Thread: Why all the chest beating?

I will start out by saying, yes I have been there, I was have done it myself. When I was 16 years old. I would post about the true intent of the 2nd Amendment and spout off comments akin to "they can have my gun from my cold dead hands".

However, I do not believe I actually believed it. I see it here, gun boards...... or any sort of board with a substantial number of gun owners. Gun owners saying that they will shoot anyone who takes their guns.

I have sense to roll my eyes at such comments for several reasons:

1. You are not actually going to do it. You are not going to rebel. You are not going to shoot your wife's best friends police husband. Not a single officer was shot during the Katrina gun confiscation, a confiscation that fit the very premise of the gun rights advocates idea of an oppressive gun confiscation. They went door to door, and people gladly handed them over. No one even rebelled when their firearms were being physically
held in damagingly humid storage facilities.

2. Any talk of revolution, oppression, some sort of oppressive government take over is far fetched and makes us all look bad. I certainly do not own AR-15's for fighting tanks, I own them for legitimate, legal uses.

3. Any talk of such a revolution being successful is far fetched. The worst case scenario is the entire government turning on its people, your little sporting rifle would be up against vastly superior firepower. Some rag tag groups of military joining you are unlikely.

The US eventually neutered the rebellions in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the while maintaining minimal causalities. To the hundreds of thousands of citizens and supposed terrorists killed, the US lost what? 10,000? Those are not good odds. Very good possibility that you, your family, and rebelling friends would be killed before inflicting substantial damage to the enemy. Why not rebel now? At this moment? I think I know the reason, because there is no benefit in doing so.

4. Ok, so you believe that the government is out to ban guns? ****Then stop talking about a revolution on the internet****. This is so painfully obvious is amusing. Want to rebel? Great for you. Want to be one the first to be arrested in your oppressive government scenario? Then post your plans on a public forum. Those who speak of revolution speak all manly behind their computer screen, and thats the depth of it.

So in conclusion, just stop. You make us all look bad for nothing more than a Red Dawn fantasy.

I don't mean to flame, its just that those arguments irk me beyond words.

37 views and no reply, interesting.

37 views and no reply, interesting.

I think the reason why there are 37 views are no replies is merely because your message does not resonate. However, I will be nice, take the bait, and post a reply.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Gun owners saying that they will shoot anyone who takes their guns.

I have sense to roll my eyes at such comments for several reasons:

1. You are not actually going to do it. You are not going to rebel. You are not going to shoot your wife's best friends police husband. Not a single officer was shot during the Katrina gun confiscation, a confiscation that fit the very premise of the gun rights advocates idea of an oppressive gun confiscation. They went door to door, and people gladly handed them over. No one even rebelled when their firearms were being physically
held in damagingly humid storage facilities.

One never knows what he/she is capable of when faced with a dire circumstance (such as an Orwellian nightmare where a fascist police force breaks down my door in an attempt to confiscate/steal legally purchased guns). I would like to believe that if such an Orwellian apocalypse did take place, that I would be enough of a man and protect myself and my family. And yes, if my wife's best friend's police husband was one of those hypothetical Gestapo members breaking down my door, then my poor wife's best friend would be left a widow.

Not a single officer in Katrina was shot because the people were looking for shelter. Thus, they had even more pressing matters to concern themselves with (i.e. getting themselves and their family members to higher ground), than saving their firearms from illegal confiscation. Also, people did not "gladly hand them over", as you stated, inasmuch as I recall many Youtube videos showing elderly couples arguing with police on why they had to hand over their firearms. Also, I'm sure many people hid their firearms from police without incident.

And just because those in Katrina did not fight back does not mean that all illegal confiscation went unopposed. There were many uprisings in Nazi Germany, and Gestapo members were indeed shot and killed.

2. Any talk of revolution, oppression, some sort of oppressive government take over is far fetched and makes us all look bad. I certainly do not own AR-15's for fighting tanks, I own them for legitimate, legal uses.

Yes. Such an oppessive government takeover is indeed far fetched (which is why most gun owners don't own guns to protect against such a thing). However, just because something is far-fetched does not exclude it from the realm of possibilities: European Jews did not think that they would be exterminated in the 1930s and 1940s, yet MULTIPLE countries were involved in such genocide.

3. Any talk of such a revolution being successful is far fetched. The worst case scenario is the entire government turning on its people, your little sporting rifle would be up against vastly superior firepower. Some rag tag groups of military joining you are unlikely.

