One out of a hundred is generous. It won’t change the SOP of lockdown procedures anyway. A teacher won’t be given the option of leaving a classroom of kids to go stop a shooter. I see this as being more of a last line of defense.
There’s also a small but significant contingent of AD who probably would not carry out gun snatching laws that degrade the constitution they swore to uphold. Sure, initially no one wants to catch an NJP but if the situation got to the point where it was privately armed, law abiding citizens resisting the government seizure of guns, I have a feeling the ranks would shrink a bit and it would be difficult to prosecute desserters in a time where 300m armed citizens are standing up to a much smaller military force that isn’t even committed to the cause. Asking us to risk our lives overseas is something we all accept. Asking us to face down armed Americans so that we can asssist and increasingly globalist government in the stripping of constitutional rights isn’t a task all of us will be willing to accept.
1 Like
That’s optimistic as history has shown the opposite.
Something to consider is that a certain number of citizens will be on the side of the government.
And we did have a Civil War in which Americans killed other Americans, including non-military.
1 Like
Oh, I’m sure it will go both ways. But not all military will support this. I know plenty (which is not to say tons, just an adequate amount to lead me to believe the ratio would be similar at other units) of AD who would not be willing to enact gun control laws that passed a certain threshold. But yes there would likely be civil war eventually.
Here’s a more realistic look into what would happen. We live in an age of global satellites, constant surveillance, and emerging tracking technologies. Also, naval carrier groups that are more functional than some cities and more lethal than some entire countries’ armed forces. We have a professional military, and bases on both coasts.
There ain’t going to be an invasion and occupation - and one specifically requiring calling up the citizenry that aren’t professional soldiers - that happens suddenly or without a lot of advance notice. In such a (farfetched) scenario, there’s not going to be a situation when the Russians/Chinese/Canadians are a day away from making it to your town and you and the local militia are going to have to muster to protect home and hearth. No, if the war reaches the point of an anticipated invasion (imagine what would have to happen to get to that point), the citizens are going to be conscripted and then trained and armed appropriately. In other words, the U.S government is going to get them fitter and trained up in military matters, and then…wait for it…going to give them much better and much more lethal arms. At that point, those citizens become soldiers - and better warfighters that they would have been as the romanticized couch commandos of libertarian fantasy.
That doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing to have citizens who know their way around a firearm, far from it - the point is no earthly policy, whichever way it goes, should be based on these silly fantasies of things that aren’t going to happen.
2 Likes
I’m sure the Romans never thought their civilization would end either. Societal collapse is not libertarian fantasy, it is reality (for some countries right now). I’d bet any money that in 1,000 years the USA doesn’t exist as the same country it is today and that there will have been at least one major war on our soil. When you have stuff eventually people come and take your stuff, every time.
Ah well. 600 posts, zero minds changed.
Have respect for you @thunderbolt23, just don’t think we’re getting anywhere here.
1 Like
This is very naive.
First of all, you’re saying that if you’re over ~35 you won’t have a right to defend your country. What about veterans who already did their service and are still proficient with arms? Additionally, the military does not provide you with better and more lethal weapons. I arm up every single day for my job in the military. My issued Colt M4 and Berretta 9mm are absolutely trash compared to my Daniel Defense V7 and the multiple hand guns that I own. Additionally, while I get adequate range time and have been to a couple of schools for more advanced marksmanship I became a far better shooter running drills at public ranges on my own dime than I ever would have if I relied only on my military training.
Also, I believe most 2A folk are more concerned with our own country becoming authoritarian and unamerican than they are with a foreign invasion.
I never said that.
You’re using yourself as the standard when the standard is much lower. How many private citizens have gone to schools (plural) for advanced marksmanship on their own time and nickel?
No, what matters is the average, not the exceptional. And the average is a gunowning citizenry out of shape, not particularly well versed in military matters, and substandard weapons for the task of repellint invaders armed with the best.
And that’s an even dumber fantasy, so there’s not much to entertain there. If there was any truth or rationality to this fear, why are the 2A fetishists not calling for disbanding oue standing army? The Founders didn’t like them, and they’re the real threat - the standing army is the means by which the tyrannical government takes over.
Ok - so how come no calls for getting rid of it? Surely, if we’re destined for this authoritatian usurpation, where is the fear and subsequent demand for abandonment of the standing army?
