Yeah, but the average citizen with guns isnt the thing keeping our govt from going tyrannical.
Or, frankly, gonna do a whole lot if it does.
Interesting idea. How would that be done? For how long would one have to prove that he had not littered, or been drunk in a bar?
Do you actually mean âprove they are not law breakers, not insane, and not irresponsible? I may be mistaken, but I think itâs supposed to be pretty tough to prove a negative.
Because tyranny isnât imposed via guns in the West.
I was speaking more about the speed with which it can happen.
Unfortunately, we seem to have an irreconcilable view of which way power and privilege flow in relation to the people and the government.
Iâm firmly in the camp that believes it flows from the people to the government, not the other way around.
3 Likes
No criminal history (sealed or otherwise), mandatory yearly physch eval, completion of gun safety class, character references, and proof of steady work.
There would be ways to keep costs manageable, but a heavy gun tax would be required as well.
All a pipedream though.
Agreed.
Can we apply the above to voting?
Good idea. Donât want poor, law-abiding people being able to defend themselves.
Also important to limit retireesâ ability to defend themselves.
2 Likes
Part of me says yes haha. But no, I donât think we should make voting very difficult. Being a citizen, and casting a single ballot is all I think should be required.
May I ask (genuinely curious, not meant to be a dig) do you have any military experience, government history, or in any other way knowledge on either waging or combating insurgency campaigns?
Seems like a handful of individuals with guns have been able to do some amazing things, and that is even with states using powerful air strikes, artillery, naval bombardments, all options that would be very, very unlikely to garner any support from military personnel within the US.
Also probably worth mentioning military officers swear an oath to the constitution, not the government, so in any situation such as this, the risk of the military having split allegiances would be high.
Not at all saying your uncle bob with a .308 is going to overthrow the US government, but hell we have neighborhoods in America where police wonât travel without reinforcement due to the threat of armed citizens. Sort of the darker side there, but worth at least noting that armed citizens already do provide at least a limited check on the US gov.
Edit: Typo that was driving me nuts
Poor folks can apply for gun subsidies. Paid for by the tax.
Retirees show proof of social security checks/must be over a certain age/must prove financially stable.
And those neighborhoods survive because of government funding and entitlements. They can have their guns but the government is in control.
1 Like
No I have no experience. But if it comes down to me and Uncle Bob hiding in the woods and taking pot shots with deer rifles at the US military⊠We fucked up a while ago and should have focused on how to avoid a tyrannical govt instead of how to keep my deer rifle.
1 Like
I donât disagree with your point, but this is more because of the threat of bad publicity and the fact those neighborhoods are so shitty that no one cares about them. Kind of like how the U.S. would let a state that turned itself into a third world-like place leave, but that wouldnât prove the U.S. would let any other state leave.
1 Like
Fair enough. In my mind, the nice thing about the situation, it doesnât have to be an either or. I donât have to pick between owning a rifle or working against more authoritarian governmental trends.
You obviously donât know the range, power, and accuracy that can be gotten from a typical deer rifle.
Change pot shot to long distance surgical removal.
1 Like
Hmmm, I see your point but I donât think it is entirely what I was addressing. Im thinking mainly of some family who are police in a big city. If it comes down to a shootout, the PD always has enough manpower and support to win. But, lone cop in the wrong neighborhood? things wonât be going his way, no matter how capable he is. But, I do entirely agree that many, many neighborhoods get under cased due to the fear of what would happen in the news media if something did kick off.
We see eye to eye on this
Meh, they CAN be fun. That shouldnât be their primary purpose though, but I enjoy myself whiele Iâm at the range.
Interpretation of texts of varying degrees isnât relegated to only religious texts.
I agree with this. Guns are the product of someoneâs labor. No one has the right to another personâs labor. HOWEVER, the spirit of 2A is about protection of freedom and the right to keep and bear arms (doesnât say anything about how one acquires those arms).
again, the right is to defend oneself as efficient as possibleâŠ
I disagree. There is still the clear threat of a tyranical government looming within our borders. Do you not pay attention to the current affairs?
Exactly. The right is to self preservation of life, liberty and property.
What are you going on about? You want people to be required to vote but want to make it as difficult as possible for them to reasonably be able to obtain arms to defend themselves from all enemies foreign and domestic? Youâre an ignorant moron. Straight up.
You know shit about shit. âPoor folksâ will obtain this via other means and probably be prosecuted at a much larger rate than people of more means. The retard is strong with youâŠ
It shows.
âŠanything. You couldâve just said anything and been just as accurate. He loves exhibiting his ignorance. Itâs frustrating.
2 Likes
3 Likes
I made that face for about 5 minutes before saying F^&% it and hopping in
1 Like
Are you seeing my face right now? Is that why you posted this?
You took a more relaxed approach. I started out that way then I made my way down the thread and realized what I was dealing withâŠ
Right. Thatâs what I said. Frustrating.
3 Likes