I also find it pretty amazing that you live in a country where lawmakers make such blatantly biased calls out of personal dependencies to their sponsor (taking out the tax break) and this isn't even rate enough to be frontpage news for weeks on end. I mean, democracy has it's challenges everywhere (including here in Germany), but how can you live with that ?

I mean, Delta obviously isn't entitled to a tax break but this seems a pretty blatant abuse of power, no ? But hey, thank god for "freedom".

Interesting take on "worthless" if you read the article.

He's got a point.

Father of Parkland victim slams NRA videos:

"If this was put out by a terrorist organization, we would be raising the terror threat level in this country. Why are we letting this lobby have anything to do with DC? I don't understand it!" https://t.co/voYy9BhnvV pic.twitter.com/6fXW7qxVJx

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) March 7, 2018

He does?

Replace Dana Loesch with a Muslim man and there is zero doubt it plays out exactly as he says.

He's actually a paid actor though.

What? That he's a clueless sumbitch incapable of rational thought or understanding of the critical nature of 2A?

Hell, I could have predicted that. The lunatic leftist media wouldn't give him a platform otherwise.

His rantings are far more despicable in terms of possible damage to the nation than every school shooter in history combined.

If a Muslim man representing an organization in the Middle East gave that exact word-for-word advertisement, how do you think that would play out?

Heck, let's see what the reaction would be if someone from the NAACP did that.

Sure. Replace a US Citizen that is a quasi-famous known person with a non-citizen of no infamy, and the situation is different.

Its the precise reason why defamation lawsuits dont work for celebs.

You think some guys with AR-15s can fight a government that spends $700 billion a year on defense. Not sure you should be the one deciding who thinks rationally.

Yes. If we cant beat them, bow down to them and WELCOME 1984!!!

On another note, and speaking of the 2A. A neighboring school district closed today because a maintenance worker was let go and went on social media talking about his 2A rights and then ran into a couple co-workers at a convenience store and reported he was acting differently.

I stand for the National Anthem to support our soldiers.

Same Person: I need this AR-15 in case I need to kill our soldiers.

I think the point that these types of posts always forget is this, if the day ever comes again (coal mine wars) where a sitting US President orders a military attack on US Citizens on US soil, not all soldiers will comply. Those tanks, fighter jets, etc. have to have operators. It isnt like an armed brigade would be fighting the entire capability of the US military.

Further, I would point you to Vietnam. With all our technogical advantage we couldn't defeat a trained, poorly supplied - yet determined enemy that was concentrated in an area roughly half the size of Texas. How are they going to fair against a force spread across this country?


Guess what, the guy releasing that nuke would be sentencing his own family to death in that apocalypse scenario. IOW he wouldnt push the button.


A final point on this path of thought. During the American Revolution only 3% of the colonists supported or took up arms against the Brits. The other 97% were fine to live under that arrangement. It shouldn't be a surprise that "the majority" dont see the need for guns today.

As for me? I am one of that 3%.

"A force."

This implies organization and numbers. The question is how do you ramp up to that point? And what would the plan be? I'd assume to be some sort of resistance you'd have to attack/hold some sort of ground, or take over some government facility. It's not as if the army would have to capture every farm, ranch, suburb, etc. I imagine there would be more a Branch Dividian-style standoff.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Most estimates have about 30-45% supporting the revolution, 10-15% loyalists and the rest neutral. The fighting force was likely around 10% or more.

I'll avoid the silly argument about whether a lobbyist group running around telling everyone their time is up is a threat or not, but the 3% claim makes no sense.

I dont think we are talking something small like a branch-davidian thing. This would be the government imposing their will and subjugating the masses. This type of thing is what the 2A was set up to fight. As CU said, 100% of the military would not be onboard.
And I imagine the leadership of the military that was against the government, if this happened, would have plenty of support from the masses to bear arms against the government.
You would also have pockets of resistance throughout the land. That would perform guerilla warfare against the military.
Counter insurgency is a losing game. It never goes away.

Take guns away from everyome and things just got a lot easier.

So it sounds like you don't need an AR-15. It sounds like you just need to convince the military to be on your side.


We could defeat them if we were willing to accept mass civilian casualties on their side. It wasn't a war of survival for this country unlike your hypothetical civil war.


No one is taking arms against the government. Everyone has a smartphone, cable TV, and grocery stores offering 40 varieties of frozen pizza. Heck, half the country doesn't even care enough to vote.

A chunk of the population believed Obama was a secret Muslim agent hellbent on destroying the United States and none of those pussies did anything. It's just talk from guys who were getting doctors notes during Vietnam.

The Revolutionary War was during an era where civilian weaponry could match military weaponry. You can't compare that to a time when one side has drones, guided missiles and nuclear submarines. Heck, now all it would take is cutting off power and water to an area and waiting them out.

