Open Carry

[pgg]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Overthrow a tyrannical government? Sounds like the fever dream of a gun nut. Half the country thinks we are under a tyrannical government now...yet no guns being used to save us. The government isnt afraid of your guns....and the fact that you think they are shows how unprepared you would be to overthrow it

As usual (we've had this discussion before) you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how widespread individual firearm ownership counters tyranny. It's not about overthrowing the government or engaging in fire & maneuver with the Marines.

[checks watch] hey I think it's time for you to trot out the "what will you do when the Apache helicopters come" phase of your argument ...

 

[DocMcCoy]

Fire extinguishers don't kill people. So, bad example. In fact, guns appear to be the only thing used for "protection" that actually kill more people than they protect

Well fire extinguishers have been used in cases of homicide, but you are right fire extinguishers and guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And the question as to killing more than they protect is far from definitely answered.

Having a gun in your home INCREASES you risk of
Suicide
Dying by homicide
Killing a spouse
Being killed by a spouse
Accidental killing

Does it actually INCREASE the risk of suicide attempts? Or domestic violence for what matter?

Yup, its the law abiding citizens fault because they dont store their guns safely..and they refuse to pass common sense safety measures to prevent guns from getting in the hands of people who shouldn't own them

Blame anyone and everyone but the criminal. In fact the gun owners are the criminals.

Many view Trump as a tyrannical govt gaining traction..so far guns havent been used to prevent anything from gaining traction.

Like I said, maybe you can tell me I told you so when we don’t have elections next year and Trump forces himself into a third term. We aren’t there. Chances are you aren’t putting money on that conclusion either. System is working, you just don’t like the way it’s working for now.

 

[UscGhost]

Well fire extinguishers have been used in cases of homicide, but you are right fire extinguishers and guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And the question as to killing more than they protect is far from definitely answered.



Does it actually INCREASE the risk of suicide attempts? Or domestic violence for what matter?





Blame anyone and everyone but the criminal. In fact the gun owners are the criminals.





Like I said, maybe you can tell me I told you so when we don’t have elections next year and Trump forces himself into a third term. We aren’t there. Chances are you aren’t putting money on that conclusion either. System is working, you just don’t like the way it’s working for now.

Yes, guns increase the risk of suicide attempts..because it makes the suicide attempt immensely more likely to end in death.

Yes, and the presence of a fire extinguisher REDUCES the chance of death and injury

The presence of a gun INCREASES the risk of death and injury

 

[UscGhost]

As usual (we've had this discussion before) you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how widespread individual firearm ownership counters tyranny. It's not about overthrowing the government or engaging in fire & maneuver with the Marines.

[checks watch] hey I think it's time for you to trot out the "what will you do when the Apache helicopters come" phase of your argument ...

Yes, because widespread gun ownership does nothing to counter tyranny.

It just changes the methods that the government would use to implement tyranny. They turn the population against each other, while assuming more and more control.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Yes, because widespread gun ownership does nothing to counter tyranny.

It just changes the methods that the government would use to implement tyranny. They turn the population against each other, while assuming more and more control.

Doesn’t the fact that you state it changes the methods they use to implement tyranny means… at some level you admit it works?

 

[aneftp]

Ahh..

But the ratio of useful operation (motorcycle, circular saw) to injury is vastly in favor of intended operation.

For example, death rate of motorcycles is about 30 deaths per 100 million miles driven.

Often the reasons stated for owning guns are

1. Self defense
2. Defense against tyranny

In both cases, the cases of death and injury is higher than the instances of lives saved.

In fact, having a gun in a self defense situation actually INCREASES the chances of you being shot or killed

Banning alcohol would lead to less automobile drunk driving deaths as well.

Allowing alcohol INCREASES the chances you may die. Those are simple facts.

And im in favor of bringing back the 18th amendment. The roaring 1920s were truly the best times ever according to history.

What are my chances of public office election for my hatred of guns and alcohol???

 

[UscGhost]

Doesn’t the fact that you state it changes the methods they use to implement tyranny means… at some level you admit it works?

No. If the goal is to prevent tyranny, and it doesn't prevent tyranny...then it doesnt work.

Would it have worked 200+ years ago? Probably. Especially when the US army was comprised of volunteers, militias and the local hicks...and everyone had muskets

But now, the population has basic arms when the Army is highly trained, heavily armored, access to satellites, counter intelligence, espionage, propaganda, etc.

Arming the population only enables citizens to kill each other.

Tyranny is accomplished by the slow erosion of rights, compromising the Justice system, corrupting elections, accumulation of wealth, etc.

For example, one of the most basic steps, is rigging elections. This was blatantly attempted via the false electors scheme. Did the 2nd amendment stop that? No. Armed citizens didn't even try to stop the scheme. Half the country was fine with it. The only thing that prevented it was the existing legal and political infrastructure

And that even assumes that armed citizenry would even be pro democracy in the first place. In many unstable countries, huge chunks of the population supports the dictators

So in the face of tyranny, and armed population just adds death, violence, crime, retribution, etc to a tyrannical regime

 

[DocMcCoy]

No. If the goal is to prevent tyranny, and it doesn't prevent tyranny...then it doesnt work.

Would it have worked 200+ years ago? Probably. Especially when the US army was comprised of volunteers, militias and the local hicks...and everyone had muskets

But now, the population has basic arms when the Army is highly trained, heavily armored, access to satellites, counter intelligence, espionage, propaganda, etc.

