No, still romantic. The soviets broke up not because of a lack of boots on the ground but a lack of resolve. Plus, those people in the former USSR didn’t have a damn gun among them, for all practical purposes. The soviets cashed in their chips when the government was no longer willing to use force.
I defined it this way for one of my campaign assistants recently.
A) When one person gets playful with a gun the sheriff comes and kills them
B) When a group of people get playful with guns the FBI comes and kills them
C) When entire states get playful with guns the army comes and kills them
150 years ago we had a great example of that. Literally hundreds of thousands of men, largely armed with their own weapons, spent years being destroyed.
Yes, the dream of the Wolverines (I’ve never seen the movie, honestly) is a nice one. But against the firepower that a modern army can provide no amount of small arms (and that’s what we’re talking about here) will help. Because successful resistance to tyranny, such as it is, is more about logistics, discipline, and teamwork than firepower.
Bullshit. A bunch of fucking goatherders in Afghanistan is fighting the U.S. military to a draw. Before us, they stopped the Russians cold. If the people have the will to resist, they will find the means. A smart band of partisans will pick their targets carefully, isolate a smaller unit, destroy it, seize their weapons, and grow stronger.
For that matter, national guard armories are all over the place, and lightly defended. Take one of those, and you’ve got weapons enough to outfit a regiment. Possibly some armor, comm gear, and other useful items, too.
Yep. And even if there was some sort of military takeover, I doubt they would really want to bring out the big hardware and destroy the infrastructure of the country they live in. The millions of deer hunters (read snipers) would rule the day.
Provided of course, everyone joined in the fight. That is the only big if. But we also would have to consider how many in the services would desert rather than take up arms against their countrymen.
I don’t know what fantasy world you live in but when I turn on the news I see armed robberies all the time. Rarely do they get caught.
who needs a gun. People burned 100 cars a day for a year in France. All it takes to shut an airport down is for one person to run through a checkpoint.
250 years ago there was another government.
The reality of the world is that local police can’t handle the current load of mischief. All the finest weaponry available is useless without a target. That leaves boots on the ground and the ratio of armed soldiers to armed citizens isn’t even close.
I don’t think there is any possibility of such a situation occurring and that is largely due to the 2nd amendment. I don’t own a gun but the nano-second the government made it illegal I would buy one on the black market.
As one of those supposedly rare things-a left wing gun owner, and in a state where things seem to be very right-wing and frightening right now, I am frightened of violence toward us. My area seems to contain drug addicts, secessionists, and some really fundamentalist religious people, so I see a lot of potential threats. The dehumanization of left-wing people and gay people (we’re a lesbian couple) going on right now makes us targets twice over.
So we’re afraid of both robbery and hate-related violence.
Since there was a local druggie we filled a police report out on for stealing a car battery from us, and he’s subsequently threatened my significant other, we’re really worried about that guy in specific. He’s big and may have additional crazy issues.
Since I’ve had my old apartment broken into, I know that the police really aren’t much protection. Besides that, where we live now, their expedited response time is still going to be, at best, around five minutes. You can easily get killed in five minutes-that’s a lot of time.
In addition-could an armed insurrection of citizens overthrow the government? it’s possible, given enough people, and the lack of will to massacre the insurrection by the government forces. That last bit is both highly likely and very important-and if it were removed, any resistance would get stomped flatter than a bug.
BUT: I want you-all to think about how many people would die in that situation from the mere disruptin of food, water, electricity, and medicine. It’s something I’ve been speculating on for a while.
Agent Foxtrot, what are “anti-gun nuts” (I use that phrase in quotes because I can’t really think of a better term) so afraid of?
Do you lie awake at night worrying if a gun owner is going to break through the door, hold you hostage, rape your cats, and drink your milk straight from the carton (I’d wager that the majority of people don’t).
Have you made a lot of gun-nut enemies and live your life constantly looking over your shoulder? Do you expect someday that the gun nuts are going to attack your home and you’ll have to fight them off? Is there a psychological emotion associated with worrying about other people owning guns – a sense of peace, thrill, power, or otherwise which makes worrying about gun owners a very personal value?
