MelatoninIt's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused unlawful government.
It was of course always the plan to radicalize these people and then utilize them
I wish I had enough faith in people’s planning abilities to believe this
skulblakaSteve Bannon, as much of a piece of shit as he is, had a good plan and executed it well. He’s talked about it openly. This has been brewing for decades, at least.
I feel like it makes more sense if the guns were always there to protect stolen land.
the Howling NorthWait til you hear what happened when the Black Panthers tried to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Something bad. Is it something bad? I bet it was something bad.
starlingukFunnily enough it resulted in more gun control, so it was something good.
Look at the results of that 90s LA bank robbery. It was the first time that two guys had enough body armour and firepower to challenge the local police. What was the end result? Every police officer across the country getting assigned body armour, high powered rifles, and every police agency militarizing and buying APCS, tactical units, etc.
The idea that the government would allow you to own weaponry that would legitimately challenge them is asinine.
Guns are naught but tools. They have no moral nor political ambition. All they can do is provide an amplifier of force, no matter your ideology.
Only you don’t accidentally beat someone to death with a hammer.
Speak for yourself.
It’s a lot faster to do it with a car
You don’t accidentally shoot anyone either, it’s negligence.
In the US a gun is more likely to kill the owner or their family than anyone else.
I’m fairly sure ethe vast majority of those are accidental.
Well you’d be wrong, overwhelmingly the majority of those are suicides, followed by intentional homicides, and lastly negligence (you can try and remove the negligent party’s guilt by calling them accidents all you want, but the “accident” occurs through blatant negligence every time.)
You: Well you are wrong, because if you don’t count these gun deaths, then there are almost no gun deaths.
Did you not read what I replied to?
I’m fairly sure the vast majority of those are accidental.
Do you define intentional suicides and intentional homicides as accidents or are you being a snarky jackass without a license?
In the US a gun is more likely to kill the owner or their family than anyone else.
People living with handgun owners face twice the risk of homicide, study says
You didn’t even read that, did you? Thanks for proving my point.
Let’s not get tied up in semantics but the idea that you can’t “accidentally” shoot someone is nonsense. Whether you call it negligence or not, if it’s not on purpose, then it’s an accident.
Accident isn’t a harsh enough word.
They subscribe to the NRA falsehood about “guns don’t kill people etc.”. Such people are usually lost causes.
Sure but I don’t see how people can think certain bans should exist and not others. Sawn off shotguns have been banned for as long as I’ve ever known, yet people don’t question it. The reasoning is they could be dangerous to others on accident. Yet if you take any round .223 with a fmj (cheapest format to buy) it’s going straight through your wall, and through the entire apartment across the hall. So when you fire 3 shots towards the door they are trying to go through, most people with adrenaline or freaking out enough to think a gun is necessary at that point in time, 2 of those rounds are going into the next residence. Even the 1 that hits the person very well might go straight through.
Guy stacked sheet rock up in a row and they went through .223 - 17 .308 - 20 30-06 - 23
Granted with gaps between them the wobble will make it more like 3-4… so anyone in the living room/dining room or if the bedroom is towards the wall facing the hall… Is possibly getting a hunk of lead in them.
Hollow points almost make more sense there, as hopefully they’d split on the first sheet rock and the smaller shards may get stuck in the second, if not hopefully not have enough momentum to penetrate a person after if their lucky.
Should they ban those rifles, in my opinion no, but I think if you use one for home defense and fire a round that penetrates into another person’s residence, you should get an attempted murder charge for being irresponsible. It isn’t a moose coming in the front door. For people who believe they need home defense a 9mm hollow point will save money, be easier to navigate in close quarters and dump all the energy into stopping the person instead of going out their back. (Unfortunately for them, much more organ damage, and high chances of death). (Personally I think most should use revolvers anyways if they aren’t using it often, because 20 years from now even if it hasn’t been cleaned, it’s more than likely going to do exactly what you want it to do… while a semi automatic spring loaded contraption, may jam)
I encourage people to educate themselves on guns and what type and size gun is appropriate for what they want to do.
