Thread: I Rest My Case On Gun Control

You know in the past I have brought up the fact this this idea of us having the right to arm ourselves to take back our gov't is silly. As technology advanced, the gov't took away the rights that would allow civilians to go up against the mighty US military, by limiting what weapons we could own. So it would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight. And since you would never be able to take the gov't back, we may as well give up these rifles that look like real deal combat guns. Might keep some of us from getting killed for naught.

Afterall, the dissidents would be labeled domestic terrorists by the gov't and the media. You couldn't survive the propaganda war waged against you. So, why have these silly delusions of grandeur? You are powerless, face it, change your hardened stance, and let's move on. Limit gun ownership to single shot shotguns and rifles. Then if a guy goes nuts he can only kill one person before someone jumps him. And you still have your right to own a gun. We just make em more idiot proof is all.

Then confiscate all other guns. If you get caught with one, it's the death penality, conducted swiftly. We could get rid of these bad guns in 5 years, most of them. We could expand our police force and create a new huge federal police force to handle just the gun issue. It would put folks to work. It would put the gun factories to work, making every sort of single shot weapon imaginable. Hell, you could even have an AK 47, an AR 15, that looked just like one, but was only a single shot! And make the reloading slower mechanically than faster.

This could end the recession and put folks back to work. We could use this problem with guns to make the nation safer, kill off the criminals, and inject some life back into our economy. A win, win, win, deal. And you really did not lose the ability to take back your gov't, because you never had the WAY to do it to begin with. Sounds pretty damn logical and reasonable to me.

So what about it guys? Can you see just how delusional your world view really is? That you are only indulging in fantasy when you believe you could actually take your gov't' back with your semi auto guns? And that your fantasy is getting folks killed in droves by nutters?

I just wonder if an all volunteer military would be more apt to shoot their own people as opposed to a military of draftees? Would there be a significant difference?

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

You know in the past I have brought up the fact this this idea of us having the right to arm ourselves to take back our gov't is silly. As technology advanced, the gov't took away the rights that would allow civilians to go up against the mighty US military, by limiting what weapons we could own. So it would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight. And since you would never be able to take the gov't back, we may as well give up these rifles that look like real deal combat guns. Might keep some of us from getting killed for naught.

Afterall, the dissidents would be labeled domestic terrorists by the gov't and the media. You couldn't survive the propaganda war waged against you. So, why have these silly delusions of grandeur? You are powerless, face it, change your hardened stance, and let's move on. Limit gun ownership to single shot shotguns and rifles. Then if a guy goes nuts he can only kill one person before someone jumps him. And you still have your right to own a gun. We just make em more idiot proof is all.

Then confiscate all other guns. If you get caught with one, it's the death penality, conducted swiftly. We could get rid of these bad guns in 5 years, most of them. We could expand our police force and create a new huge federal police force to handle just the gun issue. It would put folks to work. It would put the gun factories to work, making every sort of single shot weapon imaginable. Hell, you could even have an AK 47, an AR 15, that looked just like one, but was only a single shot! And make the reloading slower mechanically than faster.

This could end the recession and put folks back to work. We could use this problem with guns to make the nation safer, kill off the criminals, and inject some life back into our economy. A win, win, win, deal. And you really did not lose the ability to take back your gov't, because you never had the WAY to do it to begin with. Sounds pretty damn logical and reasonable to me.

So what about it guys? Can you see just how delusional your world view really is? That you are only indulging in fantasy when you believe you could actually take your gov't' back with your semi auto guns? And that your fantasy is getting folks killed in droves by nutters?

I just wonder if an all volunteer military would be more apt to shoot their own people as opposed to a military of draftees? Would there be a significant difference?

Just can't wrap your head around reality, can you?

Sounds like you're basically saying that since you cannot imagine winning, we should just give up in advance.

Good thing we didn't think like that around 1776...

ahoy all,

if i could witness it from a safe distance, i'd very much like to see a showdown between say, the 3rd Battalion 'o the Marine Corps supported by Air Cavalry and some really motivated folks in thar huntin' camo gear, deer rifles and Dinty Moore™ beef stew.

i like to root fer underdogs in general.

i wish ye all the best, and remember to each pack a copy 'o the constitution.

i gotta head off to works now, avast ye!!!!

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

You know in the past I have brought up the fact this this idea of us having the right to arm ourselves to take back our gov't is silly. As technology advanced, the gov't took away the rights that would allow civilians to go up against the mighty US military, by limiting what weapons we could own. So it would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight. And since you would never be able to take the gov't back, we may as well give up these rifles that look like real deal combat guns. Might keep some of us from getting killed for naught.

Afterall, the dissidents would be labeled domestic terrorists by the gov't and the media. You couldn't survive the propaganda war waged against you. So, why have these silly delusions of grandeur? You are powerless, face it, change your hardened stance, and let's move on. Limit gun ownership to single shot shotguns and rifles. Then if a guy goes nuts he can only kill one person before someone jumps him. And you still have your right to own a gun. We just make em more idiot proof is all.

Then confiscate all other guns. If you get caught with one, it's the death penality, conducted swiftly. We could get rid of these bad guns in 5 years, most of them. We could expand our police force and create a new huge federal police force to handle just the gun issue. It would put folks to work. It would put the gun factories to work, making every sort of single shot weapon imaginable. Hell, you could even have an AK 47, an AR 15, that looked just like one, but was only a single shot! And make the reloading slower mechanically than faster.

