They are necessary to have a truly free populace. There are never too many, you can only shoot one at at time.
1 Like
Youâre using two different words. âNecessityâ is not the same as ârequirementâ. Iâm not in favor of requiring anyone to buy anything they donât want, so Iâm against any sort of firearms requirement.
I do consider civilian ownership a necessity. It is as much of a necessity as anything not directly involved in your immediate needs of food, water and oxygen. The reason I consider it a necessity is the dependence we have on them for security and, for some, food. Iâd call firearms more of a necessity than a fishing pole is, for instance. Iâd put the necessity of firearms quite high, actually. If I had to start getting rid of things for some arbitrary reason, my guns would be quite far down on that list.
It is also a necessity in my book because the alternative, no civilian gun ownership, will likely make matters much worse for many, while making things better for almost nobody. I enjoy life in a place with high firearm saturation, few laws and very low crime. The non gun owners even benefit from this saturation. In a place like Maine you simply cannot be certain who might be armed.
I also keep in mind that guns arenât going to be un-invented and spirited into the ether anytime soon. Even then, Iâd be against a world with no guns at all. Why? Because then weâre back to a world where guys like me can do whatever they want to anyone weaker than them with near impunity. There is nothing that can level that playing field as well as a gun.
As to the number of guns, I see no need or benefit to some arbitrary limit. The only limit that might make sense is one, since two is the most that someone could fire at once. One is a silly limit for other reasons.
Iâd be curious to hear the reasoning someone might have for setting a limit. What harm is being prevented?
1 Like
Iâm not sure what value statistical analysis renders in this case. You can determine when a person has an uncommonly large number of firearms, but that doesnât really let us know that it is a problem. A relatively small number of firearms is the total that a single person might be able to carry and use at one time (probably 5-10 would be the upper limit of reasonable). And even then, a person carrying 5-10 firearms is probably not much more dangerous than a person carrying a single firearm if that single firearm is carefully selected (and well maintained, good quality, etc.).
Therefore, I donât see the point of creating a limit on the number of firearms a person should be able to own from a safety standpoint. There are, of course, other arguments. A person with an uncommonly large number of firearms might be creating a stockpile for a group or organization. He might be facilitating firearms distribution for criminal purposes. He might have an unhealthy obsession with firearms. However, in all of these cases, a law limiting the number of firearms a person should be allowed to own could easily be circumvented and wouldnât increase safety.
On the other hand, there are various legitimate reasons a person might own an uncommonly large number of firearms. A hobbyist might own many guns for hunting different types of game in different styles. A collector may like owning a large variety of historic and/or modern firearms. A self defender might have a variety of firearms for different carry situations, different outfits, different occasions, etc.
In short, if you agree that a person aught to be allowed to own at least one firearm, a law restricting the number doesnât seem to provide much safety while limiting various reasonable activities.
2 Likes
As many as you want
Sorry about conflating ânecessityâ and ârequirementâ.
âNecessityâ might be a personal choice given surrounding conditions.
And ârequirementâ might normally be interpreted as a legal stipulation.
As I see it, when we approach this from a rational position, and donât get sidetracked with political feelings, we can get to rational answers.
I believe if all chime in with a number, only two numbers will prevail:
- Zero
- As many as you wish
If you have another number, please present rational reasons for that number (that include, âWhat about just one more?â)
So simply put the OP asked an easily answered question if we keep deeply held sideline beliefs out of the discussion, and thus, the untold number of bunny trails.
1 Like
Necessity can be argued for the collective as well as a personal choice. In fact, I find that to be the strongest argument in favor of having a society and culture that embraces guns.
1 Like
And you could be exactly correct in it being the best solution. Once we start embracing collective choice we could soon find ourselves creating legal ârequirementsâ, for now we might need to coerce some freewill thinking individuals who donât agree.
But once again that is another bunny trail.
Afford, not wish.
I suppose both are required. Then again some enthusiasts spent food, clothes, and shelter funds on guns and ammo.
Iâm assuming heâs talking about the old school ones if it was âwaaaaaay backâ(did I get the amount of "a"s right? @marine77 
).
I did Androsol a couple of times. Nothing came close to the designer steroids.
