3 ms·

Let me start off by saying I love playing with guns, and really frankly anything gun related. I don't know why it is but I've just been fascinated with them sin

Let me start off by saying I love playing with guns, and really frankly anything gun related. I don't know why it is but I've just been fascinated with them since I was a kid. Ok that said, I don't understand how guns protect us from the government. I think the biggest threats area slow and mundane. Ie erosion of rights or increasing power of some portion of the government over decades. There's no one cataclysmic event that overnight would make sane people take up arms and start popping off. Likewise, let's say the government went all evil-like. Like in a movie. And you somehow got a huge citizen resistance trying to fight the government forces, unlike in real life where apparently the country would be split and half would join the government forces. The government has armor, air support, artillery, surveillance, and logistics. This isn't the 1700s. Just access to small arms is meaningless unless the 2nd amendment is broadened to include all weapons. And even then, machine guns, manpads, tanks and heat are just tools and a tiny, inconsequential part of warfare. You always see gun people plinking away at stationary targets. Arguing about mlok vs picatinny. Maybe practicing their tacticool speed reloads. You rarely see people practicing force on force cqb, urban fighting, how to fight as a team.

tommymachine 5y ago
Access to small arms has proven anything but meaningless for the Taliban.
evilos 5y ago
IMO citizens being well armed is deterrence. It makes the likelihood of 'evil martial law' government less likely by increasing the perceived cost. If you truly disarmed the entire country (something I consider basically impossible), it makes a military coup/governance much more feasible. One of the main lessons of modern history is that insurgencies are incredibly cost effective ways to fight a stronger opponent. You basically have to be willing to commit terrible crimes against humanity to overcome them. Of course this is all theorizing. I don't America is in danger of that sort of civil war just yet.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  The moment anybody tried to organise armed resistance to the government, they would instantly be declared “terrorists” and taken out by legal means or by force. The US government agencies have such information supremacy that it is nearly impossible for any armed groups to organise without the government knowing about it.
ctdonath 5y ago
The biggest threats are slow and mundane because the population is heavily armed. Anything fast and oppressive (ex.: Australia's Covid lockdown) would be seriously opposed. The "Waco" incident was a fast and oppressive move (violent SWAT-type raid on a group for a small paperwork/tax violation), those targeted fought back, gov't didn't do it again for decades. Government isn't going to attack lots of individuals via tanks/artillery/etc scattered thru innumerable suburban neighborhoods. Every year >20,000,000 US individuals partake in live-fire live-target drills, acting practically as lone wolves, as well- and self-equipped snipers in Operation "Deer Season". Just 0.001% of those, sufficiently motivated, would paralyze an oppressive government. Yes, most "plinking" aren't practicing for serious combat. But they are practicing, and even with a high attrition rate they would, as a diffuse group, take down and/or demoralize violent oppressors. And that's not counting the small but far-from-trivial number taking CQB training seriously. This year's legislative freak-out over thousands of unarmed & mostly-peaceful protesters occupying the Capitol wasn't so much what they did, but that they represented an enormous number who are well armed.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  The majority of Australians agree with the “oppressive” COVID lockdowns. Especially given how badly the US is handling it.

tommymachine 5y ago

Access to small arms has proven anything but meaningless for the Taliban.

evilos 5y ago

IMO citizens being well armed is deterrence. It makes the likelihood of 'evil martial law' government less likely by increasing the perceived cost. If you truly disarmed the entire country (something I consider basically impossible), it makes a military coup/governance much more feasible. One of the main lessons of modern history is that insurgencies are incredibly cost effective ways to fight a stronger opponent. You basically have to be willing to commit terrible crimes against humanity to overcome them. Of course this is all theorizing. I don't America is in danger of that sort of civil war just yet.

mbrodersen 5y ago
The moment anybody tried to organise armed resistance to the government, they would instantly be declared “terrorists” and taken out by legal means or by force. The US government agencies have such information supremacy that it is nearly impossible for any armed groups to organise without the government knowing about it.

ctdonath 5y ago

The biggest threats are slow and mundane because the population is heavily armed. Anything fast and oppressive (ex.: Australia's Covid lockdown) would be seriously opposed. The "Waco" incident was a fast and oppressive move (violent SWAT-type raid on a group for a small paperwork/tax violation), those targeted fought back, gov't didn't do it again for decades. Government isn't going to attack lots of individuals via tanks/artillery/etc scattered thru innumerable suburban neighborhoods. Every year >20,000,000 US individuals partake in live-fire live-target drills, acting practically as lone wolves, as well- and self-equipped snipers in Operation "Deer Season". Just 0.001% of those, sufficiently motivated, would paralyze an oppressive government. Yes, most "plinking" aren't practicing for serious combat. But they are practicing, and even with a high attrition rate they would, as a diffuse group, take down and/or demoralize violent oppressors. And that's not counting the small but far-from-trivial number taking CQB training seriously. This year's legislative freak-out over thousands of unarmed & mostly-peaceful protesters occupying the Capitol wasn't so much what they did, but that they represented an enormous number who are well armed.

mbrodersen 5y ago
The majority of Australians agree with the “oppressive” COVID lockdowns. Especially given how badly the US is handling it.