Anyone looking to ban weapons must not believe Jan 6th was a genuine insurrection.
Why, oh why, would you disarm the people and give the state a monopoly on violence when that state is teetering on the edge of fascism.
Serious questions how would guns have prevented the insurrection?
I think they mean you want to have guns AFTER the insurrection.
But then, what good are AR-15s against Abrams and F35s?
An F-35 can't stand on a street corner and enforce martial law. This argument falls apart when you look at any armed resistance fighting oppression.
Did America not just lose a forever war against a bunch of dudes in the desert with AKs and homemade bombs?
Russia is finding out that even those planes and tanks are obsolete compared to cheap drones. At this point any laws we make won't matter at all in Civil War II.
But then, what good are AR-15s against Abrams and F35s?
Heres the thing about civil war. You don't need to fight the f35. You live where the pilot, and his family lives. Theres a reason civil war is a last resort and it's not because it's unwinnable, it's because there's not much justification for the steps you have to take, so the ends better be damn well justified. To think American is some how immune to how civil conflicts work is fantasy.
Dude if the fascists get control of the military then an AR-15 is not going to help you. In fact the best chance we have of avoiding a successful violent coup is military intervention. I know that sucks to hear, but it's not the 1970's anymore. The technology we developed for 20 years of fighting an insurgency makes it pretty suicidal to attempt an insurgency against the US military.
You mean the insurgency that eventually achieved all of its goals and reclaimed it's power and control after the most powerful military in the world gave up and went home?
Or did you mean it's not the 1970s where that insurgency also did it to the second most powerful military...while a different insurgency did it to the one from the first example?
You're absolutely right that in a straight up fight no individual stands a chance against the US military (and I also tend to agree that the military would be the best friend of the people in that awful scenario) but there's two or three points that muddy the waters here a bit: it's not going to be just one, it's not going to be a straight up fight, and if the population were somehow disarmed, there wouldn't even be any struggle at all.
I'm not saying I'd fight off a battalion from my front porch wearing my Crocs, but a) anything is preferable to being herded to my fate, and b) it's not about one armed individual, it's more about the unappetizing proposition of subduing an armed populace.
No, it's not the 1970's, you can't expect to survive fighting an American infantry platoon with nothing but rifles anymore.
You guys keep bringing up that the Taliban and Vietnamese won but you aren't actually comparing the situations. In both situations they only won because we left voluntarily.
So tell me, if half of America votes in a Fascist, when are they leaving?
You're assuming that people in the military are going to be just fine with bombing cities where their friends live, or where they have family. If you're going to say that the US military, run by fascists, is just going to steamroll actual patriots, that's what you're talking about. But the problem is that those pilots, the drone operators, the guys running artillery batteries, they're likely going to know people and have friends and family that live in blue cities and states, and once they find out that their own friends have been killed as 'collateral damage', they're likely going to be having second thoughts.
Israel is able to level Gaza because there aren't Israelis living in Gaza; how eager do you think members of the IDF would be to bomb the shit out of the Palestinians if they knew their own friends and family were getting killed with every bomb, and with every shell?
Then you don't need an AR15 because there's no tyrannical army to fight.
You can't have it both ways.
Here's the lovely thing: I don't need to demonstrate a need in order to exercise a right. I don't need to prove I need to vote in order to have the right to vote. I don't have to prove I need religion in order to be permitted to be religious.
Oh so now you're just abandoning any attempt to justify why a well regulated militia should allow you to carry around an AR-15 on the daily with no supervision.
"Well regulated" is understood to mean "trained".
This is a settled question; 2a rights are individual rights, not hinging on whether or not I'm in a militia. They've been understood to be both an individual right and responsibility for nearly 250 years, despite attempts by fraudulent scholars to claim otherwise.
No. It's literally from the Latin for rules. The word has never not meant to have rules and regulation.
The idea of a well regulated watch or other gadget, is actually later.
I know you've probably been told this myth your entire life but it's just not true. And why it took the court 175 years to define the militia as every able bodied person.
