Poll: What is your stance on Guns?

[b3nn3tt]

Police only, obviously. Why the hell would a civilian need a gun?

I'll go one further: Why would the police need guns?

That is actually fairly easy to justify. Police are routinely in more dangerous situations than you average person, and therefore quite often have a need to protect themselves.

Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with routinely, but I'll give you dangerous situations. However, I feel that non-lethal weapons would be better all round; less chance of innocent people being injured, less chance of killing an unarmed criminal, and the criminal can be safely arrested and prosecuted.

Even if we accept guns as being necessary for extreme situations, that's what specialist units are for. I don't think that the standard should be every police officer with a gun.

I'm down with that. As long as police are able to do their job effectively and with minimal danger to themselves.[/quote

Then it would seem we have reached an agreement. Which I understand to be somewhat of a rarity on the internet, so huzzah indeed.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

I think you should be allowed to have anything you want, but the restrictions should be really fucking strict. Like if you ever participated in a street brawl you can't have anything, ever strict.

And self defense shouldn't be a viable reason.

 

[TheMann]

I'm sure the official answers should be either weaver or isosceles.

This is the best answer on the entire thread. I vote for weaver; you present a slimmer profile to the target that way.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

I needed the option "Yes, but with some limitations and restriction." The "Yes, it should be restricted to small pistols." didn't quite cut it for me.

 

[Korolev]

My feeling is that the USA is in the grip of gun-fever, and it will never go away. Guns have played such a huge role in your history, what with your frontiersmen going about in wagons taming the countryside, and your civil wars and love of hunting. Guns also play a very large role in your contemporary culture - your action heroes all carry around guns, your rap music videos showcase screaming macho-men brandishing fire arms in ludicrous poses (such as holding the gun upside down, at an angle which points the barrel towards your own feet, which is so stupid words cannot express it) and of course, they are in our video games. Americans love guns - whether you are poor, rich, uneducated, educated, white, black, asian, latino, city-dweller or rural farmer, many of you have an undying love for guns.

There are many reasons why Americans love guns - I don't really want to go into them. One of the principle reasons Americans will give in defence of their gun culture is the idea that if you gave every rural huckster a rifle it will somehow prevent a government-take over of society (as if your "half-a-day trained, lever-action toting hillbilly will scare off an M1A2 Abrams tank or a Apache Attack Helicopter. Or a nuclear missile. Face it, if Uncle Sam really ever did want to take over, your rag-tag militia isn't going to match up to a fleet of flying robots that can kill you at almost any moment of the day, piloted by an army man in a remote building). You can call that a sensible, rational pre-caution, or a mind-numbingly insane paranoid fantasy. But in any case, the guns are there, the gun-culture is there and the willingness to use guns is there.

So America is stuck with guns. Companies make too much money manufacturing and selling them, your laws are too supportive of gun use and ownership, and your culture is absolutely SATURATED with guns and the 'manliness' of owning a pre-fabricated little hand cannon which anyone can buy and use (which should eliminate its status as a symbol of power and "dudeliness", if you think about it. Why is owning a gun 'special' if everyone has one?). You have millions of them circulating around your country on the blackmarket, ammo is everywhere and everyone already thinks that everyone else has one.

So there is literally nothing you can do about it. The USA is stuck with gun violence. So I am not in favour of taking guns away from the law-abiding citizens of the United States, as I feel that will not solve ANYTHING. The black-market for firearms is so well-established that attempting to remove it is as hopeless as attempting to stop cocaine from being sold on American streets.

Once guns move in, you cannot get them out. Once you have a culture in which gun violence is almost the encouraged way to solve problems and display your "independence" and "manhood", nothing can get rid of it (or at least, nothing in the short term). Like Afghanistan and Mozambique, the USA will, for the conceivable future, remain a nation in which gun violence claims literally thousands upon thousands of lives every year. With things as bad as that, the least you can do is to NOT take away the gun from the poor shopkeeper, who, frankly, needs one.

But for the rest of us, whose countries are not filled with guns (yet remain just as democratic and free and have less violence, which must puzzle the Right-Wing Americans to no end), we should not start importing guns. Australia has very little gun-violence. We do not have a gun culture - unlike the USA, Brisbane has almost no fire-arms or ammo shops. Parents do not pass on guns to their children. While we do have gun crime, we have far less gun-deaths or fire-arm related injuries per 1000 people than the USA - and far less stabbings per 1000, far less murders per 1000, far less crime in general than the USA, even when you take into account our lower population.

