Yes it is. It’s very uncommon.
Can we stop masturbating now? The weekend’s come and gone and my wang is pretty chafed.
[Moderating]
Wishing death or injury on other posters is a violation of the board rules. Don’t do this again.
[/Moderating]
No, 80% would work for me. But let’s remember the fallacy of the beard.
Here’s another reason why I would appose more restrictions on guns as a response to the school shooting - I’m tired of laws being enacted to try to prevent the actions of a few, but that negatively affect the rights of the rest of us.
The US is full of nutters and if they want to hurt/kill a bunch of people at once they will find a way. Such as the Oklahoma City bombing and the Twin Towers tragedy. Yes, guns make it easier but again, why are the majority being punished for the actions of the few?
Possibly you’re a little fuzzy on extremely recent history, but the cats who pulled off 9-11 weren’t from the US. It’s in books and everything.
I know, but they were here in the US and instead of deciding to use a bunch of sub machine guns, they chose airplanes.
Our nutters are not all citizens… 
The point about civilian gun ownership is that the government could not crush a hundred million gun owners “like a bug”, and if they tried, there would be nothing left to govern.
Jefferson and a few others recognized this and did their best to assure that the US would remain under civilian control (as opposed to government/military).
Two hundred million and change, akshully. That’s five Englands (or 2.6 Germanies in metric).
And that’s of course assuming every last gun owner would a) fall in with the rebels (doubtful) and b) fight to the death, no surrender (exponentially more doubtful)
BTW Absolute,
The notion that guns are dangerous to own derives from the way statistics are compiled in the US. “Family and friends” (as a classification of gun homicides) includes any two people who are known to each other. This includes rival drug dealers and other such criminals. If the statistics were compiled a bit differently, you might be surprised at how safe it is for a decent citizen to own a gun.
You don’t need 200 million gun owners fighting to the death. All you need is a committed core group who are willing to carry out standard low-intensity insurgency warfare, terrorism if you prefer that term, against the government. As the US has found out several times now, M1 Abrams tanks, helicopters, stealth bombers, and all that other fearsome tech isn’t much use against an enemy that refuses to engage the army on a battlefield. The Soviets, the French, and other great powers learned similar lessons.
Der Trihs and his ilk are powerfully fond of the image of a dim-witted gun owning yokel trying to take on a Stryker with his AR-15 and getting crushed like an insect. That will probably even happen a few times. What they refuse to consider is that not everybody is that stupid to start with, and those who aren’t stupid have studied what works and what doesn’t.
Having paranoid delusions should prohibit one from owning a gun, right?
Sure they could. Organization and heavy weapons and armor and air support beats a bunch of guys with rifles every time.
All of which only apply to foreign occupation. The Soviets crushed anything like on their own territory with ease.
And none of those people are part of the “guns will protect our freedom” crowd, because it doesn’t work that way.
You might be surprised. The “nuts” get all the publicity, but the vast majority of those people who feel an obligation to be part of the “checks and balances” are quite sane and able to make rational decisions.
Don’t bother. He finds comfort and joy in his mental image of cloddish gun owners getting mowed down by government forces. It’s a recurring theme of his. I can’t be arsed to read over all his drivel, but I’d be comfortable betting that he has expressed some variation on it in virtually every gun thread in which he ever participated.
Antis, IME, have a substantial minority of “true believers” who get off on the idea of gun owners being killed by military or LE. In another thread, a true believer expressed a total willingness to burn non-compliant gun owners to death in the event of government confiscation.
Link?
If so, that just makes them ignorant fools. Again; it doesn’t work that way. Rifles and handguns are not effective weapons for resisting a modern military.
A very Freudian example of psychological projection. It’s the gun fetishists who get off on the thought of their opponents being massacred; who show up at political rallies with guns and make speeches about “Second Amendment solutions”.
Here. Boyo jim starts off all hard; but it is only after Marley23 (who isn’t even what you call a gun nut) calls him on it that he starts back-pedaling and weaseling.
200+ million was the number of Americans left if the government rounded up the 100 million gun-havers and summarily destroyed them. This was in response to pwmeek’s assertion that there “wouldn’t be anything left to govern” in that event.
But guns are useless if you choose not to engage the army directly. In that case you use booby traps, mines, IEDs, mortars, RPGs… IOW the Taliban/Viet Cong/Mujahideen/Iraqi insurgent toolbox. Your glock won’t cut it. Your AR-15 won’t either. As a guerilla, if you wind up in any kind of firefight, that engagement is already lost for your side - it means that they can see you, which means that they can pin you down, which in turn means heavy firepower is already on its way. Do you realize just how lopsided the death toll was in Afghanistan, in Viet-Nam, in Chechnya, how lopsided it is in Syria right now despite the insurgency having access to much heavier equipment than even the nuttiest of American gun nuts do, and Assad’s military being positively risible compared to that of the US ?
More importantly perhaps: if you’re down to low-intensity insurgency warfare, you won’t win. You might not ever conclusively “lose”, but you can never win. Because winning would require taking on those Strykers eventually. And as you yourself admit, that’s just not gonna happen with guns, or even the aforementioned insurgent toolbox.
Freud is considered to be of no more than historical value in psychology today. He’ll always be useful to folks who want a way to say “I’m rubber, you’re glue…” that they believe is more sophisticated.