The founders were very aware of the dangers of letting people run around with guns and no regulations. That's why the first sentence is there and why there were laws about guns in town for 300 years before the Bruen decision decided to ignore history while claiming to be historically accurate.
We do keep asking you what the plan is if you say there's no point in fighting back against fascism.
No, I've told you. You just make it a thing to not get the point. Looking at your post history this is a pattern with you. You ask for clarification, make fun of the argument and then pretend you never got an answer. I'm not engaging with that anymore.
Cool, then let's stop talking to each other.
80's-action-hero-MC syndrome is so prevalent in our culture it's not even fucking funny.
Maybe look a little outside the US? Other Western countries are far, far safer and have much less gun violence with less weapons in circulation. The difference is the easy access to weapons.
Canada and Sweden still have a lot of guns but considerably lower rates of violence in general, and gun violence in particular.
And way, way lower gun ownership rates compared to the US. Plus very strict rules for owning a weapon, such as storage.
This is a strange angle because the UK does not have notably higher levels of knife ownership but has a disproportionately high level of stabbings.
I think the idea that the cause of gun violence is guns is just flawed. People need a reason to commit violence, they don't just do it for fun.
Maybe because
A) The AR15 is just cute if it comes to battling the US armed forces. Anyone thinking they can have an insurrection by not taking over the army, but instead having civilians with AR15's fighting the US armed forces (or even the police forces) is just... Cute. Also, again, insurrections require less weapons and more planning, connections, popularity, that sort of thing.
B) most of those weapons are used by the very people supporting a fascist government. All these "government evil!" types are dumb as fuck and voting for Trump.
C) AR15 weapons have been used (and continue to be used damn near weekly) in mass shootings that has killed hundreds of children.
Americans have shown one thing for sure: they can't be trusted to use weapons safely, securely and responsibly. If you can't take care of your toys (because thats what they are for most people, big boy toys) we take your toys away.
Take a single look at any other western country and you'll find that (barring perhaps Switzerland, where they are extremely responsible with laws and culture) they all van weapons and this shit simply. doesn't. happen. How? There are no mass murder weapons freely available.
The AR15 is just cute if it comes to battling the US armed forces. Anyone thinking they can have an insurrection by not taking over the army, but instead having civilians with AR15's fighting the US armed forces (or even the police forces) is just... Cute. Also, again, insurrections require less weapons and more planning, connections, popularity, that sort of thing.
Remember the middle east? Remember vietnam? A bunch of poverty stricken farmers kicked our asses. And with a US rebellion, you can bet theres going to be at least a few traitors in the military
Remember the middle east? Remember vietnam? A bunch of poverty stricken farmers kicked our asses ground themselves against superior firepower, eeking out enough casualties to make an apathetic American public demand an end to the conflicts
Just want to set the record straight because the idea of "Kicking the ass" of the US army with a whole lot of of the smallest weapon they issue is disillusional. The vast majority of casualties in the GWOT were IEDs
Even today, nothing beats a rifle behind every bush.
MK19 grenade launchers do. They beat that. The Ukrainian defenders in Kherson can attest to what happens to the rifles behind the grass. They didn't get backed up because the commander was either incompetent or helping the Russians, and the Russians fucking slaughtered them. This isn't 1776. You can't take a shot and run. You just get highlighted on a thermal camera and tracked to your meeting point. Which I hope isn't your family's house because then a missile is going to come say hello.
This idea of AR-15's being some kind of effective anti-tyranny device needs to die in a dumpster fire. It will not work.
I keep seeing the argument that going up against the government is the only reason anyone would own an AR-15.
But, call me crazy, there are just oodles of white supremacist civilians running around. Do you think there is no possible scenario where good, ordinary people might have to defend their loved ones against those kinds of shitheels? Do you think such a fight is unwinnable, or immoral? Do you think it's more or less likely than columns of tanks and missiles flying into houses on American soil?
