Is Firearms Ownership in the US becoming a Cult?

[Varitok]

Not, not really.

As a gun owner and proponent of the 2nd amendment, I value my rights. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, sport, or even home defense, it's about the citizens maintaining the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. We are a very individualistic society which values personal liberties and safety.

The NRA, at it's core is about a large group of gun owners pooling their voices and monetary resources together to lobby congress to protect their rights, just the same as any other lobbying group. I'm not even a NRA member, but I can understand their mission.

We live in a Age where Some in America are willing to limit freedoms in the name of safety, or perceived safety, it's no surprise that it has people on edge.

Other countries have "freedoms" like the states. Finland has very less restrictive gunlaws like the US except they have common sense background and mental health checks.

The 2nd amendment was never written with these kinds of firearms in mind, What does "arms" even mean in the modern sense? Can you own a tank? How about an APC? A cruise missle? This was all written with muskets and carbines at best.

Back then, there was an actual threat of retaliation by the British. Nowadays, Tyrannical government is just a term thrown around by NRA higher ups to help sell guns through fear so they can pocket some cash themselves through donations. Nothing more and nothing less, The US won't change because it is a country that is founded upon fear. I don't mean it as an insult but its what it is, I love my American friends and family and I hope all the best, but for that, you need common sense gun laws.

[Theinquisition]

If that's the case, then that neutralizes your argument that guns are necessary to protect against a tyrannical government.



The troops in Little Rock were trying to secure the peace, whereas the troops in a tyrannical government scenario would be engaged in a war against anyone trying to stop them. Complete apples and oranges.



You don't know what the government would be reluctant to use because we're talking about a hypothetical tyrannical government here. But historically-speaking, tyrants tend not to care much about arbitrarily killing significant numbers of their populace.

Sigh.

1. Small arms are part of Asymmetrical warfare.

2. Right, you made my point for me, engaging in a rolling battle in a city requires more troops than maintaining the peace

3. A military, even one ran by a tyrant requires popular support to feed, cloth, pay, house, and arm it's soldiers. Weakening popular support at home by killing taxpayers isn't going to win them many battles and will create more enemies.

[Saucexorzski]

What exactly are you accusing me of? Tony is the one who is angry people want such restrictions on all gun sales.

im accusing you of lying because you just lied about what he said. Dont act like Trump.

[Theinquisition]

Got it. You think mentally ill felons should have access to weapons so they can commit more mass shootings.

Horses are going to starve from all the straw your using to build your strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Other countries have "freedoms" like the states. Finland has very less restrictive gunlaws like the US except they have common sense background and mental health checks.

The 2nd amendment was never written with these kinds of firearms in mind, What does "arms" even mean in the modern sense? Can you own a tank? How about an APC? A cruise missle? This was all written with muskets and carbines at best.

Back then, there was an actual threat of retaliation by the British. Nowadays, Tyrannical government is just a term thrown around by NRA higher ups to help sell guns through fear so they can pocket some cash themselves through donations. Nothing more and nothing less, The US won't change because it is a country that is founded upon fear. I don't mean it as an insult but its what it is, I love my American friends and family and I hope all the best, but for that, you need common sense gun laws.

The common weapon of the day was a muzzle loaded Kentucky long rifle, which most people had in their homes. It's equivalent to todays AR-15 etc etc.

I mean, when the constitution was drafted, there wasn't a facebook, or telephones, guess we should ban those types of mediums for speech too then right?

as far as Tyrants go....there's 6 million dead jews and about 40 million dead Russians in Europe who probably wished they had a 2nd amendment.

[Kithelle]

I have a sport shotgun that belonged to my Dad that I really liked and kept after he passed away, I someday could see purchasing more...I'm not a member of the NRA or any other firearm organization or club.

So I don't see it as a cult...

[Theinquisition]

What exactly are you accusing me of? Tony is the one who is angry people want common sense restrictions on all gun sales.

I've said many times I'm okay with common sense gun laws, stop lying.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a sport shotgun that belonged to my Dad that I really liked and kept after he passed away, I someday could see purchasing more...I'm not a member of the NRA or any other firearm organization or club.

So I don't see it as a cult...

I feel the same.

I mean if we want to talk about about cults' we can talk about the lunatic leftists who call everyone they disagree with Nazis.

It's those type of people that make me happy we have a 2nd amendment.

[Alvito]

Not, not really.

As a gun owner and proponent of the 2nd amendment, I value my rights. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, sport, or even home defense, it's about the citizens maintaining the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. We are a very individualistic society which values personal liberties and safety.

The NRA, at it's core is about a large group of gun owners pooling their voices and monetary resources together to lobby congress to protect their rights, just the same as any other lobbying group. I'm not even a NRA member, but I can understand their mission.

We live in a Age where Some in America are willing to limit freedoms in the name of safety, or perceived safety, it's no surprise that it has people on edge.

It is funny since the pro gun people are almost always the same people telling others what they can and cannot do with their own body.

[Dragonhawk]

What kind of match do you think a band of unorganized, armed citizens would be against the most powerful military in the world with airplanes, bombs, tanks, etc.?

Historically a good chance. Guerilla warfare has has generally allowed inferior forces to defeat superior ones. One of the best examples in the 20th century was Afganistan forcing the USSR to leave its country, with the vast majority of Afgan soldiers having nothing more than rifles and stolen RPGs. Later we would supply them with Stinger missiles, but the vast majority of soldiers were not using them, and aside from shooting down helicopters the stinger was useless against ground targets.