The time the government turned tyrannical would be at least half a century ago, right? Iâm talking about TODAY. And, again, it wouldnât happen in a vacuum. They would have had massive support of the people with guns at the time before disarming them when they had won and amassed enough power. Youâd be able procure firearms easily in most of these places. Itâs definitely not the lack of them thatâs preventing an effective uprising.
I have a feeling if this occurred today in the First World, it may even be because people HAVE GUNS. Who are the ones in the US firing at the police? Half of you guys are upset that the current administration is kowtowing to them. If you really want to push the envelop when it comes to possibilities, this administration could easily use and back them to fuck the other side.
Tyrannical is a strong word, but what @Silyak is describing happened in Venezuela during my lifetime. They used to be the #2 buyer of Ford F150 pickup trucks in the Western Hemisphere and the strongest economy in S. America, with more prosperity on the horizon. They were also the darling of the left when they were still a prosperous nation and the socialist policies had not had enough time to reduce the nation to 3rd world status. I remember it well, because I was a small-minded leftist who believed a lot of it when Chavez took power.
Now youâre lucky to find a dog to eat. What recourse do the people of Venezuela have left at this point? You canât vote a leftist like Maduro out when the entire election system is a sham.
Which still brings me back to the point that this doesnât happen in a vacuum. For a socialist uprising to happen, youâd need mass support of the people. I posted something in The Stupid Thread about The Red Guards. Thatâs what happens regardless of the availability of firearms.
You get enough people supporting the government and everyone on both sides has guns, youâll still lose. The war is already lost through propaganda and ideology.
Also, the socialists came into power despite the ban on firearms.
2 Likes
Yes, all good points. I also find myself reminding people (including myself) that policies donât exist in a vacuum. Democrats arenât arguing for gun control in a vacuum. They are arguing for it along with a host of other polices that would make Mao, Chavez or any other dead socialist smile ear-to-ear.
2 Likes
IMO, guns still wonât really come into play much, if at all, if this happens. Like I also said above, you can procure illegal firearms easily in such 3rd World countries. Despite this, unless you have covertly organized and trained factions slowly chipping away at the system for years, itâs still about propaganda and mass support.
I disagree. If you havenât, watch Waco. Or read about it.
Then ponder the question, how many Wacos will it take to get us to whatever socialist utopia is floating around in AOCâs brain? How many dead cops? Who is ready to see such a thing through?
I also think it is interesting to ponder the idea that our republic was moments away from collapse during the unarmed January 6 riots. If the system is really so fragile, would it have been a done deal if the protesters were armed?
Of course not, thatâs not how any of this works and anyone with a brain can see the over-wrought characterizations of January 6 as some existential crisis moment. It was bad, but not that bad. Armed rioters would not have overthrown the US Federal government.
What can happen are local government takeovers and local authorities failing to enforce this or that law. Non-compliance with laws among citizens. Security breakdowns in neighborhoods (which we got to see live and in-color last year). People opening up their businesses when the state says you canât run a bar and daring them to shut them down.
Guns absolutely factor into social upheaval situations. Or at least they would in the USA.
1 Like
That may be true, but a mentally ill guy in a headdress couldâŠright? Right?
Alright. Sounds like it will be interesting.
I donât know about the US, but any smart or at least reasonably competent government would first turn such people into pariahs in the eyes of the public before clamping down on them. The way guns would factor in would serve to make them look even more like the âbad guysâ deserving of harsh government actions.
We can agree to disagree, though. Iâm not really invested in this debate since Iâll never have the modified Israeli-inspired bullpup I write to Santa for every Christmas during my lifetime lol.
Thatâs why it matters on the local level, which is how unrest will play out in a land like ours. Gun owners are already pariahâs in places like West Roxbury, MA. There are also many jurisdictions filled with people whoâve managed to elect leaders that actually believe in things like freedom.
It would be a cascading game of âfuck you, what are you going to do about it?â that begins with individuals, socially connected groups and varying levels of government. For an example today, see all of the municipal level governments that declare themselves â2nd Amendment sanctuariesâ. They just wonât enforce the laws they donât believe in. Or for another example, look at all of the states legalizing marijuana even though it remains illegal federally.
The United States are not always that united. Iâm sure civil war 2 would look a lot different depending on where you live.