Again....But it's never the guns!

[Annik]

And I'm sorry children, but I need firearms, I have shit like this:



And this:



In my backyard. Also, animal control doesn't come out my way.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-..._augustine

That picture was taken about 100 ft from where I lived before I moved in with Hovik. Apparently, the photo makes the snake look bigger than it is, but fuuuuuck.

[orogenicman]

P.S., I might also add that a recent survey I read said that the Japanese are among the happiest people in the world.

More like someone lied to you & you believed it. Suicide is the leading cause of death for males age 20-45 in Japan.

And I'm sorry children, but I need firearms, I have shit like this:



And this:



In my backyard. Also, animal control doesn't come out my way. So banning "assault" rifles, which is simply a buzzword for hunting rifles since they are the same caliber & shoot just as fast, is simply not going to fly with people like myself. Nor is it going to fly with the ~30-40 million hunting enthusiasts that actually know what an "assault" rifle is. Note: I don't actually hunt, but when near-record timber rattlesnakes (seriously, that guy was 6" short of the US record) come into my yard where my kids play, then I need to remove them safely & quickly.

Real assault rifles (il.e. machine guns) have been heavily restricted since 1934.

Perhaps you should consider moving. After all, they were there first.

[A Theist]

If your government starts oppressing you, you have the right to fight back against your oppressor. The second amendment means that your government can't try and bully you into submission by hoarding all the guns.

Let's be realistic: the second amendment is going to do jack shit against a government determined to grind you down. What good is your handcannon going to be when the enemy has drones, spy satellites, and can monitor all your communications--programs which were championed by guys in government who seem totally okay with the amendment?

Doesn't it seem like both ends are being played by the same people?

In a practical sense, the second amendment is entirely pointless as its intended purpose is obsolete.

Yeah well, since you're playing the 'what ifs' game here....if the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive, contrary to the Constitution, we would peel off a sizable portion of the military....and our side would be armed with drones, spy satellites, and communications as well...along with our 2nd amendment rights to own handcannons, rifles, and various other weapons to defend ourselves with....too bad for your side that you regulated away your rights which made it nearly impossible for you to own guns and defend yourselves.

---

This dude is hot. I don't know what any of you are talking about.

Aw man!...that ain't near right!....the girl looked a lot better!

[Anomalocaris]

Second amendment means the oppressive government has to work less hard on justifying why it was necessary to shot you 50 times for not wanting to be oppressed.

[CapnAwesome]

Let's be realistic: the second amendment is going to do jack shit against a government determined to grind you down. What good is your handcannon going to be when the enemy has drones, spy satellites, and can monitor all your communications--programs which were championed by guys in government who seem totally okay with the amendment?

Doesn't it seem like both ends are being played by the same people?

In a practical sense, the second amendment is entirely pointless as its intended purpose is obsolete.

I've heard this argument many times, and I don't buy it. We can't even properly subdue small population countries in the middle east. How many people are there in the Taliban? All the drones and spy satellites and we haven't taken out them yet. There are 300 million Americans. Armed and motivated and there is very little the US army could do.

[Minimalist]

You are assuming that all 300 million Americans would agree with the gun-toting shitheads.

Dubious assumption.

[popeyespappy]

I understand that a pitched battle with the US military is a losing prospect. What I don’t understand is the thought process that brings someone to the conclusion that the US government can’t be brought down from within through the use of force. We aren’t talking about deer rifle toting rednecks marching down Pennsylvania Ave here. The US has been in Afghanistan for a decade now. Not only are we still fighting insurgents there but the now the locals just want us the fuck out. And that ladies and gentlemen is the key. Turn the population at large against the government.

Neither is comms the issue some of you seem to think it would be. In this day of disposable cell phones, free public Wi-Fi and oh yea, good old fashion couriers. The NSA isn’t going to be able to keep up with everything that is being said. Sure they might crack the occasional 2048 bit encrypted email, but by the time their super computer spends a week on it whatever it was talking about has already happened. Not to mention they don’t know who sent it. Only that it came from Starbucks in Desmoids and was received at the public library in Chattanooga. We won’t even talk about encrypted mobile short range packet radios.

Start beating on our already crumbling infrastructure. Inconvenience people. Turn the power off. Cut gas pipelines. Then watch the government do what the government does. Start restricting travel and communications. Hope they start doing some really stupid shit like blowing up grandma’s church with Hellfire missiles. Because if they do people are going to get pissed and that is what you want to happen.

I’m not saying it would be easy or that success is guaranteed, but the conclusion that it can’t be done just isn’t founded in reality. The mighty US military is 0’fer against insurgencies in my 50 years on this planet. I don’t expect that to change any time soon.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating armed insurgency against the United States government. Just arguing such a thing is possible.

[Ryantology]

Yeah well, since you're playing the 'what ifs' game here....if the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive, contrary to the Constitution, we would peel off a sizable portion of the military....and our side would be armed with drones, spy satellites, and communications as well...along with our 2nd amendment rights to own handcannons, rifles, and various other weapons to defend ourselves with....too bad for your side that you regulated away your rights which made it nearly impossible for you to own guns and defend yourselves.

Every time I think you've introduced me to the limits of incredulity, you trip over yourself in a rush to demonstrate to the contrary.

All I have to say is that if your Redstate Dawn fantasy ever comes to life, I think you're going to be quite disappointed by how it turns out.

[Shell B]

I just want to point out that the guys and gals in the military of the United States are also citizens. When the American Revolution took place, dudes who fought in the British Army took up arms against them. I sincerely doubt the people in our military will take tyranny. Remember, even the German army had its dissenters during World War II and that was a personality cult of epic proportions.

[Something completely different]

I just want to point out that the guys and gals in the military of the United States are also citizens. When the American Revolution took place, dudes who fought in the British Army took up arms against them. I sincerely doubt the people in our military will take tyranny. Remember, even the German army had its dissenters during World War II and that was a personality cult of epic proportions.

???

Erwin von Witzleben, Rommel, Staufenberg???

Most historians would agree that these people are hoplessly glorified opertunists who simply wanted to save their necks when it became obvious that the war was lost. Most of them actualy participated in warcrimes.
Göring himself betraied Hitler in the final days believing the allies would make him the post-war dictator of Germany.
True resistance against national socialism never came out of the army, and the Germany army wasn`t even the initial instrument with which the nsdap came to power.
And what do you mean with "even"?
It is a well known fact that every german soldier on the eastern front between 1939 and 1944 was involved or whitness to warcrimes and other crimes against humanity.
This is not a good example because a entire generation of young men willingly participated in crimes and accepted the national socialist doctrin.

I find the entire debate arround the question of "if the goverment should turn into tyranny" to be absurd, because it is unlikely to happen and as far as I know never happened in history.

a army is independent from political parties and bound to laws of a nations constitution. I have never heared of any case in which the goverment turned it`s nation into a totalitarian state and thereby used the nations army as it`s tool.

But there are countless cases in which the army acted independent from the goverment and overthrew it to build up a military junta. that process being called "coup d ètat".
Burma is an example of a country currently ruled by a military junta, Mali being an example for a recent coup, pan arabism being a idiology mainly pushed my military officers and south America being a example of a continent which was almoust entirely ruled by military juntas.
-
And I think it is importent to underline that no totalitarian state which was built upon a strong all controling army stayed in power for long. One only needs to look at Argentina, Chile, Brazil and others.

Todays gun regulations have hardly anything to do with "the need to protect oneself from potential tyranny"
It`s about the right to protect oneself!