Right. That's why the Vietcong defeated the greatest military power in the world, despite the fact they there were also a "rag tag" force using inferior weapons. That's why the Taliban and other Afghan "freedom fighter" groups remain operational to this very day despite decades of Soviet forces (and now American forces) to wipe them out. That's why the American colonies, with their "rag tag" forces defeated the British.

You seem to ignore history and underestimate a "rag tag" population of 90 million American gun owners.

4. Ok, so you believe that the government is out to ban guns? ****Then stop talking about a revolution on the internet****. This is so painfully obvious is amusing. Want to rebel? Great for you. Want to be one the first to be arrested in your oppressive government scenario? Then post your plans on a public forum. Those who speak of revolution speak all manly behind their computer screen, and thats the depth of it.

Agreed. This is stupid, but who on this forum is really doing this? From what I have read, most pro-gunners are given well-thought-out logical arguments to support their positions.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

1. You are not actually going to do it. You are not going to rebel. You are not going to shoot your wife's best friends police husband. Not a single officer was shot during the Katrina gun confiscation, a confiscation that fit the very premise of the gun rights advocates idea of an oppressive gun confiscation. They went door to door, and people gladly handed them over. No one even rebelled when their firearms were being physically held in damagingly humid storage facilities.

It depends. Gun confiscation in "exigent" circumstances by local and state authorities might precipitate only passive resistance, but not armed rebellion, and this would make sense, as people are generally less wary of their local and state governments than they are the central government in Washington, which brings me to my counterpoint: If there were a mass confiscation of weapons by the Federal government, you can bet your ass I'd rebel, and so would millions of others.

2. Any talk of revolution, oppression, some sort of oppressive government take over is far fetched and makes us all look bad. I certainly do not own AR-15's for fighting tanks, I own them for legitimate, legal uses.

I don't even own a firearm, period. However, when I do purchase one (or two), it will be for several reasons, one of them being a safeguard against tyranny. There is absolutely no shame in saying this, as any rational human should remain constantly jealous of their liberty and wary of centralized power.

3. Any talk of such a revolution being successful is far fetched. The worst case scenario is the entire government turning on its people, your little sporting rifle would be up against vastly superior firepower. Some rag tag groups of military joining you are unlikely.

First of all, you're assuming that our military would even cooperate with the politicians. As a veteran, I find it very unlikely that a substantial portion of our combat elements would even partake in such a thing. But let's assume they did, and that the full brunt of the US's military force was brought to bear on the rebels, the military would still have to contend with a sizable force (hundreds of thousands, if not a few million), dispersed across a giant landmass with immense geographic complexity. Conducting urban warfare in a US city would be an absolute nightmare for our military. I can envision dozens of scenarios in which the US military would encounter heavy casualties and major disruptions to their supply chains and communications networks. Bottom line: Asymmetric warfare can be used to good effect to neutralize a foe's technological and numerical superiority.

Most importantly, the odds of success aren't that important when you're talking about fighting tyranny. It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

The US eventually neutered the rebellions in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the while maintaining minimal causalities. To the hundreds of thousands of citizens and supposed terrorists killed, the US lost what? 10,000? Those are not good odds. Very good possibility that you, your family, and rebelling friends would be killed before inflicting substantial damage to the enemy. Why not rebel now? At this moment? I think I know the reason, because there is no benefit in doing so.

The Afghan insurgency is still going strong, last time I checked. Do I think we can beat them? Yes, but not in a strictly military sense; this was true of the Iraqi insurgency as well; it was a combination of military and political victories that lead to the quelling of the insurgencies in Iraq; if they wanted to, they could easily flare up again.

More importantly, US civilians would be a harder nut to crack, especially when you consider how many combat veterans are already part of the population. It would only take a few thousand of them dispersed among the insurgency to really cause some damage.

4. Ok, so you believe that the government is out to ban guns? ****Then stop talking about a revolution on the internet****. This is so painfully obvious is amusing. Want to rebel? Great for you. Want to be one the first to be arrested in your oppressive government scenario? Then post your plans on a public forum. Those who speak of revolution speak all manly behind their computer screen, and thats the depth of it.

So in conclusion, just stop. You make us all look bad for nothing more than a Red Dawn fantasy.

I don't mean to flame, its just that those arguments irk me beyond words.

I don't want to rebel. I'm just willing to rebel in the event that our central government becomes overtly tyrannical.

Originally Posted by Ethereal

It depends. Gun confiscation in "exigent" circumstances by local and state authorities might precipitate only passive resistance, but not armed rebellion, and this would make sense, as people are generally less wary of their local and state governments than they are the central government in Washington, which brings me to my counterpoint: If there were a mass confiscation of weapons by the Federal government, you can bet your ass I'd rebel, and so would millions of others.

