The tanks were just a scare tactic. If they were willing to fire on unarmed civilians, do you think they’d have hesitated to use even heavier artillery on armed ones?
EDIT:
A government doesn’t suddenly turn tyrannical in a vacuum either. You mostly likely would end up with half the civilians in the country fighting you if things reached that stage. Do you realistically think that in this day and age, in the First World, this is going to happen?
Did some PH waaaaay back. Some worked really well.
As for SWAT… I eat really well. Train smarter. GH is still astronomically expensive. Lack of sleep is our biggest concern.
How much do you squat/deadlift? I don’t really care about bench, most gym rats can eventually bench 225-315. Few actually put in the time/effort required to develop a decent squat/DL because working legs is undoubtedly more taxing.
How fast can you run a mile? I bet it’s something ridiculous like five minutes considering you were in the marines
I thought this thread was for discussing civilian gun ownership. There are way too many bunny trails for me to keep up.
I generally allow people to talk about whatever they want on my threads, particularly if they have no other place to do so
However we can get back to the main topic.
I’d look at the statistical likelihood of home invasions by suburb. If, like in certain suburbs in Aus the likelihood is like 1 in 5,000,000 you might as well buy a lottery ticket for a low stakes game (like 2 million prize) and win… or get struck by lightning twice before that happens
In which case the home invasion risk is less than the risk of the owner killing himself with the weapon.
It’s a joke my dude 
whoops
What I want to know is, is voting a necessity? There are already experts in the government from the CDC, Military, FBI, CIA, etc who know who should govern better than some ordinary Joe. In your daily life, there really just isn’t a good reason to have a direct say in how the immensely complex federal government runs. Ordinary citizens are far more likely to get in the way of effective government causing millions to suffer and die through destroying the economy and increased crime than actually vote for someone to make the country better.
Rather interesting question when one considers that voting rights were far more restricted than right to bear arms per the original US Constitution.
A respectful suggestion: Why don’t one of you create a new thread to discuss your theories on various religions?
There’s nothing funny about shooting people.
I might start a thread arguing that it’s been downhill ever since we gave women the right to vote. How else does our Republic become so bossy? I can’t even go down to the shipyard and buy a decent sloop of war anymore, let alone get some modern cannon mounted on it.
I have just been responding to questions and mentions. Im really just here for my workout log though. I will refrain from posting I keep getting notifications from people pinging me. Didn’t mean to derail the thread. Apologies.
No problem. Welcome.
That’s mighty neighborly, but it’s not really up to you to allow or disallow and that’s not how the forum actually works. Sporadic, naturally occurring, short-lived derails are one thing.
How this thread, which was itself a tangent in a different thread about a different topic, found a way to get from gun ownership to shoulder rehab to Christianity to whatever else, I have no idea. Just another Monday I guess.
I continue to find your lottery example dismissive and extremely short-sighted. Home invasion and attempted homicide are certainly not the only two crimes where a personal firearm could be used in self-defense.
And, as I believe others have said, for the person that ends up being that 1 in 5,000,000 or however many, the “prize” is quite a bit worse than “bad luck”.
(But yeah, no, I’m not get drawn into this again. You guy just stay on topic, m’kay? Thanks.)
It also neglects the fact that victims are chosen for specific reasons, not from the results of some random drawing. Also, the odds of winning the lottery never change but the odds on being chosen as a victim do change based on circumstances.
Of course this will never happen in a first world country. It happens in 3rd world countries that used to be first world countries until they gave up their guns.
Let me try this a little further.
Civilian gun ownership necessity? And if so, how many are too many?
The first question is either a yes or a no.
I would think very few of us would consider gun ownership a requirement, regardless of which side of the political fence you reside.
So if civilian gun ownership is optional, what is the amount of total guns allowable?
Whenever I discuss a matter where there are different opinions I like to agree on the foul lines (baseball), e.g., left field foul line and right field foul line.
My initial take a left field foul line might be zero, and right field foul line might be a ridiculously high number. Can most all of us agree on that?
The next portion of this gets a little statistically complex. What might the distribution look like in a histogram?
I made up some fictitious data that corresponded somewhat with a site that said only 42% of households owned firearms. I show that a little over 48% of households own firearms, of which there are some with 1, 2, 3, 4, and more up to 48. The histogram is the one with the red bars, but there is much more statistical information in the remainder of the chart.
The nature of a histogram has the first bar containing all data between -3 and +3, or all the zero’s, 1’s, and 2’s. The second bar is the 3’s, 4’s, and a 6. And the short bars are 12, 35, and 48. Don’t be concerned that the histogram bar shows 36, it is just the center of the bar that is part of a histogram construction. That bar contains all the data between 33 and 39, with 36 being its center value
Where do you stand on the maximum number of firearms a household should own? (Maybe the histogram is of little value, considering the vast range of the numbers of guns any one household might own.)