Arming the population only enables citizens to kill each other.

Tyranny is accomplished by the slow erosion of rights, compromising the Justice system, corrupting elections, accumulation of wealth, etc.

For example, one of the most basic steps, is rigging elections. This was blatantly attempted via the false electors scheme. Did the 2nd amendment stop that? No. Armed citizens didn't even try to stop the scheme. Half the country was fine with it. The only thing that prevented it was the existing legal and political infrastructure

And that even assumes that armed citizenry would even be pro democracy in the first place. In many unstable countries, huge chunks of the population supports the dictators

So in the face of tyranny, and armed population just adds death, violence, crime, retribution, etc to a tyrannical regime

It is absolutely a tool to prevent tyranny. It forces a prospective tyrant to play the long game through alternate measures. Take over the institutions, control the media, stage the elections, gradually disarm the people, disappear your political rivals. It’s basically why Palpatine didn’t go straight to war with the Jedi and the entire plot of Star Wars episode 1-3. 😆

All, things incredibly difficult to accomplish in a system of checks and balances. Especially in an armed and powerful democracy, with say robust God given rights and limits the government can place on those rights enshrined in a constitution. It’s literally why, despite all the leftist bellyaching, 2028 will come and go and Trump will no longer be president. You should thank the guns when that day comes.

The false electors scheme was an abject failure. No legal legs to stand on, very limited buy in, no procedural power, ultimately no effect in the election, AND legal blowback for the schemers. The system worked. It was DOA, we didn’t even hear about it till months later, no guns required!

While again, direct force in force battle seems to be your perversion, lets not forget, that despite all the big .gov toys you like to go on about, we were a cool breeze and one inch away from a lone gunman putting a stop to “tyranny” before the second Trump administration even got started (possibly twice).

 

[emergentmd]

I am not for or against guns. 1st, if you outlawed guns, then the criminals would the ones who have guns. 2nd, what is preventing someone to print guns? 3rd, if there was a way to get rid of all guns then there would be no way to stop a rogue government to take over a country. This is just logical. Having millions of guns and seeing bloodshed on the streets would make tyrants think twice.

I don't know why this is even an issue. Even dems do not want gun control. If the house, senate, and POTUS was all dems do you really think they would ban all guns? Of course they would not. It is just talking points.

 

[DocMcCoy]

en dems do not want gun control. If the house, senate, and POTUS was all dems do you really think they would ban all guns? Of course they would not. It is just talking points.

No, they do. It’s just politically DOA. They are playing the long game. Chip away here and there to whatever they can justify as “morally palatable”. They would definitively go after ars and high capacity magazines. Registries and “approved firearms” lists are other methods currently popular in leftist states. Red flag laws, increased taxes, gunshow loophole. It’s all on the menu short of an outright ban. That’s too big of a bite to chew with SCOTUS and a 2nd amendment.

Whittle it down to something like Canada over a couple generations, and the go for the throat and kill 2A. They wont say the quiet part out loud, but it has more to do with too many of the wrong type of people in favor of guns than the actual gun violence.

 

[UscGhost]

It is absolutely a tool to prevent tyranny. It forces a prospective tyrant to play the long game through alternate measures. Take over the institutions, control the media, stage the elections, gradually disarm the people, disappear your political rivals. It’s basically why Palpatine didn’t go straight to war with the Jedi and the entire plot of Star Wars episode 1-3. 😆

All, things incredibly difficult to accomplish in a system of checks and balances. Especially in an armed and powerful democracy, with say robust God given rights and limits the government can place on those rights enshrined in a constitution. It’s literally why, despite all the leftist bellyaching, 2028 will come and go and Trump will no longer be president. You should thank the guns when that day comes.

The false electors scheme was an abject failure. No legal legs to stand on, very limited buy in, no procedural power, ultimately no effect in the election, AND legal blowback for the schemers. The system worked. It was DOA, we didn’t even hear about it till months later, no guns required!

While again, direct force in force battle seems to be your perversion, lets not forget, that despite all the big .gov toys you like to go on about, we were a cool breeze and one inch away from a lone gunman putting a stop to “tyranny” before the second Trump administration even got started (possibly twice).

Yup. And at any time, the same gunman can target any elected leader and put a stop to democracy just as easily. So it doesnt protect from tyranny any more than it protects from democracy. It just invites violence

Meanwhile, the wealthy have continued to amass power and influence, and institutions have been continuously eroded. So tyranny is progressing.

So, for the expense of 50k gun deaths per year, we, at best, provide a inconvenient speed bump to tyranny. A speed bump that no other 1st world country seems to require to "prevent tyranny".

If fact, similar to your motorcycle example, just like cars are a much better and safer form of transportation...there are much better, safer and more effective ways to prevent tyranny than an armed citizenry.... something every other major 1st world country has realized

 

[DocMcCoy]

Yup. And at any time, the same gunman can target any elected leader and put a stop to democracy just as easily. So it doesnt protect from tyranny any more than it protects from democracy. It just invites violence

That’s not how democracy works. That IS how tyranny works. But you admit, despite all the military power, intelligence, and surveillance, guns can easily threaten those institutions.

