Attention all gun-rights advocates

[KingOrfeo]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

Your guns are good for self-defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting, hobby-collecting, and of course you can use them for crime. And that's all. End of list. You cannot use them to defend your "freedom" in any politically meaningful way. You cannot use them to fight the state with any hope of success. The state always wins that firefight. You could conceivably use them to fight those you consider political opponents, but that falls under the heading of crime. There are no "Second Amendment solutions" to political grievances, none at all.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

See, this is where you guys are out to lunch. You're just not that familiar with guns and the military, very few of you have ever had anything to do with the military and you live in your own bubble insulated from us, and that's a good thing for you...

Now, here's one or two links to articles from which I shall quote sparingly. Along with one or two illustrations and some figures. Then have a think about why you really don;t want to go down this road. When push comes to shove, I'm afraid the pushback could be truly epic. I don't know about where you live, but where I live there was a tremendous amount of hostility to Clinton and really, a spark could be all thats needed to set things off. Trump is a safety valve that's letting off steam and if I were you, I'd be happy about that because the pressure cooker exploding is not something I'd personally like to see.

And remember when you're talking about guns, the United States military is forbidden from directly engaging in law enforcement within the boundaries of the United States. Posse comitatus. Unlikely that the military would accept being used as military against americans, and if it was tried, it'd be interesting to see the results. Likely the military would split.

Everything quoted from the links is in Italics

So here's an article from Cracked - 6 Reasons Why a New Civil War is Possible and Terrifying

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/personalexperience/0/3/2/582032_v3.jpg
2012 - how many Americans think "most people can be trusted." The breakdown of trust was one of the first traumatizing steps to war, I think you'd all agree we're seeing that in spades right now. You don't trust people like me and we sure as hell have a very low regard for people like you. It doesn't matter who won the election, the other side hates and distrusts them. End of story. You're never going to like Trump, I'm never going to like or trust a demonrat.

A big part of any hypothetical U.S. rebellion's job, undermining public confidence in the police, has already been accomplished.... The left, obviously. Ferguson and everything that has followed. For the right, the politicization of the FBI. "People now start to see the FBI as a political secret police ... there's always been a belief that this is the case but that hasn't been [widespread]." It's a lot more widespread now. Add in the use of the IRS as a political weapon under Obama.

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/personalexperience/0/3/6/582036_v3.jpg
Erosion of public trust in government....Ammon Bundy and the other militia who occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge were acquitted by a jury of their peers. That should give you an idea of how much support the American militia movement has in certain parts of the country. Like where I live, almost 100%.

Anyhow, there's a lot more in that Cracked article that should make you think.

Now here's one from ZeroHedge - The Real Reasons why a Civil War is possible - unlike the Cracked article, this one goes into a lit more detail and

And here's one from Red State - the Coming Civil War
Excerpts from article - The Left is betting that law-abiding citizens will kneel before the power of the almighty State. There's 350,000,000 guns in private hands in the US. 10% of those are 35 million in a civil war against tyranny. The last civil war was fought by roughly 1.2 million combatants on both sides. This one would pit at least ten times that number against some percentage of the 1.1 million police officers who would enforce the government’s will. Ignore posse comitatus and add another quarter of a million combatants to the mix. But not all of them would fight for the government. In the next civil war, we’ll have heavily armed citizens, police, and military against the government’s forces. Any such skirmish will be a blood bath. The Left doesn’t believe it would actually come to this. They are wrong, and they’re playing a very dangerous game of chicken.

So dream on that guns are politically useless. They're not. Also keep in mind that most military bases inside the continental US are not heavily guarded and protected and could be overrun and their weapons and equipment seized quite easily. That's apparently what happened in Yugoslavia when that former country dissolved into Civil War. And if it happens to us, ain't nobody coming to bail us out of that one.

Really, civil discourse, a polite agreement to disagree and a "this time its your turn, next time its ours" modus operandi to politics is by far the better option. Problem we now have is that the Left is refusing to accept the results of an open election and is engaging in "resistance." Well, I ask you, what happens if you win next time or the time after and we engage in "resistance." We tolerated eight years of Obama, and a lot of us regarded that as tyranny by an imposter. Agree or disagree, that's the view. You may not like Trump but for better or worse he's now your President. Look at what happened in Yugoslavia and you see the results of a complete breakdown in societal trust. That's not a place I'd like to go myself but that's where you're pushing towards.