Here is a by the numbers break down of the revolutionary war. Interesting.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/th...ers-1600199390

Estimates have North Vietnam losing around 5% of the population over the course of the war. In your scenario that would mean 15 million deaths.

The 3% is a fabricated number that "patriot" groups and gun rights people use. It's based off the fact that 80,000 pension files were made after the war and that accounted to around 3% of the population.

Now this excludes those who fought and died during the war. Those who fought and deserted. It excludes everyone who fought in militias which by estimates had twice as many members as the Continental Army.

You also have the Navy (state and federal), privateers, the Continental Marines, and of course the French (who were incredibly important).

It is of course a bit of irony that the ardent patriots ready to defend against tyranny like their Revolutionary War heroes don't really know much about the Revolutionary War.

Also, too

I support cops

And I'll kill them if I need to.

You usually lose when you bring a knife to a gun fight.

These are good books on the Revolutionary War.

Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution

1776

The Radicalism of the American Revolution

Also this Alden book reads a bit more like a textbook but not many people were as knowledgeable about that era as him.

A History Of The American Revolution

It's sad that some of this stuff isn't required reading these days in school. There are so many great books about that important time in history.

If we had taken out the dike system, it would have annihilated North Vietnam. They were off limits though. The North used to set weaponry on top of them because they knew the U.S. wouldn't touch them.

I know it's weird to think about but the U.S. was actually restrained at many points during the war. For the amount of bombs dropped, civilian deaths were not as high as they could have been had the U.S. not been so careful with their targets.

95% of the gun people I've met will reference the "ready to take up arms against the "government", but the heart of the issue for nearly every single one of them is they like to shoot guns. It's a hobby. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but a large part of the reason gun debate gets nowhere is the discussions aren't entirely honest. It's attacking a false flag position which means no matter what points are made you aren't going to get anywhere.

If you claim you need guns for home defense then you really don't need more than one. If you claim you keep guns in case you need to rise up against the government then you're delusional. If you like to shoot guns, I get that. It's your thing. It's your hobby. But don't give me the other bullshit as the reason you absolutely must have a stockpile of weapons in your home.

This is spot-on. Just be honest for why you want them. Nothing wrong with that.

Have the same gripe with marijuana legalization. You don't have to compile some shoddy studies telling me it cures cancer or whatever, just tell me the truth, you want to get high. It's cool, we all have things we like to do.

Protection from government is what the 2A is about. Thats the argument.
people want protection. I know people who keep guns, multiple guns, for protection. Its not about the robber coming in at night, its more about the breakdown of society or the guy that wants to run the nation with an iron fist.
Will it happen? probably not. But when there is no definitive answer to it, people sometimes err on the side of owning guns.

I do not own guns. I have used them and dont have problem with them. I believe in back ground checks.

But a gun is a tool. A powerful one for sure. But where is the line? What are we talking about here? Eliminating guns? More strict background checks? And what are we talking about with more strict background checks?
And who do the background checks affect? The guy who wants to lawfully own a gun or the dude who picks up a gun out of the back of a guys trunk?

This really comes down to one thing. Get rid of them or accept that there are risks when you have a culture of guns. And bad shit will happen.
And getting rid of them is the first step in allowing the government do whatever they want.

The zero allowance for the fact that there's been no relevant act of revolution or government suppression in the last 100 years of US history, and/or anything like the kind of calamity y'all are predicting ever having affected the rest of the developed world with much stricter gun control, is what makes it hard for the rest of us to take all the impassioned 2nd amendment rhetoric seriously.

It's hard for me to see the "protect myself from the government" as anything but a euphemism for "protect my stuff from anybody else." The constitutional/historical wrapping give folks a much more noble position to argue from, but at the root of things all I'm hearing is the desire to protect person & possessions from ANYbody else.

....and to me that actually seems like a better argument, or at least a more honest one than the whole hypothetical protection from the government angle, which sounds hollow to me 99% of the time I hear it.

For a liberal analog to how hollow 2nd amendment arguments sound to me, I'd offer: a perfectly healthy dude with dreadlocks, a baja shirt, and quilted pants, reeking of patchouli who wants to talk your ear off about the medical properties of marijuana. He has a stance that is perfectly sound...but you're going to be practically insulted if THAT dude insists he's primarily smoking weed for medicinal reasons.

Similarly, I don't so much believe folks are interested in protecting themselves from extended government tyranny more than just protecting them & their shit from whomever may directly threaten it, and extending that threat to government agents isn't so much a primary motivating factor based on the grand constitutional history of our country as much as it's simply naming one of the types of hypothetical people you'd be willing to shoot if they directly threatened you & yours.

