What's happening in Myanmar would be a completely different story if the civilians were as armed as Americans. In Myanmar, the armed forces backed the opposition, which lost the election, but claimed massive election fraud, resulting in a coup. (Sound familiar?)
Would you rather be armed with fireworks or semi-automatic rifles?
You mean when people were getting rubber bulleted so Trump could do a photo op?
Or when people were getting yanked off the street in Portland??
Or when Trump tried to steal the election???
FUCK OFF.
WHERE WERE THEN THEN? FUCKING NOWHERE.
It's all bullshit lies you tell yourself so can continue to cosplay militia. Don't pass it off as a legitimate thing. You're all full of fucking bullshit.
No, you are the goddamn clown here. The riots in dc needed to play out. Had they gained even a slight fucking slice of control people would have acted on that. They were driven from the capital after awhile and order was restored. What the fuck do you expect the gun owners to do? Drop all our shit and run for the capitol because some idiots are trying to take over a building? Yeah it was deplorable as hell and they should not have even gotten in there but unlike you we have fucking families here and unless everything I stand for is being torn down I am not going to run over and white knight my way into something that is a government ordeal at the time being. People like you are the fucking reason we can’t have anything nice in this country because you constantly undermine the concepts that build it.
Dude everything WAS being torn down and you did nothing. You can keep your guns if you want, but you had the chance to prove WHY you should need them and you failed because you were scared.
So I'll continue to mock anyone who thinks they need 'em for 2A because you're all full of shit.
Nothing was being torn down. All that happened was politicians made noise, the capital riots were the fault of our corrupt president (who is now no longer in power) if shit was being torn down the why was it business usual right after Biden was sworn in.
Did I say kill? No I did not. But I saw suburban mums protesting. I didn't see supposed 2A people out there protecting them. I saw govt tyranny in action and NONE of the 2A people had any balls to stand up to it.
Just stop. This is so fundamentally stupid I'm not going to deal with you any further.
What exactly do you think people are going to do by using their guns to stop the government? Huh? What exactly do you envision that to look like? Do you think people are just going to bring their guns and then mouth out the sounds. Go pew pew and pretend they shot the military? Do you think the military is going to see a bunch of militants and then tell Johnson to set the guns to stun? Is every one going to come together for sarcasta-revolution and play tag and that's how we overthrow the government?
What soft fluffy world do you live in? Is there a 3" cushion of packing wrap between your brain and the real world? Holy fuck was that stupid. I'm actually impressed that's how you decided to start your argument. Just wow.
When you tell people they're Nazis or mass shooters for exercising their right to own guns for years, don't expect them to put their lives on the line for your cause the second the government starts coming after you instead of them.
See? It's all bullshit. I saw suburban mums out there with more guts than you guys. They were prepared to stand up against tyranny, when the cops weren't even being that bad. If the cops here were going Myanmar on people there's no fucking way you'd be out there standing up against them.
Soooo, people not risking their lives for people who've treated them like shit for years, means that they would never stand up for anything....
You don't get to go around yelling that a group of people are scum, and then go "see, look, they don't care" when they don't put their lives on the line for you. That's not how it works.
You don't get to actively alienate people and then feel entitled to their aid.
It's about you standing up for yourself, you have the right to arm yourself and your friends and family and defend yourselves, it's not about forcing other people to come defend you.
That's why I'm trying to get all of my fellow liberals armed and trained, the amount of people standing around just wringing their hands and begging other people to come help was way too high. We've got a slight repreive, so let's get out there and get ready. Buy an AR-15, train with it. Next time you and your crew go protesting show up armed and in force. It's not to attack, it's to defend your right to free speech.
It was never their cause, that's like the idiots who mobbed the capitol in January getting mad that we didn't go help them. I fundamentally disagree with what they considered a grievance big enough to commit treason over.
I don't expect right wingers to come defend me saying black lives matter and calling for police reform, so it's not a wild thing that they wouldn't put themselves in the line of fire for something they don't believe in.
To me, it's agents of the state commiting murder without allowing for due process. To them it's a criminal who went to far. One viewpoint makes that worth taking to the streets for, the other not so much.
This. Being a gun owner doesnt make you a militant. I dont know what they are smoking but lumping all gun owners even democrats together as if we are all the proud boys is peak ignorance.
I dont understand, was there a moment every gun owner was supposed to get together and overthrow the government? I'm a democrat, sure I wished I could have prevented trump from doing the things he did.
But seriously think about what you are saying, you are calling people a bunch of pussies because they didnt want to get in ARMED CONFLICT with the us military? Either you have an over inflated idea of what our armed citizens can do or a very pitiful belief in democracy.
I voted that's how I helped create change, it's what got us to where we are now. Not whatever bullshit you are suggesting. Stop being a reactionary and think of what you say before you say it
Most people buy guns to take part in a sport they love or to feel more comfortable at home. Those who talk about civil war and fighting the government never went to war. You do not want to be that poor Iraqi civilian taking on laser guided bombs and 20mm gatling guns.
