It's not genuine Marxism or communism that is responsible for the decadence you now see in American culture, that's the result of capitalist exploitation. For example, much of the current gender confusion and transsexualism is being fueled by the medical industry and big pharma. Goerge Soros a billionaire and others like him, fund the protests and the "pride parades", the legislation..etc. All of this decadence is very profitable for some capitalists, especially the emasculation of men.

Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and all of the rest of them, weren't friendly to what the so-called "woke" liberals are promoting. They would've been labeled "fascists" "homophobic", and "transphobic" by modern American liberals. Democrats aren't socialists, although some of them claim to be. Socialism or Communism, is far from what Democrats are espousing.

More, with respect to the Republicans, they hurt the working class by creating laws that allow the rich to legally pay very little taxes while the working-class are forced to pay more. They also neglect the development and maintenance of vital infrastructure, they privatize all major centers of economic power, they defund needed social programs and entitlements, like Medicare, Medicaid, social security..etc. They undermine worker rights and the ability of labor to unionize. They support unnecessary wars..etc. They deregulate the banks and other corporations to the point of creating devastating financial crises, that then require government bailouts. They allowed corporations to gut America of its manufacturing base.

Republicans create very authoritarian work environments where workers are expected to work more for less pay and benefits. Our country has a sovereign currency, so as long as our GDP is high, our federal government can very easily fund social programs and the development of our infrastructure without any issues. It's within our budget, but Republicans insist that our government doesn't have enough money, and that's simply not true.

The government is a social aparatus organized by the people to manage their large-scale socioeconomic, civil affairs and projects. Government isn't inherently good or evil, it's whatever we the people want it to be.

There is no such thing as a " dictatorial " employee /emloyer relationship.

 

[Red Front]

Thew scholarship is revisionist tripe.

It is economic fact andn proven factyy that slavery was and remains inefficient. It makes nothiing lasting and builds nothing.l The so called scholarship is spin and fiction and does not alter gyhe objective and neutral fact that slavery was in the hands of a few and accompoolished nothing.

Hanging the word " SCHOLARSHIP " on something is meaningless.


Much like hanging the word " SCIENTIFIC " on the end of marx's dialectic view of history. Or the words " OF THE PROLETARIATE " after the word dictatorship.

The fact that you must resort to throwing out KKK as a descriptor proves you are lacking incholastic accuracy and repeating fringe and extremist propoganda.

Objective and intelligent historians do not agree with you and prove you wrong boy

Believe whatever nonsense toots your horn, Bubba.

 

[Red Front]

There is no such thing as a " dictatorial " employee /emloyer relationship.

When was the last time your employer held an election?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The reality is they don't seem to care about a tyrannical government when it comes to the voting system. They're happy to see a bunch of useless morons run the country. But they want guns to protect themselves from the useless morons they put there in the first place.

It makes no sense.

 

[night_son]

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.

If an American, you really should resign your citizenship—immediately. If a high school graduate, you should hang your head in shame. If a college grad, you should lock yourself inside for a year—inside the Library of Congress—and read, read, read.

The police are warm-blooded flesh and blood, human, same as anyone else. Their tactical SOPs are fixed, rigid and allow for very little improvisation on the fly, their policy makers and tacticians preferring the hammer strikes against the brick wall until it cracks approach with well armed criminal elements. This being the case, police tactics are easily exploited by the bold and intrepid. Groups of such bold and intrepid men banded together could make authorities very sorry they ever applied their jackboots to the necks of once free American citizens.

Further, there is no potential tyranny about our current modern day government; we Americans live in a Police State and time is running out on our total loss of individual freedom.

Afghanistan, US involvement there these past two decades, is the poster child for American civilian resistance to a tyrannical government. Again, pick up a book and read about it.

An individual American's firearm ownership has nothing to do with you or any other American; what happens inside my home or the homes of other Americans regarding firearm ownership is none of your fucking business, unless you break into my home.

A single shot, breechloading rifle can put at least 15 rounds downrange per minute—considerably more in experienced hands. Limiting or banning specific types of firearms is your universal code words for absolute firearm confiscation. Try it.

Keep pushing otherwise peaceful, law abiding Americans farther and farther out onto your woke Cultural Marxist frontier and you people will find out: tolerance ends.

 

[scruffy]

The reality is they don't seem to care about a tyrannical government when it comes to the voting system. They're happy to see a bunch of useless morons run the country. But they want guns to protect themselves from the useless morons they put there in the first place.

It makes no sense.

Hey, we haven't seen political brownshirts since the late 1800's.

I'm exactly like that black guy running for governor. The most likely use of my weapon is to keep screaming nutball leftards at bay.

The government doesn't bother me, the cops don't bother me cause I don't do anything wrong. Heck, I don't even cheat on my taxes.

The only people getting in my face are nutball leftards. Cause they got some stick up their butt about some POLITICAL thing that has nothing to do with me, and instead of contacting their Senator they think "I" should hear about it.

Only nutball leftards sit down on my freeway so I can't get to work. The government doesn't do that, the righties don't do that, only the nutball lefties.

I don't feel like I have to protect myself from AOC. But a couple of the posters on this board might qualify, as they exhibit a callous disregard for human existence.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Do you think trampling the 2nd Amendment will make you safer?

Think again

 

[Sandisk]

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.

It's way more than that.

If the federal government knows where you live?
All they have to do is fly an F-16 at 30,000 feet over your house.
Then drop a JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) on your head.

You will not see or hear the plane.
Or hear the bomb until a few seconds before it hits.
A thousand guns and a million rounds of ammunition would do NOTHING to protect you from it.
And there are dozens of other ways the military could kill you - with ease - if it wanted to.

Anyone who says that guns can protect the masses from government tyranny are utterly and completely clueless about modern, weapons systems.

 

[scruffy]

It's way more than that.

If the federal government knows where you live?
All they have to do is fly an F-16 at 30,000 feet over your house.
Then drop a JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) on your head.

You will not see or hear the plane.
Or hear the bomb until a few seconds before it hits.
A thousand guns and a million rounds of ammunition would do NOTHING to protect you from it.
And there are dozens of other ways the military could kill you - with ease - if it wanted to.

Anyone who says that guns can protect the masses from government tyranny are utterly and completely clueless about modern, weapons systems.

Idiot. ^^^

You think anyone is talking about a "war against the US government"?

Dude - NO ONE is talking about that. Not the left, not the right, not the outliers, not even Goats. Not even me.

Please, check your insanity at the door.

 

[westwall]

Wait, you're the second person I've seen here talking about "unfired" guns being more valuable -----------------------

Is this like unopened First Editions? Or more for the 21th Century, action figures or video games still in the package? More resale value if never used?

Hmmmmmmmm, I generally suppose things are for using. The idea of keeping wine around 200 years without opening it ---- something is wrong there.

In general, a used firearm, that is provably in unfired condition, will bring a premium over the same type of firearm that has been fired.