This makes absolutely no sense. Gun confiscation is gun confiscation. It makes no difference whether it is the local police kicking down your door and tackling you to the floor, or feds. doing the same.

I don't even own a firearm, period. However, when I do purchase one (or two), it will be for several reasons, one of them being a safeguard against tyranny. There is absolutely no shame in saying this, as any rational human should remain constantly jealous of their liberty and wary of centralized power.

If you wait until "tyranny", it will be too late. You will need far more than just a firearm too.

First of all, you're assuming that our military would even cooperate with the politicians. As a veteran, I find it very unlikely that a substantial portion of our combat elements would even partake in such a thing. But let's assume they did, and that the full brunt of the US's military force was brought to bear on the rebels, the military would still have to contend with a sizable force (hundreds of thousands, if not a few million), dispersed across a giant landmass with immense geographic complexity. Conducting urban warfare in a US city would be an absolute nightmare for our military. I can envision dozens of scenarios in which the US military would encounter heavy casualties and major disruptions to their supply chains and communications networks. Bottom line: Asymmetric warfare can be used to good effect to neutralize a foe's technological and numerical superiority.

Most importantly, the odds of success aren't that important when you're talking about fighting tyranny. It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

You make quite the assumption which is not based on historical fact. Whether it be Nazi forces or Soviet forces, or Chinese forces, or North Korean, how many actually separated from the government and fought against it? I am assuming none.

The Afghan insurgency is still going strong, last time I checked. Do I think we can beat them? Yes, but not in a strictly military sense; this was true of the Iraqi insurgency as well; it was a combination of military and political victories that lead to the quelling of the insurgencies in Iraq; if they wanted to, they could easily flare up again.

More importantly, US civilians would be a harder nut to crack, especially when you consider how many combat veterans are already part of the population. It would only take a few thousand of them dispersed among the insurgency to really cause some damage.

I don't want to rebel. I'm just willing to rebel in the event that our central government becomes overtly tyrannical.

The Afghans have military veterans as well. You moot is moot, the loss of human life on the American side is very small, in the thousands, the loss of life on the other side is in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Which is the reason why the insurgency has largely diminished.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

This makes absolutely no sense. Gun confiscation is gun confiscation. It makes no difference whether it is the local police kicking down your door and tackling you to the floor, or feds. doing the same.

It makes perfect sense if you bother to think about it. Gun confiscation in circumstances such as Katrina are geographically isolated and temporal. Federal gun confiscation is all-out war on the American people. You can't move to another town or to another state if you don't like it. People are being backed into a corner.

If you wait until "tyranny", it will be too late. You will need far more than just a firearm too.

You obviously know nothing about asymmetric warfare. It's never too late, and a simple rifle can do lots of damage in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

You make quite the assumption which is not based on historical fact. Whether it be Nazi forces or Soviet forces, or Chinese forces, or North Korean, how many actually separated from the government and fought against it? I am assuming none.

If you cannot see the difference between the US and Nazi Germany, then I guess there's nothing else to discuss.

The Afghans have military veterans as well.

And how many of them were trained by the US military?

You moot is moot, the loss of human life on the American side is very small, in the thousands, the loss of life on the other side is in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Which is the reason why the insurgency has largely diminished.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Take it from someone who was actually there. It was military and political. The insurgency was quelled because we conducted sensitive political operations concurrently with the military campaigns. Al-Sadr's militia just issued a warning that if US forces don't leave within a certain time-frame, they'll start attacking again, and that is only the Shiite Muslims; the Sunni Muslims also have a latent insurgent force. And the Afghan insurgency IS STILL GOING ON.

I'll take the bait.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

I have sense to roll my eyes at such comments for several reasons:

dont sell out.

1. You are not actually going to do it. You are not going to rebel. You are not going to shoot your wife's best friends police husband. Not a single officer was shot during the Katrina gun confiscation, a confiscation that fit the very premise of the gun rights advocates idea of an oppressive gun confiscation. They went door to door, and people gladly handed them over. No one even rebelled when their firearms were being physically
held in damagingly humid storage facilities.

that's why I have some buried in air tight containers, along with a few thousand rounds, try and find them.

2. Any talk of revolution, oppression, some sort of oppressive government take over is far fetched and makes us all look bad. I certainly do not own AR-15's for fighting tanks, I own them for legitimate, legal uses.

revolution is a legal use if you are an American.