Lots of FUDD here.
Over pen is going to happen on pretty much any round period. Slower rounds with larger mass will go through more usually in real life situations. The drywall videos are ok, but the issue with them is that they don’t show the other shit in the walls. Wires/firestops/insulation/studs. Exterior walls might have brick or stucco with tile. Doesn’t matter the round, you’re going to have over pen. Shoot a deer slug at a 2x4 stud and drywall, vs a 223/556 round…deer slug is winning every time.
Second, a AR pattern rifle is much, much easier to get on target and shoot for pretty much anyone compared to a shotgun or handgun.
Secondly people do call out the absolute bullshit rules of from the ATF and NFA. A shorter barrel doesn’t magically make a firearm more deadly, just like a suppressor doesn’t magically make a firearm silent. FUDD shit.
Lastly, a revolver is trash for defense, there is a reason pretty much every branch of LE or military has swapped to semi-auto mag fed handguns. They are easier to shoot, more accurate, hold more rounds, easier to reload, etc. On top of all this, you shouldn’t be loading something and tossing it in a drawer until you need it. You should be practicing with it at minimum monthly.
They are tools designed with the singular purpose of killing.
Ignoring that fact is incredibly disingenous.
Gee, maybe if you shouldn’t expect others to pick up arms for you. Maybe you have to diy your own revolution.
Like honestly, what did you actually expect?
Your post history is a mess.
AkasazhI have him tagged as ‘misguided soul’
Holy shit - he’s one of those lunatics that thinks Bernie Sanders is a corrupt politician committing crimes!
If I see one more mouthbreather rant about a guy with multiple published books owning more than one house as if that’s a smoking gun, I’m going to go postal!
People don’t understand the game.
That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny
You can’t expect everyone to agree with you ideologically, and obviously they won’t rise up against a government they agree with. Conservatives don’t see the current administration as tyrannical, so there is no conflict for them between the ideals of the second amendment and their actions.
However, you can absolutely choose to exercise your second amendment rights.
As a gun owning liberal, I’m tired of my peers acting like the second amendment is some conservative agenda. The right to firearm ownership is an eminently liberal ideal. More liberals and leftists should own guns— the second amendment is more important now than ever before.
If you need to exercise your right to bear arms, you have already lost. The battle is won in education, critical skills, and mobilising together (unions, etc).
Good luck with whatever the fuck you’re smoking.
History shows time and time again that collapsing cities/societies/empires cannot be stopped nor redirected with violence. The endemic causes are there, violence may provide a respite but it just accelerates the overall disintegration of the society.
May what is happening to the USA be a wake up call for the rest of the western world.
If we ever have to exercise the right to bear arms, it will be a dark day indeed. No reasonable person wants that. We have many methods if recourse before that even enters the conversation IMO.
However, there can eventually come a time where resistance is appropriate. Hitler never would have taken complete control of the country, exterminated so many Jews, and started Europe on the path to a world war if the Germans were armed and actively resisting his rule.
It seems self evident that the German people would been better off resisting Nazi rule than allowing the death camps and WW2 to come to fruition.
myrmidexI agree resistance to tyranny can be necessary, but this example doesn’t support the gun control argument. Hitler actually loosened gun restrictions for ordinary Germans - only Jews were specifically disarmed. The real issue wasn’t that Germans lacked weapons, but that most of the population supported or tolerated Nazi rule until it was too late.
What makes you think they didn’t have guns?
Never suggested they didn’t. I’m suggesting that the country would have been better off if they both had weapons and chose to resist.
We aren’t Germany. The founding fathers made sure we could arm ourselves. The choices we make are our own.
However, there can eventually come a time where resistance is appropriate. Hitler never would have taken complete control of the country, exterminated so many Jews, and started Europe on the path to a world war if the Germans were armed and actively resisting his rule.
Bruh, come the fuck on. Jews were 1% of the population, meanwhile like 30% of the population actively supported the Nazis, and far more would have continued to turn a blind eye as long as violence wasn’t being perpetrated against people like them.