Wouldn’t that be an even more important action to “preserve liberties” than making sure we keep our AR-15s?
Yet, silence. Weird, huh?
See my post below. I’ll believe you are sincere in your worries about the government when you call for getting rid of our (current) standing army.
Do you believe we should get rid of our standing army?
What are those assertions based on?
The military is not going to conscript individuals in the 40+ age bracket. Those individuals still have a right to private gun ownership and protecting their property, life and liberty.
Where do your assertions that most private weapons owners possess weapons that are substandard compared to military issue come from? Aside from hi-point owners, I don’t believe this is the norm. Additionally, most gun enthusiasts that I know on the civilian side are better shots than my fellow military and LE.
I’m not going to say that is the standard across the board, but you seem to feel condident making assertsions about the quality of weapons owned and the caliber of marksmanship and proficiency private weapon owners possess without having anything to back those beliefs up. I’m not going to sit here and claim to have statistics and research, but I at least am active military with law enforcement experience in a MOS that currently arms every single day, and speaking from anecdotal experience, I don’t agree with the ideas you’re espousing.
Additionally, I would argue that what you deem a foolish libertarian fantasy becomes much closer to a feasible reality once the citizenry has been disarmed. Too much trust in large, intangible agencies is not good. An armed citizenry is part and parcel of maintaining the spirit of individual liberty. We do not have a gun control problem in our country. We have a people problem. We have bad parents, corrosive entertainment, poor role models and a lack of values. We need to fix ourselves, not our gun laws.
Becoming authoritarian and un-American - that’s pretty vague, isn’t it?
I would really love (no sarcasm intended) to hear some specific thresholds where upon reached the 2A folks would say “ok, the government has crossed the red line (lines?). Grab your guns”
I agree that it’s vague. That is partially out of a desire to make a concise post and not a novella out of my response. It is also because I don’t know where the line is.
Community is no longer what it once was. We don’t live in an era where locals attend common gathering places and discuss current events frequently. We are disconnected from our neighbors. Even in bars and pubs and other societal get togethers, we spend more time with our noses in our phones than engaging with other people. I have to imagine that if people were ever going to organize again it would have to take place via the internet and would have new hurtles inherent that I haven’t fully considered because I am not an organizer or activist myself.
I do know that membership in state militias is up and that several of my fellow military members here in TX have linked up with the loca militia as well. I recently read that membership in some states is as high as half million. I don’t have the answer to your questions. I don’t claim to. I know the minds of many of my peers and I know that there is a growing disquiet and distrust among them. We’re not traitors or conspiracy theorists. We’re just men, at work, discussing trends we have noticed and misgivings that we’ve had. Some are becoming more and more common and being given louder voices recently. It’s just an observation. As I said, I don’t know where the threshold is. I imagine, right now, there is not a collective hive mind about it. It is probably different for each individual.
Yep. 9th circus. We won’t get a straight answer until it goes to SCOTUS.
Patriot Act, war on drugs and its attack on the 4th amendment, stop and frisk, racial profiling, etc. I haven’t seen any 2A anti-authoritarian militias do anything about these things. It really seems like some people would be ok with losing certain rights as long as they can keep their guns and maintain an illusion of freedom.
2 Likes
It’s a state, not federal, question. It’ll go as high as the Oregon supreme court.
Fucking. This.
Quoting for accuracy. I don’t hear shit about the Patriot Act anymore and it’s easily twice the affront to liberty and freedom that gun regs (in realistic forms) would be.
Why wouldn’t this fall under inter-state commerce/commerce clause?
Because we have the 2A…?
Not really. I believe Jefferson and Madison, among others, both agreed the 2A (in some form) was a necessary check against a standing army, which was both needed and a potential threat to liberty.
Federalist #46:
I don’t think there are specific red lines. This is obviously a very gray area.
I think we’ll find out if a pandemic was to spread or real food shortages for example. Otherwise, I think we’ll just chug along watching Netflix as you pointed out earlier.
1 Like
Could someone at least ballpark how many dead kids they’d like to see before they’re considered significant (statistically speaking of course)?
I mean, the virtually non-existent threat of tyranny is significant, so when will the dead kids catch up?
No one wants to see dead kids, you can fuck off with that nonsense.
1 Like