United States & Gun Control discussion.

In grad school, one of my female classmates approached me with some questions about the Second Amendment. She asked me if I owned an AR15 (she was demographically profiling, but in this case she was right :) ) and I told her yes. She asked me why I needed an AR15 with "100 rounds" for hunting. I let the "100 rounds" thing go, but I explained that while I'm not opposed to hunting generally, I personally don't engage in it because for me it would be more or less recreational cruelty since I don't need anything from game animals to live. I also explained that typically you're not allowed to carry "100 rounds" loaded in your gun; when I've hunted the capacity was limited to 5. And moreover, while I probably wouldn't use an AR to hunt the types of animals I used to hunt growing up (rabbits, squirrels, turkey, doves) I can see how that type of weapon would be useful in hunting large game. (I'd probably still opt for .30 vs. .223 but I didn't bother explaining that part to her).

What really blew her mind though was when I explained that the 2A has nothing to do with hunting in the first place. The 2A isn't about hunting. I don't hunt and I don't own an AR for hunting. I own an AR because IMO it's the best weapon available to "preserve a free state," both in terms of me personally and in terms of society. I'm not going to get oppressed by Bambi. Rabbits are not going to swarm over my house and carry off my property after a natural disaster. I'm not going to be deprived of my rights by a flock of doves. I own an AR15 to protect myself, my family, and my property from criminals, and, if it ever becomes necessary, any enemies foreign or domestic.

Another one of my classmates overheard the last part of the conversation and got upset. "You can't fight the government with assault rifles, they have tanks!" I was a little taken aback by that comment, as it was the first time I heard it made, and after seven tours in Iraq and Afghanistan I knew very well that you don't need tanks to have an effective resistance. That discussion kind of petered out when I asked her how many tanks she'd fought in her life.

The reason I bring the above vignette up is that people like the President aren't making the argument they think they are, at least not to conservatives, when they make comments like the president just made. When liberals say "you can't fight the government because they have tanks/F-15s/nukes," not only do conservatives know that's not true, even if it were true then it supports the argument to allow the American people MORE access to weaponry, not less. "Oh, I can't fight an oppressive .gov or an invading force without a tank? Guess I better get a Javelin or two. ...and my own tank. Thanks Mr. President!!"
 
Last edited:
Marauder06 said:
In grad school, one of my female classmates approached me with some questions about the Second Amendment. She asked me if I owned an AR15 (she was demographically profiling, but in this case she was right :) ) and I told her yes. She asked me why I needed an AR15 with "100 rounds" for hunting. I let the "100 rounds" thing go, but I explained that while I'm not opposed to hunting generally, I personally don't engage in it because for me it would be more or less recreational cruelty since I don't need anything from game animals to live. I also explained that typically you're not allowed to carry "100 rounds" loaded in your gun; when I've hunted the capacity was limited to 5. And moreover, while I probably wouldn't use an AR to hunt the types of animals I used to hunt growing up (rabbits, squirrels, turkey, doves) I can see how that type of weapon would be useful in hunting large game. (I'd probably still opt for .30 vs. .223 but I didn't bother explaining that part to her).

What really blew her mind though was when I explained that the 2A has nothing to do with hunting in the first place. The 2A isn't about hunting. I don't hunt and I don't own an AR for hunting. I own an AR because IMO it's the best weapon available to "preserve a free state," both in terms of me personally and in terms of society. I'm not going to get oppressed by Bambi. Rabbits are not going to swarm over my house and carry off my property after a natural disaster. I'm not going to be deprived of my rights by a flock of doves. I own an AR15 to protect myself, my family, and my property from criminals, and, if it ever becomes necessary, any enemies foreign or domestic.
Another one of my classmates overheard the last part of the conversation and got upset. "You can't fight the government with assault rifles, they have tanks!" I was a little taken aback by that comment, as it was the first time I heard it made, and after seven tours in Iraq and Afghanistan I knew very well that you don't need tanks to have an effective resistance. That discussion kind of petered out when I asked her how many tanks she'd fought in her life.
The reason I bring the above vignette up is that people like the President aren't making the argument they think they are, at least not to conservatives, when they make comments like the president just made. When liberals say "you can't fight the government because they have tanks/F-15s/nukes," not only do conservatives know that's not true, even if it were true then it supports the argument to allow the American people MORE access to weaponry, not less. "Oh, I can't fight an oppressive .gov or an invading force without a tank? Guess I better get a Javelin or two. ...and my own tank. Thanks Mr. President!!"
Click to expand...
Well I've been thinking about doing up an AR platform in 7.62 because reasons...
 
Muppet said:
Apparently, tater in chief and other useless politicians have never heard of asymmetrical warfare, partisan resistance, like, the French, NVA, Afghans and so on. Biden, Beto, all these fuckers pander to emotional pygmies that believe their government has their welfare as the priority.
Click to expand...
Just like the Services tosses the lessons of insurgencies of 200 years ago out of the library, the politicians forget the lessons of insurgencies that they just embarrassingly withdrew from. . .
 
Whenever I hear the "you can't fight the government because it has tanks/ planes/ helicopters" reason for gun control I tune them out because I know I'm dealing with an idiot.

Yes, the president is in that group.

Anyone who casually paid attention to even the most liberal of news commissariats over the last 20 years would not make that argument. CAN'T make that argument, especially since they are "smart" and all. Trust the science? I trust history and to borrow from Stone Cold Steve Austin:

Taliban 3:16 says we just got our asses kicked.
 
Last edited:
Biden’s asinine comments tie in with the campaign to demonize his political opponents two months before midterms. Republicans are insurrectionists, extremists, terrorists bent on “destroying our democracy and stealing our freedom.”

Well, they’re gonna need a freakin F15 if they try that shit, says Biden, metaphorically grabbing his shriveled ball sack in a feeble effort to sound tough and macho, the protector of democracy, the beacon of freedom.

All this and the relentless persecution against an ex-president, both legally and in a concerted left-wing media campaign, to deflect attention from his own weak, lackluster, uninspired and ineffectual presidency and an economy tanking on his watch.
 
Last edited:
Gunz said:
Biden’s asinine comments tie in with the campaign to demonize his political opponents two months before midterms. Republicans are insurrectionists, extremists, terrorists bent on “destroying our democracy and stealing our freedom.”

Well, they’re gonna need a freakin F15 if they try that shit, says Biden metaphorically grabbing his shriveled ball sack in a feeble effort to sound tough and macho, the protector of democracy, the beacon of freedom.

All this and the relentless persecution against an ex-president, both legally and in a concerted left-wing media campaign, to deflect attention from his own weak, lackluster, uninspired and ineffectual presidency and an economy tanking on his watch.
Click to expand...

It's the same tactic in Canada, even try to paint the truckers convoy as "insurrectionists". Nothing like divide and anger.
 

Similar threads

Dame
F Around and Find Out
Replies
2
Views
403
Chopstick
Chopstick
AWP
Your Weekend Safety Brief
Replies
5
Views
313
Muppet
Muppet
Devildoc
Imminent national security threat?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
1K
Marauder06
Marauder06
R.Caerbannog
Economic shifts in Central America and China
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
AWP
  • Locked
Oppressive Moderation
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Ooh-Rah
Ooh-Rah
Back
Top