Because I think the scenario you outlined is ridiculous. But even if it happens, unwinnable fights must still be fought. You can't just roll over belly up for tyranny.
What are YOU gonna do if Trump wins and becomes a tyrant?
See, you had a good argument and then you veered into martyrdom ideology. At any rate there's plenty of weapons you can use to defend yourself that aren't semi-automatic rifles with external magazines. Like Semi Automatic rifles with internal clips, or revolver rifles, or shotguns, or semi-automatic pistols in a brace, or baseball bats and 50 good friends, or a nice bit of Tannerite buried on the driveway with steel balls imbedded in it. The list goes on.
You're right, it's stupid and immoral to use the best tools for the job. The right thing to do under tyranny is to hobble your ability to fight.
No the right thing to do is to not have the fight in the first place because we all actually got our shit together. Having the fight at all is a failure that's at least as likely to balkanize this country as it is to result in one side winning.
Fantastic! I'm glad you have figured out how to change the minds of fascists, as a pacifist. Please hurry, we are short on time.
When you look at polling and history it's obvious that most people, even most people voting for Trump aren't fascists. They simply don't believe Trump is actually that bad. The mission is not to give a flower to a fascist. It's to get photographed doing so in order to show everyone else the picture.
Looking at gaza right now, like yeah you can fight a government but it don't look great. If a government wants to kill you it will kill you.
The Iraqi insurgency was run by ex
-Baath party members who used to run and be the army when GW dismissed them to "nation build.". They went home and took their weapons with them. However, many, many died. They were also supported by Iran.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Do you think that there aren't plenty of former military people that are on the political left?
The military stacked bodies in both of those conflicts. I know it's cool to run around yelling that we got beat by farmers but the reality was very different. The South Vietnamese government fell because the people wanted it to fall. We were the only thing holding it up. The minute we left the majority of the people made their will known. The same thing occurred in Afghanistan. People want to think the Taliban were hiding in caves and fighting us with farmers. But they acted and operated as a government in exile with their base in Pakistan. They had professional fighting units that infiltrated along the mountains and came down to fight anywhere in the country. (Sounding familiar yet?) Then at the end it turns out we were again, the only thing holding the government up. The people were literally just waiting for us to leave.
And in both conflicts the US military consistently won their engagements. This is not something you're going to win on the battlefield. This is something you win with massive movements of people.
Really? If you bring up thosez are you also going to bring up the casualty list on both sides? Because i can guarantee you that that is slightly skewed.
The US army sucks at keeping conquered territory, especially with make friends from enemies.
But waltzing in and burrying you under your own shit? That's pretty much a specialty. Can the likes of you be an annoyance at that point? Sure you can. You'll bleed like a mofo, for each kill you make you'll lose a humdred on your side... You're cute.
And again you're missing the point that ar15 rigkes and just all fucking guns in the US cause irreparable harm, every single day.
And again you're missing the point that most of these ar15 owner "but the government is tyranny" types are exactly the ones voting for a tyrannical government
AR15 weapons have been used (and continue to be used damn near weekly) in mass shootings that has killed hundreds of children.
Calling this out because I do not believe the evidence supports this. Please provide evidence for this claim.
By the FBI definition of a mass shooting--which is 4 or more people, not including the shooter, shot (but not necessarily killed) in a single incident--the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are committed with handguns, and most mass shootings are either ordinary crime (gang-related, robberies, etc.) or domestic violence murder-suicides. Of the 20,000 or so homicides that are committed with firearms in the US annually, around 5% overall--about 1000--are committed with anything other than a handgun. That includes all shotguns and long guns.
Here's a list of all mass shootings in the US in 2023; from what I can find, 3-4 of the worst shootings used a rifle. The Baltimore shooting is questionable, as they note that it appeared to be a rifle-caliber pistol, which could mean an AR-15 pistol, or it could mean a PDW.
So no, AR-15 rifles are absolutely no used weekly in mass shootings. That's just blatantly false.