The next one sure sounded like a housebreaker, but he was your brother-in-law.
An invader knows everyone in the home is an enemy, even other invaders or police. A resident does not know that – statistically, almost every shadow or sound will turn out to be friendly, or even if he lives alone, could be police checking something out. The resident must hesitate to be sure before shooting; or statistically wind up killing many more friendlies over the years than invaders. The invader need never hesitate.
Does this mean the resident can never beat the invader? Nope. But it does mean that the resident – vastly less prepared and less well-trained than an alert, on-duty Secret Service agent – will be less successful at using the gun defensively, and in the case I cited (Reagan’s wounding) that was not at all successful, which is frequently the case.
If the bad guy focuses on someone else (whom he will likely hit) you might get retaliatory or revenge shots off, sure. And they will be deserved. But the invader has the initiative.
Btw, inclined to agree guns are not going to be useful in many situations.
However, I can see that there are situations in which they are the only tool for the job.
I’m planning on buying a pump-action 12-gauge, for two reasons: my right hand shakes at times when I’m very nervous, thus rendering me completely useless with a pistol. The other reason, is that I’m hoping racking in a shell will keep me from having to pull the trigger at all.
While I’m mostly worried about other caucasians, it is true that there are significant numbers of people who do not speak fluent English living in my region.
Wrong. And stupid. See, as I’ve only mentioned a few thousand times on this board, I live alone. ANY-FUCKING-BODY entering my home without my consent is a target. No hesitation. No initiative. Just one or more loud bangs, some muzzle flash, a brief chat with a sheriff’s deputy, and a bill from whoever comes to clean the blood off my carpet/walls.
Don’t bother speculating about mythical relatives or friends sneaking into my home at night for any reason. My relatives…even the silly liberal ones…have much better sense than that. As do my friends, most of whom are like minded individuals on home defense matters anyway.
To start from the top. I, like many if not most gun owners own them for recreation. Target shooting in my case. That the gun or guns also provide a measure of security is a bonus.
I own eight guns. I have never purchased a gun though. They are all from my family in one way or another. Each is different and provides a different experience for target shooting. All could be used for self defense. Some would be better than others.
The idea that the millions of gun owners in the US could put up resistance to any kind of take over by a rouge group that tried to take over the US Gov is really just an intellectual exercise. I doubt any such situation is likely to occur. It’s even less likely because of the tremendous resistance an armed populace presents. No matter. Both sides will continue to disagree. I tend to side with the people that know firearms.
Now, I and others don’t expect to be able to defend ourselves against a Marine squad, SWAT team or in Sailors scenario where Secret Service agents target ONE specific residence or person. A determined and armed populace is a whole different ball game. History shows that they can put up quite a good fight.
I really don’t expect a coordinated attack from Secret Service agents. The odd crack head or otherwise confused soul is more likely. Since I don’t carry, the crack head would be able to pick the time. But I would ‘pick’ the place. My home. That does help balance the scales.
Other bonuses for myself and wife are that we are able to scare bears off the property, and in the event, however unlikely that a natural disaster cut off food distribution and other services (I don’t include law officer protection because I don’t have it anyway) I would at least be able to hunt and have a chance to protect myself against looters. Such an event may be unlikely, but I see it as a side bonus.
It’s very odd really, the OP referred to gun owners as gun nuts. Agent Foxtrot claims that “(I use that phrase in quotes because I can’t really think of a better term)”. Really? You can only come up with a charged and inflammatory description?
That’s the way many anti-gun folks seem to see anyone that owns a gun. I own eight guns and don’t even consider myself a gun enthusiast. I am familiar with their operation and how to use them safely. That does not make me a nut.
I do not lie awake at night in fear of or even anticipate:
-A car crash
-A house fire
-A prolonged power failure, either in high summer or high winter
-Another groundwater infiltration (ok, I’m lying a little here, this one really scares me.…)
-A tornado
-My car being stolen
-An injury causing significant bleeding
-Another flue pandemic
etc etc.