So, for the expense of 50k gun deaths per year, we, at best, provide a inconvenient speed bump to tyranny. A speed bump that no other 1st world country seems to require to "prevent tyranny".

Speed bump. lol well that’s progress.

 

[UscGhost]

That’s not how democracy works. That IS how tyranny works. But you admit, despite all the military power, intelligence, and surveillance, guns can easily threaten those institutions.





Speed bump. lol well that’s progress.

Sure it is. Democracy is the power of the people to choose their leaders. Assassinations directly prevent that by killing those leaders. So, so far, in the US, guns have only served to prevent democratic processes.

How many tyrants in the US have been killed? 0

So, guns have cost millions of lives, billions in economic losses, 0 tyrants killed, many elected leaders killed/targeted.

Seems like a complete failure.

No wonder other 1st world countries have abandoned that nonsensical idea

 

[PpfSuxTube]

I am not for or against guns. 1st, if you outlawed guns, then the criminals would the ones who have guns. 2nd, what is preventing someone to print guns? 3rd, if there was a way to get rid of all guns then there would be no way to stop a rogue government to take over a country. This is just logical. Having millions of guns and seeing bloodshed on the streets would make tyrants think twice.

You are pro guns.
Your own rather silly opinions doest make something logical

 

[DocMcCoy]

Sure it is. Democracy is the power of the people to choose their leaders. Assassinations directly prevent that by killing those leaders. So, so far, in the US, guns have only served to prevent democratic processes.

Nope. Democracy doesn’t die with the death of any one person. Tyranny can.

How many tyrants in the US have been killed? 0

If we want to be technical, about 50,000. Since we haven’t had to worry about that since the revolution (without unpacking the civil war) that may be evidence that it works as a preventive measure, along with the rest of our institutions.

 

[UscGhost]

Nope. Democracy doesn’t die with the death of any one person. Tyranny can.




If we want to be technical, about 50,000. Since we haven’t had to worry about that since the revolution (without unpacking the civil war) that may be evidence that it works as a preventive measure, along with the rest of our institutions.

Democracy does die with the death of each elected person. It doesnt die completely


50,000 what?

Tyranny is an oppressive government..not exclusively an oppressive singular person

And given the concentration of power, wealth and influence among the ultra wealthy in this country... tyranny is doing fine

 

[DocMcCoy]

Democracy does die with the death of each elected person. It doesnt die completely


50,000 what?

Tyranny is an oppressive government..not exclusively an oppressive singular person

And given the concentration of power, wealth and influence among the ultra wealthy in this country... tyranny is doing fine

50,000 red coats. The point of which is to belabor the setting in which the constitution was written and why we have a 2nd amendment in the first place.

Your definition is institutional tyranny, kind of. Except tyranny is generally considered to be unchecked. A subjectively oppressive government can exist within a system of checks and balances, tyranny cannot. The rest is blurring the lines of an oligarchy, which can also exist within a system of checks and balances.

This goes back to the left feeling oppressed because of who is in charge and because of the direction the country is headed. But it isn’t tyranny no matter how loud they scream it.

Regardless of how you want to define it, or misidentify it, one bullet CAN end tyranny. And despite your insistence on the military superiority of the system, guns can serve as a check against it.

 

[PpfSuxTube]

50,000 red coats. The point of which is to belabor the setting in which the constitution was written and why we have a 2nd amendment in the first place.

Your definition is institutional tyranny, kind of. Except tyranny is generally considered to be unchecked. A subjectively oppressive government can exist within a system of checks and balances, tyranny cannot. The rest is blurring the lines of an oligarchy, which can also exist within a system of checks and balances.

This goes back to the left feeling oppressed because of who is in charge and because of the direction the country is headed. But it isn’t tyranny no matter how loud they scream it.

Regardless of how you want to define it, or misidentify it, one bullet CAN end tyranny. And despite your insistence on the military superiority of the system, guns can serve as a check against it.

How do criminals get guns?

 

[UscGhost]

50,000 red coats. The point of which is to belabor the setting in which the constitution was written and why we have a 2nd amendment in the first place.

Your definition is institutional tyranny, kind of. Except tyranny is generally considered to be unchecked. A subjectively oppressive government can exist within a system of checks and balances, tyranny cannot. The rest is blurring the lines of an oligarchy, which can also exist within a system of checks and balances.

This goes back to the left feeling oppressed because of who is in charge and because of the direction the country is headed. But it isn’t tyranny no matter how loud they scream it.

Regardless of how you want to define it, or misidentify it, one bullet CAN end tyranny. And despite your insistence on the military superiority of the system, guns can serve as a check against it.

Redcoats? A foreign invader? Yea, because the US army didnt really exist. I dont doubt that it made sense 200 years ago...but all evidence to the contrary that it makes sense now.

Tyranny and democracy are not all or nothing systems. There are levels of oppression and freedom, and they vary based on the system of government. Russia, china, iran, etc.

Do you think that a bullet would end tyranny in china or russia or Iran? Not in the slightest.

So far, the closest we have come to attempts at tyranny was the fake elector scheme. And the people voted that guy back into office despite that. And Trump has continued to erode the system of checks and balances and exert control, all while his party fights against any gun control. Just shows that they are well aware that an armed population does nothing to impede their goals

A tyrannical government will control the population through propaganda (fox news) far more effectively than waging direct war on its citizens. So the argument that an armed population needs guns in order to prevent tyranny is ignorant of the reality of how governments exert control.

