The thing is though the people arguing an armed population wouldn’t stand up to the US military are equally as bad faith. Muslims have kicked the United states military’s ass in both Iraq and Afghanistan with small arms and IEDs.
A population that is armed and believes in something will always beat a professional Military occupation. Mujahideen don’t get PTSD and they want to die and go to paradise. The more of them die, the greater their morale. America lost all will to fight in these conflicts a decade ago and once they leave Afghanistan the Taliban will retake the country. And Iran now control Iraq, which is hilarious. And the Sunni areas were controlled by the people who were blowing US soldiers up and they will be again soon.
A population as heavily armed as America could overthrow the state. The problem is the most armed segments would be out defending a nationalist dictatorship. Its why in their fever dreams it is always communists taking over. In reality it will be some quasi nationalist corporatist regime. And gun nuts will wrap themselves in the flag as they support it with their shiny AR15s.
I’d argue this is due to lack of willingness to demolish villages and whatnot due to the geopolitical ramifications
The United States Millitary could probably wipe Pakistan etc off the map in a second if they wanted to. Just as Isreal could demolish (I mean totally annihilate … Nuke) Gaza and the west bank in a split second if they wanted to
If there was ever a time to pick up arms and stand against tyranny, it would have been during the 2020 election
But ironically many of those who argue for freedom were backing what I’d call the least democratic American President at the time.
Dudes, I totally get that gun ownership is a big, biiig issue involving a ton of factors, but… geez. Geopolitical strife is a big enough can of worms on its own and can/should be examined elsewhere.
Steer back to discussing the necessity/“necessity” of civilian gun ownership in the next post or two. Please, thank you, holy crap.
The way we perceive violence as a society will dictate the rate of assault/violent crime. Other factors such as socioeconomic status/spread of population by class, mental health status, civil obedience/unrest etc all play HUGE factors into the rates of gun violence seen within a region
There’s the argument taking away the guns takes away the crime, it may have a mitigating impact depending on the type of gun restrictions are imposed upon. I believe handguns are responsible for the vast majority of firearm homicides (nor AR-15’s, that’s the one spoken about all the time within the media). But if a blanket ban worked, then Aus would have the firearm homicide rate of Japan. Yet our firearm homicide rate is right around where it was before the ban was put in place.
I see plenty of Nordic states/a few European countries where access to firearms isn’t QUITE as easily as it is in the USA, but it’s 100x easier to get one over there than say… In Australia.
Citizens in Isreal also have access to conceal carry firearms (handguns typically) for self defence. Yet the EU/Isreal has a comparatively low firearm homicide rate. I get the feeling regulatory practices have a minor mitigating impact whereas cultural influence/behaviour surrounding violence probably plays a larger part in the dilemma.
The American military has never, ever, lost the will to fight. We are a professional force and follow orders from the civilian government. Administrations set the rules for fighting. Will has nothing to do with it.
No, the Democratic Socialist party is the major threat.
Its amazing how brave those PTSD lacking Mujahideen used so many women and children human shields as they shot at me. It was professional duty that kept us from killiing every man, woman and child, something the Mujahideen did on a regular basis. I especially remember walking through a grade school where those brave warriors walked through and shot 37 children to death with their rusty AK’s.
Another group of brave warriors who use children as human shields.
It’s an apache revolver from the 1800’s, procuring one would be very costly now I’d assume.
It’d serve as an antique relic for collectables. Has a knuckle duster, a knife and a firearm component. How practical would these realistically be @idaho?
I’m assuming you’d risk burning your hands from firing such a contraption.
Interesting weapon. Doesn’t look to be very practical, might dissuade someone from attacking you. Cal looks pretty small, so you’d need to empty the full cylinder into your foe, then probably need to stab them, but the blade lock doesn’t look too heavy duty, so then you’d need to break out the duster option.
I’m not. At least, not unless you define the word very broadly; then, as @zecarlo pointed out, it probably applies to any government that can be created.
A truly tyrannical government would not last long. Guns are tools of self-defense. They’re for personal protection when government is no longer able to provide protection from other individuals.
“Doesn’t take long for the society you describe to descend into a total shit show.”
There are people having their human rights and intellectual freedom being taken away in some of the Asian countries that have sweatshops and are promoting massive propaganda and totalitarian censorship while those people not being allowed to use guns to defend themselves due to totalitarian governments prohibiting that. Some of those people have escaped those Asian countries as refugees to go to countries with gun rights, free speech, and no sweatshops. I would bet that you don’t live in a poor country with rulers that force censorship, sweatshops, drug cartels, and lack of quality education down their slaves’ throats. Also, I would bet that you live in a developed nation that spoils you. A government preventing you from owning your own gun for self-defence in the face of an anti-intellectual society that prioritises oppressive classism, oppressive sexism, conventionality, sports, obedience, indoctrination institutions disguised as schools, heavy government regulation, gun control laws, Orwellian online surveillance, police fearmongering, religious fearmongering, military fearmongering, etc. is a government that treats you like a submissive slave that’s not allowed to think outside the box because you don’t have the human rights (such as gun rights), quality education, job opportunities, economy, and other things to allow yourself to do that easily.
Well, he did unwittingly add to my point about gun rights being next to worthless in these countries when it comes to protecting against government tyranny.