I would like it to remain that way. Right now, robbers still use hammers and knives, because they know that the store owner probably doesn't pack a shotgun under the counter. If we did start giving guns to every tom dick and harry on the street for the purposes of self-defence, guess what all the criminals upgrade to?

Also, More Guns = More Guns on the black market! So many "law-abiding" US citizens "lose" their guns, especially when it comes time to pay the bills.

When your country is awash with guns, you WILL have more gun crime. It's already too late for the USA. But it's not too late for everyone else.

 

[rigabear]

Often I hear people saying 'Criminals get their guns illegally, so there is no point in having guns illegal'
So were do these illegal guns come from?
The vast majority are taken from law abiding citizens, through theft, robbery, etc.
Therefore by taking the guns away from the law abiding citizens, you take away this HUGE source of illegal firearms.

The illegal firearms already out there aren't just going to poof away, sure you'll stop them from getting their hands on new ones, but the ones they already have won't just disappear.

The number of guns in circulation would decrease over time as the illegal guns that are confiscated, lost, broken, etc are not replaced. It's not going to be 1an instant process, and perhaps the danger of having the criminals armed and law-abiding persons unarmed for that period of time would outweigh any eventual benefits. Or maybe not - depends on your attitude to the effect of guns on crime.

Britain, really, should be a shining example of why guns really aren't necessary for self-defence, and actually makes situations worse most of the time.

Gun crime here is some of the lowest on the planet. Gangs don't arm themselves with guns, because cops don't. Neither side escalates the 'arms race', so to speak, because both sides are safer that way. Sure, whenever some lone nut decides to pick up an illegally-attained weapon and go crazy, it kinda sucks, but such incidences are ridiculously rare and the police here are very wary of any warnings of a gun. A single weapon even sighted generally results in MP5-armed uber police being called in before so much as a trigger is pulled.

Heck, we're even tight on knife-weilding here, which is a significantly bigger problem than guns.

Point is, while gun culture would be virtually impossible to remove from countries like the US, I do think that country would be better off if people didn't have guns. Best way to stop people killing each other is to remove the tools to kill from both sides.

That's great and all, except the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the USA.
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html
Gun control does not alter criminal behavior in any appreciable fashion. It simply means they turn to alternate means to achieve their aims. From what I understand of the UK, that's predominately knives, shivs and other assorted blades.
You're right in that gun crime in the UK is way low, but everything else is significantly higher. Enough so that I would say the benefits are negligible.

The homicide rate in the US is higher than the UK - almost 4 times higher. And then you look at the rest of Europe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
And I'm not sure how it is possible to compare gun crime stats in the early 1900s (when guns were legal in europe) to now. Back then, the guns used in crime (small, concealable) were not as proliferate as they are now, and considerably less affordable.

Also:

HALF A MILLION offences a year are wrongly being classified as violent, according to an independent review of crime statistics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article640550.ece
Although this analysis does around half not resulting in injury, although how many of these included a reasonable threat of force (which is included in the US violent crime rate) is impossible to say - but at very least the 217,000 mentioned.

So in summary, there is more murder in the US (69% of which involved guns), but less of other types of violent crime. This cannot be entirely attributed to having an armed populace - the US's treatment of minor crimes is considerably stricter than anywhere else which is bound to have a major impact (perhaps more so).

Note, in the UK, it is common practise to release "minor criminals" caught in the act with a warning (mugging, robbery, burglar) and not to prosecute.

And you cannot compare across states. Strict gun laws cannot operate effectively without some way of controlling the flow of weapons, i.e. without a BORDER.

 

[TheTim]

I would vote for something in between 1 and 2, no we don't need tanks, but its nice to own rifles and shotguns

 

[xiac79]

As a member of the military, I believe it should be civians right to be at least as well armed as law enforcement and as close to as well armed as the military. In that case cost becomes the ultimate weapons control. 2 million for an sm2 and 20 million for the ciws. Good luck. Still the 2 amendment was designed to protect you from the government and by extension, me. Seemingly benign governments have turned on its ppl many times in the past. A well armed populous makes such a thing unlikely.
My personal belief is that the government should fear the people and never the other way around.