This is nonsense alt history that ignores the fact that Nazis steamrolled and enacted death camps in far more countries than just Germany, and personal ownership of firearms didn’t make a dent in stopping them.
You aren’t wrong… but leaving guns off the table feels short sighted.
You’re right. It’s a liberal idea to allow the (largely) unregulated possession of firearms. However, it takes a certain mindset to pickup that forearm and try to decide how the country is run with it through armed insurrection. One that’s more akin to authoritarian, or at least paternalism.
Personally I feel if the 2nd amendment is there for this reason, the ln the no kings marches should have had arms. That’s a powderkeg scenario and we’d probably be looking at hundreds dead at this point. However if there was ever a reason for the 2nd amendment, this is it and that’s the cost. Otherwise there’s no point in the right to bear arms and you should scrap it.
That’s a fair statement.
I don’t think we are there yet. It will be far better for our country if our problems can be solved by diplomatic and political means, and we are far from running out of levers to pull.
I’m not sure what you’re waiting for in terms of warning signs. They’ve taken the military into LA under the pretence of “liberating the city from socialism”.
This is honestly, the dumbest, most American take in the world.
It literally ignores the fact plainly obvious fact that not a single other developed country allows gun ownership, and yet, still have rights and democracy and freedom.
Guns did not get your rights, and they do not protect you from a government that has AI powered drones with anti tank mines on them. Hell a fucking APC with a sound cannon will make your AR look like a child’s toy.
Wide spread gun ownership makes everyone less safe. Full stop.
This is honestly, the dumbest, most American take in the world.
Hell yeah brother 🦅🦅🦅
It literally ignores the plainly obvious fact that not a single other developed country allows gun ownership, and yet, still have rights and democracy and freedom.
Many other developed countries allow gun ownership. Educate yourself, my man.
But more importantly, I literally do not care if they do or not. The point was never that democracy cannot exist without firearms, but rather that in the worst case scenario an armed citizenry can act as a force against tyranny. It’s a rare thing that it might be needed, and a last resort. No sane person wants a civil war
Guns did not get your rights
Except they literally did. How do you think the revolutionary war was won, softly spoken words?
they do not protect you from a government that has AI powered drones with anti tank mines on them. Hell a fucking APC with a sound cannon will make your AR look like a child’s toy.
Guerrillas with small arms in developing countries have repelled the US military repeatedly over the past half century. More importantly, if you don’t think a combination of small arms and low cost homemade munitions are effective against a modern military you haven’t been paying attention to the war in Ukraine at all.
Do you know how many innocent people’s blood that has cost?
it’s not fear mongering when we’re literally months away from being the next fascist state.
And another thing to consider, cars kill about as many people in the US as guns, so we should be talking about banning cars as well?
Oh do tell us the value of goods and services transported every day by gun.
Because I can give you a number for the approximate economic value provided by cars, can you tell us the economic value provided by guns?
Gun crimes are largely committed by people who do not have the legal right to those guns. The vast majority of legal gun owners are responsible people. When you ban guns, they’ll just go to other means of killing. You won’t stop it, if they want to kill people they will.
Nope.
Just objectively and probably false. This is NRA nonsense.
Guns increase the rates of suicide, they increase the rates of domestic violence murder, and they make everyone less safe around police by giving police an excuse to use deadly force.
Guns also are not manufactured clandestinely en masse, anywhere, because it takes a lot of precise industrial machining to do at scale. They are not like sex or weed that are impossible to ban, when you stop manufacturing them for nonsense reasons, they stop circulating and criminals stop being able to get their hands on them.
I do not understand why Americans think they are so unfathomable unique that none of the evidence from other countries applies to them.
Guns also are not manufactured clandestinely en masse, anywhere, because it takes a lot of precise industrial machining to do at scale. They are not like sex or weed that are impossible to ban, when you stop manufacturing them for nonsense reasons, they stop circulating and criminals stop being able to get their hands on them.
