The most insane anti-gun op-ed of all time

[MohawkSlim]

I like asking these dudes why they trust a government with these items but not themselves.

"Uh.... who makes up the government?"

 

[oldpink]

Nuking Atlanta?
It sounds likely that this mental giant of a letter writer is engaging in a little psychological projection of how he hopes​ it would go were the government to turn rogue.

 

[TopDog]

Greg Littell: The idea of ?armed rebellion? in the U.S. is ludicrous | TheUnion.com

"In the Revolutionary War, Americans were essentially armed similarly to the British; they both had muskets, swords, and cannons. Now, the arms disparity between a “tyrannical government” and citizens is so huge that the idea of “armed rebellion” is ludicrous.

Assuming the military was part of the tyranny (which it would have to be for tyranny to have any meaning), any rebelling national band of “patriots” would be told something like, “you either lay down your arms or the entire city of Dallas, Texas will disappear. You have one hour. If you continue, the next city to disappear will be Atlanta, Georgia.”

Yes, he's seriously talking about nuking American cities to end an armed insurrection.

I wouldn't put anything past the realm of what the insane democrats are willing to do to achieve their goal of absolute control.

 

[TopDog]

Nuking Atlanta?
It sounds likely that this mental giant of a letter writer is engaging in a little psychological projection of how he hopes​ it would go were the government to turn rogue.

I think this nut job represents a very large portion of liberals.

 

[Lowe0]

Pretty much all of this.

You missed where I said "willing to use scorched earth tactics.". Bringing up Vietnam and Afghanistan (two wars where we weren't willing to use nukes) isn't a very good comparison.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You missed where I said "willing to use scorched earth tactics.". Bringing up Vietnam and Afghanistan (two wars where we weren't willing to use nukes) isn't a very good comparison.

Really a non-sequitor to a silly, hyperbolic OP-ed. Since WWII, other than a few calls on internet forums to turn places into glass, where have you heard anybody in the US contemplate using nuclear weapons? On their on populous? You really think a bunch of liberals, that love the environment more than their fellow professors and students will call for nuking entire portions of the country?

 

[jamil]

You missed where I said "willing to use scorched earth tactics.". Bringing up Vietnam and Afghanistan (two wars where we weren't willing to use nukes) isn't a very good comparison.

Regardless of the power of government forces used against them, armed citizens first must be disarmed to be conquered. Disarmed citizens are conquered already.

Also, perhaps a government that would rather destroy itself than let people be free is a reality in your world. I tend to think tyrannical governments exercise their control for more pragmatic reasons.

 

[Birds Away]

Leftists should spend a little more time in college studying history and less time on women's studies.

 

[ZenMaster]

armed citizens first must be disarmed to be conquered. Disarmed citizens are conquered already.

One can use the word conquered if so desired. I use the word sold. But whatever words are used, they've got us. No need to disarm us. They're raking in a cool $3.5 trillion each year.



Seems like a good place for one of those Charlie Sheen memes.

 

[chipbennett]

Greg Littell: The idea of ?armed rebellion? in the U.S. is ludicrous | TheUnion.com

"In the Revolutionary War, Americans were essentially armed similarly to the British; they both had muskets, swords, and cannons. Now, the arms disparity between a “tyrannical government” and citizens is so huge that the idea of “armed rebellion” is ludicrous.

Assuming the military was part of the tyranny (which it would have to be for tyranny to have any meaning), any rebelling national band of “patriots” would be told something like, “you either lay down your arms or the entire city of Dallas, Texas will disappear. You have one hour. If you continue, the next city to disappear will be Atlanta, Georgia.”

Yes, he's seriously talking about nuking American cities to end an armed insurrection.

So, perhaps unknowingly, he is actually making the argument for why the military should not be better-armed than the civilian populace - and why the second amendment is intended to ensure just that sort of equality of arms.