3. Any talk of such a revolution being successful is far fetched. The worst case scenario is the entire government turning on its people, your little sporting rifle would be up against vastly superior firepower. Some rag tag groups of military joining you are unlikely.

tell that to the Afghans, or the Vietcong

The US eventually neutered the rebellions in Iraq and Afghanistan, all the while maintaining minimal causalities. To the hundreds of thousands of citizens and supposed terrorists killed, the US lost what? 10,000? Those are not good odds. Very good possibility that you, your family, and rebelling friends would be killed before inflicting substantial damage to the enemy. Why not rebel now? At this moment? I think I know the reason, because there is no benefit in doing so.

yeah because they know who we are and see us coming? because we walk in uniform and in formation? I think you assume to much, and generalize to much. I am not confident all the military would "follow orders" and kill their own friends and family. Gen. Lee isn't the only Westpoint life long career soldier who would refuse to fight his own people, even when asked by senior command to lead the entire army.

So in conclusion, just stop. You make us all look bad for nothing more than a Red Dawn fantasy.

I don't mean to flame, its just that those arguments irk me beyond words.

sorry we value the 1st as much as the 2nd in these parts.

I'd suggest you not come to this forum if you are so upset by other people's free speech.

Originally Posted by Ethereal

It makes perfect sense if you bother to think about it. Gun confiscation in circumstances such as Katrina are geographically isolated and temporal. Federal gun confiscation is all-out war on the American people. You can't move to another town or to another state if you don't like it. People are being backed into a corner.

Gun confiscation is gun confiscation. A government official knocks on your door, they will force their way in should you refuse, and they will tackle you to the ground to take your gun. The difference between local of federal gun confiscation is irrelevant.

You obviously know nothing about asymmetric warfare. It's never too late, and a simple rifle can do lots of damage in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Missiles do as well.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZiwBditPwk"]Guided Missile Aproach Terrorist Bastards in a Hotel - YouTube[/ame]

If you cannot see the difference between the US and Nazi Germany, then I guess there's nothing else to discuss.

Then how about you point out the difference between the democratically government that would physically prevent a military from exterminating a group of civilians.

[quote]And how many of them were trained by the US military?[/quote
Relevance?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Take it from someone who was actually there. It was military and political. The insurgency was quelled because we conducted sensitive political operations concurrently with the military campaigns. Al-Sadr's militia just issued a warning that if US forces don't leave within a certain time-frame, they'll start attacking again, and that is only the Shiite Muslims; the Sunni Muslims also have a latent insurgent force. And the Afghan insurgency IS STILL GOING ON.

You made my point, a military victory is still possible. I noticed how you ignored the lop sided causalities.

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

I'll take the bait.
dont sell out.

that's why I have some buried in air tight containers, along with a few thousand rounds, try and find them.

I quite honestly don't care. Funny you posted it on an open forum.

revolution is a legal use if you are an American.

Legality is determined by government, in most cases, over throwing a government is typically illegal.

tell that to the Afghans, or the Vietcong

Who had money and weapons being funneled in my military superpowers. Not a good example.

yeah because they know who we are and see us coming? because we walk in uniform and in formation? I think you assume to much, and generalize to much. I am not confident all the military would "follow orders" and kill their own friends and family. Gen. Lee isn't the only Westpoint life long career soldier who would refuse to fight his own people, even when asked by senior command to lead the entire army.

You can make that assumption, however it is far fetched. They are far more examples of soldiers following orders to exterminate a population rather than refuse. You are using wishful thinking.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SmQk2jClOU.../NaziSquad.GIF

sorry we value the 1st as much as the 2nd in these parts.

I'd suggest you not come to this forum if you are so upset by other people's free speech.

No reason to stop participating in the forum, the lack of logic simply enhances the belief in my own.

[quote=Wolverine;4506418]I quite honestly don't care. Funny you posted it on an open forum.
[quote]

why? I didn't say where they are, I'm ready.

Legality is determined by government, in most cases, over throwing a government is typically illegal.

only if you lose the war.

Who had money and weapons being funneled in my military superpowers. Not a good example.

who are your military superpowers? a great example.

You can make that assumption, however it is far fetched. They are far more examples of soldiers following orders to exterminate a population rather than refuse. You are using wishful thinking.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SmQk2jClOU.../NaziSquad.GIF

Wow a grainy black and white picture of guys shooting guns. Great evidence you got there[sarcasm]. Lulz.

why the change to genocide, we are talking about a revolutionary war? I think it’s hilarious you mention logic, and then step off topic so fast. If your logic is so good, then why the side step to Godwin on the 1st reply?

the lack of logic simply enhances the belief in my own.

I couldn’t agree more, you have strengthened my belief for certain.

Godwin so fast, poor form wolverine. Your kung fu is no good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


LFMAO that was easy!