 

[El Danny]

As a member of the military, I believe it should be civians right to be at least as well armed as law enforcement and as close to as well armed as the military. In that case cost becomes the ultimate weapons control. 2 million for an sm2 and 20 million for the ciws. Good luck. Still the 2 amendment was designed to protect you from the government and by extension, me. Seemingly benign governments have turned on its ppl many times in the past. A well armed populous makes such a thing unlikely.
My personal belief is that the government should fear the people and never the other way around.

The 2nd Amendment is pointless, not matter how many guns you have the military would slaughter you in an uprising.

 

[xiac79]

lets get re

As a member of the military, I believe it should be civians right to be at least as well armed as law enforcement and as close to as well armed as the military. In that case cost becomes the ultimate weapons control. 2 million for an sm2 and 20 million for the ciws. Good luck. Still the 2 amendment was designed to protect you from the government and by extension, me. Seemingly benign governments have turned on its ppl many times in the past. A well armed populous makes such a thing unlikely.
My personal belief is that the government should fear the people and never the other way around.

The 2nd Amendment is pointless, not matter how many guns you have the military would slaughter you in an uprising.

Lets get real here for a second. If there were to be an uprising (in the US) it would be because extremely divided politics. The US military consists of voluntary voting citizens who also have differing politcal views. Your fooling yourself if you think the military would unilaterally support the party in power in the case of an uprising. In such a case private ownership would allow private citizens to join the side of they support.

Furthermore lets also get real and not pretend this is an issue designed because our deeply seeded love of human life and the desire to preserve it. It is just another devisive political issue with no simple answers. If it were simply an issue to protect human life then anti-gun advocates would instead be anti-automobile advocates. I do not know the statistics and percentages for Aussie Country or our British brothers across the pond, but in America cars kill more people in a year than all the combined internal gun violence of the last 50 years (look it up). Why not a heated political debate for stricter control of privatly owned vehicles. Its odd that the one posession specifically mentioned by ammendment is the one that is such a hot topic.

 

[Enslave_All_Elves]

You know, I am an ultra liberal but one area I differ with most on is that I don't care what kind of weapons you keep.

Frankly, outlawing and trying to confiscate weaponry would be worse than just letting it go at this point. A black market in weapons would be catastrophic in the U.S. Criminals use guns typically stolen in thefts or traded for drugs by suburban losers. This way the serial number can be removed and the weapon cannot be traced easily back to the criminal. Cracking down would force the many gun fanatics here to buy their firearms illegally because there's no fucking way they'd quit shooting.

Most of us just like to put a few rounds down range for shits and giggles. I don't give a fuck about hunting, or your delusions about being Charles Bronson if someone is in your house. Here's a tip: Criminals have guns too, at least where I live. Is some junk of yours worth dying for? I submit that it is not. Flee first but if you must fight then fucking end that sonofabitch without mercy.

Best case scenario: I think everyone who wants to shoot should pass a mental examination, and fire arm safety/handling courses. Good luck convincing anyone to do that.

EDIT*

The military would slaughter us in an uprising? Bullshit. Where are the glory boys gonna be without our fucking tax dollars? I'll tell you where: Stuck overseas with no ride home. Out of bullets, facing desertions, and driving over bombs on every road while being pegged by snipers. You also think any serious rebellion wouldn't involve confiscating everything in any National Guard armory? Or the destruction of any infrastructure shared by the military (bridges/power/etc)? how about if/when reprisals threaten their supporters and family? Yeah rebels would take an ass kicking and a half, but don't give the Gubment too much credit. Shitty odds make some people fight harder than ever.

 

[El Danny]

lets get re

As a member of the military, I believe it should be civians right to be at least as well armed as law enforcement and as close to as well armed as the military. In that case cost becomes the ultimate weapons control. 2 million for an sm2 and 20 million for the ciws. Good luck. Still the 2 amendment was designed to protect you from the government and by extension, me. Seemingly benign governments have turned on its ppl many times in the past. A well armed populous makes such a thing unlikely.
My personal belief is that the government should fear the people and never the other way around.

