So, you have a second amendment to defend against tyranny. How does it work in practice?

[ronburgundy]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

If the helicopter slaughtered an armed militia in a lopsided victory the rebels may be able to win from a propaganda perspective. Supporters of the federal government may see such slaughter as excessive as those being slaughtered will, to a great extent, still be considered "our people". It could lead to greater support for a compromise and less will to fight with the full force of the federal government has to offer.

This also assumes that the rebels were unable to turn any military generals to their side. The rebels could potentially obtain a few helicopters of their own.

But both of those responses mean that the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership would actually doing nothing to help the rebellion succeed. If a helicopter slaughtering a bunch of guys with AKs helps the rebels gain sympathy, then that should be doubly true if the Feds slaughter rebels without any guns at all.

And if the rebels having generals on their side is neccessary, then private citizens with guns was of no use.

 

[Bleach]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

That's the exact same thing we thought in Vietnam, and the exact same thing the Russians thought in Afghanistan. Dang!

 

[Bleach]

How is 'rounding people up' logistically different from 'serving an arrest warrant on' a bunch of people?

People who are being 'rounded up' by the government because they are suspected of stealing stuff, selling drugs, or robbing other citizens, often have guns - But those guns don't prevent the government agents from taking them from their homes and putting them in jail.

So how does the situation differ substantively when the reason for arresting people is political rather than criminal charges?

Or are you suggesting that people don't get jailed in America in large numbers today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

Presumably most of these people didn't want to go - but the 2nd Amendment didn't allow them to prevent the government from taking them anyway.

Yes, but with the gun, Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob can feel less bad about his small penis.

If that liberal BS were true, I never would have bought a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.

 

[ZiprHead]

The founding fathers were pretty young and idealistic. I don't think they put a lot of thought into the future. It didn't take long before the Bill of Rights became needed. Who could have thought, in that time period, of the industrial revolution, let alone the technological revolution. Maybe it's time for a re-write.

I'm not sure I agree with this line of reasoning; by the time the Constitution was being ratified, most of the original revolutionaries were getting well into middle age by the standards of the day, many with adult children. Idealistic, though, they definitely were, and had an (in my opinion) undue belief in the power of human nature to incline us toward a balanced and fair society.

How Old Were the Leaders of the American Revolution on July 4, 1776?

As it turns out, many Founding Fathers were younger than 40 years old in 1776, with several qualifying as Founding Teenagers or Twentysomethings. And though the average age of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was 44, more than a dozen of them were 35 or younger.

 

[Ford]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

American history is a useful guide. Just look at all the times since the American Revolution that armed citizens have successfully overthrown their tyrannical government! The national cemeteries are filled with brave patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice and removed a dictator from the White House.

And you don't have to look back even that far. Just ask around and I'm sure you'll be able to find a stalwart gun owner who personally fought in the last armed revolt against the government. Someone fought off Jade Helm, after all. Plus who could forget all the people killed at the Bowling Greene Massacre? We owe our freedom to those stalwart 2nd Amendment enthusiasts. We're free because of their vigilance...at least that's what I read on Facebook yesterday.

 

[Politesse]

How Old Were the Leaders of the American Revolution on July 4, 1776?

As it turns out, many Founding Fathers were younger than 40 years old in 1776, with several qualifying as Founding Teenagers or Twentysomethings. And though the average age of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was 44, more than a dozen of them were 35 or younger.

The Constitution was ratified in 1788.

 

[Politesse]

American history is a useful guide. Just look at all the times since the American Revolution that armed citizens have successfully overthrown their tyrannical government! The national cemeteries are filled with brave patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice and removed a dictator from the White House.

?

 

[ImGod]

The most staunch supporters of the second amendment I know are current and former military members and rank and file police. I've always assumed the helicopter would be targeting the same person the regular gun owner would be targeting since they tend to be on the same side of the issue. I'll have to ask some of the military and police members in our group the next time we go out shooting. I'll specifically ask the women if they own guns to compensate for their small dicks. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

 

[zorq]

I'll specifically ask the women if they own guns to compensate for their small dicks. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

[OT]
Actually, the female gun owners I know do openly volunteer that they carry their weapons because they are afraid of people with penises that are significantly larger than theirs trying to take advantage of them and their diminutive genitalia. That is to say, they DO carry specifically because of their gender and their fear of being raped.
[/OT]

 

[zorq]

Speaking of diminutive genitalia...