This is false. There are multiple Latin American countries where street gangs have been manufacturing reasonably sophisticated all-metal submachine guns at scale in clandestine factories for over a decade. Even prior to the 3d printing boom, open bolt submachine gun was fairly simple for an individual to manufacture with common hand tools, and quantities scale rapidly with improvised tooling and readily available machines like benchtop lathes.
With 3d printing, it has become even more accessible. Printers can be used to manufacture tooling in addition to parts, and the DEFcad community has been remarkably resourceful in developing new methods utilizing 3d printers. Everything from electrochemically etched, rifled, barrels to recoilless rifles with shaped charge warheads can be made at home if a person has no compunctions about breaking the law.
You can see the impact of 3d printing overseas, where there are a number of rebel groups using 3d printed firearms as their primary armament. Banning guns might reduce the quality of what is available, but it definitely won’t end production in a country full of gun enthusiasts with the interest and skills to make firearms.
I do not understand why Americans think they are such unfathomably unique snowflakes that none of the evidence or lessons learned from every other developed country could apply to them.
As I said, our gun culture ensures people continue to make firearms regardless of what the law says. We have countless machinists, gunsmiths, and hobbyists that would manufacture guns as a form of protest if they were banned. Furthermore, we already have more guns than people and the vast majority of them would remain in civilian hands if the government tried to seize them.
But most importantly, many Americans believe that the equalizing force of firearms—something that allows the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny and for the weak/frail to defend themselves against the physically strong— is philosophically worth a small reduction in public safety.
But most importantly, many Americans believe that the equalizing force of firearms—something that allows the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny and for the weak/frail to defend themselves against the physically strong— is philosophically worth a small reduction in public safety.
Yeah, idiots.
Cite how many times guns have helped resist tyranny.
I’ll start citing innocent people killed by the tyranny of widespread gun availability.
Revolutionary war, 1812, bleeding Kansas, the civil war, the battle of Blair mountain, the black panthers
Guns increase the rates of suicide, they increase the rates of domestic violence murder, and they make everyone less safe around police by giving police an excuse to use deadly force.
Yes, and cars kill more people both proportionately and in raw numbers. I’m also anti-cop. Freedoms come with downsides, just pointing out that fact isn’t an argument against the freedom. You have to argue those downsides overpower the freedom.
Guns also are not manufactured clandestinely en masse, anywhere, because it takes a lot of precise industrial machining to do at scale. They are not like sex or weed that are impossible to ban, when you stop manufacturing them for nonsense reasons, they stop circulating and criminals stop being able to get their hands on them.
I can fully 3d print a gun. I can get a cheap CNC machine and manufacture metal parts. I can reload ammo in my garage, if I’m going to shoot shot, basically all I need is a metal ball and a pipe. I don’t even need advanced technology to do this, poachers in areas with gun restrictions have a massive culture of hand made firearms. Shinzo Abe was assassinated with a home-made gun. You can drastically reduce their prevalence, but they’re impossible to fully get rid of.
I do not understand why Americans think they are such unfathomably unique snowflakes that none of the evidence or lessons learned from every other developed country could apply to them.
We aren’t. Guns drastically increase the death rates of violence and attempted suicide. Banning guns will reduce these. It does this at the cost of the state obtaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I believe we can drastically reduce the rate of fun violence through testing requirements before someone can buy a gun, like what we do with cars.
Every right has consequences, we have to find a balance, not completely remove the right. I will not support disarming minorities and the working class when the state has demonstrated intent to do them harm.
We aren’t. Guns drastically increase the death rates of violence and attempted suicide. Banning guns will reduce these. It does this at the cost of the state obtaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I believe we can drastically reduce the rate of fun violence through testing requirements before someone can buy a gun, like what we do with cars.
The state always maintains that monopoly. If citizens buy guns, the police militarize.
Citizens do not enact change with the state through guns, they do so through numbers, by turning out and striking en masse.
You are just pulling out all the false NRA tropes today, aren’t you?
Cars kill more people in both raw numbers and by proportion
Do you have any idea how much blood fascism will shed?
Yes, arming the public will get people killed, do you think death camps are a preferable alternative?