Yet I have in my home and/or car:
-seatbelts and airbags
-smoke detectors, extinguishers, an evacuation ladder, smoke-proof filter hoods
-a gas powered generator
-a sump pump
-free space under our stairway that can be used as a tornado shelter, a battery radio, & a stash of non perishable food
-various insurance policies
-first aid kits
-some N95 masks, hand sanitizer and a couple of boxes of vinyl gloves.
No one has called me a generator-nut, or a sump pump-nut (although that one may actually be a bit true), or a first aid nut. I have tools in place in case I need to use them, and I am familiar with their use. Do I fantasize about heroically galvanizing into action and saving the day with any of them? Not really ( Well, maybe only for starting up the generator to run the sump pump during a spring storm… our last flooding episode scarred me a bit….)
If these are sensible, if a bit more systematic than usual, precautions against an unlikely but potentially very bad situation, then why is it that when it comes to firearms, people start flinging about accusations of psychiatric disorders? I suspect it is because no one feels threatened by my having a sump pump…
Let’s make this real easy: It’s none of your business why I choose to own weapons. You worry about you, and I’ll worry about me.
After trying to approach this argument with rational discussion time and time again only to be rebuffed with ludicrous scenarios and insults, I’ve learned that the right answer is this: the now-incorporated 2nd Amendment says I can own them for whatever legal purpose I choose. Nothing else matters.
A bit of perspective: the Union had only a miniscule professional army at the start of the war, and was almost entirely dependent on civilians who either joined voluntarily or were draftees. The Union government was acutely aware that the day their citizen army decided it had had enough would be the day the Union ceased to exist. The Confederacy was only suppressed because a roughly 2/3 majority of the citizenry was willing to fight to preserve the Union. Even today, it would hardly be a cakewalk for a junta backed only by the armed forces to overthrow civilian government.
If you value nothing else, it should be your life and the lives of your loved ones. If you are not able or willing to defend yourself, you are relying on others to do so. My safety is my sole responsibility.
Bad things happen and many times aren’t predictable. Taking safety precautions is a reasonable response to real threats. Seat belts, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, any type of insurance - all are reasonable responses. Hell, insurance by its very nature is a bet that the unlikely will happen.
Defensive gun use is very common in the US. If not for gun ownership, those instances could very well result in bad things happening to otherwise good people. Here is a thread that I participated in regarding defensive gun use and the effect of gun ownership on the rate of home invasion. It’s not like getting struck by lightning or winning the lottery. There are lots of bad people in the world. Taking precautions does not guarantee that I’ll be able to successfully defend myself or others, but it at least gives me a better chance, and at best gives me the upper hand.
As to your 1,2,3 questions - multiple guns for multiple purposes. And they are shiny. Gun rights advocates are against increased restrictions and limitations because each additional burden is a step towards prohibition. Incrementalism is/was the stated goal of the Brady Campaign. That and the puported benefit of such restrictions are dubious. Tragedies are just that, tragedies. Lay blame where its due. I as a gun owner am not responsible for the ills in the world. Many of which would not have happened if existing laws were enforced.
In LA during the Rodney King riots, the police abandoned whole sections of the city to looters and vandals. It’s not a fantasy. Civil unrest could occur in isolated areas very quickly. The police have no duty to protect any individual person. Remember the scene of burned down store after burned down store, adjacent to a store that was just fine because of the shop keepers on the roof with rifles?
None of this is new information. Did you honestly want to know something that’s been said on this board many many times before?
Not only do I not obsessively search through your posting history, this doesn’t come off as a particularly clear “I am not a nut” statement on your part.
I need statistics to support the point that an armed, awake, experienced intruder is better prepared than a startled homeowner awakened out of a deep sleep? How would I even cite that?
That most homes (Oakminster aside) have residents and visitors more frequently than home invaders? Do I really need statistics for that?
And Oakminster’s assertion that he is a crack-shot badass does not need statistical citations?
