8 ms·

>But I still don't understand that how can guns be allowed in such a manner when they don't let you handle a gas cylinder at a public place or a take a metallic

>But I still don't understand that how can guns be allowed in such a manner when they don't let you handle a gas cylinder at a public place or a take a metallic fork on an air-plane. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders.

nnutter 14y ago
The common response to that is that guns can't fight tanks, UAVs, etc.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  The common response is idiotic. Perhaps the people who make it have not been paying attention to the news since 9/11.
  - nnutter 14y ago
    Elaborate?
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      Afghanistan.
89vision 14y ago
> You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders. or with AR-15's
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  You can fight with AR-15's just as well as you can with AK-47's, which is precisely what the Taliban have been doing for the last decade against the USA, and for another decade against the Soviets in the 70's.
  - 89vision 14y ago
    moral of the story: emulate the Taliban
  - phaus 14y ago
    Exactly, a common belief is that a semi-automatic is automatically inferior. In actuality, Soldiers are trained to shoot their M16/M4s in semi-auto most of the time, because unless you are pretty close or extraordinarily talented, burst fire or full is just going to be a waste of ammunition. The reason machineguns (m249, m60, etc..) are usually shot in full auto, is because they are primarily designed as a supressive weapon system.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- giardini 14y ago
  That's true. The AR-15's predecessor jammed so badly in Vietnam that it was likely a significant cause of losing that conflict. The AK-47 is far, far less likely to jam than even the best AR-15's, which still has a reputation for jamming.
hemancuso 14y ago
Given the massive mismatch of firepower, training and numbers between the government and the very best armed/trained groups within the civilian population I have trouble believing that anyone can still make this argument at any intellectual level.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  Afghanistan. Duh.
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  Any uprising is likely to include a significant contingent of defecting armed forces.
- splat 14y ago
  Is that really true, though? The US has a large military, but it pales in comparison to the number of armed civilians. Just look at the number of hunters in this country. In Wisconsin alone there are 600,000 hunters. That would make them the ninth-largest army in the world. There are more hunters in just the four states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia than there are in the entire U.S. military. Obviously the U.S. army has far more firepower than a group of hunters. But even a much, much smaller band of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan has been able to create substantial problems for the U.S. in its own in guerrilla warfare against the U.S. military. Is it really so implausible that a group orders of magnitude larger would not be able to stand a chance? (Keep in mind, too, that if there ever were to be a serious rebellion in the U.S. you'd probably have a lot of desertion from the U.S. military. In fact, some of them might even bring some of that firepower to the other side.)
  - tomkin 14y ago
    This is a really poor argument. First, what's "tyrannical" to you? There are various degrees of "tyrannical", just as there are various degrees of terrorism. Can you expect the entire country of gun owners to react all at once? Because I have some evidence that suggests otherwise. You're hoping for some "flipped switch" type of tyranny that never happens. Even Hitler's madness took place in phases and wasn't universally recognized as a threat. This idea of immediate revolt is a fairy tale. One that other gun-less countries watch in awe. Don't you think its time to move on and concentrate on more important issues?
darkchasma 14y ago
The tyranny of the Canadian government is so overwhelming. How can I ever live in peace without a gun? Oh yea, I can use words.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  The history of the world is essentially a long string of instances of oppression of the many by the few. Democracy is but a blip on humanity's timeline, and there is no guarantee that what is today will still be a century or two (or a decade) from now. We came remarkably close to an all-out financial collapse just a few years ago - what happens if we aren't able to save ourselves the next time that happens; what happens if the system collapses? Answer: anything can happen, no one knows. Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion - no one knows what the future brings, and it could just as easily bring these things as it could bring continued prosperity. But there is one thing that is certain: with 300 million guns floating around the USA, if things do take a turn for the worse, the few will think twice before they consider trying to oppress the many in the USA. But you're right not to worry, because you're our favorite hat, so we'd take care of you.
  - tome 14y ago
    If massacres of children in school and young students in college aren't examples of few oppressing many then I don't know what is.
    - jivatmanx 14y ago
      But hundreds of thousands of innocents killed in the "Shock and Awe" of Iraqi cities somehow doesn't count? More tyrannical U.S Government = More "Shock and Awe" abroad.
      - tome 14y ago
        I find it very hard to understand what you're saying.
flexie 14y ago
And in 2013 you can't fight government with guns either.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
Is this the same Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S.) – July 4, 1826) There is a huge difference between the industrial technology and government capabilities then and now.
gnud 14y ago
I can see how that reasoning is an argument for gun ownership. How does it apply to carrying guns in public, especially concealed guns?
- dantheman 14y ago
  Many people don't want to carry a concealed gun, but as this story shows -- the mere sight of a gun causes people to panic so in order to placate the overreacting uninformed one must conceal their gun.
Anechoic 14y ago
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Apocryphal? From http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-pe...: "This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson."
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  Whoops, I missed the line at the bottom of that page which says that this quote has not been found in any of Jefferson's writings. They should really make it more prominent. How about a substitute? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." And: "The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave."
  - Anechoic 14y ago
    And yet another Jefferson quote: "Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions."
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      Obviously armed resistance should never be one's first course of action, but the ability to revolt is an option that should neither be taken lightly nor easily forfeited.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      I should note that while the right to repeal the second amendment is one available to Congress and the President, they do not have the right to just trample its provisions because they aren't able to get a quorum on repeal.
rmc 14y ago
I often hear that argument and it's interesting but then how to do you square it with Us history? Slavery and legal apartheid were legal for a long time, how come guns didn't stop that tyranny? During WW2, thousands of an ethnic minority (Japanese) were moved into camps against their will will the war was on. How come guns didn't stop that tyranny? I question whether a well armed people are capable of stopping a tyrannical government...
allerratio 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_193...

nnutter 14y ago

The common response to that is that guns can't fight tanks, UAVs, etc.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
The common response is idiotic. Perhaps the people who make it have not been paying attention to the news since 9/11.
- nnutter 14y ago
  Elaborate?
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    Afghanistan.

