Ah, I see. “No True Tyranny would…”
I assume then, you are claiming US citizens would not be motivated to take up arms by anything less than “true tyranny”? Are the Iraqis and Afghans just more choosy than us or something, since they launched insurgencies despite the presence of “true tyranny”?
What about Syria and Libya? Are Assad and Ghaddafi not “true tyrants”?
Oh, that’s rich, when you have just finished deliberately limiting the scope of “tyranny” to serve your argument.
“Oh, you Libyans were not subject to true tyranny, or you’d be dead by now, stop your whining.”
They don’t have the resources of the US government. Surely you are not comparing the “tyranny” under Khaddafy to what would be possible by a US government determined to take your guns?
And you think tyranny by the US would be comparable to tyranny by Khaddafy? Now, THAT’S rich!
There is nothing in that post that would not be solved by requiring that every gun owner hold a valid license/registration. Registration of individual firearms is what is so objectionable to gun owners worried about confiscation, and registration of individual firearms is not needed to achieve the goals in that post.
Defend ourselves against a tyrannical US Government? Ha!!!
We’re already giving more and more of our money away, and no one cares. Why would the rich be stupid enough to upset a system already working in their favor?
Maybe we are talking about different things here. Crafter Man posited a situation in which conditions in the US are bad enough, for whatever reason, that an armed revolution develops. You claimed that an armed revolution would stand no chance against the US military. I challenged your claim.
I really cannot tell what you are responding with. Are you saying Ghaddafi was really a big softie and the US would be harsher than Ghaddafi in quashing an internal rebellion? Maybe, but there are plenty of circumstances in which they would not. Since an armed revolution is so far outside the current realm of possibility any attempt at predicting what might happen is just a guess. The US military currently does not have the resources that would be required to quash an armed revolution by 30% of the citizens through sheer military force, not by an order of magnitude, and one can imagine several situations in which an armed revolution/insurgency might develop yet the US government is not so far gone as to resort to nuking the entire country to be rid of it.
Or, are you saying that Ghaddafi was harsher than the US would be? In which case, why did the revolution succeed?
Note that nothing in this conversation involves gun confiscation. I do not think whatsoever that gun confiscation, in the present political environment, warrants an armed revolution. But the fact that private gun ownership gives individual citizens a chance if an armed revolution is ever necessary is not something that can be dismissed lightly.
Indeed. Tell that to the peopel afraid of tyranny.
Yes, if some despot gets control of the US government and doesn’t mind if he has to rule over a nuclear wasteland, there’s nothing we can do to stop it. That does not mean that any armed revolution in the US is bound to fail through nuclear annihilation. This is the well-known “fallacy of the excluded middle.”
Abracadabra!
I am not afraid of people to whom I willingly give my money. Unlike the taxes I pay to the federal government, I willingly give my money to the big banks, big corporations, etc., and if I am ever unhappy with what I get in return, I can simply stop paying. And have, in several cases. Whereas, if I am not happy with the federal government spending my tax money on X, I can’t do shit about it if the majority of the population disagrees with me (or, if the government is no longer listening to the population at all).
Equating “tyranny” to Wells Fargo charging you extra fees on your credit card, or whatever analogy you are trying to make, is ludicrous. You are a willing participant in the economy. You do not have to pay money to anyone - except the government, because they can compel you to by force. Do you not understand the fundamental difference here?
Yes, your guns will save us. Enjoy living as the imaginary savior of America’s future as you hand your money over to the rich.
The only way you can stop paying is to opt out of the system entirely, you lose more then they do as there’s millions to take your place. I’m guessing you like your flat screen tv and other comforts too much to opt out.
Yes, I willingly pay twice the effective tax rate of the rich, who have lowered their rate by getting the tax laws changed over the last 20 years. What’s ludicrous here? How do I opt out of this?
Safe gun handling:
Unsafe gun handling:
(I wonder if that was before or after Senator Feinstein got her concealed weapons permit.)
Oh, well, do you find this unacceptable? The rich have all the power and are abusing the poor? Borderline tyrannical, perhaps? It might one day lead to a “tyranny of the rich”, you say?
Perhaps one day this will be resolved by an armed uprising against the tyranny of the rich. That will be ironic, to be sure. Most gun owners are not rich, they’re likely to be poor, uneducated, rural folks, as we have been told snidely by several people already.
If economic conditions were a lot worse in the US than they are now, and “the rich” were advocating a blanket gun ban because they were worried about the possibility of an armed revolution, would your opinions on gun control change at that point?
People regard guns as a safeguard against tyranny of any form, including a hypothetical “tyranny of the rich”.
But let’s please not hijack the thread and discuss how close we are to a tyranny of the rich today, please?
Really, any armed revolution is likely to be against the “rich”, even in a dictatorship, since the rich will want to support the status quo, however tyrannical it may be.
If you are bringing up gun ownership as a defense against a future tyranny it’s hardly a hijack. Many people have guns and nothing stops the rich from getting richer, there is not going to be some Red Dawn future where gun owners get to be heroes. Why sacrifice public safety so people can be delusional?