Saying "your guns are politically useless" is another little nudge on the road to civil war and societal breakdown. If that's where you want to go, sure, but if it happens, do you spend one day a month down on the range shooting? I do on average. How many guns do you have? How much ammo? Seriously, think about what you're saying. How well do you know your neighbors? Where I live, we all know each other. There's a lot of trust. If push comes to shove, it's a community that in general would stand together rather than fragment into chaos. Most large cities in the US are not places you'd say that about, and I suspect most of you live in large cities. Good luck with that one too.

Anyhow, as Flower Girl said, this may be a bit rambly and disjointed, I have no experience in writing this stuff, but I'm sure you get the main points of my argument, such as it is. Don't go there. Just keep it civil and don't be silly.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

Your guns are good for self-defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting, hobby-collecting, and of course you can use them for crime. And that's all. End of list. You cannot use them to defend your "freedom" in any politically meaningful way. You cannot use them to fight the state with any hope of success. The state always wins that firefight. You could conceivably use them to fight those you consider political opponents, but that falls under the heading of crime. There are no "Second Amendment solutions" to political grievances, none at all.

This is not exactly news, you know, unless you consider assassination to be a solution, which almost nobody does.

ETA: Of course, if that "political opponent" is trying to shoot you, guns are the best way to defend yourself.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

Your guns are good for self-defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting, hobby-collecting, and of course you can use them for crime. And that's all. End of list. You cannot use them to defend your "freedom" in any politically meaningful way. You cannot use them to fight the state with any hope of success. The state always wins that firefight. You could conceivably use them to fight those you consider political opponents, but that falls under the heading of crime. There are no "Second Amendment solutions" to political grievances, none at all.

Well, given the 2nd amendment was intended to allow the citizens of this glorious Republic to defend themselves from tyrannical government, seems a very good argument for extending the 2nd amendment to include everything short of nukes.

Oh yeah! This is so cool. Personally, I don't want artillery for myself personally but a grenade launcher would be fun. Could use it for duck shooting as well

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/9b/c9/e5/9bc9e53feb4eb0ed65ccb859e4baeaae.jpg

 

[sr71plt]

Well, given the 2nd amendment was intended to allow the citizens of this glorious Republic to defend themselves from tyrannical government, ]

It wasn't. It was meant to arm the citizen militia without needing public arms arsenals--which would take too much time to get to, to begin with, in the mobility reality of then, which is no longer the mobility reality of today. We no longer are on a militia system--haven't been for 200 years. The closest thing we have now is the National Guard, and their weapons are taken care of.

And now, Chloe, I can't take your political crap anymore, so afraid I'm putting you on ignore. Sorry to miss you on the AH, but you aren't the person I thought you were. (Truth be told, I'm not even sure you are female.)

 

[ChloeTzang]

(Truth be told, I'm not even sure you are female.)

One down. First time I've been ignored. I must be getting better at being a Troll. Or is it a bot. I'm not sure how I shall live with the pain of rejection, but never mind.

As for females and guns, I think that was your doubt, let me introduce the rest of you to .... Theresa Vail, Miss Kansas 2013, National Guard Sergeant, appointed to the President's Second Amendment Coalition. And okay, better looking than me but yes, women do shoot, women do know about guns, many of us ARE right wing conservatives. Sorry if that offends you. Live with it.

http://files.harrispublications.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/04/Theresa-Vail-647x384.1421392306.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

Question: Which political campaign will include an armed rebellion?

Gun nut's answer: The next one, grr.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Question: Which political campaign will include an armed rebellion?

Gun nut's answer: The next one, grr.

Well, the Cracked article and a couple of other leftie ones seemed to fear a right wing armed rebellion after Killary won. The ZeroHedge one and a few other right wing ones seemed to fear a left wing armed rebellion after Trump one. Much more likely is same old same old, with demonrats trashing their own nests and the rest of us watching from afar and going "I know why I don't live in that rat's nest."

Yeats nailed it....

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Well, given the 2nd amendment was intended to allow the citizens of this glorious Republic to defend themselves from tyrannical government . . .

Not exactly.

 

[KingOrfeo]

See, this is where you guys are out to lunch. You're just not that familiar with guns and the military, very few of you have ever had anything to do with the military and you live in your own bubble insulated from us, and that's a good thing for you...