Have they killed hundreds of children? If you're going to look at all civilian shooting deaths in the US over the last 50 years, then yeah, almost certainly. But in 2023? Or 2022? No, not even close.
Huh I wasn't expecting to get such a bombshell comment disproving the claim but damn you knocked it out of the park.
Anyone looking to ban weapons must not believe Jan 6th was a genuine insurrection.
Why, oh why, would you disarm the people and give the state a monopoly on violence when that state is teetering on the edge of fascism.
Serious questions how would guns have prevented the insurrection?
I think they mean you want to have guns AFTER the insurrection.
But then, what good are AR-15s against Abrams and F35s?
An F-35 can't stand on a street corner and enforce martial law. This argument falls apart when you look at any armed resistance fighting oppression.
Did America not just lose a forever war against a bunch of dudes in the desert with AKs and homemade bombs?
Russia is finding out that even those planes and tanks are obsolete compared to cheap drones. At this point any laws we make won't matter at all in Civil War II.
Heres the thing about civil war. You don't need to fight the f35. You live where the pilot, and his family lives. Theres a reason civil war is a last resort and it's not because it's unwinnable, it's because there's not much justification for the steps you have to take, so the ends better be damn well justified. To think American is some how immune to how civil conflicts work is fantasy.
Dude if the fascists get control of the military then an AR-15 is not going to help you. In fact the best chance we have of avoiding a successful violent coup is military intervention. I know that sucks to hear, but it's not the 1970's anymore. The technology we developed for 20 years of fighting an insurgency makes it pretty suicidal to attempt an insurgency against the US military.
You mean the insurgency that eventually achieved all of its goals and reclaimed it's power and control after the most powerful military in the world gave up and went home?
Or did you mean it's not the 1970s where that insurgency also did it to the second most powerful military...while a different insurgency did it to the one from the first example?
You're absolutely right that in a straight up fight no individual stands a chance against the US military (and I also tend to agree that the military would be the best friend of the people in that awful scenario) but there's two or three points that muddy the waters here a bit: it's not going to be just one, it's not going to be a straight up fight, and if the population were somehow disarmed, there wouldn't even be any struggle at all.
I'm not saying I'd fight off a battalion from my front porch wearing my Crocs, but a) anything is preferable to being herded to my fate, and b) it's not about one armed individual, it's more about the unappetizing proposition of subduing an armed populace.
No, it's not the 1970's, you can't expect to survive fighting an American infantry platoon with nothing but rifles anymore.
You guys keep bringing up that the Taliban and Vietnamese won but you aren't actually comparing the situations. In both situations they only won because we left voluntarily.
So tell me, if half of America votes in a Fascist, when are they leaving?
You're assuming that people in the military are going to be just fine with bombing cities where their friends live, or where they have family. If you're going to say that the US military, run by fascists, is just going to steamroll actual patriots, that's what you're talking about. But the problem is that those pilots, the drone operators, the guys running artillery batteries, they're likely going to know people and have friends and family that live in blue cities and states, and once they find out that their own friends have been killed as 'collateral damage', they're likely going to be having second thoughts.
Israel is able to level Gaza because there aren't Israelis living in Gaza; how eager do you think members of the IDF would be to bomb the shit out of the Palestinians if they knew their own friends and family were getting killed with every bomb, and with every shell?
Then you don't need an AR15 because there's no tyrannical army to fight.
You can't have it both ways.
Here's the lovely thing: I don't need to demonstrate a need in order to exercise a right. I don't need to prove I need to vote in order to have the right to vote. I don't have to prove I need religion in order to be permitted to be religious.
Oh so now you're just abandoning any attempt to justify why a well regulated militia should allow you to carry around an AR-15 on the daily with no supervision.
"Well regulated" is understood to mean "trained".
This is a settled question; 2a rights are individual rights, not hinging on whether or not I'm in a militia. They've been understood to be both an individual right and responsibility for nearly 250 years, despite attempts by fraudulent scholars to claim otherwise.
No. It's literally from the Latin for rules. The word has never not meant to have rules and regulation.