 

[pgg]

How do criminals get guns?

Mostly illegal straw purchases.

In recent years, homemade guns, mostly based on so-called 80% receiver kits, have become much more common amongst the criminal element.

(If by criminals you mean Mexican cartels, you could ask the ATF agents who ran operation gunrunner ...)

 

[DocMcCoy]

How do criminals get guns?

Not really following. I think it’s theft. But regardless, the answer is illegally. Same way they get drugs. Which are illegal.

 

[emergentmd]

You are pro guns.
Your own rather silly opinions doest make something logical

I have never owned a gun and would be fine with never owning one. I am pro personal rights; something that you would like to take away from law abiding Americans.

 

[emergentmd]

How do criminals get guns?

Ha, are you this dense? How do you think criminals get most illegal stuff?

 

[DocMcCoy]

Redcoats? A foreign invader? Yea, because the US army didnt really exist. I dont doubt that it made sense 200 years ago...but all evidence to the contrary that it makes sense now.

What evidence? The only concrete evidence we have is yes there is an association between guns and gun related deaths. “I don’t think an armed populous is an effective deterrent against tyranny” isn’t evidence.

Do you think that a bullet would end tyranny in china or russia or Iran? Not in the slightest.

I think taking out Putin or Jinping could absolutely tip the scales. It will be interesting to see what Russia and China look liked when they are gone. I think it’s presumptuous to believe otherwise. Especially since power has been consolidated rather rapidly. It’s not like North Korea under generational control. Not yet at least. But you are attacking an argument I never made. A bullet CAN end tyranny especially when power is concentrated to one individual. Doesn’t mean it can in every case.

So far, the closest we have come to attempts at tyranny was the fake elector scheme. And the people voted that guy back into office despite that. And Trump has continued to erode the system of checks and balances and exert control, all while his party fights against any gun control. Just shows that they are well aware that an armed population does nothing to impede their goals

That was the closest? Lol, so what you are saying is we are really really safe from tyranny. It’s a safe bet we are going to make it to 2028.

But to the contrary, Trump is a populist. He can only do what he can get away with while keeping his base appeased. If Trump ran on banning guns in 2016, not only would he never been have able to “achieve his goals” he never would have been president.

A tyrannical government will control the population through propaganda (fox news) far more effectively than waging direct war on its citizens. So the argument that an armed population needs guns in order to prevent tyranny is ignorant of the reality of how governments exert control.

The only way to achieve tyranny through control in this country is through propaganda. Checks and balances protect the institutions and direct actions is a nonstarter, because of… the guns.

 

[arkgal]

What evidence? The only concrete evidence we have is yes there is an association between guns and gun related deaths. “I don’t think an armed populous is an effective deterrent against tyranny” isn’t evidence.




I think taking out Putin or Jinping could absolutely tip the scales. It will be interesting to see what Russia and China look liked when they are gone. I think it’s presumptuous to believe otherwise. Especially since power has been consolidated rather rapidly. It’s not like North Korea under generational control. Not yet at least. But you are attacking an argument I never made. A bullet CAN end tyranny especially when power is concentrated to one individual. Doesn’t mean it can in every case.



That was the closest? Lol, so what you are saying is we are really really safe from tyranny. It’s a safe bet we are going to make it to 2028.

But to the contrary, Trump is a populist. He can only do what he can get away with while keeping his base appeased. If Trump ran on banning guns in 2016, not only would he never been have able to “achieve his goals” he never would have been president.



The only way to achieve tyranny through control in this country is through propaganda. Checks and balances protect the institutions and direct actions is a nonstarter, because of… the guns.

A loss of checks and balances is playing out now that the puppet Supreme Court is advancing the Trump agenda. That's tyranny in action.

 

[DocMcCoy]

A loss of checks and balances is playing out now that the puppet Supreme Court is advancing the Trump agenda. That's tyranny in action.

Respectfully disagree. It isn’t tyranny. That was a decade worth of politicking and strategy to secure a conservative majority. The shape of which will change over the next several administrations. Also, there are cases the court hasn’t blindly rubber stamped in Trumps favor. They didn’t protect him DACA, his taxes, aid, etc. And besides the constitution, there are limited ways Trump could directly affect the court outside of mean tweets. Even court packing (arguably a “tyrannical” action commonly endorsed by the left) would be a legislative action.

Speaking of the house and senate, all elected, not appointed by Trump. The make up of which can change presumably as soon as next year. As it did during his previous administration, largely stymieing his agenda and resulting in multiple impeachments.

It may feel like a loss of checks and balances, but it is what the people wanted. A clean sweep to push an agenda, based on a platform, that they voted for. Enough people turn out against the agenda in 26 and 28 and the country will look radically different again. It’s a remarkable system.

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Ha, are you this dense? How do you think criminals get most illegal stuff?

You're way out of your element here unfortunately. I dont think you understand
this topic. "Most illegal stuff". What is this?

And what is a straw sale?

 

[DocMcCoy]

You're way out of your element here unfortunately. I dont think you understand
this topic. "Most illegal stuff". What is this?

And what is a straw sale?

Someone with a clean record knowingly and intentionally buys a gun for someone who legally can’t. If you are a felon, we make a deal, I go buy the gun, do the paperwork and background check, give you the gun. Which is illegal and involves a crime since I would be lying on the 4473. Very Hunter Biden-esque.

