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

[Lowe0]

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?

No, I don't. I just don't agree with the fantasy of fighting off a nuclear power with nothing more than my AR and a can-do attitude.

 

[oldpink]

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.

If that belief is what it takes to keep you pulling the lever for the (D)s, then that's what it takes.

 

[ZenMaster]

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.

Oh, you missed it...nevermind.

I honestly dont believe threats that require the use of firearms will come from the government. Far more likely would be threats from violent individuals or small groups. As long as we color within the lines, they're going to let us do whatever we want. Their power, control, and wealth are all secured. We are not a threat to them so long as we keep paying our taxes.

 

[oldpink]

No, I don't. I just don't agree with the fantasy of fighting off a nuclear power with nothing more than my AR and a can-do attitude.

So, the NVA and VC were mere figments of our collective imagination?

 

[eldirector]

Totally depends on what you call "our government".

I can totally imagine a series of events that would put SOMEONE in control of some/all nuclear assets, and not give 2 ****s about sterilizing a few square miles to maintain that control.

Only 150-ish years ago THIS country let loose the most devastating weapons it had, on what were its own citizens only moments before. IMHO it is naive to think it CAN'T happen, hopeful to think it WON'T happen, and we can all agree it SHOULDN'T happen. The weapons may have changed, but there are still humans behind them.

 

[Lowe0]

So, the NVA and VC were mere figments of our collective imagination?

Isn't Vietnam the textbook case of what happens when we don't let our military use its full force? Not exactly a valid comparison.

 

[Spear Dane]

No, I don't. I just don't agree with the fantasy of fighting off a nuclear power with nothing more than my AR and a can-do attitude.

Good grief, a ton of people have already answered this, including me. Nuclear power doesn't enter the equation since we all agree it would never be used on our own people. If you can't pick up a history book and read...well can't help you.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

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.

*cough*Australia*cough* Iguana *cough*

How much do you feel like betting on that? Your life? Your freedom? Your children's lives and freedom?

 

[Lowe0]

Good grief, a ton of people have already answered this, including me. Nuclear power doesn't enter the equation since we all agree it would never be used on our own people. If you can't pick up a history book and read...well can't help you.

Just to be clear, here's the original quote:

Some people haven't observed history very well. Americans should be well aware how an out armed force can defeat the mightiest nation on earth.

I don't see any qualifier there about "the mightiest nation on earth" not being willing to use its full capabilities. If you do, by all means, please highlight it.

 

[Lowe0]

*cough*Australia*cough* Iguana *cough*

How much do you feel like betting on that? Your life? Your freedom? Your children's lives and freedom?

I feel fine betting my life and freedom on that. As for children, I have none, nor will I have any.

 

[Spear Dane]

Isn't Vietnam the textbook case of what happens when we don't let our military use its full force? Not exactly a valid comparison.

It's quite valid when you place it in the context of what war is...an extension of politics. There is no military metric you can apply to Vietnam that doesn't show we stomped the bejeesus out of the communists. We lost 56,000. NV has acknowledged losing north of 1.5 million. What happened was Tet. Our leadership was telling the public the war was won, which was almost true. Then they launch the Tet offensive. It had taken the commies a LONG time to set that up and when it went down it was an unmitigated MILITARY disaster for them. But it won them the war because it was such a shock to the American public we lost the political will to win. So yeah it's textbook. It's a text book case of how to win an asymmetric war.

 

[chipbennett]

Just to be clear, here's the original quote:

I don't see any qualifier there about "the mightiest nation on earth" not being willing to use its full capabilities. If you do, by all means, please highlight it.

As for the US military being complicit in using full military might against US citizens on US soil: who do you think is going to go along with that?

I imagine a lot of brass being forcibly relieved of duty by rank-and-file, before anyone would willingly drop a bomb on a US city.

Ever seen the movie Outbreak?

 

[Lowe0]

As for the US military being complicit in using full military might against US citizens on US soil: who do you think is going to go along with that?

I imagine a lot of brass being forcibly relieved of duty by rank-and-file, before anyone would willingly drop a bomb on a US city.

Ever seen the movie Outbreak?

Where did he specify the US military? He just said the mightiest nation on earth. That hasn't always been the US.

 

[chipbennett]

Where did he specify the US military? He just said the mightiest nation on earth. That hasn't always been the US.

I'm not interested in talking in circles. Please re-read the OP if you are having difficulty with the context of this discussion.

 

[Lowe0]

I'm not interested in talking in circles. Please re-read the OP if you are having difficulty with the context of this discussion.

While you're referring to the first page, please see my response to GodFearinGunTotin where I specified a nuclear power willing to use scorched earth tactics. So far, the responses have either brought up Vietnam (a war where we weren't willing to use nuclear weapons) or have insisted that the US wouldn't use nuclear weapons (which by definition disqualifies them from being "willing to use scorched earth tactics"). It's like asking why the sky is blue and getting "because of the iron in hemoglobin" as a response.