An insurrection by citizens would not be easy and definitely not be quick, but it is highly doable. If it wasnt why is it the first thing dictators do is make sure all the guns are taken from the people. This has been true from individual dictators like Hitler to tyranical systems like Communism. The government wants guns out of the hands of the people to limit their ability to oppose them.

Also in your reply to supertony51, two of your arguments are wrong. In point 1 he says most, which would still leave a large number of soldiers that would need to be defeated, so his argument is not invalidated. In point 3, while you are correct that historically many dictators have not cared about collateral damage, it has resulted in what supertony51 said in that the populous winds up turning against the government. This is particularly true if the rebel forces wind up scoring some victories and the people feel there is a better chance of overthrowing the government.

[The Stormbringer]

The common weapon of the day was a muzzle loaded Kentucky long rifle, which most people had in their homes. It's equivalent to todays AR-15 etc etc.

Gonna stop you right the fuck there. In no way, shape, or form is a muzzle-loaded rifle the same thing as an AR-15. The rate of fire, ease of loading, greater penetration, higher range, and improved sights mean it turns one human into a killing machine. A person with a single muzzle-loaded rifle, however, can be overwhelmed much, much more easily. Even a breech-loader is a hell of a lot faster and more accurate than a muzzle-loader, and is something that could easily be used for both hunting and defense. Your idea that a semi-auto magazine-fed rifle is even remotely close to old Kentucky rifles is ridiculous and completely unfounded.

[Doctor Amadeus]

As a Owner of guns for more than 20 years to the OP, YES it is true, there are some people who own firearms that shouldn't and many of them are so whacked out of their fucking minds, I would describe them as tribal fetish cult.

That being said, I would say although it is a reality, many people are NOT like this at all, most I know personally are sport shooters, some hunt, and none of them support the kind of numb nut shit that many get pegged for.

They do support the NRA, and I do not, but you have to understand there really isn't an alternative, because I don't but the NRA is the ONLY group even willing to listen to the concerns of gun owners, and that is to the benefit of Trumpsters for example.

I know plenty that voted for Hillary anyways, but you won't hear that being talked about, everybody I know thinking about voting Trump only did so because according to them they weren't going to let the gun grabbers who didn't know shit about guns take away their rights.

However this wasn't a 2016 elections issue it has always been an issue, just like the NAACP, right I mean if you wanted to belong to a black caucus or a group dedicated to some very valuable ideas you have where else you going to go?


I am not a member of the NAACP either, but I understand some people who feel they and other groups can provide help voicing their views, even if it's something of a cause taken up by lunatics.

[chazus]

Home security is that I have solid walls, good locks, and the front door is steel.

I read posts that talk of shotguns beside the bed, guns with silencers on the nightstand and all the rest. I wonder what the hell happened.

My father's house is in a good neighborhood. His house has been broken into twice now. Walls, locks, and all that is fine... Do you have any windows in your house?

His question is, outside of literally barring the windows, what should he do to protect himself?

[Jtbrig7390]

Becoming? Nope it already is.

[The Stormbringer]

My father's house is in a good neighborhood. His house has been broken into twice now. Walls, locks, and all that is fine... Do you have any windows in your house?

His question is, outside of literally barring the windows, what should he do to protect himself?

Locked shutters, maybe?

[Jtbrig7390]

His question is, outside of literally barring the windows, what should he do to protect himself?

The same thing's people do in other country's.....

[Travis B]

1. Small arms are part of Asymmetrical warfare.

2. Right, you made my point for me, engaging in a rolling battle in a city requires more troops than maintaining the peace

3. A military, even one ran by a tyrant requires popular support to feed, cloth, pay, house, and arm it's soldiers. Weakening popular support at home by killing taxpayers isn't going to win them many battles and will create more enemies.

1. You said a large portion of the military will refuse to fight civilians, making guns and "asymmetrical warfare" unnecessary.

2. No, not really. With today's technology and a tyrannical government's willingness to destroy people/property, relatively few troops would be needed to force a city into submission, if not destroy it altogether.

3. I thought most soldiers would refuse to comply with a tyrannical government's orders? So the government would already have plenty to care for the ones that do stay.

I'm not in favor of banning guns entirely. While they do need to be regulated more, there are a couple good reasons (like home defense) that people should be allowed to own a gun. But the idea that guns are needed to defeat a tyrannical government is incredibly silly.

[Rudkobing]

UUmmmm, no.

[chazus]

Locked shutters, maybe?

So your answer is 'no windows in the house'?

- - - Updated - - -

The same thing's people do in other country's.....

Which is... what, exactly?

[Jtbrig7390]

Which is... what, exactly?

Better home security systems, Use other items to protect yourself, Have a animal (dog).

Google and find out all the way's people in other country's protect themselves. I'm not against owning a gun, I am against how easy it is to own a gun.

[The Stormbringer]

So your answer is 'no windows in the house'?

- - - Updated - - -


Which is... what, exactly?

Windows are a thing that can be covered by this marvelous invention called 'shutters' which can be opened and closed, and in some cases locked. They are often used to prevent damage during storms or keep people from breaking in. /sarcasm

His description makes it sound like he lives in an apartment. Any windows are probably facing the outside and several floors up, just a guess though.

[chazus]

Better home security systems, Use other items to protect yourself, Have a animal (dog).

What is a 'better home security system'

Most systems don't actually stop anyone. They just deter them. They're also allergic to dogs. Other items? Like a bat? I'm just asking, because usually people breaking in often have something like that too.

- - - Updated - - -

Windows are a thing that can be covered by this marvelous invention called 'shutters' which can be opened and closed, and in some cases locked. They are often used to prevent damage during storms or keep people from breaking in. /sarcasm

But if they're open.. They can be broken into. Unless you expect them to be closed all the time.