 

[pgg]

You're way out of your element here unfortunately. I dont think you understand
this topic. "Most illegal stuff". What is this?

And what is a straw sale?

You have very strong and belligerent opinions on the subject for a guy who lacks understanding of the most basic terms.

A straw sale is illegal and is when a non-prohibited person legally buys a gun for the express purpose of then illegally giving it to a prohibited person.

Simplest example: gang member felon gets out of prison, goes to a gun shop with his girlfriend, who has no criminal record (yet), he points to a gun and says Yeah that one, she buys it, they walk out, she hands it over. In some states she waits for a 10 day waiting period before picking it up and giving it to him.

 

[arkgal]

You have very strong and belligerent opinions on the subject for a guy who lacks understanding of the most basic terms.

A straw sale is illegal and is when a non-prohibited person legally buys a gun for the express purpose of then illegally giving it to a prohibited person.

Simplest example: gang member felon gets out of prison, goes to a gun shop with his girlfriend, who has no criminal record (yet), he points to a gun and says Yeah that one, she buys it, they walk out, she hands it over. In some states she waits for a 10 day waiting period before picking it up and giving it to him.

Sounds like a pretty dangerous prospect for the person purchasing the gun. Any crime committed with a gun may be traced back to you. It would be easy to explain that you weren't involved in the gun crime, but explaining how the gun got into someone else's hands is a different matter.

 

[UscGhost]

What evidence? The only concrete evidence we have is yes there is an association between guns and gun related deaths. “I don’t think an armed populous is an effective deterrent against tyranny” isn’t evidence.




I think taking out Putin or Jinping could absolutely tip the scales. It will be interesting to see what Russia and China look liked when they are gone. I think it’s presumptuous to believe otherwise. Especially since power has been consolidated rather rapidly. It’s not like North Korea under generational control. Not yet at least. But you are attacking an argument I never made. A bullet CAN end tyranny especially when power is concentrated to one individual. Doesn’t mean it can in every case.



That was the closest? Lol, so what you are saying is we are really really safe from tyranny. It’s a safe bet we are going to make it to 2028.

But to the contrary, Trump is a populist. He can only do what he can get away with while keeping his base appeased. If Trump ran on banning guns in 2016, not only would he never been have able to “achieve his goals” he never would have been president.



The only way to achieve tyranny through control in this country is through propaganda. Checks and balances protect the institutions and direct actions is a nonstarter, because of… the

Yes, the only evidence that guns increase gun related deaths is the fact they have done just that for decades now.

Hate to break it to you, but China, Russia and iran were tyrannical before their current leaders as well. So killing them just creates chaos until a new tyrannical regime is formed. And eliminating a tyrannical regime typically just results in a worse situation.

So, basically, we need guns to protect us from tyranny, even though guns haven't done anything to prevent the current tyrannical regimes. They havent resulted in any recent regimes becoming democratic

And in our country, as you said, tyranny would be accomplished by "propaganda"...thus guns wouldnt help anyways. The checks and balance system has been significantly eroded, but was fortunately enough to stop the Trumps attempt...so guns weren't needed. Half the country thinks we are inder tyranny already, yet no armed uprisings.

Who decides the moment that we are under a tyrannical regime? Black people were heavily oppressed for decades..no mass armed uprisings. 2A didnt help them. Armed uprisings would have been met with lethal force.

BLM protests? Millions of protestors. Anti IcE? Lots of folks think they are being oppressed. 2A doesnt help them. How do you think it would have been portrayed if even 0.1% of those folks showed up armed to BLM protests. Government would crack down and call them a violent mob. The average person wouldn't care at all.. probably have more armed counter protestors in response

So we are sacrificing 50k people per year, billions in damages, to get exactly nothing.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Hate to break it to you, but China, Russia and iran were tyrannical before their current leaders as well. So killing them just creates chaos until a new tyrannical regime is formed. And eliminating a tyrannical regime typically just results in a worse situation.

Hate to break to you, but China and Russia have become exceedingly more tyrannical under the current respective regimes. One way they did that in common, was by tightening the noose on already stringent gun control. Hmmm, I wonder why. That isn't even debatable. Overthrowing a tyrannical leader doesn't always lead to chaos, and there is no adequate comparison to the United States to make an assertion that would be an inevitability.

So, basically, we need guns to protect us from tyranny, even though guns haven't done anything to prevent the current tyrannical regimes. They havent resulted in any recent regimes becoming democratic

That is dependent on the assumption you have that they don't inherently protect against tyranny. Which is unprovable. There are historical examples our own country included. Modern day Portugal is a recent example within our lifetimes. We will have to wait and see what becomes of Libya.

And in our country, as you said, tyranny would be accomplished by "propaganda"...thus guns wouldnt help anyways. The checks and balance system has been significantly eroded, but was fortunately enough to stop the Trumps attempt...so guns weren't needed. Half the country thinks we are inder tyranny already, yet no armed uprisings.

You are missing the point why that is the only way tyranny would be successful. Eroded is subjective. I promise you it will be my side saying that and not you guys when you are back in power too. Point is the checks and balances worked. Half the country has no idea what tyranny is. It's like my kids throwing a tantrum when they get grounded.

