Gun control debate (merged)

#13,776
#13,776
OHvol40 said:
I don’t assume that, but many 2A advocates claim that’s exactly why we should have blanket laws to arm every citizen, I’m just acquiring as to the legitimacy of that claim.
Click to expand...

I’ve never argued to arm every citizen . I’ve always argued for every citizen to have the right to bear arms .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and DynaLo
#13,780
#13,780
0nelilreb said:
How long do you think killing their fellow countrymen like that would last before they stopped , the first time ? Second maybe ?
Click to expand...

That’s not the question, according to 2A nuts. The question is the practicality of arming yourself against your own government, which I hear on a consistent basis.
 
#13,782
#13,782
OHvol40 said:
So do you believe armed American citizens could defend themselves against the US military? (Not being snarky, genuinely interested)
Click to expand...

This has been discussed before. Here's one I'd posted.

hndog609 said:
OK, here we go again with the galactic level myopia. A 2A uprising as envisioned by the founders is not going to be Bubba's vs Bombers. An armed citizenry (in any near future where the US remotely resembles what we have now) is able to force reaction. Cops won't be able to handle the situation. If it's really a Constitutional "stand your ground" situation vs the Fed then you're very, very likely to have whole states in on the action. You want the Feds to toss out the Posse Comitatus Act and think there won't be major fracturing? Do you know geographically where Forts Bragg, Campbell, Hood and Benning are located? What makes you think, for even one second, that huge parts of the standing military (never mind NG) wouldn't switch sides? We don't have a conscription military...those people are US. In a genuine 2A vs Feds the "leaders" would pretty much be guaranteed to be current/former military.

The point of the 2A in modern America is not the catastrophically idiotic idea of rednecks vs 21st century military power. It's the idea of being able to force that sort of thing being needed to suppress thousands of armed people saying "No." and the domino effect that would result.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, BennesseeVols, 37L1 and 2 others
#13,784
#13,784
OHvol40 said:
I don’t assume that, but many 2A advocates claim that’s exactly why we should have blanket laws to arm every citizen, I’m just acquiring as to the legitimacy of that claim.
Click to expand...
I honestly believe that if things get bad enough to where the citizens are raising arms against the government you will see fracturing within the military as a minimum if not out right rebellion. If that ever happens and our government has reached the point that they should be over thrown then just as in the 1700’s it’s the duty of every able bodied citizen to assist that... even the ones in the military.

To be clear I am not advocating overthrowing our government we actually have a pretty damn good gig. We have the opportunity for the peaceful transfer of power every four years. If they ever act to overthrow our form of government and impose their own order that is the case I am referring to.
 
#13,786
#13,786
0nelilreb said:
Neither does his firearms 😊
Click to expand...

Sure it does, because people working in ORs in Europe or Australia don’t have to deal with what I have to deal with on a consistent basis. That’s not a route you want to go, and I know where you’re going.
 
#13,788
#13,788
OHvol40 said:
That’s not the question, according to 2A nuts. The question is the practicality of arming yourself against your own government, which I hear on a consistent basis.
Click to expand...

We discussed the practical reasons for it . You can’t stop a tyrannical government by calling 911 . The FFs gave you a way and thought that it was important enough to use words that they didn’t use on any of our other rights ... “ Shall Not Be Infringed Upon “ . It’s just that simple .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, DynaLo and BennesseeVols
#13,789
#13,789
OHvol40 said:
Sure it does, because people working in ORs in Europe or Australia don’t have to deal with what I have to deal with on a consistent basis. That’s not a route you want to go, and I know where you’re going.
Click to expand...

HIS firearms do not send people to your OR and neither does MINE. Sure I’ll go that route .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, DynaLo, BennesseeVols and 2 others
#13,790
#13,790
NorthDallas40 said:
With an attitude like that it damn sure will allow tyranny to remain in place that’s for sure.

I would bet all my VN bucks that no General Officer would order troops under his command to fire on US citizens. And if it got so bad that citizens were raising arms against the government I’d bet the rest of my VN bucks that many if not most would cross over.
Click to expand...
Kent State?
 
#13,792
#13,792
hndog609 said:
This has been discussed before. Here's one I'd posted.
Click to expand...

It’s nice to see you leaning on human decency. I try to do that too... but that’s not the 2A contention. It’s “defense against tyranny”. So it’s completely practical to analyze the legitimacy of that claim.
 
#13,794
#13,794
NorthDallas40 said:
I honestly believe that if things get bad enough to where the citizens are raising arms against the government you will see fracturing within the military as a minimum if not out right rebellion. If that ever happens and our government has reached the point that they should be over thrown then just as in the 1700’s it’s the duty of every able bodied citizen to assist that... even the ones in the military.

To be clear I am not advocating overthrowing our government we actually have a pretty damn good gig. We have the opportunity for the peaceful transfer of power every four years. If they ever act to overthrow our form of government and impose their own order that is the case I am referring to.
Click to expand...


Lol I understand and agree with all of that. That’s not the advocation of the 2A defense, though, and that’s what we’re discussing.
 
#13,796
#13,796
OHvol40 said:
It’s nice to see you leaning on human decency. I try to do that too... but that’s not the 2A contention. It’s “defense against tyranny”. So it’s completely practical to analyze the legitimacy of that claim.
Click to expand...
So you do understand that there are two aspects to gun ownership in the US right.

First is 2a and the organized overthrowing of tyranny.

But what you probably see every day is the right of self defense. This is the CCL Avenue and why we have armed citizenry walking around. To defend themselves if they need to.

They are totally separate issues.
 
#13,799
#13,799
hndog609 said:
I'm confused, I thought my post very much addressed just that circumstance.
Click to expand...

Your post was a hypothetical, a different hypothetical than the one I hear from single-issue 2A people. So I’m not interested in addressing yours, I’m interested in addressing theirs. It’s one of the defenses for unfettered armament of the US... so I want to explore that.
 
#13,800
#13,800
NorthDallas40 said:
So you do understand that there are two aspects to gun ownership in the US right.

First is 2a and the organized overthrowing of tyranny.

But what you probably see every day is the right of self defense. This is the CCL Avenue and why we have armed citizenry walking around. To defend themselves if they need to.

They are totally separate issues.
Click to expand...

We have too many people shot every day for the “self-defense” contention to make sense. We have WAY more guns than any other developed nation but what do the stats say? They say that hinders us rather than helps. Me and my colleagues live that reality.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top