Gun control

[Dicknose]

And you think having a gun will help against an oppressive government?
If they control the military then you are not going to stop them with a few guns.

If it’s a civil war, then there will be people on both sides using their 2nd amendment weapons.

Guns are a bad way to solve political issues.
But hey you guys have had several wars in your country as a means to solve issues. Looks great when you look back from 100 years and more. But it’s a pretty devastating way to solve issues. Would only be worse with the massive change to weaponary of the last 50 years.

I live in a place that has effectively bans guns, has never had a war based on our soil and is a safer place to live (arguably better by most reported measures of living standard)
But go for it - buy your gun to defend against an out of control govt. heck just shoot enough Trump supporters and win the next election.

[JoshInKC]

Billi vs the US Army.

Hmmm.

On the subject of the 2nd amendment, has anyone else noticed that 2nd amendment supporters are also usually blindly proud patriots who love the President and are extremely unlikely to raise arms against the government anyway?

Not if the president happens to be a black guy.

[Godson]

I was going to mention the same thing. The conservatives hated Obama were talking about doing the exact same thing.

However, if the Second Amendment rights are going to be overthrown, a lot of the Armed Forces will stand up against that.

[Rare White Ape]

The 2nd amendment is not for shooting Trump supporters. It’s for defending against an attack from the army.

But we are talking about probably the most technologically advanced military force on the planet, versus a bunch of gun nuts. If anything, gun nuts and local militia groups should arm themselves even more and train up to use all of the equipment properly. Become an equal force to the army. Go all the way.

If people love the 2nd as much as they say they do, then this is what they should be doing, to instill proper fear in the government and save themselves from being subject to bad decisions. Anything less than that is totally pointless and causes the 2nd to be essentially redundant.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Look at all the other civil wars, all relying on the Russians and/or Americans covertly supporting them with weapons.

American citizens have probably stocked up enough to become self reliant.

Sure the evil federal govt could bomb the shit out of itself to destroy all the Billis, perhaps even nuke itself! I'd call that mission accomplished.

Imagine if Hitler was an American president and sold us the nazi party in order to make America great again, which country on earth would be able to defeat this American nazi party?

It'll have to be up to the American citizens themselves to fight against such evil. Without the 2nd amendment, the world would be doomed in that scenario.

Of course ideally the arm forces need to split to have a chance of winning over evil, but even if the evil emperor has completely military control, the # of existing guns in America will cause this evil regime some headaches.

[Godson]

The 2nd amendment is not for shooting Trump supporters. It’s for defending against an attack from the army.

But we are talking about probably the most technologically advanced military force on the planet, versus a bunch of gun nuts. If anything, gun nuts and local militia groups should arm themselves even more and train up to use all of the equipment properly. Become an equal force to the army. Go all the way.

If people love the 2nd as much as they say they do, then this is what they should be doing, to instill proper fear in the government and save themselves from being subject to bad decisions. Anything less than that is totally pointless and causes the 2nd to be essentially redundant.

This is one of your issues.

Many of the gun nuts are also the military. Let that sink in.

[drew]

If, and I mean if the government/military went off the rails, good luck. I'm not sure a Javelin or a Tomahawk care if you have an AR-15.

So, to use the GOP's own logic, if it's pointless in that regard, why have it (referencing the Mueller Protection bill "it's highly unlikely he'll be fired, so there's no reason to protect from it")

[Rare White Ape]

This is one of your issues.

Many of the gun nuts are also the military. Let that sink in.

It's hard balancing subtlety when I post for the demographics I am typing for. For some it goes way over their head*, but for others it flies way under.

Do I shoot higher and challenge myself to try and meet you, or do I aim waaaaaaayyyyyyyy lower and draw pictures with crayons?








*As far as I can tell; I might be being out-subtled by a wittier foe than I

[Dicknose]

Looking at other countries the answer to a govt gone wild is usually a military coup.
That’s the only way, civilian uprising is very hard, certainly a civilian armed uprising won’t cut it.

And as much as Billi keeps saying Nazi, they got to power with overwhelming public support. Then managed to hide most of their evil acts. Having a gun doesn’t help if most other people think the govt is doing a good job (even if it because they lie and use propaganda)

A gun to defend against a corrupt govt is an outdated concept. Possibly 100 or more years out of date.

[Rare White Ape]

I honestly can't think of a military coup in a stable wealthy western 1st world country in my lifetime.

There was one in Turkey in 2016, probably the largest coup in a long time, the leaders were caught and arrested. All it led to was more totalitarianism by the leader. But is Turkey stable? There was a coup there *checks Wikipedia* in 1997.

In a country like the USA, even if the president seems like a total nutjob, there are too many checks and balances for things to get out of hand. Democracy says that it has to be so. Any tiny little change has to be agreed to by so many people that dumb legislation is almost impossible. And even if things do get rammed through then there is the high court to test it, and that test usually means the end of any crazy laws from the oval. Unfortunately it would also limit the extent to which the 2nd amendment can be changed, because the votes rule and no politician wants to lose their job.

Bearing in mind that there were just 14 states in the USA at the time the 2nd was ratified, and it was part of the Bill of Rights, which included ten (yes, ten!) amendments in total, so there surely would have been some wheeling and dealing between states to agree on such measures. Nowadays trying to get a change past fifty states and their constituents seems like a political quagmire. Democracy is so different in 2018 compared to what it was in the 1790s.