Who decides the moment that we are under a tyrannical regime? Black people were heavily oppressed for decades..no mass armed uprisings. 2A didnt help them. Armed uprisings would have been met with lethal force.

BLM protests? Millions of protestors. Anti IcE? Lots of folks think they are being oppressed. 2A doesnt help them. How do you think it would have been portrayed if even 0.1% of those folks showed up armed to BLM protests. Government would crack down and call them a violent mob. The average person wouldn't care at all.. probably have more armed counter protestors in response

So we are sacrificing 50k people per year, billions in damages, to get exactly nothing.

It's amazing the leaps and bounds we have made in rectifying some of the wrongs under our uniquely democratic system of government over the years. However, we've been through at least some instances where armed "uprisings" have been utilized, the deacons of justice, apropos your civil rights example, for example. Oppression and tyranny aren't one and the same. If the AVERAGE PERSON doesn't care at all, it probably isn't tyranny.

 

[pgg]

Sounds like a pretty dangerous prospect for the person purchasing the gun. Any crime committed with a gun may be traced back to you. It would be easy to explain that you weren't involved in the gun crime, but explaining how the gun got into someone else's hands is a different matter.

Sure, agreed, but look at the people we're talking about:

Women dating felons who just got out of prison are not, on the whole, people possessed of the best judgment.

Also, her risk is probably minimal. For one, all she really has to do is say it was stolen. Tough to prove she willingly gave it away to a known prohibited person. And two, there's an odd reluctance to prosecute people who commit this particular crime. Prosecution of people who lie on the form to try to buy a gun but fail the background check is approximately zero. This disinterest and unwillingness to enforce existing laws is one reason we are broadly skeptical of more gun control and more laws and more hurdles.

 

[pgg]

Black people were heavily oppressed for decades..no mass armed uprisings. 2A didnt help them.

Do you know who banned open carry in California, and why?

 

[PpfSuxTube]

You have very strong and belligerent opinions on the subject for a guy who lacks understanding of the most basic terms.

A straw sale is illegal and is when a non-prohibited person legally buys a gun for the express purpose of then illegally giving it to a prohibited person.

Simplest example: gang member felon gets out of prison, goes to a gun shop with his girlfriend, who has no criminal record (yet), he points to a gun and says Yeah that one, she buys it, they walk out, she hands it over. In some states she waits for a 10 day waiting period before picking it up and giving it to him.

Why do you think i dont understand these terms?

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Someone with a clean record knowingly and intentionally buys a gun for someone who legally can’t. If you are a felon, we make a deal, I go buy the gun, do the paperwork and background check, give you the gun. Which is illegal and involves a crime since I would be lying on the 4473. Very Hunter Biden-esque.

Lol you think i dont understand what these terms mean? That's too funny.

Did you just explain it to me? Amazing

 

[DocMcCoy]

Lol you think i dont understand what these terms mean? That's too funny.

Did you just explain it to me? Amazing

Still not sure if you do to be honest. Anyway, carry on.

 

[pgg]

Why do you think i dont understand these terms?

Because you asked this question:

And what is a straw sale?

Are you trolling?

 

[UscGhost]

Do you know who banned open carry in California, and why?

Because armed citizens is a social disaster.

Are you trying to argue that blacks would have somehow achieved social equality if they were allowed to walk around with guns? Seems like AA are certainly less oppressed post 1968 than pre. So clearly guns werent a factor.

Or maybe, AA were just about to revolt and overthrow their oppressors..but then all it took was the government passing a law that said you cant carry guns in the open...and the rebellion was squashed.

Not much of a shield to oppression if all it takes to break it is a single law

Or, more likely, society didn't want to see police shooting a bunch of black panthers in the streets.

Besides, more progress has historically made through peaceful protests (and often the violent responses of government). If protestors are armed, it gives the government all the excuses it needs to violently counter. Guns reduce progress

 

[pgg]

Because [...]

No

Open carry was banned in California, at the request of, and with the signature from, governor Ronald Reagan.

The "problem" was the Black Panthers being openly armed in their communities, as a monitor of and a protest to police brutality during the 1960s civil rights movement.

All gun control is firmly rooted in racism and classism.

 

[rowsdower88]

All gun control is firmly rooted in racism and classism.

A large amount of gun regulation does have roots in racism (I'm not prepared to say "All" *). Usually racism against Native Americans and black people. Slave codes, black codes come to mind. I don't think this is an inherent trait of gun control though. Often gun control was instituted in race neutral ways, but (thanks to critical race theory) we can recognize that in implementation it disproportionately affected black people. Often, but not always, this disproportionate effect was due to the black wealth gap. Ex. National Firearms Act 1934. Correcting the black wealth gap should be a priority that could be independent of gun control goals.

Wrt class, it becomes more complicated IMO. I think most gun related violent crime is a product of poverty. Or at least we could say poverty is a contributing factor. Steps to address it are, inherently, going to disproportionately affect poor people.

It's like complaining that policies meant to tackle the obesity epidemic will disproportionately affect otherwise law abiding fat people. (Half joking)

*Didn't Old West towns often have ordinances requiring people to check their guns when they entered? Admittedly, I'm relying on my Tombstone movie knowledge and a quick google search here. Maybe there was a racist element here too, but at least anecdotally it was enforced against "the only law around here" the Cowboys.

