Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

Trump clearly has aspirations for being such, but lacks the ability to actually give it effect.

Then you're just simply being disingenuous.

Perhaps if I had said "...the goal is to prevent someone with enough brains, charisma, and political acumen to be capable of becoming a dictator from even considering dictatorship as a possibility in the first place."

Silly me, I thought the added piece was implicit.

[roboscorcher]

I feel like you're intentionally missing the point here. It wouldn't be the tyrannical military with all the modern weaponry vs. deserters with rifles. It would be whole chunks of the military with modern weaponry vs. the rest of the military with modern weaponry.

THis is becoming an oddly-specific hypothetical. Is there a source you are basing this scenario off of?

Yes. Like, seriously, do you not know what an IED is?

1) Wouldn't stop jets. You'd still be screwed.
2) IED's are illegal. 2A does not give you the right to build/use them. Why are you not campaigning for civilian usage of them?

[PhaelixWW]

THis is becoming an oddly-specific hypothetical. Is there a source you are basing this scenario off of?

There's nothing specific about it. You're presupposing that a tyrannical dictator who would attempt to subvert the rule of the Constitution would do so with unanimous support of the armed forces (who, incidentally, swore an oath to uphold the Constitution), while at the same time subjugating the citizenry whom are the friends and family of said armed forces.

Is there a source upon which you're basing your wildly farcical hypothetical scenario?

1) Wouldn't stop jets. You'd still be screwed.
2) IED's are illegal. 2A does not give you the right to build/use them. Why are you not campaigning for civilian usage of them?

1) Jets aren't always in the air... Civilian drones are a thing... You ignore the fact that US fighter jets and helicopters have been taken down by guerilla fighting before.
2) IEDs have no realistic personal defensive use, unlike the 2A-protected firearms. Aside from personal defense, the main point of having the 2A in the first place is to deter a future situation in which creating IEDs would be necessary to fight off a tyrannical government. I think we all hope that's never the situation this country finds itself in.

[Kellhound]

And now tanks, bombs and jets exist. It would be a short battle against the military.



1) Did they do so with guns that US civilians can own?
2) Do you think they could continue doing that in an 'actual' war, and actually win territory?

What part of "the military fractured" do you not understand?

1: Military grade weapons were not required.
2: Considering the location of most US military bases, yes.

[Vatrilian]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
United States Constitution

Why does this thread exist?

[roboscorcher]

What part of "the military fractured" do you not understand?

Forgive me, I am not someone who peruses gun sites regularly. Why are you assuming that the military fractures? Why is it not unified any more?

1: Military grade weapons were not required.
2: Considering the location of most US military bases, yes.

1) But the devices used are still illegal and not protected under 2A, which was my point. 2A does not help you in this scenario.
2) Well I agree to disagree. If the US spends over 600 billion on their military and loses to a bunch of IED's, that's pretty sad. I also think that if an 'organized militia' arose to the point of actually being a threat, the govt could easily squash them before they could cause real damage using location services and other data gathered online.

[Ghostpanther]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
United States Constitution

Why does this thread exist?

Because many would change that if they could. And how much does gun control infringe on the people's right to use firearms for self defense? And the militia part has already been ruled on by our Supreme Court to not be the only reason for the right of the people to keep and carry( bear ) firearms. They can use it as a right to use firearms for personal self defense.

So it is a mega thread for those who wish to debate and discuss all things related to gun control and guns in general is also discussed.

[Vorkreist]

The best case scenario is that the presence of an armed populace would deter the civil war that would otherwise take place.

That might have been a valid point in the 1800's but not for today's military and technology. There would be no civil war when the known dissidents would be killed in their sleep by drones. Anyone who has military control can impose his dictatorship regardless of how armed the normal populace is.

[Ghostpanther]

That might have been a valid point in the 1800's but not for today's military and technology. There would be no civil war when the known dissidents would be killed in their sleep by drones. Anyone who has military control can impose his dictatorship regardless of how armed the normal populace is.

Then why is Afghanistan still having a decades long conflict when the Taliban mainly have single person weaponry.? The Russians where there for 10 years I think and now the US has been there for over 10 years. I see your point about a civil war today in the US not being a victory condition for any rebels. But that does not mean they would not be a bloody hindrance against a modern Army intent on not harming their own innocent civilians.

A all out civil war in the US like it was back in the 1860's is not going to happen now unless the military was to become fractured to the point, a huge division existed. I do not see that happening. The Constitution we have has built in protections against real tyranny and the military is sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution. However, a underground armed resistance is very possible.