The idea of a well regulated watch or other gadget, is actually later.
I know you've probably been told this myth your entire life but it's just not true. And why it took the court 175 years to define the militia as every able bodied person.
The founders were very aware of the dangers of letting people run around with guns and no regulations. That's why the first sentence is there and why there were laws about guns in town for 300 years before the Bruen decision decided to ignore history while claiming to be historically accurate.
We do keep asking you what the plan is if you say there's no point in fighting back against fascism.
No, I've told you. You just make it a thing to not get the point. Looking at your post history this is a pattern with you. You ask for clarification, make fun of the argument and then pretend you never got an answer. I'm not engaging with that anymore.
Cool, then let's stop talking to each other.
80's-action-hero-MC syndrome is so prevalent in our culture it's not even fucking funny.
Maybe look a little outside the US? Other Western countries are far, far safer and have much less gun violence with less weapons in circulation. The difference is the easy access to weapons.
Canada and Sweden still have a lot of guns but considerably lower rates of violence in general, and gun violence in particular.
And way, way lower gun ownership rates compared to the US. Plus very strict rules for owning a weapon, such as storage.
This is a strange angle because the UK does not have notably higher levels of knife ownership but has a disproportionately high level of stabbings.
I think the idea that the cause of gun violence is guns is just flawed. People need a reason to commit violence, they don't just do it for fun.
Maybe because
A) The AR15 is just cute if it comes to battling the US armed forces. Anyone thinking they can have an insurrection by not taking over the army, but instead having civilians with AR15's fighting the US armed forces (or even the police forces) is just... Cute. Also, again, insurrections require less weapons and more planning, connections, popularity, that sort of thing.
B) most of those weapons are used by the very people supporting a fascist government. All these "government evil!" types are dumb as fuck and voting for Trump.
C) AR15 weapons have been used (and continue to be used damn near weekly) in mass shootings that has killed hundreds of children.
Americans have shown one thing for sure: they can't be trusted to use weapons safely, securely and responsibly. If you can't take care of your toys (because thats what they are for most people, big boy toys) we take your toys away.
Take a single look at any other western country and you'll find that (barring perhaps Switzerland, where they are extremely responsible with laws and culture) they all van weapons and this shit simply. doesn't. happen. How? There are no mass murder weapons freely available.
Remember the middle east? Remember vietnam? A bunch of poverty stricken farmers kicked our asses. And with a US rebellion, you can bet theres going to be at least a few traitors in the military
Remember the middle east? Remember vietnam? A bunch of poverty stricken farmers
kicked our assesground themselves against superior firepower, eeking out enough casualties to make an apathetic American public demand an end to the conflictsJust want to set the record straight because the idea of "Kicking the ass" of the US army with a whole lot of of the smallest weapon they issue is disillusional. The vast majority of casualties in the GWOT were IEDs
Even today, nothing beats a rifle behind every bush.
MK19 grenade launchers do. They beat that. The Ukrainian defenders in Kherson can attest to what happens to the rifles behind the grass. They didn't get backed up because the commander was either incompetent or helping the Russians, and the Russians fucking slaughtered them. This isn't 1776. You can't take a shot and run. You just get highlighted on a thermal camera and tracked to your meeting point. Which I hope isn't your family's house because then a missile is going to come say hello.
This idea of AR-15's being some kind of effective anti-tyranny device needs to die in a dumpster fire. It will not work.
I keep seeing the argument that going up against the government is the only reason anyone would own an AR-15.
But, call me crazy, there are just oodles of white supremacist civilians running around. Do you think there is no possible scenario where good, ordinary people might have to defend their loved ones against those kinds of shitheels? Do you think such a fight is unwinnable, or immoral? Do you think it's more or less likely than columns of tanks and missiles flying into houses on American soil?
Because I think the scenario you outlined is ridiculous. But even if it happens, unwinnable fights must still be fought. You can't just roll over belly up for tyranny.
What are YOU gonna do if Trump wins and becomes a tyrant?