 

[pgg]

A large amount of gun regulation does have roots in racism (I'm not prepared to say "All" *). Usually racism against Native Americans and black people. Slave codes, black codes come to mind. I don't think this is an inherent trait of gun control though. Often gun control was instituted in race neutral ways, but (thanks to critical race theory) we can recognize that in implementation it disproportionately affected black people. Often, but not always, this disproportionate effect was due to the black wealth gap. Ex. National Firearms Act 1934. Correcting the black wealth gap should be a priority that could be independent of gun control goals.

Wrt class, it becomes more complicated IMO. I think most gun related violent crime is a product of poverty. Or at least we could say poverty is a contributing factor. Steps to address it are, inherently, going to disproportionately affect poor people.

It's like complaining that policies meant to tackle the obesity epidemic will disproportionately affect otherwise law abiding fat people. (Half joking)

*Didn't Old West towns often have ordinances requiring people to check their guns when they entered? Admittedly, I'm relying on my Tombstone movie knowledge and a quick google search here. Maybe there was a racist element here too, but at least anecdotally it was enforced against "the only law around here" the Cowboys.

Those are fair points and criticisms.

"All" is admittedly hyperbolic. 🙂

Weapons are dangerous by design and it's certainly Constitutional to have some regulation of the right to keep and bear them. SCOTUS, even in its current gun-friendly iteration, has repeatedly noted that the right isn't absolute.

The standard I was hoping to get out of Bruen was strict scrutiny, which demands that such government regulation must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest using the least restrictive means, and that the burden of proof that a law meets these requirements is on the government. A lot of existing gun control, particularly outright bans of broad classes of weapons, would fall before this standard.

Thomas actually went beyond strict scrutiny and specified the nation's historical tradition as the standard for regulating the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure if that is really better for gun rights or not. It's certainly more vague, leaving ample room to overturn precedent, a lot of which favors bad anti-gun laws, so yay?

The reason I say all gun control is rooted in racism and classism is because the overall framework of restrictions we have now is largely circumventable if you're rich or connected. Wealth and race are highly correlated, for lots of reasons. Legal access to NFA-regulated guns has always been especially costly, complex, and time consuming. This was a deliberate design choice in 1934 to create a rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me result favoring the wealthy, and everything that followed right up through the 1986 Hughes amendment and the 1994 AWB, built on that foundation that left loopholes for people money.

Its only since Heller that we've started to unwind this system of inequality that has been a cynically progressive erosion of the 2nd Amendment, that really started in earnest right after emancipation, 'cause by God we can't let slaves black people have guns too.

 

[UscGhost]

No

Open carry was banned in California, at the request of, and with the signature from, governor Ronald Reagan.

The "problem" was the Black Panthers being openly armed in their communities, as a monitor of and a protest to police brutality during the 1960s civil rights movement.

All gun control is firmly rooted in racism and classism.

Certainly. Like most policing.

However, peaceful protesting has historically been far more impactful. Staging a peaceful protest followed by a violent government crackdown usually will significantly push public sentiment against the government

If the "oppressed" citizens violently revolt. Then the media and government immediately label them as a violent mob (just look at the extremely small percentage of BLM protestors who were violent, and ended up tainting the whole movement) and they will quickly lose any influence over public sentiment.

Guns are counterproductive for protestors. The government always has more guns, more firepower, more military capabilities but the government just needs an excuse to use it. Often, the government will even try to make up reasons (certainly see this in other tyrannical regimes)

Tiananmen square was impactful because it was a slaughter of unarmed student protestors. If the students were armed, it just would have been framed as a violent rebellion

 

[DocMcCoy]

Tiananmen square was impactful because it was a slaughter of unarmed student protestors. If the students were armed, it just would have been framed as a violent rebellion

This is the example you want to use? How did that end up? Certainly wasn’t a great example of peaceful protest ending in democratic reform. It was framed worse than a violent rebellion, it was erased from Chinese history. 35 years later they can’t even talk about it in China.

 

[UscGhost]

This is the example you want to use? How did that end up? Certainly wasn’t a great example of peaceful protest ending in democratic reform. It was framed worse than a violent rebellion, it was erased from Chinese history. 35 years later they can’t even talk about it in China.

It was highly impactful. The chinese government was so embarrassed that they had to hide it and wipe all record of it. The brutality of it makes it more impactful. If the chinese students were shooting at police .it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. Violent clashes happen all the time in africa, haiti, south America, Southeast asia..nobody cares

Its literally one of the most famous events in history..and led to international condemnation, and economic sanctions. The Chinese government chose to crackdown even further as they expected potentially widespread protests afterwards

The Bloody Sunday Massacre (Russia, 1905)

• The crackdown: On January 22, 1905, unarmed workers marched peacefully to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II, demanding better working conditions and political reforms. Troops fired on the crowd, killing and wounding hundreds.
• The reforms: The massacre triggered widespread strikes, uprisings, and mutinies, leading to the Revolution of 1905. In response, Tsar Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto, which promised a constitution and the creation of a representative assembly, the Duma. Though the tsar retained considerable power and later suppressed dissent, the events significantly weakened his authority and foreshadowed the

The Soweto Uprising (South Africa, 1976)

• The crackdown: On June 16, 1976, thousands of Black students in Soweto staged a peaceful march to protest a government decree mandating that Afrikaans be used as a language of instruction in schools. Police responded with tear gas and live ammunition, killing at least 170 people, including 13-year-old Hector Pieterson.
• The reforms: The brutal response brought international condemnation and strengthened boycotts and economic sanctions against the apartheid regime. The uprising invigorated the anti-apartheid movement, inspiring further resistance that ultimately contributed to the end of apartheid and the establishment of a democratic government in 1994.