89vision 14y ago

> You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders. or with AR-15's

notdrunkatall 14y ago
You can fight with AR-15's just as well as you can with AK-47's, which is precisely what the Taliban have been doing for the last decade against the USA, and for another decade against the Soviets in the 70's.
- 89vision 14y ago
  moral of the story: emulate the Taliban
- phaus 14y ago
  Exactly, a common belief is that a semi-automatic is automatically inferior. In actuality, Soldiers are trained to shoot their M16/M4s in semi-auto most of the time, because unless you are pretty close or extraordinarily talented, burst fire or full is just going to be a waste of ammunition. The reason machineguns (m249, m60, etc..) are usually shot in full auto, is because they are primarily designed as a supressive weapon system.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
giardini 14y ago
That's true. The AR-15's predecessor jammed so badly in Vietnam that it was likely a significant cause of losing that conflict. The AK-47 is far, far less likely to jam than even the best AR-15's, which still has a reputation for jamming.

hemancuso 14y ago

Given the massive mismatch of firepower, training and numbers between the government and the very best armed/trained groups within the civilian population I have trouble believing that anyone can still make this argument at any intellectual level.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
Afghanistan. Duh.
jivatmanx 14y ago
Any uprising is likely to include a significant contingent of defecting armed forces.
splat 14y ago
Is that really true, though? The US has a large military, but it pales in comparison to the number of armed civilians. Just look at the number of hunters in this country. In Wisconsin alone there are 600,000 hunters. That would make them the ninth-largest army in the world. There are more hunters in just the four states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia than there are in the entire U.S. military. Obviously the U.S. army has far more firepower than a group of hunters. But even a much, much smaller band of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan has been able to create substantial problems for the U.S. in its own in guerrilla warfare against the U.S. military. Is it really so implausible that a group orders of magnitude larger would not be able to stand a chance? (Keep in mind, too, that if there ever were to be a serious rebellion in the U.S. you'd probably have a lot of desertion from the U.S. military. In fact, some of them might even bring some of that firepower to the other side.)
- tomkin 14y ago
  This is a really poor argument. First, what's "tyrannical" to you? There are various degrees of "tyrannical", just as there are various degrees of terrorism. Can you expect the entire country of gun owners to react all at once? Because I have some evidence that suggests otherwise. You're hoping for some "flipped switch" type of tyranny that never happens. Even Hitler's madness took place in phases and wasn't universally recognized as a threat. This idea of immediate revolt is a fairy tale. One that other gun-less countries watch in awe. Don't you think its time to move on and concentrate on more important issues?

darkchasma 14y ago

The tyranny of the Canadian government is so overwhelming. How can I ever live in peace without a gun? Oh yea, I can use words.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
The history of the world is essentially a long string of instances of oppression of the many by the few. Democracy is but a blip on humanity's timeline, and there is no guarantee that what is today will still be a century or two (or a decade) from now. We came remarkably close to an all-out financial collapse just a few years ago - what happens if we aren't able to save ourselves the next time that happens; what happens if the system collapses? Answer: anything can happen, no one knows. Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion - no one knows what the future brings, and it could just as easily bring these things as it could bring continued prosperity. But there is one thing that is certain: with 300 million guns floating around the USA, if things do take a turn for the worse, the few will think twice before they consider trying to oppress the many in the USA. But you're right not to worry, because you're our favorite hat, so we'd take care of you.
- tome 14y ago
  If massacres of children in school and young students in college aren't examples of few oppressing many then I don't know what is.
  - jivatmanx 14y ago
    But hundreds of thousands of innocents killed in the "Shock and Awe" of Iraqi cities somehow doesn't count? More tyrannical U.S Government = More "Shock and Awe" abroad.
    - tome 14y ago
      I find it very hard to understand what you're saying.

flexie 14y ago

And in 2013 you can't fight government with guns either.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

Is this the same Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S.) – July 4, 1826) There is a huge difference between the industrial technology and government capabilities then and now.

gnud 14y ago

I can see how that reasoning is an argument for gun ownership. How does it apply to carrying guns in public, especially concealed guns?

dantheman 14y ago
Many people don't want to carry a concealed gun, but as this story shows -- the mere sight of a gun causes people to panic so in order to placate the overreacting uninformed one must conceal their gun.

Anechoic 14y ago

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Apocryphal? From http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-pe...: "This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson."

notdrunkatall 14y ago
Whoops, I missed the line at the bottom of that page which says that this quote has not been found in any of Jefferson's writings. They should really make it more prominent. How about a substitute? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." And: "The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave."
- Anechoic 14y ago
  And yet another Jefferson quote: "Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions."
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    Obviously armed resistance should never be one's first course of action, but the ability to revolt is an option that should neither be taken lightly nor easily forfeited.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    I should note that while the right to repeal the second amendment is one available to Congress and the President, they do not have the right to just trample its provisions because they aren't able to get a quorum on repeal.

rmc 14y ago

I often hear that argument and it's interesting but then how to do you square it with Us history? Slavery and legal apartheid were legal for a long time, how come guns didn't stop that tyranny? During WW2, thousands of an ethnic minority (Japanese) were moved into camps against their will will the war was on. How come guns didn't stop that tyranny? I question whether a well armed people are capable of stopping a tyrannical government...

allerratio 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_193...