Serious Question: Would you be willing to give up semi-automatic guns?

The part of the gun argument that is to protect the citizen from the government went out years ago. The citizens are out "gunned" many times over. A semi automatic rifle and a pile of magazines isn't go to save anyone from it.

I believe the government isn't concerned about an uprising now for that reason.

originally posted by: roadgravel
The part of the gun argument that is to protect the citizen from the government went out years ago. The citizens are out "gunned" many times over. A semi automatic rifle and a pile of magazines isn't go to save anyone from it.

I believe the government isn't concerned about an uprising now for that reason.

Out gunned does not equal an automatic victory for the other guy.

See Vietnam vs USA, vietnam vs china, Nepal vs Great Britain, Finland vs Russia, Kurds vs Sadam, Kurds vs ISIS, and I am sure many more that I am forgetting at the moment.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Russia vs Germany ww2 . Many soldiers on the Russian side didn't even have guns.

Double.

a reply to: Irishhaf

But it was really from the outside. I don't think the South Vietnam government is comparable to the current US government.

The civil take overs today is usually a military coup or supported by a more powerful outside military such as the US.

a reply to: roadgravel

I am just referring to the fact we never stopped the Vietcong, did we beat them when we could come to grips with them yes... but we never defeated them.

I am not saying we could defeat the US military in a stand up fight.. no thats ludicrous, what I am saying is if the people have zero armaments then there is no chance to resist a police state type situation. If they are armed... and can get organized and stay strong in the face of defeat's (ala washington) they can outlast said police state government.

a reply to: roadgravel

The thing is with retired military vets and current officers with dissenting points of view for administration's policy all kinds of scenarios are possible. Military coup or "traitors" within the military are always possible. The military needs commanders. If you fraction them up as strategy you have a powerful weapon more so than a gun.

The situation is absolutely no different than its ever been. The kings military could absolutely squash the public in small uprisings as well. Much better weapons and training then farmers. Tgey could literally March thousands of troops into your village and start terrifying people very similar to what Isis does. Hack peoples limbs off and leave some witnesses to create a culture of fear.

There is always revolution and the gov or rulers always study how to control the population. Luckily the chaos of the universe allows impossible seeming things.

The world has been brought to its knees the majority of the time by the best laid plans. Sometimes rulers get sloppy and insurrection within the gov or kingdom benefits the revolutionaries.

The military could just mow down the people.

However if it's a large portion of the population the military will fraction and coup quickly when the soldiers realize what's going on. Just because the military is well organised does not mean they aren't human. You won't have soldiers mowing down other people if it's the whole us population revolting. History shows this eventually destroys armies from the inside out even when you plan it well as in Rome where you didn't invade your part of the empire you went away to fight foreign parts of the empire.

The 2nd is a powerful symbolic right.

If Democrats want to change it that is perfectly fair.

The rules are pretty clear how you are supposed to do that. It requires a pretty large majority. For a reason.

Just like I believe gay marriage was a violation of the constitution. If you want to overturn he 14th you would need a 2/3 vote. For good reason. The injustice of the gov denying co tracts by demographic is a gross violation of the 14th and morally wrong. Just like slavery was.

The constitutional amendment process as far as I know has only provided more liberty. Not taken it away. It's historically done to right wrongs of personal liberty mostly in the form of discrimination. More specifically mostly regarding voting and property rights

luthier

I don't disagree with most of the two previous posts.

I don't think fighting the government is likely anytime soon though. I believe in an armed populous also. Bottom line is no one will ever be safe from all threats. I do think there is a problem with some people having mental issues and dangerous weapons. That's no easy to fix.

a reply to: roadgravel

Thats the thing the whole debate is an outright lie.

It's a platform both parties use to distract from the fact they have no ideas for fixing the problems with poverty, drug addiction, organized crime, police corruption (hand in hand with organized crime)


Let's just say we nearly stop crazy people from shooting innocent people. The murder stats in the big picture won't even budge. Not when up to 50 people die a week in places like Chicago.

Do I think you should be able to Cary a gun on campus as a 21 year old. Hell no. Not without serious training and weekly refresher training.

I just think the whole discussion is complete BS.