The Haymarket Affair (United States, 1886)

• The crackdown: During a peaceful rally in Chicago advocating for an eight-hour workday, a bomb was thrown at police, who then opened fire on the crowd. The incident resulted in several deaths and the arrest and trial of anarchist labor leaders, four of whom were executed.
• The reforms: The affair sparked a backlash against the labor movement, but it also spurred greater awareness of workers' rights issues nationwide. It led to increased pressure for protective labor laws, contributing to later reforms such as the 40-hour work week, better safety regulations, and the establishment of Labor Day.

 

[DocMcCoy]

It was highly impactful. The chinese government was so embarrassed that they had to hide it and wipe all record of it. The brutality of it makes it more impactful. If the chinese students were shooting at police .it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. Violent clashes happen all the time in africa, haiti, south America, Southeast asia..nobody cares

Its literally one of the most famous events in history..and led to international condemnation, and economic sanctions. The Chinese government chose to crackdown even further as they expected potentially widespread protests afterwards

The Bloody Sunday Massacre (Russia, 1905)

• The crackdown: On January 22, 1905, unarmed workers marched peacefully to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II, demanding better working conditions and political reforms. Troops fired on the crowd, killing and wounding hundreds.
• The reforms: The massacre triggered widespread strikes, uprisings, and mutinies, leading to the Revolution of 1905. In response, Tsar Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto, which promised a constitution and the creation of a representative assembly, the Duma. Though the tsar retained considerable power and later suppressed dissent, the events significantly weakened his authority and foreshadowed the

The Soweto Uprising (South Africa, 1976)

• The crackdown: On June 16, 1976, thousands of Black students in Soweto staged a peaceful march to protest a government decree mandating that Afrikaans be used as a language of instruction in schools. Police responded with tear gas and live ammunition, killing at least 170 people, including 13-year-old Hector Pieterson.
• The reforms: The brutal response brought international condemnation and strengthened boycotts and economic sanctions against the apartheid regime. The uprising invigorated the anti-apartheid movement, inspiring further resistance that ultimately contributed to the end of apartheid and the establishment of a democratic government in 1994.

The Haymarket Affair (United States, 1886)

• The crackdown: During a peaceful rally in Chicago advocating for an eight-hour workday, a bomb was thrown at police, who then opened fire on the crowd. The incident resulted in several deaths and the arrest and trial of anarchist labor leaders, four of whom were executed.
• The reforms: The affair sparked a backlash against the labor movement, but it also spurred greater awareness of workers' rights issues nationwide. It led to increased pressure for protective labor laws, contributing to later reforms such as the 40-hour work week, better safety regulations, and the establishment of Labor Day.

Right. It got the moral equivalent of “thoughts and prayers” from the international community. While the regime cracked down further. Certainly an abject failure for the people of China. It sparked literally the end of any hope for democracy in China. Not a great example of peaceful protests working.

Dude most of your examples lead to armed resistance by the people which was critical in affecting change. So thanks for the examples I guess

 

[UscGhost]

Right. It got the moral equivalent of “thoughts and prayers” from the international community. While the regime cracked down further. Certainly an abject failure for the people of China. It sparked literally the end of any hope for democracy in China. Not a great example of peaceful protests working.

Dude most of your examples lead to armed resistance by the people which was critical in affecting change. So thanks for the examples I guess

And none of which required a second amendment

 

[DocMcCoy]

And none of which required a second amendment

None of which could have happened without guns!

 

[UscGhost]

None of which could have happened without guns!

Actually. The protests and aftermath involved minimal use, if any, of firearms by the protesters.

It was all done by police and military

 

[DocMcCoy]

Actually. The protests and aftermath involved minimal use, if any, of firearms by the protesters.

It was all done by police and military

That’s just not accurate.

Let’s take three cases, your examples by the way. And again, if I’ve summarized the argument correctly the contention initially was guns have no role in defending against tyranny. That transitioned to a limited role; but, you believe other institutions are much more relevant such as a peaceful protests, free press, justice system, free and fair elections, etc.?

Soweto, massacre by an authoritarian government of unarmed students against apartheid. This action was the impetus for armed rebellion that was ultimately successful in ushering in democracy because they had access to guns and organized resistance.

Bloody Sunday triggered a revolution in Russia after again an authoritarian regime violently quelled a peaceful protest. Considering mainly of radicalized laborers and mutineers, that had access to guns an and were able to mobilize a violent response in turn.

Now, take China. Again your example not mine. The closest of the three to a tyrannical form of government. They already largely controlled state media, institutions, and the guns. In this case the regime puts down a peaceful protest and what happens? Nothing, no capability left for the people to affect change from within. China is able to tighten the noose further and functionally delete the event from history.

One of these things is not like the other….


FWIW. The Haymarket affair I just left out because you are completely contradicting yourself by saying when a protest gets violent it loses the narrative and the influence of public sentiment. But the exact opposite happened in this case.


Even Mandela advocated fighting state violence with armed violence.