Someone doesn't need to think they can successfully fend off the entire US military apparatus. They can correctly point out that being armed and organized can, in local settings, deter governmental action (and if you say no the ATF is just afraid of bad press from Waco and ruby ridge- that doesn't exactly undermine their point, considering they were armed). If some local dea branch is corrupt, living on a compound with a few friends and having guns actually can totally do the trick.
I see your point, and you're not wrong.
I'm just saying that if the doomsday scenario where the government bans guns that many pro-gun folk seem to think is coming happens, you're not just going to be able to scare the corrupt DEA branch into taking your money and not asking questions.
You will eventually have the honest-to-god military roll up on you and demand compliance with the law of the land as is your duty as a citizen. And I mean in the case of a compound unless you're throwing multiple millions of dollars into fortifications and have a small army of your own they can probably take it without even rolling out heavier ordinance than artillery and APCs.
Just like what happened with Cliven Bundy
oh
wait
I think the Cliven Bundy thing kinda exposes the issue with the whole argument. Cliven Bundy gets away with it because his ideas (specifically "Fuck the feds, I have guns!") have significant political support. Without that, he'd be rounded up like an armed black kid in an urban environment.
Ultimately without broad political support for some sort of gun repossession, it won't happen. And if you have that kind of broad consensus, Cliven Bundy style tactics are useless.
Those guns to protect yourself from the government are either not gonna work or aren't gonna be needed. At most they will work in a sort of middle ground where all they really let you do is commit crimes with no clearly defined victim.
+1
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Someone doesn't need to think they can successfully fend off the entire US military apparatus. They can correctly point out that being armed and organized can, in local settings, deter governmental action (and if you say no the ATF is just afraid of bad press from Waco and ruby ridge- that doesn't exactly undermine their point, considering they were armed). If some local dea branch is corrupt, living on a compound with a few friends and having guns actually can totally do the trick.
I see your point, and you're not wrong.
I'm just saying that if the doomsday scenario where the government bans guns that many pro-gun folk seem to think is coming happens, you're not just going to be able to scare the corrupt DEA branch into taking your money and not asking questions.
You will eventually have the honest-to-god military roll up on you and demand compliance with the law of the land as is your duty as a citizen. And I mean in the case of a compound unless you're throwing multiple millions of dollars into fortifications and have a small army of your own they can probably take it without even rolling out heavier ordinance than artillery and APCs.
The salient scenario, imo, is not 'the 4th Reich takes over and we depose this new mecha-hitler' but 'the state suffers serious difficulties and enters a crisis moment and at that point we and our friends can become significant local warlords.'
The middle east right now seems to support the idea that area awash in small arms can be difficult to subjugate and control, even by modern armies, once an effective civil war is underway.
I mean, I think this is a really important reason to now have small arms everywhere, because state stability is important, but it does lend some credibility to some of the rambo-type visions.
The whole point of this thought exercise is that this is what would happen.
Yes with enough guns, enough people, enough training, and you guys fight hard enough you might be allowed certain pockets, but you're not going to just get to live in your same old house, go to the grocery store, and oppose the law of the land.
The point I'm trying to make is that I'm trying to remove the fantasy from these people. There are some folks out there that would relish an opportunity to make war on the U.S. I suppose.
My tact on this debate is trying to convince other pro-gun folks that somethings gotta give, and if they don't budge they're probably going to end up getting the doomsday blanket gun ban they fear. And on that day, you better be ready to give up a lot of comforts and privileges to keep those guns.
Also I highly doubt that the military would run into quite the same problems operating in our own country that they run into in the Middle East, but we're getting close to a GST on this and I'm about to go to bed.
User name Alazull on Steam, PSN, Nintenders, Epic, etc.
I recall remarking on this here forums that the federal govt should not make concessions wrt Bundy
it is true, of course, that making concessions would be consistent with making concessions to secessionists, sovereingtists, nationalists, etc. more generally just because they're particularly aggravated about something
+3
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
replace all guns with racks of delicious barbecue ribs
Posts
I think the Cliven Bundy thing kinda exposes the issue with the whole argument. Cliven Bundy gets away with it because his ideas (specifically "Fuck the feds, I have guns!") have significant political support. Without that, he'd be rounded up like an armed black kid in an urban environment.
Ultimately without broad political support for some sort of gun repossession, it won't happen. And if you have that kind of broad consensus, Cliven Bundy style tactics are useless.
Those guns to protect yourself from the government are either not gonna work or aren't gonna be needed. At most they will work in a sort of middle ground where all they really let you do is commit crimes with no clearly defined victim.
so it's still essentially a weird antipodean creation
See also: skip.
The whole point of this thought exercise is that this is what would happen.
Yes with enough guns, enough people, enough training, and you guys fight hard enough you might be allowed certain pockets, but you're not going to just get to live in your same old house, go to the grocery store, and oppose the law of the land.
The point I'm trying to make is that I'm trying to remove the fantasy from these people. There are some folks out there that would relish an opportunity to make war on the U.S. I suppose.
My tact on this debate is trying to convince other pro-gun folks that somethings gotta give, and if they don't budge they're probably going to end up getting the doomsday blanket gun ban they fear. And on that day, you better be ready to give up a lot of comforts and privileges to keep those guns.
Also I highly doubt that the military would run into quite the same problems operating in our own country that they run into in the Middle East, but we're getting close to a GST on this and I'm about to go to bed.
it is true, of course, that making concessions would be consistent with making concessions to secessionists, sovereingtists, nationalists, etc. more generally just because they're particularly aggravated about something
I do not want to have to take painkillers to sleep
the true nuclear option
pew pew becomes chew chew
10 times more expensive? wow
:bro:
On average, this thread was careening by at warp 5
@Regina Fong will create the new thread
@Eddy is backup