 

[Lowe0]

Really a non-sequitor to a silly, hyperbolic OP-ed. Since WWII, other than a few calls on internet forums to turn places into glass, where have you heard anybody in the US contemplate using nuclear weapons? On their on populous? You really think a bunch of liberals, that love the environment more than their fellow professors and students will call for nuking entire portions of the country?

Who says it'll be liberals in charge? Power corrupts any and all.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Who says it'll be liberals in charge? Power corrupts any and all.

You're right. It's more likely to be the muslims.

 

[jamil]

One can use the word conquered if so desired. I use the word sold. But whatever words are used, they've got us. No need to disarm us. They're raking in a cool $3.5 trillion each year.



Seems like a good place for one of those Charlie Sheen memes.

To get what you want out of the conversation you must change the word to something that means what I didn't intend.

 

[ZenMaster]

To get what you want out of the conversation you must change the word to something that means what I didn't intend.

You're not a good direct trolling target. But indirectly trolling others by responding to your posts - even if I call it first - maybe...

Because the government has us right where they want us, they'll never try to "attack" us or disarm us as a whole. Therefore, nobody even needs guns! Its absurd to think we need guns to defend ourselves from our own government - especially when they're pulling in so much tax money. Why would they ever ruin such a good thing? Its just plain paranoid to think we'd have to defend against our own government.

 

[chipbennett]

You're not a good direct trolling target. But indirectly trolling others by responding to your posts - even if I call it first - maybe...

Because the government has us right where they want us, they'll never try to "attack" us or disarm us as a whole. Therefore, nobody even needs guns! Its absurd to think we need guns to defend ourselves from our own government - especially when they're pulling in so much tax money. Why would they ever ruin such a good thing? Its just plain paranoid to think we'd have to defend against our own government.

Because they're Socialists (or Socialist-lite statists). When you're a Socialist, you destroy you own (disarmed) people by the hundreds of millions. It's what you do.

So we keep ourselves armed.

 

[oldpink]

You're not a good direct trolling target. But indirectly trolling others by responding to your posts - even if I call it first - maybe...

Because the government has us right where they want us, they'll never try to "attack" us or disarm us as a whole. Therefore, nobody even needs guns! Its absurd to think we need guns to defend ourselves from our own government - especially when they're pulling in so much tax money. Why would they ever ruin such a good thing? Its just plain paranoid to think we'd have to defend against our own government.

That sort of convoluted logic has been expressed throughout history.
There are scores of nations who found such logic was incorrect.

 

[oldpink]

Who says it'll be liberals in charge? Power corrupts any and all.

But it's not the conservatives doing their level best to eviscerate the Second Amendment and sneak in every possible way they can to restrict, ban, register, or confiscate guns, now is it?
So much for your moral equivalence.

 

[jamil]

You're not a good direct trolling target. But indirectly trolling others by responding to your posts - even if I call it first - maybe...

Because the government has us right where they want us, they'll never try to "attack" us or disarm us as a whole. Therefore, nobody even needs guns! Its absurd to think we need guns to defend ourselves from our own government - especially when they're pulling in so much tax money. Why would they ever ruin such a good thing? Its just plain paranoid to think we'd have to defend against our own government.

It's more complicated than that. I'd rather have an armed society than not. I think to pass the concept off as "plain paranoia" is youthful naivety.

 

[jbombelli]

You missed where I said "willing to use scorched earth tactics.". Bringing up Vietnam and Afghanistan (two wars where we weren't willing to use nukes) isn't a very good comparison.

Do you really think our government would start nuking our own cities? Do you really think our military would go along with that? Or law enforcement?

 

[Lowe0]

But it's not the conservatives doing their level best to eviscerate the Second Amendment and sneak in every possible way they can to restrict, ban, register, or confiscate guns, now is it?
So much for your moral equivalence.

A handful of liberals, sure, and they don't seem to be very effective at it. I seriously doubt that the government is going to be dropping by for my guns anytime soon, or ever.