 

[IndyDave1776]

.gov nuking New York City, L.A. and Chicago or any large city is simply attriting its own replacement pool.

I'm impressed. This is the first time I have seen the verb form of the word used in actual communication, as opposed to one of those example sentences in a book.

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

That, and less time 'studying' women and paying attention to actual curriculum in the rare cases it exists to be found.

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

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

You just asked the big question. One one hand, the textbook answer is that we make up the government. In practice it is apparently a self-existent entity which excludes us aside from the semi-annual pretense of participation.

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.

Indeed so. He starts with a correct foundation and runs the entire wrong direction with it suggesting that we should abandon the 2A because the existing infringements have already eroded it sufficiently to impinge upon its purpose, as opposed to eliminating those infringements.

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

This is true; However, the D party is on the cutting edge here even if the supposed conservatives generally have the same owners and manifest their 'difference' from the D party through passivity while not pushing the agenda so hard as to erode the pretense of dissimilarity or push the Constitution such as to buck against their owners.

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.

I would agree aside from the relative scarcity of actual conservatives in circulation so far as national politics is concerned.

Oh, you missed it...nevermind.

I honestly dont believe threats that require the use of firearms will come from the government. Far more likely would be threats from violent individuals or small groups. As long as we color within the lines, they're going to let us do whatever we want. Their power, control, and wealth are all secured. We are not a threat to them so long as we keep paying our taxes.

The problem is that this game is not sustainable, as we are seeing with our national debt, inflation, printing money out of thin air, and our economy still being very fragile. The party is about over, and when the music stops, so does the disincentive from going North Korea on us.

I feel fine betting my life and freedom on that. As for children, I have none, nor will I have any.

Stay away from the boat.

 

[ZenMaster]

"Going North Korea" on us is a step backwards. There are some very smart people at the very top, making decisions. They'll prepare ahead of time. They'll change the rules of the game to suit their needs, create extra players, whatever they have to do. But they wont move backwards. Its far better to get us to do what they want us to do because we want to do it ​instead of forcing us to do it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

While you're referring to the first page, please see my response to GodFearinGunTotin where I specified a nuclear power willing to use scorched earth tactics. So far, the responses have either brought up Vietnam (a war where we weren't willing to use nuclear weapons) or have insisted that the US wouldn't use nuclear weapons (which by definition disqualifies them from being "willing to use scorched earth tactics"). It's like asking why the sky is blue and getting "because of the iron in hemoglobin" as a response.

Can we just concede the point that if someone in the US decides to use nuclear weapons against its citizenry, then there's likely little to be done by the people at the particular ground zeros to combat the people that launched them? Is there anyone that would deny that? I don't think so. But we must also concede that, as far as we know, there have been no nuclear arms used in hostility, in combat, since WWII. Instead, we've had nuclear capable nations defeated by peasants in several different conflicts while they had the capability to vaporize them and didn't.

I concede the point, if they wanted to, they could wipe me out with the push of a button and me and my AR-15, even with my pile of loaded high capacity clips, would not stand a chance. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. Are you denying the fact that peasant farmers, many with busted up, AK-47s and a few shoulder mounted missiles cannot and have not defeated the mightiest nations on this planet and therefore it would be impossible to do it internally?

 

[jamil]

Isn't Vietnam the textbook case of what happens when we don't let our military use its full force? Not exactly a valid comparison.

Why didn't we nuke Vietnam? Because of political consequences. Why did we fight that war the way we did? Because the political powers that be percieved their ideology would be damaged by the political consequences of what it takes to win a war.

Cliven Bundy's little voluntary militia caused the feds to back down, not because the government couldn't overwhelmingly outgun them, but because the politicians in charge weren't willing to pay the political costs of using that kind of force against him. As I said earlier, armed citizens must be conquered. Unarmed citizens are already conquered. Right or wrong, Bundy won because of armed citizens.

I think this argument to rebut the idea of armed citizenry fails to assess the fullness of political realities. Sure, citizens with rifles are outgunned by modern governments on orders of magnitude unimaginable to colonial patriots. But it would take unprecedented political capital for the US government to use that kind of force against its citizens.

 

[Lowe0]

Why didn't we nuke Vietnam? Because of political consequences. Why did we fight that war the way we did? Because the political powers that be percieved their ideology would be damaged by the political consequences of what it takes to win a war.

Cliven Bundy's little voluntary militia caused the feds to back down, not because the government couldn't overwhelmingly outgun them, but because the politicians in charge weren't willing to pay the political costs of using that kind of force against him. As I said earlier, armed citizens must be conquered. Unarmed citizens are already conquered. Right or wrong, Bundy won because of armed citizens.

I think this argument to rebut the idea of armed citizenry fails to assess the fullness of political realities. Sure, citizens with rifles are outgunned by modern governments on orders of magnitude unimaginable to colonial patriots. But it would take unprecedented political capital for the US government to use that kind of force against its citizens.

That's only true within a narrow band where the government has (and is willing to expend) enough political capital to put down a rebellion, but not enough to do whatever it takes to win.