4 ms·

> Are American gun rights activists deluding themselves, that they'd stand a chance if the police and military decided they were gonna run shit? In WACO a few

> Are American gun rights activists deluding themselves, that they'd stand a chance if the police and military decided they were gonna run shit? In WACO a few "lunatics" took up the time of well over 1000 officers + a lot of hardware and well over a month. And this was just a few people with guns. The goal isn't necessarily to be able to stand up to the military, but rather to make a tyranny as unappealing and arduous as possible. I have a writeup somewhere, but can't find it atm, so I'll get back to you with it later.

klyrs 5y ago
Branch Davidians weren't that different from the Taliban, were they? Not exactly a shining example of guns preserving democracy...
- Akronymus 5y ago
  I don't think they were nearly as bad as they were made out to be. Also: It was meant more as an example that the 2nd provides a way to make it infeasable to practice tyranny over the US population through the military.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Sure, child brides are totally chill in the Taliban too, if that's what you mean by not bad. Edit: My point here is that this is another example where private gun ownership allows upstart tyrannies to defend themselves. This is a negative example, not what handrous was seeking.
    - Akronymus 5y ago
      That's absolutely not what I meant by not bad. I specifically meant the that they were accused of having a stash of illegal weapons, which got the ATF involved. Where it is unclear who shot first, but a firefight broke out that killed a agent. Which then got the FBI involved and it spiraled from there. And you obviously can't forget the incendiary grenades later found in a evidence locker, labelled as benign, where the ID's indicated them belonging to the FBI. I am not defending child brides. But to me, it seemed like a VAST governmental overreach to be there in the first place. Where after the fact they tried to make the davidians look less sympathetic through the allegations. I came to this conclusion because those allegations never, not once, showed up before the siege. My point was that a few dozen people tied up over 1000 agents for over a month + lots of other resources. If just a few dozen such cases happen at or near the same time, it'd basically paralyze the whole governmental military apparatus. Also: I found the post again that puts my thoughts into good wording: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/483595139562995722/883380040929267732/a7897089-63ce-4bab-990f-cb1e9f9af21b.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/483595139562995722/88...
      - klyrs 5y ago
        I'm not going to defend the government's action, but when it's the actual Taliban, they skip straight to drone strikes, nevermind the collateral. That the Davidians held an army off with a few peashooters is a question of military restraint much more than effectiveness of the militia

klyrs 5y ago

Branch Davidians weren't that different from the Taliban, were they? Not exactly a shining example of guns preserving democracy...

Akronymus 5y ago
I don't think they were nearly as bad as they were made out to be. Also: It was meant more as an example that the 2nd provides a way to make it infeasable to practice tyranny over the US population through the military.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Sure, child brides are totally chill in the Taliban too, if that's what you mean by not bad. Edit: My point here is that this is another example where private gun ownership allows upstart tyrannies to defend themselves. This is a negative example, not what handrous was seeking.
  - Akronymus 5y ago
    That's absolutely not what I meant by not bad. I specifically meant the that they were accused of having a stash of illegal weapons, which got the ATF involved. Where it is unclear who shot first, but a firefight broke out that killed a agent. Which then got the FBI involved and it spiraled from there. And you obviously can't forget the incendiary grenades later found in a evidence locker, labelled as benign, where the ID's indicated them belonging to the FBI. I am not defending child brides. But to me, it seemed like a VAST governmental overreach to be there in the first place. Where after the fact they tried to make the davidians look less sympathetic through the allegations. I came to this conclusion because those allegations never, not once, showed up before the siege. My point was that a few dozen people tied up over 1000 agents for over a month + lots of other resources. If just a few dozen such cases happen at or near the same time, it'd basically paralyze the whole governmental military apparatus. Also: I found the post again that puts my thoughts into good wording: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/483595139562995722/883380040929267732/a7897089-63ce-4bab-990f-cb1e9f9af21b.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/483595139562995722/88...
    - klyrs 5y ago
      I'm not going to defend the government's action, but when it's the actual Taliban, they skip straight to drone strikes, nevermind the collateral. That the Davidians held an army off with a few peashooters is a question of military restraint much more than effectiveness of the militia