Do I believe some of you would shoot government agents who threatened you or your property directly? Absolutely. Do I believe those same particular folk would join a revolutionary force (let alone give a single wet fart) based on someone ELSE'S rights and/or property getting threatened in the exact same manner? Give me a fucking break.

The government/UN/Illuminati takeover of the US is very low on my list of concerns but agree with Vietnam example (and toss in Afghanistan also).

TBF, in my experience, most people (outside of card carrying NRA) will reference the 2A and say they have a right to own weapons but don't think most of them think "ready to take up arms against government". If it includes hunting, I would agree that for most its a hobby (and protection) is the reason.


Respectfully, your statement about not needing more than 1 weapon for home defense protection is not valid. Perfectly okay to have a handgun and a shotgun for protection, why not 2 handguns for husband and wife each etc. I don't know where the line is crossed but would agree if someone was single, had 10 weapons and said it was primarily for home defense protection, that would be strange. There are valid reasons for multiple weapons for home defense protection.

For me, tarcone referenced breakdown of society. My worse case is not government takeover, its another Katrina where you had 5+ days of absolute chaos where there is no effective law enforcement.

I'm more concerned about 'legal' gun owners in that situation than I am anything else - people without guns can be reasoned with far more easily than someone who feels empowered by having a gun in their hand ...

(or put it this way would you feel more confident facing someone down if you both had weapons or if neither of you had them?)

I don't think I agree with you. I see several scenarios for Homeowner / Non-Homeowner in a Katrina-like scenario.

Here's my take ...

1. No gun/No gun - even
2. No gun/No gun - distinct disadvantage for homeowner if there are many non-homeowner people around or if homeowner is female dealing with male
3. No gun/Gun - distinct disadvantage for homeowner
4. Gun/No gun - distinct advantage for homeowner
5. Gun/Gun - advantage for homeowner (assuming inside house)

Hence for a law abiding, trained, legal gun owner the pros definitely outweigh the cons (especially when staying in place).

The "chaos" after Katrina was far less than was initially reported and the worst episode of gun violence may have been cops shooting people trying to cross the Danzinger Bridge.

I don't agree but I guess its definition of chaos and its relative.

EDIT: I do agree there were exaggerations.

I took your comment to mean there really wasn't that much chaos (and inferring you saying there really isn't need for weapons for protection). This I disagree with.

There was much less violence and home looting than reported at the time. Even the stories of the Superdome have been shown to be mostly false.

"Less" does not mean home protection was not needed.

Indeed. I simply don't buy it for a second. People like shooting guns or think they need them to defend their homes/person. I don't believe the vast majority of gun owners own them because of ideas of overthowing a tyrannical government.

People aren't going to ranges to roleplay shooting government agents or soldiers. They're doing what they enjoy.

If people think millennials are going to take up arms against the government - good luck. In 20 years, I think the 2nd amendment will be interpreted very different than it is today. The reality is that as the population keeps getting older, the gun rights will continue to lessen. I'm pretty middle of the road on guns. I am open to some new ideas but I also wouldn't really favor a gun ban on AR-15s (I'm more focused on the magazine size). I'd be viewed as a massive NRA fanboy compared to most of the kids I know between 16 and 25 in regards to stance on guns. The tide is shifting, whether us old fogies like it or not.

"I reserve the right to maintain the ability kill [many] people if I feel the need."

But even in the most complete societal breakdown scenario we experienced, the overwhelming majority of people didn't need guns. If you evacuated you couldn't take them and if you didn't need to evacuate few if any people could get to you. The chaos was mostly limited to stores being looted, not personal property, and having guns at home won't help you protect your flooded store.

That being said, I wouldn't ban handguns or rifles, but the fact is that almost everybody that owns a gun won't ever need to defend themselves with it even under the most dire circumstances.

I think we are too far apart here and let's agree to disagree. To me, its pretty simple. No, people should not go about shooting other people unless threatened and in the hands of law abiding citizens, guns helps protect and equalize vs no guns.

The disappearance of anti-government militias - just another thing millennials get (erroneously) blamed for! :lol:

Considering he said he wouldn't ban rifles and handguns, how does this even make sense as a response to what he said?

Oh, let's read the first paragraph too.


Do you agree with this paragraph?

Why wouldn't you agree with that paragraph?

I'll be glad to answer the question but would like other commentators to state their opinions also.

Do you agree with the paragraph or undecided?

No, but you didnt need me to say that.

This sint a counter argument, its sort of precisely my argument. Your counter point would be that US military officials were restrained when fighting the Vietnamese, but would be ruthless blood thirsty assassins when (theoretically) fighting their own people?



This would assume you walk around with your 1 gun in your hand or on your person at all times. My home has 8 exterior doors. (11 if you count 3 sets of french doors as 2 each)...I have the ability to reach a weapon in no more than 1 step from every one of these doors.