No Second Amendment in the UK
- Thread starter devon deer
- Start date
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,426
If I have my way this whole place will reek of patchouli, and will be covered in wild earth guardian banners, that's all I'm saying.
#longgame
Tiredofthebickering
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,805
I'm not a fan of open carry in south Florida. Does that make me anti 2A? Do you have to all for or all against? Is there any middle ground?
FI460
Well-known member
No nuance permitted. We're to fall in line or be shunned.
Tiredofthebickering
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,805
That's almost what we hate the other side for doing!
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,426
@Sytes I can't speak for the rest of the commies on the thread... but personally I think we are losing this fight from a thousand little cuts. What's our strategy, hold the line no one blink mean while firearm rights are removed bit by bit all across the country. Why not for once discuss making a big move, take some pain, and hit our opponent hard and win. My post outlined how we could make some gains in ownership. (or at least talk about it, critique the ideas not the idea of a discussion)
So this was initially what I was thinking of... but the metaphor is stupidly heavy handed.
But it's also an epic scene... so whatever.
So this was initially what I was thinking of... but the metaphor is stupidly heavy handed.
But it's also an epic scene... so whatever.
No, it does not make you the devil... nor MLK... just makes you a guy who is not a fan of open carry.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
On both sides of the line. Pick a side and surrender all person judgement, experience and logic to the enlightened few that define that side. It's your only option in 2020. A bigger risk to this nation than Trump or the gun grabbers, but we don't seem to care, we love picking sides.
Shangobango
Well-known member
That is a whole other topic from what this thread covers, but I will say I think that this is a pretty simplistic view of what things would look like if, God forbid, the situation in this country devolves into chaos.
The military is made up of people with families and friends and differing political views. If we get to the point that we have devolved into armed conflict the likelihood that it would be the whole of the military armed to the teeth against some portion of the population with nothing but AR's and hunting rifles is remote. I can't see it breaking down that neatly.
I pray we never get to find out.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
That’s the thing that always amazes me about the conspiracy theory fantasies. The same people that believe them tend to also believe that the government is completely incompetent. If the government is that incompetent, there’s no way they could pull of these massive conspiracies. Makes me laugh just thinking about it.
Panda Bear
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2019
- Messages
- 845
You think an armed or unarmed population is more easily controlled?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I think the world doesn't work as simply as your question implies. For most of us, if we had to abandon our homes, families, churches, personal possessions, and careers; and flee to the hills with a fist full of bolt action rifles and semi-auto ARs to fight a multi-decade insurgency against the rest of America, we have already lost 98% of what really matters. So this armed populous (of a few hundred thousand "patriots" max) against the power and resources of the other 325 million American citizens is a foolish pipe dream - and is certainly no basis for deciding modern gun policy. That is why Scalia et al went with the right of personal self-defense in Heller - the armed resistance angle just doesn't hold water to 90+% of Americans.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
If I recall my history, it was, turn in your weapons or we will continue to hunt down and kill each and every one of you, women and children included - and don't worry, we will take care of you. I doubt a single Indian surrendered to get the great government comp package.
The question really was that simple but for whatever reason, you won’t answer it honestly. Try this one. Why have governments throughout the history of the world attempted to limit the weapons of their citizens?
FI460
Well-known member
In modern times? Because it was a priority of the government. The government that was elected to implement the will of the majority of the populous.
No, not modern times. My question clearly states throughout history. What has been the motivation of governments to restrict weapons?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Here is my answer to your earlier question (and no, I am not playing the cross-examination game of "you must answer solely yes or no", or answer "when did you stop beating your wife?" - these rhetorical tricks are beneath the level of quality discussion that HT often has - save that for reddit).
At the level of arms and training available the average US citizen, and in the numbers of such citizens that have ever actually taken up arms against the US or state government in the last 150 years I do not believe that an "unarmed population" is any easier to control in a democratic society.
As for your new question - you mix two different histories. The first is that authoritarian governments have historically limited access to weapons for the purpose of maintaining their authoritarian government. The second is in the case of democratic governments, they have sought to limit access to weapons at the democratic request of their citizens for the purpose of limiting the violence that may be done between such citizens. Two completely different reasons. To rally around the first scenario, the burden is clearly on you to demonstrate we are living in the first instance.
Not liking a democratically enacted tax, or zoning requirement, or environmental regulation, or court judgement etc etc etc are not authoritarian acts that should be met with armed resistance. I get it, people don't like changes - but give me a clearly supported argument that the US is moving towards a true authoritarian form of government (think Hilter, Stalin, Mao - not modern France, Sweden or Belgium) and that this move can be effectively prevented by me having a 17 round magazine for my glock.
Similar threads