Now, here's one or two links to articles from which I shall quote sparingly. Along with one or two illustrations and some figures. Then have a think about why you really don;t want to go down this road. When push comes to shove, I'm afraid the pushback could be truly epic. I don't know about where you live, but where I live there was a tremendous amount of hostility to Clinton and really, a spark could be all thats needed to set things off. Trump is a safety valve that's letting off steam and if I were you, I'd be happy about that because the pressure cooker exploding is not something I'd personally like to see.

And remember when you're talking about guns, the United States military is forbidden from directly engaging in law enforcement within the boundaries of the United States. Posse comitatus. Unlikely that the military would accept being used as military against americans, and if it was tried, it'd be interesting to see the results. Likely the military would split.

None of that has anything to do with the thread topic.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

It wasn't. It was meant to arm the citizen militia without needing public arms arsenals--which would take too much time to get to, to begin with, in the mobility reality of then, which is no longer the mobility reality of today. We no longer are on a militia system--haven't been for 200 years. The closest thing we have now is the National Guard, and their weapons are taken care of.

And now, Chloe, I can't take your political crap anymore, so afraid I'm putting you on ignore. Sorry to miss you on the AH, but you aren't the person I thought you were. (Truth be told, I'm not even sure you are female.)

Ah yes ignore anyone you disagree with you or doesn't believe your line of BS. If you actually understand the definition of militia being used at the time it also meant individuals. The framers a fairly intelligent group made it clear that it was the right of the people. I think if they meant the states or state militia they would have written it that way. It is amazing that people can find a right to gay marriage in the Constitution can't understand clear concise language on the topic.


Liberals hate personnel responsibility and that excising rights has consequences, so they're perfectly happy to deprive others of their rights because they're uncomfortable.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

Not exactly.

Wow using your own material to support your argument. Very impressive.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Wow using your own material to support your argument. Very impressive.

[shrug] So tell me how my material is wrong.

 

[phrodeau]

Personnel responsibility? Is that like when the President accepts the blame for the faults of his staff? That's something I'd like to see soon.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

[shrug] So tell me how my material is wrong.

Why you've made up your mind. Hate to confuse you with facts.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

Personnel responsibility? Is that like when the President accepts the blame for the faults of his staff? That's something I'd like to see soon.

Try and stay on topic I know it's difficult.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why you've made up your mind. Hate to confuse you with facts.

You have no facts on your side, therefore they will not confuse me.

 

[phrodeau]

Try and stay on topic I know it's difficult.

It shows.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

You have no facts on your side, therefore they will not confuse me.

To make the points you have you'd have to be confused. You don't understand the topic I get that.

It is our right as citizens plain and simple. The Constitution and the courts have supported this, and I fully expect the case in Maryland not to survive appeal. The militia is the people both sanctioned units like the national guard and resistance fighters.

We can win because the average citizen is the guerrilla movement, and while I hope it never comes to violence the people always prevail. Liberals believe this as well...for every other nation but their own. Your thinking or winning or there is a lack of need is irrelevant.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

It shows.

As usual you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other then attempts at insulting those you don't agree with. I think irrational people like you shouldn't own weapons, and we have a process in place to deal with that, but not everyone is like you.

 

[mark_j]

[shrug] So tell me how my material is wrong.

So it would seem that you disagree with the majority decision Heller v. DC?

 

[phrodeau]

As usual you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other then attempts at insulting those you don't agree with. I think irrational people like you shouldn't own weapons, and we have a process in place to deal with that, but not everyone is like you.

Must have been a blow for you when Trump signed H.J.Res. 40.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

Must have been a blow for you when Trump signed H.J.Res. 40.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ng-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221


Laws need to be revised all the time, so we'll see what comes next. I think the President should go after all those people who try to purchase firearms and are denied by the background check. It's against the law for them to do so, but they're seldom charged.

 

[ChloeTzang]

None of that has anything to do with the thread topic.

Guns are politically useless. I believe that was the opening. Totally on topic. In the end, Mao was corect. Power comes from the barrel of a gun. The writers of the 2nd amendment understood that. Its very clear. Civil war is very much a consequence of trying to take that away. As I pointed out, guns in great numbers are not politically useless at all. Try and stay with it, I know its complex.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It must be lonely in that little crack house.

See, this is where you guys are out to lunch. You're just not that familiar with guns and the military, very few of you have ever had anything to do with the military and you live in your own bubble insulated from us, and that's a good thing for you...