The 2nd Amendment is pointless, not matter how many guns you have the military would slaughter you in an uprising.

Lets get real here for a second. If there were to be an uprising (in the US) it would be because extremely divided politics. The US military consists of voluntary voting citizens who also have differing politcal views. Your fooling yourself if you think the military would unilaterally support the party in power in the case of an uprising. In such a case private ownership would allow private citizens to join the side of they support.

Furthermore lets also get real and not pretend this is an issue designed because our deeply seeded love of human life and the desire to preserve it. It is just another devisive political issue with no simple answers. If it were simply an issue to protect human life then anti-gun advocates would instead be anti-automobile advocates. I do not know the statistics and percentages for Aussie Country or our British brothers across the pond, but in America cars kill more people in a year than all the combined internal gun violence of the last 50 years (look it up). Why not a heated political debate for stricter control of privatly owned vehicles. Its odd that the one posession specifically mentioned by ammendment is the one that is such a hot topic.

Yes the military would side with the government, as we've seen in Syria and Libya they'd probably execute soldiers that spoke out or refused to fire on civilians.

Wrong.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908129.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Cars have a practical use outside of recreation, guns don't. The only function of a gun is put holes in something with lethal force, they are not tools, you can't use them for carpentry or engineering like many other dangerous tools. They are simply there for target practice and cause severe harm on others.

 

[tstilwell]

Ok, here we go. Guns has possessed a mystique in the American culture since its founding. In our early days, they were essential for self-defense and for food hunting. After the founding of our nation, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed as a reaction to Britain's attempt to disarm the colonies and to prevent a strong, overpowering central government from rising and oppressing the American people like the British Crown did. That is all. There is no God-given right to own, possess, or carry a firearm. In the modern day of a centralized federal government and an effective military force, the concept of the masses overwhelming the U.S. Armed Forces are pretty bleek. Despite what the militas and gun enthusists would have you believe, they would not last five minutes against a USMC fireteam.

That is the history and the reality of our situation. To give you a little background where I am coming from, I live in California. California, next to New York, is a state known for harsh and strict gun control legislation. I have a bachelor's degree in justice and a master's degree in domestic security. I have attended a California police academy and am qualified to be a police officer. I also served in the United States Marine Corps and am familar with military-grade hardware as well as domestic firearms. I am the son of a police officer and I have been shooting guns since I was five years old. I go to the range regularly and still out-shoot my comrades who are still active-duty police officers.

After the expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban in 2004, states have the power to legislate within their own jurisdictions on what weapons are allowed to the general public and what weapons are not. In California, the ban remains as a state law. The characteristics of an assault weapon under the AWB are complex and can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon) if you want to know it. However, regardless of whether the AWB remained in effect, military-grade weapons (the type you see in video games) are and always have been illegal with a few exceptions. Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, weapons that are classified as "Type II" (or more commonly referred to as "NFA weapons") are heavily regulated. In order to receive a Type II permit, one undergoes an extensive background investigation conducted by the ATF, a tax of $200 per weapon transfer, and you must maintain an accurate registration with the ATF. In addition, one must often show cause for owning such a weapons and you surrender your Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure. That means that federal officers have the authority to search your home, vehicle, work, and person at any time without cause to verify that you have the appropriate weapons and no additional unregistered weapons are in your control. Type II weapons are any automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, short-barreled rifles, destructive devices, silencers, or "any other weapon" defined as hazardous if concealled. This includes disguised guns such as wallet guns and cain guns.

Those are the laws governing military-grade weaponry.

For my personal and professional opinion, guns have been used as a scapegoat for human behavior since their invention. A gun is a machine, even a tool in my line of work. It is a collection of springs, rails, levers, and machined metal components that possess no more malice than your toaster. Historically, far more people have been killed with knives and blades than any other form of weapons. This may seem like a cheat since blades were invented thousands of years before the invention and perfection of the firearm, but homicides continue to be committed by stabbing, vehicles, blunt-force trauma, and stragglation (to name a few). Humans are wired strangely. It is foolish to believe that if guns were banned that the homicide rate would decrease. The desire is not to use a gun. The desire is to kill your target. If you don't have a gun, you are going to grab a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a large rock, or just push the person down the stairs. Homicide and murder are with us for the duration of the species and any allusion to the contrary is false. If someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way to make it happen unless they are caught or the other person kills them.

