Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !)

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you took a poll on the people from survivors of the Colorado shooting asking "Would you have liked a gun on you, that night in the movie theater" I wonder what the results would be. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]



You make assumptions that clearly empower your case on this. If there was a civil war, do you honestly believe that active duty military members would unanimously follow orders to kill American civilians? As a veteran myself, I wouldn't.

Between a split in the military (and one can only hope that the majority of soldiers in this country would hold to their oath to protect the Constitution), Veterans, trained Militia, armed civilians, all fighting on familiar ground with support from local communities. I don't think it would be as cut and dry as you make it.

You paint it like some rogue civilian with a pistol going up against the full might of the government, three letter agencies, and military. Of course such a scenario is ridiculous, but it's a rather weak position on why people shouldn't own a gun.

If you took a poll on the survivors of the Jersey shark attacks asking "Would you have preferred to be in a nuclear-powered submarine with Tomahawk missiles?", I wonder what the results would be.

And there wouldn't be a civil war, so I'd rather not engage in masturbatory fantasies about me, conscientious objectors, and armed civilians hiding in the mountains and taking out tanks with Patrick Swayze's ghost.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I imagine many of these people will emerge from this scenario with a new-found loathing of guns, actually.

I mean, not every victim of molestation goes on to be a pervert.

lol because owning a gun is like being a sexual predator.

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you took a poll on the survivors of the Jersey shark attacks asking "Would you have preferred to be in a nuclear-powered submarine with Tomahawk missiles?", I wonder what the results would be.

And there wouldn't be a civil war, so I'd rather not engage in masturbatory fantasies about me, conscientious objectors, and armed civilians hiding in the mountains and taking out tanks with Patrick Swayze's ghost.

Another wonderful analogy. I got nothing man. You win!

Oh wait, your comparing a civil war to Red Dawn... honestly?

[Daldolma]

It's your fantasy, bro. You tell me what happens. I just assumed we could tie in Swayze. First we start a civil war against the most technologically advanced military in the world, then we gather up all the armed civilians and conscientious objectors, then you fill in the blanks. I'm interested to see how you finish this scenario without the use of "unmanned drones" and "obliterated".

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's your fantasy, bro. You tell me what happens. I just assumed we could tie in Swayze. First we start a civil war against the most technologically advanced military in the world, then we gather up all the armed civilians and conscientious objectors, then you fill in the blanks. I'm interested to see how you finish this scenario without the use of "unmanned drones" and "obliterated".

Confirmed best straw man fallacy ever.

[Daldolma]

I don't think you know what a straw man is. Your scenario is patently absurd. I don't need to misrepresent it. Just because I'm laughing at your immaturity doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting it. Please explain to me the scenario in which this scenario will occur and not be almost instantly crushed.

[Harmonium]

please, elaborate on the absurdity? What exactly do you find immature? I mean I could try and break every concept down to a 10 year old level for you, but that would require more effort than I'm willing to commit.

[Ephirith]

Claim: Civilians carrying guns helps counter the tyranny of the government.

Reality: Ignorant fucks who don't know shit about politics, don't vote, have no critical thinking skills, and take no personal responsibility for the condition of their country cause the tyranny of government.

Your guns are irrelevant and relegated to an implausible redneck survival fantasy in which the government suddenly decides to impose martial law, all because a statesman three hundred years ago said that was how it would go down- centuries before the internet, the machine gun, the sniper rifle, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, and tanks all made large swaths of Enlightenment-era political thought utterly obsolete.

If our country ever goes down the shitter into totalitarianism- or worse, anarchy- it won't be by force, it won't be a gunfight. It will be because too many people are way too fucking stupid to perpetuate a healthy democratic state. Healthy democracy requires an enlightened electorate. So quit fucking talking about big government toting a gun to your door- its irrelevant and serves no purpose in justifying the ownership of a gun. You want to protect your freedom? Read a fucking book.

[Daldolma]

It's absurd because we have prohibitive military might. You cannot pose an existential threat to our government. There has never been a civil war in a nuclear-armed country, and we're not just any nuclear country. We're 20 years ahead of China's military technology, which means we're 40 years ahead of whatever non-governmental resistance you're conceiving of. Your gun wouldn't mean shit.

It wouldn't be a "war". Theoretically, it would be pockets of militants being put down. In reality, it would never come to that because you'd have to be insane to enter an armed conflict with a goal of overthrowing the US government, and there simply aren't enough insane people.

[Daldolma]

I don't understand how you don't understand the gap in technology. As far as the US government is concerned, your biggest, baddest assault rifle might as well be a crossbow, a sword, or a slingshot. If they wanted you dead, they could kill you with machines and satellites from a thousand miles away.

Your gun is good for shooting up civilians and animals. That's pretty much it.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's absurd because we have prohibitive military might. You cannot pose an existential threat to our government.

I am identifying this as the backbone of your logic. To which I say a civil war would result in a split military. It wouldn't be civilians vs military. There would be military tech and personnel on both sides.

If you don't agree with me on that, then there's really no point in debating this any further.