Now, here's one or two links to articles from which I shall quote sparingly. Along with one or two illustrations and some figures. Then have a think about why you really don;t want to go down this road. When push comes to shove, I'm afraid the pushback could be truly epic. I don't know about where you live, but where I live there was a tremendous amount of hostility to Clinton and really, a spark could be all thats needed to set things off. Trump is a safety valve that's letting off steam and if I were you, I'd be happy about that because the pressure cooker exploding is not something I'd personally like to see.

And remember when you're talking about guns, the United States military is forbidden from directly engaging in law enforcement within the boundaries of the United States. Posse comitatus. Unlikely that the military would accept being used as military against americans, and if it was tried, it'd be interesting to see the results. Likely the military would split.

Everything quoted from the links is in Italics

So here's an article from Cracked - 6 Reasons Why a New Civil War is Possible and Terrifying

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/personalexperience/0/3/2/582032_v3.jpg
2012 - how many Americans think "most people can be trusted." The breakdown of trust was one of the first traumatizing steps to war, I think you'd all agree we're seeing that in spades right now. You don't trust people like me and we sure as hell have a very low regard for people like you. It doesn't matter who won the election, the other side hates and distrusts them. End of story. You're never going to like Trump, I'm never going to like or trust a demonrat.

A big part of any hypothetical U.S. rebellion's job, undermining public confidence in the police, has already been accomplished.... The left, obviously. Ferguson and everything that has followed. For the right, the politicization of the FBI. "People now start to see the FBI as a political secret police ... there's always been a belief that this is the case but that hasn't been [widespread]." It's a lot more widespread now. Add in the use of the IRS as a political weapon under Obama.

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/personalexperience/0/3/6/582036_v3.jpg
Erosion of public trust in government....Ammon Bundy and the other militia who occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge were acquitted by a jury of their peers. That should give you an idea of how much support the American militia movement has in certain parts of the country. Like where I live, almost 100%.

Anyhow, there's a lot more in that Cracked article that should make you think.

Now here's one from ZeroHedge - The Real Reasons why a Civil War is possible - unlike the Cracked article, this one goes into a lit more detail and

And here's one from Red State - the Coming Civil War
Excerpts from article - The Left is betting that law-abiding citizens will kneel before the power of the almighty State. There's 350,000,000 guns in private hands in the US. 10% of those are 35 million in a civil war against tyranny. The last civil war was fought by roughly 1.2 million combatants on both sides. This one would pit at least ten times that number against some percentage of the 1.1 million police officers who would enforce the government’s will. Ignore posse comitatus and add another quarter of a million combatants to the mix. But not all of them would fight for the government. In the next civil war, we’ll have heavily armed citizens, police, and military against the government’s forces. Any such skirmish will be a blood bath. The Left doesn’t believe it would actually come to this. They are wrong, and they’re playing a very dangerous game of chicken.

So dream on that guns are politically useless. They're not. Also keep in mind that most military bases inside the continental US are not heavily guarded and protected and could be overrun and their weapons and equipment seized quite easily. That's apparently what happened in Yugoslavia when that former country dissolved into Civil War. And if it happens to us, ain't nobody coming to bail us out of that one.

Really, civil discourse, a polite agreement to disagree and a "this time its your turn, next time its ours" modus operandi to politics is by far the better option. Problem we now have is that the Left is refusing to accept the results of an open election and is engaging in "resistance." Well, I ask you, what happens if you win next time or the time after and we engage in "resistance." We tolerated eight years of Obama, and a lot of us regarded that as tyranny by an imposter. Agree or disagree, that's the view. You may not like Trump but for better or worse he's now your President. Look at what happened in Yugoslavia and you see the results of a complete breakdown in societal trust. That's not a place I'd like to go myself but that's where you're pushing towards.

Saying "your guns are politically useless" is another little nudge on the road to civil war and societal breakdown. If that's where you want to go, sure, but if it happens, do you spend one day a month down on the range shooting? I do on average. How many guns do you have? How much ammo? Seriously, think about what you're saying. How well do you know your neighbors? Where I live, we all know each other. There's a lot of trust. If push comes to shove, it's a community that in general would stand together rather than fragment into chaos. Most large cities in the US are not places you'd say that about, and I suspect most of you live in large cities. Good luck with that one too.

Anyhow, as Flower Girl said, this may be a bit rambly and disjointed, I have no experience in writing this stuff, but I'm sure you get the main points of my argument, such as it is. Don't go there. Just keep it civil and don't be silly.