Yes, but with the gun, Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob can feel less bad about his small penis.

If that liberal BS were true, I never would have bought a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.

I feel like your rejoinder implies you have a less than impressive pocket rocket than we should otherwise suspect.

You see, the stereotype is that people with small reproductive organs are inclined to buy large weapons. So then the converse of that would imply that people packing a gargantuan bologna pony would be more inclined to acquire smaller ones.

But you are insisting that you would NEVER buy a revolver with a small, 2 inch barrel if that stereotype were true.

So... out of curiosity, ... are you actually bragging about how small your bone phone is to score a point on an online discussion board?

 

[bilby]

The most staunch supporters of the second amendment I know are current and former military members and rank and file police. I've always assumed the helicopter would be targeting the same person the regular gun owner would be targeting since they tend to be on the same side of the issue.

So you agree that gun owners would be useless to defend against government tyranny, because even if it were possible for them to do something, they would be the last to actually do so, as they would be more likely to support the tyranny than oppose it.

 

[Opoponax]

Speaking of diminutive genitalia...

Yes, but with the gun, Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob can feel less bad about his small penis.

If that liberal BS were true, I never would have bought a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.

I feel like your rejoinder implies you have a less than impressive pocket rocket than we should otherwise suspect.

You see, the stereotype is that people with small reproductive organs are inclined to buy large weapons. So then the converse of that would imply that people packing a gargantuan bologna pony would be more inclined to acquire smaller ones.

But you are insisting that you would NEVER buy a revolver with a small, 2 inch barrel if that stereotype were true.

So... out of curiosity, ... are you actually bragging about how small your bone phone is to score a point on an online discussion board?

This is nonsense, and unnecessarily insulting.

 

[Opoponax]

So you agree that gun owners would be useless to defend against government tyranny, because even if it were possible for them to do something, they would be the last to actually do so, as they would be more likely to support the tyranny than oppose it.

I think that is the case in the U.S. Most gun owners are conservative, and the most vocal gun owners are the most conservative. Thus, they would, or at least could be instrumental in oppressing the population.

Every progressive in the U.S. should own at least two guns. One semiauto rifle in 5.56 or 7.62 x 39, and a 9mm pistol. And they need to learn how to use them. Guns aren't going anywhere--that fucking war is thoroughly lost. Guns are not only here to stay for the next 30 years; rather, access is only going to increase. Worse, as long as Democrats run on an anti-gun platform, they're going to continue to lose millions of votes, so they may as well drop the issue altogether.

Armed guards at schools are going to be the norm. Armed teachers are going to happen. If one didn't vote in 2016 or voted for Stein, then they chose this for us. The answer isn't protests, the answer is to get armed.

An armed populace won't prevent tyranny. But there are certain of us who aren't willing to live with that, and who would take as many of the bastards out as we could as our own chosen method for exiting this simulation. That, I assure you, can be done.

 

[zorq]

This is nonsense, and unnecessarily insulting.

I don't disagree that what I wrote is nonsense, it most certainly is. Most brags people tell about the size of their genitals are nonsense too.

As a reminder, Bleach brought up the size of his own genitalia voluntarily as evidence in his argument that owning and using guns is a respectable passtime.

But I find it extremely currious that someone might be either openly bragging about how small they think their personal package is, OR that they would be careless enough to accidentally imply the opposite of their intended meaning when it comes to a subject so many people are so sensitive about. Either scenario is remarkable to me. Don't you think?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My problem isn't so much the huge government we have today coming after me, but instead the post-apocalyptic conservatives with guns coming after everyone after the government has fallen. It'd be nice if some non-conservatives had some guns, too.

 

[Opoponax]

This is nonsense, and unnecessarily insulting.

I don't disagree that what I wrote is nonsense, it most certainly is. Most brags people tell about the size of their genitals are nonsense too.

As a reminder, Bleach brought up the size of his own genitalia voluntarily as evidence in his argument that owning and using guns is a respectable passtime.

But I find it extremely currious that someone might be either openly bragging about how small they think their personal package is, OR that they would be careless enough to accidentally imply the opposite of their intended meaning when it comes to a subject so many people are so sensitive about. Either scenario is remarkable to me. Don't you think?

Oh, I see (non-sarcastically btw ) It's actually something I shouldn't have gotten involved in to begin with anyway.