Having said that, there is little to no reason why the average person needs anything stronger than what is available. I have handled and used many type of firearms in my life: pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, heavy machine guns, grenande launchers, distance rifles, etc etc. There is no situation that I can think that would reasonably happen where I would need anything more powerful than a civilian-available pistol. I currently own one firearm. I purchased it as a civilian. It is a 9mm pistol and I have four standard capacity magazines capable of holding ten rounds each. With my training and experience, I can handle a firearm as well as anyone, short of a trick shooter. That means, should my home be invaded, I have the ready capability to bring forty rounds to bear on my threat. If I need more than that, the chances of me surviving the encounter in any case is unlikely. In reality, I shouldn't need more than ten rounds to handle a single or even a double threat. Even if the worse happens, there are plenty of other objects to use as weapons (i.e. the afore mentioned toaster). To allow the type of hardware that the military uses to the general public, who do not possess the training, indoctrination, or oversight that our soldiers do is extremely irresponsibile.

As an aside, I wanted to address guns in the household for a moment. Someone mentioned above that they do not have children do that was not an issue to his argument. It is tradgic when a child is killed by an accidental discharge but I would also postulate that it is just as tradgic when they drown in a pool or are hit by a car. Parents or gun owners have been found criminally and civily liable for a child getting access to a gun and I am not here to argue the legality. What I want to propose is this: if you have a gun and a child, teach them about the gun. To prohibit something and hide it is to spark a child's natural curosity. There is no gun safety tool or item that is childproof. Modern children are smart. They are sophisticated. They can find keys, break codes, and find hiding places. If the kid is old enough to pull the trigger than they are old enough to foil a gun safety system. Knowledge is safety.

As I mentioned above, I am the son of a police officer. My dad joined the department before my older brother and I were born. Guns were in the house long before children were. My father had his duty weapon along with several other specialized pistols (i.e. smaller weapons for painclothes duty). Of course, my dad told us often that guns were not toys that that only he or our mother could touch them, yada yada yada. Standard parent speech. But what my dad did that was genius was that he taught my brother and I how to handle a gun. He showed us how, if we came across a weapon, how we could render the weapon safe without hurting ourselves or others. He taught us to respect and fear the power of the gun. Did I ever play with my dad's guns when he wasn't looking? You bet your ass I did! I was a kid in the glow of hero-worship of my dad and the gun was a powerful symbol of a job that made him cool and powerful. In truth, I looked at his badge with the same reverance. BUT...every time I touched a gun, I immediately checked if it was loaded and if it was loaded, I unloaded it. To this day, I still check every weapon I pick up to see if it is loaded, even if I just watched someone unload it in front of me. Was I a dumb kid? Yeah. Are some people going to be appauled by my dad's keeping of guns where I could get them? Yeah, probably. But think of this: I lived in that house until I was 18 years old. In 25 years of handling guns, I have NEVER had an accidental discharge. Even as a 5-6-7 year old, I knew that a gun was dangerous and I knew what was necessary to protect myself and those around me. THAT was more powerful than any lock, rod, or combination safe available on the market. An unloaded gun cannot kill.

Teach your kids. Show them what they need to know to make the weapons safe for handling. Do not hide the gun or make it a mystery.

 

[rigabear]

Lets get real here for a second. If there were to be an uprising (in the US) it would be because extremely divided politics. The US military consists of voluntary voting citizens who also have differing politcal views. Your fooling yourself if you think the military would unilaterally support the party in power in the case of an uprising. In such a case private ownership would allow private citizens to join the side of they support.

If you are thinking about divided politics where citizens 'choose sides', then you are thinking of a civil war. Such a scenario you would have various tranches of government that would arm their respective supporters so the ownership of private firearms would be somewhat irrelevant.
.

Frankly, outlawing and trying to confiscate weaponry would be worse than just letting it go at this point. A black market in weapons would be catastrophic in the U.S. Criminals use guns typically stolen in thefts or traded for drugs by suburban losers. This way the serial number can be removed and the weapon cannot be traced easily back to the criminal. Cracking down would force the many gun fanatics here to buy their firearms illegally because there's no fucking way they'd quit shooting.