But really, I do not have my firearms for a possible armed forced resistance to a tyrannical government. Or do I need that to be my only reason to have them constitutionally. But I do see the point for those who feel like they do. And yes, things have changed since the 1800's. But some things, have not and some never do.

[Machismo]

Because many would change that if they could. And how much does gun control infringe on the people's right to use firearms for self defense? And the militia part has already been ruled on by our Supreme Court to not be the only reason for the right of the people to keep and carry( bear ) firearms. They can use it as a right to use firearms for personal self defense.

So it is a mega thread for those who wish to debate and discuss all things related to gun control and guns in general is also discussed.

You mean people like Trump?

After all, he called for gun confiscation without due process.

[Saucexorzski]

You mean people like Trump?

After all, he called for gun confiscation without due process.

LOL yeah machismo worry about trump taking guns away, That's the best and greatest use of your time. Make sure you let everyone know loud and clear.

[Machismo]

LOL yeah machismo worry about trump taking guns away, That's the best and greatest use of your time. Make sure you let everyone know loud and clear.

Trump has objectively restricted the 2nd Amendment more than Obama ever did as President. And yet, the Trumpsters and fake 2A supporters were silent.

Go figure.

[Saucexorzski]

Trump has objectively restricted the 2nd Amendment more than Obama ever did as President. And yet, the Trumpsters and fake 2A supporters were silent.

Go figure.

MMMMHMMMM you tell everyone about it. Spread the good word!

[Machismo]

MMMMHMMMM you tell everyone about it. Spread the good word!

Well, it is a thread about gun control. That seems like a very appropriate place to discuss Trump's hatred of the 2nd Amendment. Alas, you Trumpsters don't seem to care about facts and logic.

[petej0]

Forgive me, I am not someone who peruses gun sites regularly. Why are you assuming that the military fractures? Why is it not unified any more?

IF, the US fell into a Civil War or even came to the point in which the Government used the military against its citizens, the military will fracture. Why? Because you have people from WV serving in military units in WA. You have people from CA serving in military units in GA. You will find that the military will fracture because someone serving in a unit in GA will not fire upon someone in CA because it could be a friend, family, or neighbor.

1) But the devices used are still illegal and not protected under 2A, which was my point. 2A does not help you in this scenario.

If it came to a point in which the Government is using the military against its own citizens, then you wont have many people worrying about what is legal or illegal.

2) Well I agree to disagree. If the US spends over 600 billion on their military and loses to a bunch of IED's, that's pretty sad. I also think that if an 'organized militia' arose to the point of actually being a threat, the govt could easily squash them before they could cause real damage using location services and other data gathered online.

It wont be to just IEDs. The military will fracture. I would even argue some would desert rather than fire upon their own friends, neighbors or family.

The whole point is the entire fantasy is not based in the reality of the world in 2019,if it is as you say then we're fucked as a species. A small squabble that gets squashed by the government is the best case scenario.

Yes, you could argue that and you may be right. If you are going to argue that we are fucked as a species, it implies that the Government using troops against its own citizens would not go well. Which makes my argument, the fight wouldnt be a quick fight. It would be a dirty and long drawn out fight.

[Saucexorzski]

Well, it is a thread about gun control. That seems like a very appropriate place to discuss Trump's hatred of the 2nd Amendment. Alas, you Trumpsters don't seem to care about facts and logic.

Your lying again, you know i'm not a trumpster. Thanks from playing the Machismo is a lier game, though it so easy to win.

[Machismo]

Your lying again, you know i'm not a trumpster. Thanks from playing the Machismo is a lier game, though it so easy to win.

Then why are you so upset? Your desire to chime in, as always, is clearly to defend Trump and the Trumspters.

We both know exactly what you are. And yes, Trump has objectively restricted gun rights more than Obama ever did as President.

Buh bye.

[Saucexorzski]

Then why are you so upset? Your desire to chime in, as always, is clearly to defend Trump and the Trumspters.

We both know exactly what you are. And yes, Trump has objectively restricted gun rights more than Obama ever did as President.

Buh bye.

Im not up set im laughing. You and your silly ways. Again its up to you to let folks know that Trump is taking guns away! Go let us Know!

[petej0]

Then why are you so upset? Your desire to chime in, as always, is clearly to defend Trump and the Trumspters.

We both know exactly what you are. And yes, Trump has objectively restricted gun rights more than Obama ever did as President.

Buh bye.

What bills did he pass or support?

[Machismo]

What bills did he pass or support?

The bump stock ban.

He also called for gun confiscation without due process.