See, you had a good argument and then you veered into martyrdom ideology. At any rate there's plenty of weapons you can use to defend yourself that aren't semi-automatic rifles with external magazines. Like Semi Automatic rifles with internal clips, or revolver rifles, or shotguns, or semi-automatic pistols in a brace, or baseball bats and 50 good friends, or a nice bit of Tannerite buried on the driveway with steel balls imbedded in it. The list goes on.
You're right, it's stupid and immoral to use the best tools for the job. The right thing to do under tyranny is to hobble your ability to fight.
No the right thing to do is to not have the fight in the first place because we all actually got our shit together. Having the fight at all is a failure that's at least as likely to balkanize this country as it is to result in one side winning.
Fantastic! I'm glad you have figured out how to change the minds of fascists, as a pacifist. Please hurry, we are short on time.
When you look at polling and history it's obvious that most people, even most people voting for Trump aren't fascists. They simply don't believe Trump is actually that bad. The mission is not to give a flower to a fascist. It's to get photographed doing so in order to show everyone else the picture.
Ah yes, the "good Germans."
Looking at gaza right now, like yeah you can fight a government but it don't look great. If a government wants to kill you it will kill you.
The Iraqi insurgency was run by ex -Baath party members who used to run and be the army when GW dismissed them to "nation build.". They went home and took their weapons with them. However, many, many died. They were also supported by Iran.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Do you think that there aren't plenty of former military people that are on the political left?
The military stacked bodies in both of those conflicts. I know it's cool to run around yelling that we got beat by farmers but the reality was very different. The South Vietnamese government fell because the people wanted it to fall. We were the only thing holding it up. The minute we left the majority of the people made their will known. The same thing occurred in Afghanistan. People want to think the Taliban were hiding in caves and fighting us with farmers. But they acted and operated as a government in exile with their base in Pakistan. They had professional fighting units that infiltrated along the mountains and came down to fight anywhere in the country. (Sounding familiar yet?) Then at the end it turns out we were again, the only thing holding the government up. The people were literally just waiting for us to leave.
And in both conflicts the US military consistently won their engagements. This is not something you're going to win on the battlefield. This is something you win with massive movements of people.
Really? If you bring up thosez are you also going to bring up the casualty list on both sides? Because i can guarantee you that that is slightly skewed.
The US army sucks at keeping conquered territory, especially with make friends from enemies.
But waltzing in and burrying you under your own shit? That's pretty much a specialty. Can the likes of you be an annoyance at that point? Sure you can. You'll bleed like a mofo, for each kill you make you'll lose a humdred on your side... You're cute.
And again you're missing the point that ar15 rigkes and just all fucking guns in the US cause irreparable harm, every single day.
And again you're missing the point that most of these ar15 owner "but the government is tyranny" types are exactly the ones voting for a tyrannical government
Calling this out because I do not believe the evidence supports this. Please provide evidence for this claim.
By the FBI definition of a mass shooting--which is 4 or more people, not including the shooter, shot (but not necessarily killed) in a single incident--the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are committed with handguns, and most mass shootings are either ordinary crime (gang-related, robberies, etc.) or domestic violence murder-suicides. Of the 20,000 or so homicides that are committed with firearms in the US annually, around 5% overall--about 1000--are committed with anything other than a handgun. That includes all shotguns and long guns.
Here's a list of all mass shootings in the US in 2023; from what I can find, 3-4 of the worst shootings used a rifle. The Baltimore shooting is questionable, as they note that it appeared to be a rifle-caliber pistol, which could mean an AR-15 pistol, or it could mean a PDW.
So no, AR-15 rifles are absolutely no used weekly in mass shootings. That's just blatantly false.
Have they killed hundreds of children? If you're going to look at all civilian shooting deaths in the US over the last 50 years, then yeah, almost certainly. But in 2023? Or 2022? No, not even close.
Huh I wasn't expecting to get such a bombshell comment disproving the claim but damn you knocked it out of the park.