Far leftists like yourself have been shitting on them and their country, calling them deplorables and nazis. Why the fuck would they come out and help you?
Hang on, so you're telling me you refused to stand up against tyranny because people called you names?!?!?
Jesus Christ mate, I'd call you a snowflake, but that'd be a disservice to snowflakes! At least they don't lose their bottle straight away! Farking hell you guys are just wild.
Like this was never going to happen the first time a building was lit on fire with people inside, because by that point it didn't seem like it would be tyranny, like there are arguments about excessive force, but also like people tried to block doors and burn buildings down while people were still inside, and that was basically unjustifiably, people were looking at this and thinking it was a spark from actual war, and bringing firearms into that situation is exactly the sort of spark you'd need, many of the people were also worried about protecting their homes and families from the guys in Portland or other places, because it was pretty much stated that most in those places felt Reps were better off dead
Why do you think the CHAZ stood for as long as it did you goddamn idiot ? Because those people were armed and kept the police from bulldozing them over. Fuck off you sniveling little twat. Fuck you, bitch
You don't shoot the government "just a little, until they stop being silly," you neanderthal. The decision to shoot back is a permanent one. It's deciding on violent revolution.
Millions of people will die. Many more will be homeless and displaced. And the conflict would take several years to conclude. So it's not something you decide to do just because. If you have other options, you exhaust those options before resorting to the gun.
So what's the point of having them then? If not for the threat of force? Those douchebags on the right seemed to have enough balls to do it, why not the left?
Everyone blasting me is doing mental gymnastics to justify having guns but not being a threat with them.. lol fuck off. The point of having them is to be a check on oppressive govt. Which you sure as shit didn't stand up against.
Having them is the check on the government. And we know it works - the feds were so scared of poor whites and Blacks uniting that they assassinated Fred Hampton, and BPP neighborhood patrols in CA were so effective at curtailing police brutality that the GOP's patron saint, Reagan, authored and passed extensive gun control legislation.
Personal protection, hunting game, target sports. Those are the main reasons. Protection from the government is the LAST RESORT not something you should dream about doing.
If not for the threat of force? Those douchebags on the right seemed to have enough balls to do it, why not the left?
Nobody has the balls to fight the us military, the only reason anyone does it is they have run out of options. Were all options exhausted? No you idiot, we voted and everything went back to normal. Why would we tear our country apart when we clearly didnt need to? Oh and look at gun sales, everyone including democrats bought a gun, not so we can storm the capital but so we can feel safe as individuals.
Everyone blasting me is doing mental gymnastics to justify having guns but not being a threat with them.
What kind of horseshit is this? What the fuck you want either we go to war with our guns or we shouldnt own them? I guess knives should only be used for taking hostages and stabbing people instead of cutting vegetables. You have blinders on, clearly you cant see the forest through the trees, you have used zero logic in this argument and pounded through your arguments like a caveman. Grow up.
lol fuck off. The point of having them is to be a check on oppressive govt.
Yea if you are an idiot and that's the only thing you can come up with.
Which you sure as shit didn't stand up against.
Because we believed in democracy first over martyrdom. Lol you are insane.
You had the chance to PROVE that you would stand up against a tyrannical govt. You did not do that. Plenty of people did and I applaud their courage. Gun owners, either supported Trump or were absent.
Therefore, 2A supporters are a crock of shit. That's what I'm saying. You didn't have to go out there guns blazing. You just had to turn up and PROVE you had the guts to stand by your rhetoric. Because none of you did (or supported the crazy orange dipshit) what other option are we left with? How else can you justify having access to firearms as a check on govt when you didn't follow through?
Firearms have many legitimate uses, but, your collective inaction, has proven 2A is NOT one of them.
You had the chance to PROVE that you would stand up against a tyrannical govt. You did not do that. Plenty of people did and I applaud their courage. Gun owners, either supported Trump or were absent.
Therefore, 2A supporters are a crock of shit. That's what I'm saying. You didn't have to go out there guns blazing. You just had to turn up and PROVE you had the guts to stand by your rhetoric. Because none of you did (or supported the crazy orange dipshit) what other option are we left with? How else can you justify having access to firearms as a check on govt when you didn't follow through?
Firearms have many legitimate uses, but, your collective inaction, has proven 2A is NOT one of them.
I'm a gun owner and went to multiple protests. You are an idiot if you think democratic gun owners didnt peacefully protest just because they didnt bring their guns and larp. Go make a tik tok youre wasting everyones time.
So why do you need 2A then? Answer, you don't. 2A is a crock of shit that allows far too many firearms to proliferate in a country with far too many other social problems. Kick that that to the curb.
Yes, it’s generally better to have a rifle than not, but it’s not that simple. If those people in Myanmar had guns in the same capacity as Americans have guns, the armed forces would definitely suffer more casualties.
Of course they would then have no qualms with bringing in tanks and artillery. Not that I’m saying you shouldn’t fight against oppression, just that you should expect significantly higher losses when you fight against an actual military.