I agree, but that doesn't mean they don't do more harm than good.
.

The military would slaughter us in an uprising? Bullshit. Where are the glory boys gonna be without our fucking tax dollars? I'll tell you where: Stuck overseas with no ride home. Out of bullets, facing desertions, and driving over bombs on every road while being pegged by snipers. You also think any serious rebellion wouldn't involve confiscating everything in any National Guard armory? Or the destruction of any infrastructure shared by the military (bridges/power/etc)? how about if/when reprisals threaten their supporters and family? Yeah rebels would take an ass kicking and a half, but don't give the Gubment too much credit. Shitty odds make some people fight harder than ever.

The government and the military are not a foreign occupying force, they are other Americans.

Surely the orders to fire on non-violent protesters and strikers would quicker erode the support of the soldiers? Also surely support is likely to be wider for non-violent resistance? 300million angry people do not need weapons.

But surely if the soldiers are being shot at, bombed and so on, they are less likely to question their orders? And to resort to increasingly violent means to get what they want?
Furthermore, armed resistance (and the correspondingly violent reprisals) will lead people to keep their heads down. And you highlight destroying infrastructure, surely that would also erode support?

 

[2733]

I'm a big fan of the idea of mandatory education for firearms, I think it is important that those who chose to use and own guns know what they are doing. On the self defense level I've always found my hands more useful, I always have those.

 

[Zaverexus]

I say no guns. I don't trust the average person to know when it would be necessary, if there is such a time; and even intelligent people could make mistakes. They are much more potential trouble than they are potential solutions.
I would say law enforcement should have firearms, but if so they should be counted and checked back into a secure armory at the end of a shift; and I think this would just increase the risk of someone breaking into police stations for firearms with everyone defenseless. It's probably safer to have everyone on equal footing. Give the cops stunguns if you think they need them, whatever.

Considering you live in America, you should know that many "average-looking" people walking the streets probably do carry a concealed gun... Also, so many potential problems can be resolved with firearms.

Law enforcement already carry guns on themselves, they even store shotguns in the trunk of their patrol cars... As a matter of fact, law enforcement are issued even stronger, often automatic weaponry when the shit hits the fan (S.W.A.T.). Oh yes, one more things, breaking into the police station where a bunch of well trained and well armed officers who have authority to shoot you dead if you attempt robbery and violence to get to their armory is a really stupid idea. Even breaking into a gunshop isn't that smart, seeing that many gunshop owners are packing as well.

I am fully aware that many people carry guns, I am also aware that many people are total f*cking idiots, and therefor I don't think they should be carrying guns.
Also, to reiterate: people are idiots, and therefor whether or not it is a good idea to break into a police armory, there are those who have tried and will try in the future. This not only puts stress on police to take proper security measures and have guards (who could be out policing), but also increases the chances that at least one of several attempts will succeed, and that's all it takes for a messed up person to take advantage of the weapons he has gained.
And as far as my knowledge of guns extends, they only have one function: to end a person's life. They are not tools, they do not improve your quality of life or ease daily work or contribute anything to society other than the ability to end the life of another human being; which should not be a power placed in the hands of the public, if it should even be given to anyone at all.

 

[The Long Road]

Free men have guns, slaves do not.

There has not been a single tyrant in history who has not disarmed his populace. Considering the number of gun owners in the United States alone, that poses a particularly thorny problem for any would-be revolutionaries trying to stage a coup d'etat.

Now, to address the folks saying "the military would crush armed civilians", I present a few numbers. The US military has about 2 million people in it, with about 750,000 in the Air Force and Navy, which have very limited use against a popular, land-based uprising. The Army has about 200,000 infantrymen (counting reserves), and the Marine Corps has about 100,000 members, all of whom can be infantrymen in a pinch. The armed civilian populace, however, is 90 MILLION strong. Think the Red Army times fourteen or so. Each infantryman is outnumbered over three hundred to one. Even with air and armor support, a force of less than a half million cannot defeat a force one hundred and eighty times larger that itself. All that has to happen is one marksman gets lucky and BAM - President's dead. That's a good way to stem the tide against the people.

This isn't Xerxes against the Spartans at the Hot Gates. These are people fighting on even terrain over a huge area. Numbers will win, because no matter what, the kill ratio will not be 300-to-1. Even the SEALs in Vietnam maxed out at 200-to-1.