The problems are the schools themselves and the enviornment they set up for kids. Our reaction to the problem has made school a lot more like jail than an environment for kids to learn and thrive discovering who they are.

Twice as bad for the poor.

originally posted by: roadgravel
luthier

I don't disagree with most of the two previous posts.

I don't think fighting the government is likely anytime soon though. I believe in an armed populous also. Bottom line is no one will ever be safe from all threats. I do think there is a problem with some people having mental issues and dangerous weapons. That's no easy to fix.

I agree with you; Folks have forgotten that to live in a free society you must accept some risks, there is no way to be completely secure.

Unfortunately we have to many people trying to force emotional responses to a situation that needs cold rational thoughts.

a reply to: Irishhaf

It's really sad because the victims of these crimes have no relief. Politicians have perpetuated these social problems by focusing on the guns.

Sure as a gun owner I can compromise. Things like carying in dense public situations should require better training in ccl. It should have some mental stress training and accuracy under duress. There are areas the 2nd does cross into public health issues. Safety being one. You have to know how to maintain your weapon and fire it for the safety of the society. That can be solved with training. Prob even free.

The right is your ability to defend yourself its not to have a gun to be cool or gangsta so when other gun owners reject the safety aspect I do wonder why.

But gun free zones and stuff as a general idea (always exceptions) is a bad idea.

I think he compromise is training that mirrors police shooting practices at the very least for a ccl if you live or work in dense populations. I find it ridiculous people think they can take out the Taliban invaders with their little .380 cc gun. Even with weekly training cc guns are tough shots. No sights or low profile and short barrels. They require a lot more work than I see most other ccl people I know do as far as marksmanship.

Unfortunately we have to many people trying to force emotional responses to a situation that needs cold rational thoughts.

Isn't that the truth. It's a difficult situation to change. It seems many people have lives controlled by their emotions.

a reply to: roadgravel

So are we just to cower and die on our knees begging for mercy because we would be "outgunned" in such a scenario?

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

It's just a symptom of ignorance.

People who have never been in war or even understand combat situations telling everyone what is and isn't effective.

Nope and guns save people too! You realize unless your a gang banger or criminal as the current laws stand you have a .0000008% chance of being killed by a gun, right? (FBI STATS)

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: TorqueyThePig

It's just a symptom of ignorance.

People who have never been in war or even understand combat situations telling everyone what is and isn't effective.

I really don't care if you have been in war or not. Don't see how your using it here fits anything anyway. Truth is onlt some very weak people would just lay there and get shot up like baby seals.

"If it saves one life - its worth it."

Okay... Cars kill more people in a month than guns do in a year. Should we ban cars? Think of the thousands of innocent lives that would be saved every year! Innocent men, women, children, entire families perhaps. Are their lives worth sacrificing for an easier commute?

Cars are not necessary. We lived without them before and we can do it again. Many people do not have cars and do not want them. Some countries have higher rates of commuting via bicycle than car. The people are healthier, less lives are lost, the environment is better off for it.

Why is no one after banning cars? There are sooo many reasons to ban them and no good reason to keep them. Unlike guns, which serve more than one purpose. Cars are not a constitutionally guaranteed right, guns are.

Ban cars - save lives! Or, be a hypocrite...I don't care. But I would give up my car before I gave up my gun.

I know the argument coming...you could go berserk and kill people with your gun. Well, you could go berserk and kill people with your car. Or maybe, someone could steal your gun and kill people with it. Well, someone could steal your car and kill people with it. If we can view any gun owner as a potential murderer, cant we do the same for people who own cars? They could get drunk and drive. They could use their car as a weapon. They could accidentally kill someone while driving. Lots of things could happen. No one ever left a baby locked in a hot gun. Have I made my point yet?

People should remember how cowardly authorities are with guns. They are very afraid of dying so often shoot before thinking. In a civil war it will be all bets off with that, and they will be shooting kids and the elderly like nothing.

GIving up semi-auto guns will be like saying "please kill me now, here I am"

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Their training doesn't stress pressing attacks like soldiers,it would cost a great deal more officer's lives and bystanders in the ensuing fight.

a reply to: Logarock

It's not about going to war. It's about understanding what is and isn't combat.

It's also about understanding what is and isn't effective in a fight for your life. In that regard you might want to listen to people who have experience with such things.