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

[jbombelli]

Take it up with the guy who suggested fighting off the mightiest nation on earth with small arms.

If scorched Earth and nukes are off the table, that brings us back to "ask the Viet Cong."

 

[Lowe0]

That brings us back to "ask the Viet Cong."

Which takes us right back to the "willingness to use them" that I specified in my initial post.

Nowhere in this post:

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.

does it say "... as long as they're not willing to nuke anyone."

 

[jbombelli]

Which takes us right back to the "willingness to use them" that I specified in my initial post.

Nowhere in this post:

does it say "... as long as they're not willing to nuke anyone."

But they aren't going to nuke us. You acknowledged that yourself. Please try to make up your mind.

 

[Lowe0]

But they aren't going to nuke us. You acknowledged that yourself. Please try to make up your mind.

Yeah, but that's because I don't think the government is going to attack us at all. The argument that our guns are to defend us from tyranny only works in a narrow sliver between a government willing to shoot at us and a government not willing to nuke us. Guns have plenty of other uses, and I'm not in favor of disarming the populace, but defending myself from my own government doesn't even remotely cross my mind.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

The argument that our guns are to defend us from tyranny only works in a narrow sliver between a government willing to shoot at us and a government not willing to nuke us.

I wouldn't call it a narrow sliver. Plenty of nations have been willing to turn conventional weapons against their own populace, but NOT ONCE has ANY nation nuked it's own people.

 

[eldirector]

Nuclear weapons are pretty much the ONLY weapons that haven't been used against a countries own citizenry - yet.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Nuclear weapons are pretty much the ONLY weapons that haven't been used against a countries own citizenry - yet.

I wouldn't call it a narrow sliver. Plenty of nations have been willing to turn conventional weapons against their own populace, but NOT ONCE has ANY nation nuked it's own people.

You guys need to talk to a Guards Rifle Division from the Moscow Military District.

USSR nuked its own people. Google up "Totskoie Incident".

 

[AmmoManAaron]

You guys need to talk to a Guards Rifle Division from the Moscow Military District.

USSR nuked its own people. Google up "Totskoie Incident".

Alternate spelling? A quick Google didn't come up with anything...

 

[jamil]

Yeah, but that's because I don't think the government is going to attack us at all. The argument that our guns are to defend us from tyranny only works in a narrow sliver between a government willing to shoot at us and a government not willing to nuke us. Guns have plenty of other uses, and I'm not in favor of disarming the populace, but defending myself from my own government doesn't even remotely cross my mind.

Implying that we're paranoid for suggesting that small arms can compete with the resources of a superpower is really saying we're saying something we're not saying. For one thing, it's not paranoia that drives it. And I think you imagine a much narrower domain of usefulness than there is.

Defending myself from my own government doesn't cross my mind either. I'm not holed up in a bunker in Idaho living off MREs. But I do believe an armed citizenry changes the conditions under which the government would use such force.

 

[eldirector]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totskoye_nuclear_exercise

Yikes.

 

[yepthatsme]

Only governments commit genocide. We have seen this time and time again and the unsuspecting citizens thought that it could never happen to them. I would like to have the ability to ask the victims if it would have mattered if they were armed or not. I'm willing to bet that most of them would have fought for their lives if they were armed and able.

It doesn't matter to me the method that they use, nuclear, conventional, etc..., if they are willing to do it, they will. With that in mind, if you're going to die, you might as well go out fighting. I'm not the type that will kiss anyones *** just to live for one more day in chains. I choose to go out fighting and possibly take some of the enemy with me. That's why governments would like to disarm their citizens first, so a resistance movement could not start and grow like a wild fire because they know, they can't stop all of us. There will always be the threat that someone close to them might just be the one to end their existence. Even if the odds are against us and it looks like there is no hope what so ever, we still have the right to defend ourselves and our families. (I call it a right, but to me, it's a responsiblity as well as a right.)

 

[Fire Lord]

Only governments commit genocide. We have seen this time and time again and the unsuspecting citizens thought that it could never happen to them. I would like to have the ability to ask the victims if it would have mattered if they were armed or not. I'm willing to bet that most of them would have fought for their lives if they were armed and able.