 

[Asehujiko]

Hey I need a way to make sure that if the king of england decides come over and get up in my grill I can do something about it

Good thing then that "england" stopped existing as a sovereign nation some hundred years ago and Britain doesn't have a king.

Free men have guns, slaves do not.

There has not been a single tyrant in history who has not disarmed his populace. Considering the number of gun owners in the United States alone, that poses a particularly thorny problem for any would-be revolutionaries trying to stage a coup d'etat.

Now, to address the folks saying "the military would crush armed civilians", I present a few numbers. The US military has about 2 million people in it, with about 750,000 in the Air Force and Navy, which have very limited use against a popular, land-based uprising. The Army has about 200,000 infantrymen (counting reserves), and the Marine Corps has about 100,000 members, all of whom can be infantrymen in a pinch. The armed civilian populace, however, is 90 MILLION strong. Think the Red Army times fourteen or so. Each infantryman is outnumbered over three hundred to one. Even with air and armor support, a force of less than a half million cannot defeat a force one hundred and eighty times larger that itself. All that has to happen is one marksman gets lucky and BAM - President's dead. That's a good way to stem the tide against the people.

This isn't Xerxes against the Spartans at the Hot Gates. These are people fighting on even terrain over a huge area. Numbers will win, because no matter what, the kill ratio will not be 300-to-1. Even the SEALs in Vietnam maxed out at 200-to-1.

Explain gun free (and dictator free) Europe. And gun filled (and up to recently dictator filled) Iraq. And gun filled (still dictator filled) Yemen.

"guns against dictators" is a load of horsecock because you aren't ever going to mobilize even a % of that population against an enemy that they worship, has media dominance a carefully cultivated reputation. There's also this little thing called "logistics" that won more wars then all other factors combined, something a reactionary mob is going to be sorely lacking.

 

[jdun]

I demand the right to have a quad .50 anti aircraft battery on my roof, with stingers on a secondary trigger

You can if you have the money and if the local zoning allows it. Why .50 cal? Those rounds are small for anti-aircraft. You want at least 20mm rounds.

 

[jdun]

Hey I need a way to make sure that if the king of england decides come over and get up in my grill I can do something about it

Good thing then that "england" stopped existing as a sovereign nation some hundred years ago and Britain doesn't have a king.

Free men have guns, slaves do not.

There has not been a single tyrant in history who has not disarmed his populace. Considering the number of gun owners in the United States alone, that poses a particularly thorny problem for any would-be revolutionaries trying to stage a coup d'etat.

Now, to address the folks saying "the military would crush armed civilians", I present a few numbers. The US military has about 2 million people in it, with about 750,000 in the Air Force and Navy, which have very limited use against a popular, land-based uprising. The Army has about 200,000 infantrymen (counting reserves), and the Marine Corps has about 100,000 members, all of whom can be infantrymen in a pinch. The armed civilian populace, however, is 90 MILLION strong. Think the Red Army times fourteen or so. Each infantryman is outnumbered over three hundred to one. Even with air and armor support, a force of less than a half million cannot defeat a force one hundred and eighty times larger that itself. All that has to happen is one marksman gets lucky and BAM - President's dead. That's a good way to stem the tide against the people.

This isn't Xerxes against the Spartans at the Hot Gates. These are people fighting on even terrain over a huge area. Numbers will win, because no matter what, the kill ratio will not be 300-to-1. Even the SEALs in Vietnam maxed out at 200-to-1.

Explain gun free (and dictator free) Europe. And gun filled (and up to recently dictator filled) Iraq. And gun filled (still dictator filled) Yemen.

"guns against dictators" is a load of horsecock because you aren't ever going to mobilize even a % of that population against an enemy that they worship, has media dominance a carefully cultivated reputation. There's also this little thing called "logistics" that won more wars then all other factors combined, something a reactionary mob is going to be sorely lacking.

Yemen is controled by tribal leaders. Yemen dictator has as much power and control as mayor of a small village. There is no real central government in Yeman. It's all tribal and control by tribes with lots of guns. Recently the tribal leaders got tried of him talking. Got together and went to the capital with lots of guns. The rest is history.