This could end the recession and put folks back to work. We could use this problem with guns to make the nation safer, kill off the criminals, and inject some life back into our economy. A win, win, win, deal. And you really did not lose the ability to take back your gov't, because you never had the WAY to do it to begin with. Sounds pretty damn logical and reasonable to me.

So what about it guys? Can you see just how delusional your world view really is? That you are only indulging in fantasy when you believe you could actually take your gov't' back with your semi auto guns? And that your fantasy is getting folks killed in droves by nutters?

I just wonder if an all volunteer military would be more apt to shoot their own people as opposed to a military of draftees? Would there be a significant difference?

Again, you're assuming that in such a scenario the entirety of the United States military would side with the government.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

Good thing we didn't think like that around 1776...

We didn't. Better men than us did.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

We didn't. Better men than us did.

I meant "we" as in Americans, but yes, you're correct.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Again, you're assuming that in such a scenario the entirety of the United States military would side with the government.

- - - Updated - - -



We didn't. Better men than us did.

My experience with men in the military over my 27 years career in the Army suggests that more than half of the military will join the civilian militias to eliminate a tyrannical government and take their armament with them. So inspite of all the whiners claiming we don't need firearms and that we could not stand up against our military is just so much bull crap. I have also noted that the higher rank a person is the more likely they would support a just armed uprising.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Again, you're assuming that in such a scenario the entirety of the United States military would side with the government.

ahoy Thorhammer,

a last bit before i depart.

what ye say be true...thar might be a few in the military who tremble at the prospect 'o returnin' fire on thar fellow americans. thats absolutely true - even our vaunted men and women who serve be human.

i have to also say though that thar seems to be some kinda assumption that everyone who isn't in the military will side with the rebels. i don't think thats goin' to be the case.

the 1%? no way they're goin' with the rebels, they like the system.

the 10%? ditto.

the 30%? ditto.

senior citizens? oh, they like the system. trust me.

people in Harvard or Stanford or Brown that're gettin' thar advanced degrees? no, probably not them, either.

minorities? i dunno...probably not asians or jews. they tend to try to fit into whatever system be in place and just out game it by hard work and intellectual rigor. in them bits i see on CNN 'bout militia groups, i never see black folks or hispanics either, though i figure thar must be some. perhaps Hawaiians might join up?

*scratches his noggin'*

folks with white collar jobs? i don't think so. i work with a great many folk from Bank 'o America and Wells Fargo...they're not too likely to storm the barricades. in general, life has been good to them, and thar's always thar membership at Myers Park Country Club or the Charlotte Country Club to consider.

ok, i have to go!

talk to ye later matey.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by dnsmith

My experience with men in the military over my 27 years career in the Army suggests that more than half of the military will join the civilian militias to eliminate a tyrannical government and take their armament with them. So inspite of all the whiners claiming we don't need firearms and that we could not stand up against our military is just so much bull crap. I have also noted that the higher rank a person is the more likely they would support a just armed uprising.

I don't think it would be more than half. My guess is less than half. Probably a lot less. All depends on the scenario driving such a rebellion. Line units would be the key, though.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

i have to also say though that thar seems to be some kinda assumption that everyone who isn't in the military will side with the rebels. i don't think thats goin' to be the case.

Oh I agree. Such are assumptions are equally foolish. That said, would it matter? Those segments of society probably wouldn't side with such a rebellion, though I believe they are equally unlikely to pick up a rifle for the government either.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Thorhammer,

a last bit before i depart.

what ye say be true...thar might be a few in the military who tremble at the prospect 'o returnin' fire on thar fellow americans. thats absolutely true - even our vaunted men and women who serve be human.

i have to also say though that thar seems to be some kinda assumption that everyone who isn't in the military will side with the rebels. i don't think thats goin' to be the case.

the 1%? no way they're goin' with the rebels, they like the system.

the 10%? ditto.

the 30%? ditto.

senior citizens? oh, they like the system. trust me.

people in Harvard or Stanford or Brown that're gettin' thar advanced degrees? no, probably not them, either.

minorities? i dunno...probably not asians or jews. they tend to try to fit into whatever system be in place and just out game it by hard work and intellectual rigor.

folks with white collar jobs? i don't think so. i work with a great many folk from Bank 'o America and Wells Fargo...they're not too likely to storm the barricades. in general, life has been good to them, and thar's always thar membership at Myers Park Country Club or the Charlotte Country Club to consider.

ok, i have to go!

talk to ye later matey.

- MeadHallPirate

Less than 3% of the population was actively involved in the Revolutionary War. Only about 20% total supported it.

Just 3% of the gun owning population is ~3 million men-at-arms. 3% of the TOTAL population is nearly 10 million people - remember, these are actively involved, which means armed and shooting.

Now, maybe YOU think our military could stand up to 10 million armed men and women who can disappear into the background at a moments notice and who are fighting for their lives, families and homes, but I assure you - nobody with half a brain in the puzzle palace thinks they can.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I don't think it would be more than half. My guess is less than half. Probably a lot less. All depends on the scenario driving such a rebellion. Line units would be the key, though.

As I qualified my post, A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

This thread is starting to remind me of various conversations I've had over the years about such things as "Could Superman kick Batman's ass?"

Originally Posted by dnsmith

As I qualified my post, A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

I still doubt half. Any such rebellion would be on the receiving end of a massive propaganda campaign. It will be hard to get their message out to the bulk of the American people, to include the military, let alone keep them on message.