It doesn't matter to me the method that they use, nuclear, conventional, etc..., if they are willing to do it, they will. With that in mind, if you're going to die, you might as well go out fighting. I'm not the type that will kiss anyones *** just to live for one more day in chains. I choose to go out fighting and possibly take some of the enemy with me. That's why governments would like to disarm their citizens first, so a resistance movement could not start and grow like a wild fire because they know, they can't stop all of us. There will always be the threat that someone close to them might just be the one to end their existence. Even if the odds are against us and it looks like there is no hope what so ever, we still have the right to defend ourselves and our families. (I call it a right, but to me, it's a responsiblity as well as a right.)

Well spoken. Check my sig.

 

[yepthatsme]

Well spoken. Check my sig.

Love the signature. I know that we're not alone.

 

[JTScribe]

Implying that we're paranoid for suggesting that small arms can compete with the resources of a superpower is really saying we're saying something we're not saying. For one thing, it's not paranoia that drives it. And I think you imagine a much narrower domain of usefulness than there is.

Defending myself from my own government doesn't cross my mind either. I'm not holed up in a bunker in Idaho living off MREs. But I do believe an armed citizenry changes the conditions under which the government would use such force.

And even then it's not much of a deterrent - the Bonus Marchers or Wounded Knee, for example.

 

[oldpink]

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

That part about having no children and not intending to ever have any explains your casualness and lack of vigilance about the prospect of a government going full totalitarian.

 

[oldpink]

I'm just waiting for the inevitable parallel thread about how the NRA is racist.
Something about those who like to go by the numbers as it were.

 

[Thor]

How many pictures of unarmed citizens being shot by their tyrannical governments do you need to see before you realize that fighting back is the only sane option? If someone gives you a shovel to dig your grave with might as well try to kill them with that shovel, let them dig their own dam* hole.

There are roughly 1.4M in the military which includes all services and all functions including supply, office workers, maintainers, truck drivers and combat arms. They can bring the heat in specific areas and yes tanks and planes are tough to fight. But against an armed populace how long would the cretin politicians survive? I'd wager not past the first call to nuke a city.

Besides, a significant portion of the military is made up of the National Guard and Reserve who live and work among the people they'd be expected to oppress. Every governor could call up their militia to fight back...and if you're nuking folks they would fight back.

The premise of the article is foolish on the face of it, and it does not get better from there.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Only governments commit genocide. We have seen this time and time again and the unsuspecting citizens thought that it could never happen to them. I would like to have the ability to ask the victims if it would have mattered if they were armed or not. I'm willing to bet that most of them would have fought for their lives if they were armed and able.

It doesn't matter to me the method that they use, nuclear, conventional, etc..., if they are willing to do it, they will. With that in mind, if you're going to die, you might as well go out fighting. I'm not the type that will kiss anyones *** just to live for one more day in chains. I choose to go out fighting and possibly take some of the enemy with me. That's why governments would like to disarm their citizens first, so a resistance movement could not start and grow like a wild fire because they know, they can't stop all of us. There will always be the threat that someone close to them might just be the one to end their existence. Even if the odds are against us and it looks like there is no hope what so ever, we still have the right to defend ourselves and our families. (I call it a right, but to me, it's a responsiblity as well as a right.)

Well said all the way around. I would like to focus on one point: What if every other adult male Jew had managed to take out one German in the process of being captured? My guess is that, even in losing the immediate fight, having the other side start with at least half a million casualties before even going to war would have been a significant game changer. Then again, there was a reason why the Nazis had the wisdom and foresight to disarm the people BEFORE doing the things they did.

 

[SSGSAD]

How many pictures of unarmed citizens being shot by their tyrannical governments do you need to see before you realize that fighting back is the only sane option? If someone gives you a shovel to dig your grave with might as well try to kill them with that shovel, let them dig their own dam* hole.

There are roughly 1.4M in the military which includes all services and all functions including supply, office workers, maintainers, truck drivers and combat arms. They can bring the heat in specific areas and yes tanks and planes are tough to fight. But against an armed populace how long would the cretin politicians survive? I'd wager not past the first call to nuke a city.

Besides, a significant portion of the military is made up of the National Guard and Reserve who live and work among the people they'd be expected to oppress. Every governor could call up their militia to fight back...and if you're nuking folks they would fight back.

The premise of the article is foolish on the face of it, and it does not get better from there.

Yes, and remember, if the .gov, has troops on the ground, and they use nukes, how many ground troops will be killed .....

I would guess, one nuke, ANYWHERE, and any Mil., people killed, would turn the table, pretty quick .....