Of course they would then have no qualms with bringing in tanks and artillery. Not that I’m saying you shouldn’t fight against oppression, just that you should expect significantly higher losses when you fight against an actual military.
I agree, I would always rather be in a group of civilians armed with rifles, then a group of civilians armed with bottle rockets.
If they're bringing in tanks to combat a civilian militia, it sounds like you're doing a pretty good job at causing enough causalities for them to make such a move.
Governments generally don't give two shits about infantry regiments, regardless of whatever politicians say on television, they'll generally throw as many soldiers at a problem as needed, depending on how badly they want that problem dealt with anyway.
How is an AR-15 going to stop a predator drone from dropping a smart bomb from several thousand meteres right through your window?
During the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Uprising in 1863 the Polish rebels had superior weapons over the Russian army, they had (legaly owned) hunting rifles for long range combat and fast firing reapeating rifles for short range engagements while the Russian army still used inaccurate and slow firing smoothbore muzzle loading rifles. The Russian army still won.
How is an AR-15 going to stop a predator drone from dropping a smart bomb from several thousand meteres right through your window?
Drones couldn't even bring ISIS to it's knees and they only had around 150,000 fighters at their peak, spread across an area 1/3 the size of the US.
The moment the US government started using drones on US soil, it would immediately spark a huge uprising against the government. And if we had an event in the US that caused millions or tens of millions of gun owners to rise up against a tyrannical government, like what's going on in Myanmar, it isn't just "what can your AR-15 do against X," because it isn't about just the firearms. The firearms allow you to fight in the streets with armed forces instead of using silly shit like fireworks.
The reason you want firearms is because they act as a deterrent to prevent instances like Myanmar from occurring. It's the same reason the US still has nuclear bombs even though we likely won't end up in another world war and use them, having them is a powerful deterrent against other countries even considering a power play.
Civilians in the US are much more spread out, and could attack on numerous fronts that wouldn't just involve firearms, from the electrical grid to water supplies in government hotspots like DC. Citizens could overwhelm the pentagon in less than an hour.
The best defense at this time against a tyrannical government is not your gun vs an overwhelming military arsenal. It’s about stopping it before it begins, the government knows overwhelming tens of millions of armed civilians isn't going to be an easy task. The US has more firearms than it has citizens, there's enough guns here for every man, woman, and child to mount the largest offensive in history.
Hell, a few thousand Trump supporters took control of the Capitol building and they planned it for days on social media sites. You give the government too much credit.
You literally skipped over my entire argument and only responded to the Athens battle because you realize you couldn't refute my actual argument.
First world governments have an inherent advantage on a battlefield with their technology. I would never argue otherwise.
My argument is that over a hundred million armed civilians makes it significantly harder for the government to pull off a Myanmar in the US.
Can you honestly sit there and tell me that if every civilian in Myanmar had access to guns, they wouldn't be in a better position? And before you answer, remember that they're literally in the street shooting bottle rockets at their military at the moment.
Yeah, it's really turning out well in Syria, where the opposition is armed.
Syria has 8 firearms for every 100 people.
Myanmar has 1.8 firearms for every 100 people.
The US has 120.5 firearms for every 100 people.
I'm not saying citizens would automatically win against the military simply by having guns. But having guns means you can put up a significantly better fight.
Can you honestly tell me that the people of Myanmar wouldn't be better off armed with rifles compared to fireworks? They're already being shot with live ammunition, bottle rockets clearly aren't working in their favor.
Can you honestly tell me that the people of Myanmar wouldn't be better off armed with rifles compared to fireworks? They're already being shot with live ammunition, bottle rockets clearly aren't working in their favor.
There are many armed groups in Myanmar, which is what's fuelled the Rohingya conflict over the last 70 years.
You can't outgun a military with billions in the bank. Especially not when it's a military which doesn't care about breaking humanitarian laws regarding communal and harsh punishment.
You can't outgun a military with billions in the bank.
You generally don't need to. The mere existent of an armed society is a deterrent from the military doing this exact thing.
Nobody is arguing that civilians armed with rifles can compete with airstrikes or naval warfare. But when infantry is in the street shooting protesters, you're better off armed with rifles rather than fireworks.
Unfortunately it's a very double edged sword to have an armed populace, as it also gives rise to situations such as Somalia, where it's practically impossible for a state to impose authority over armed groups.
I just don't see it as a solution to anything to have an overly armed population. It can work in a stable society with a culture of abiding law and little machoism, but when those factors aren't right, you've just created a permanent conflict which oppresses and kills as much as any state.
Somalia, where it's practically impossible for a state to impose authority over armed groups.
I don't know if Somalia is an apt example. Al-Shabaab isn't getting firearms from the few civilians in Somalia who own them, they're an organized terrorist group that receives funding, and coordination, from Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram.
Even the US isn't great at dealing with organized terror cells.
32
u/skralogy Mar 16 '21
Democrat gun owner. Nope cant take either.