Attention all gun-rights advocates

[Christobal]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

Your guns are good for self-defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting, hobby-collecting, and of course you can use them for crime. And that's all. End of list. You cannot use them to defend your "freedom" in any politically meaningful way. You cannot use them to fight the state with any hope of success. The state always wins that firefight. You could conceivably use them to fight those you consider political opponents, but that falls under the heading of crime. There are no "Second Amendment solutions" to political grievances, none at all.

Someone should have told ISIS that.

 

[RobDownSouth]

We don't have to pay taxes any more, I understand. Our president doesn't pay taxes, so we don't have to either.

Kinda like his state of the union address: we can eat all the cake we want and we'll still lose weight! Who knew it'd be so simple?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Compare/contrast. Notice how he starts with an outlandish statement then proceeds to move the goalpost in an effort to deny any fact based rebuttal?

Synopsis of this thread:
You're gun rights won't do anything against a government and its military. Wait, I meant guns in the hands of civilians of an industrial society. I mean, I meant...

I thought it was clear enough that the OP was addressing Americans, who live in an industrialized country.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Dude, you have no clue. There are more HIDDEN guns in the country than you think.

They won't stay hidden long if people start using them to shoot LEOs.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Do you think guerrillas put on parades or some shit?

Public bulletins about their activities for the uniformed forces to find?

No, I think they attack government buildings and forces, which draws attention.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I am pretty sure that was King George's thinking before he lost the American Colonies in the 1770's.

Oh, he could have won eventually. But Washington kept the war dragging on and on until the Brits lost the political will to fight it.

And despite popular legend to the contrary, the war was not won by an armed citizenry, it was won by the regular Continental Army. Militias contributed little to the effort, and there was not much guerilla combat.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Wrong.
A few bullet holes in a window has made many a man change his attitude.

Terrorism aimed at government officials will only dispose them to crack down hard.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I for one am not gonna answer you Oreo.

Guns are here now, wayyyy past their ban, and not going anywhere.

Quite true, no doubt.

Tyranny will never be.

We may hope so, but that has nothing to do with the above.

 

[Christobal]

Oh, he could have won eventually. But Washington kept the war dragging on and on until the Brits lost the political will to fight it.

The outcome of might have happened is irrelevant. The armed citizens caused the war to end.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The outcome of might have happened is irrelevant. The armed citizens caused the war to end.

Again: Despite popular legend to the contrary, the war was not won by an armed citizenry, it was won by the regular Continental Army. Militias contributed little to the effort, and there was not much guerilla combat.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

You do realize that's lefty propaganda that's proven time and again to be total bullshit right?



You need to take a history class.

He seems to think the military would not uphold their sworn duty to protect the constitution from both foreign and domestic.

 

[Christobal]

Again: Despite popular legend to the contrary, the war was not won by an armed citizenry, it was won by the regular Continental Army. Militias contributed little to the effort, and there was not much guerilla combat.

Look at the history of the Continental Army and how much stuff of their own stuff they had to bring to fight. Depending on the Continental Congress was a crap shoot at best. If you wanted good gear you had to bring it with you or beg for it from home,

 

[KingOrfeo]

He seems to think the military would not uphold their sworn duty to protect the constitution from both foreign and domestic.

Of course it will. That is why the military will always side with the civil government, and fight any domestic enemy that rebels against it, and its officers will never presume they know better than elected officials and judges what is or is not constitutional.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Look at the history of the Continental Army and how much stuff of their own stuff they had to bring to fight. Depending on the Continental Congress was a crap shoot at best. If you wanted good gear you had to bring it with you or beg for it from home,

But their success did not depend on their keeping guns at home. They would have been issued muskets anyway.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Of course it will. That is why the military will always side with the civil government, and fight any domestic enemy that rebels against it, and its officers will never presume they know better than elected officials and judges what is or is not constitutional.

There is nothing in our oath about protecting the government. Just the constitution.

 

[Christobal]

Of course it will. That is why the military will always side with the civil government, and fight any domestic enemy that rebels against it, and its officers will never presume they know better than elected officials and judges what is or is not constitutional.

This is incredible true of America. I believe it will last.

Looking around the world the same rules do not apply.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There is nothing in our oath about protecting the government. Just the constitution.

The officers have never perceived any important distinction between the two and they never will.

 

[Christobal]

But their success did not depend on their keeping guns at home. They would have been issued muskets anyway.

They didn't leave their guns at home. They brought them with them. I think you overestimate the power of the government at the time. The ad hoc goverment was flying by it's ass at the time. They were making it up as it went along.

 

[KingOrfeo]

They didn't leave their guns at home. They brought them with them. I think you overestimate the power of the government at the time. The ad hoc goverment was flying by it's ass at the time. They were making it up as it went along.

But it could still provide a musket for every man if it had to, that's easy. Food supplies are tough.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

LOL....Yes that old argument. You bring up nothing fresh other then you think your pathetic approach is new. It is naive to think one might never have to fight the state, but it is ridiculous to think because you supposedly can't win that nobody should fight. Liberals often say this and bring up battleships, drones...etc. This while cheering the praises of leftist "freedom fighters" around the world, but making it clear it absolutely won't work in the United States.

The Founders just fought a war against their central government and along with shoring up their rights they made sure they'd have the tools to fight again if they had too.


So if you don't want to own a weapon don't, but don't act like you know what you're talking about.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

We don't have to pay taxes any more, I understand. Our president doesn't pay taxes, so we don't have to either.

You have anything besides petty insults of the other side? People like you will help the president earn a second term.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The officers have never perceived any important distinction between the two and they never will.

No they have not. That's because keyboard warriors who lack the intestinal fortitude to get anything done other then talk about destroying the constitution will never have enough power.

But if they did, do not fool yourself in to thinking they would side with a pussy like you.

Sure there are a few officers that are more politician than warrior but that is not the majority.

Besides, whoever thinks the E4/5 Mafia does not have the real power through sheer numbers is foolish enough to be a Lt.

 

[KingOrfeo]

LOL....Yes that old argument. You bring up nothing fresh other then you think your pathetic approach is new. It is naive to think one might never have to fight the state, but it is ridiculous to think because you supposedly can't win that nobody should fight.

No, it is entirely sensible to think that because you can't win nobody should fight -- which has nothing to do with the thread topic anyway; the thread topic is about why you can't win.

America's freedom is preserved by a political culture that values it, not by armed citizens putting fear into public officials. We have freedom because we all agree to want it.

 

[Christobal]

But it could still provide a musket for every man if it had to, that's easy. Food supplies are tough.

Note the Feds did not start providing arm until 1777. Two years after the war started. They thought about but didn't make something happen until 1777.


http://www.history-of-american-wars.com/revolutionary-war-weapons.html

 

[KingOrfeo]

Note the Feds did not start providing arm until 1777. Two years after the war started. They thought about but didn't make something happen until 1777.

But they easily could have. The Continental Army could have fought even in the (highly unlikely) event none of its troops had their own muskets at home.