Good Guy with a Gun

[The Romulan Republic]

Its rather darkly amusing that many on the Right openly admit that they want to block restrictions on gun ownership for the express purpose of facilitating an armed revolt against the government (aka "Treason"*). Despite the fact that they are the ones who currently control two, arguably all three branches of the federal government, as well as most state governments.

This isn't about them losing their liberty. Its about a culture of paranoia and persecution complexes, itching to start shooting the moment they don't have a monopoly on political power.

*Their are rare, rare cases, when all other means have failed and their is a grave threat to the lives and freedom of the public, that violent revolt can be justified. However, that the American Right seems to feel that they are likely to face persecution on a level that would justify such revolt is frankly laughable under the present state of affairs.

[Mindworm]

You're boned. There's no amount of imitation AK-47s or M-16s will stop the US army.

Depends on your definition of victory. On the one hand...an AR-15 will do jack all against an Apache. You cannot hope to defeat the US army in open battle, no matter how many of them you have. On the other hand, the Middle East has shown us that the US Army, with all of its firepower, cannot hold society together if a significant portion of the population has AR-15s and the will to burn everything to the ground.

But I suspect this is fairly academic to the actual gun control debate, which is much more about culture than practicality.

Unless there's an awful lot of going to the dogs happening, the US will simply not have the critical mass to see what's happening in places like Iraq. Thus, it's unlikely to ever see a critical enough mass of people take up arms against the government that any putative rebellion would end in quick and decisive defeat.

Remember Iraq has three groups with a mutual loathing for each other going back centuries (because every time one group was ascendant it viciously slaughtered members of the other two), a tribal feuding system which would make the Sicilians or the Albanians blanch in terror, outside countries meddling in very nasty ways for their own ends, plus a universally loathed US occupation force which has run roughshod over the country since the 2003 invasion. It'd take an awful lot of effort to get even close that that level of mess in the US.

And even if you did actually get a majority against the government, do you know how hard it is to even get close to winning? Being Irish, I have a fairly good idea, given the amount of rebellions and popular risings this country had to go through before it could regain it's independence from Britain (my grandfather was involved in the last two, on the periphery for 1916, being an officer in one of the hottest areas of combat for the War of Independence).

Practically speaking, owning guns will do nothing to protect you against the high likelihood that Trump will try to impose a tyranny on the country, better to try and show the army the merits of being on your side.

[LittleRaven]

And even if you did actually get a majority against the government, do you know how hard it is to even get close to winning?

Again, it depends on how you define 'winning.' Insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere have never 'won' against us, and probably never will. But we can't keep the country together, either. It wouldn't be any different in America proper. Our hypothetical anti-tyrannical fighters would have no chance of fighting off the Army and 'winning' by any conventional means. But if they have ARs and the will to simply see the country burn, then they can almost certainly make the US ungovernable. Which ultimately means the Army collapses...a modern military relies on an intact society to feed it.

Now, obviously, a LOT of stuff would have to go horribly, horribly wrong for any of this to come to pass, and we're absolutely nowhere near that point now. (at least, I hope) But if enough stuff goes wrong, I'm actually betting on the guys with ARs in the long run. Shock and Awe is cool and all, but it's very expensive and pretty short-term.

[Admiral X]

This is a myth. Black markets exist everywhere there's an illegal item to sell. So why don't we see people in Europe/Australia/Japan/etc. go to their black markets and buy high powered guns with which to commit mass shootings at the same rate as in America?

How do you think their organized crime members get guns? Also, have to laugh at the use of "high-powered." I have a feeling you do not know what this means.

This goes back to what I said a few posts ago about how GoodGunGuys are only ever reactionary.

So are the police. You keep glossing over that fact.

The Texas shooter was stopped by an armed civilian after he had already killed twenty six people.

Probably because they weren't in the church when the shooting happened. Funny how those "gun-free" zones work, huh?

It absolutely matters that they were off-duty/former law enforcement because the whole premise of Good Guy with Gun working is that the person with the gun is essentially some rando.

IN all but one of the cases you mentioned, it was random because they were there as law enforcement or security. You also seem to be forgetting the training that comes with getting a CCW permit, which often has requirements (depending on the state) which exceed that of many law enforcement agencies. Or do I have to point out how, for example, the NYPD really suck at the whole collateral damage thing because they seem to have trouble hitting what they're actually shooting at.

"Military bases actually are "gun-free" zones. Only the people who are armed are allowed to be armed. Did you not know this?" Seriously, what are you even arguing at this point?

Because the point seems to have gone right over your head. The vast majority of military personnel who are on base are not armed. Bases very much are "gun-free" zones. Security on bases is focused around access points and whatever the major equipment is on base and other sensitive areas. Otherwise, there are just random patrols, much like the police in any neighborhood, in fact even using what look like normal police cars. I actually have military experience, so given what you just said, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't.

But what's the point of arguing anymore?

Your surrender is accepted. :p

I've tried by actually linking to outside articles and sources.

Yes, biased sources which share your ideology.

Your only refrain has been either appeal to American Exceptionalism,

That's one way of thinking of it, I suppose.

And that boils down to, it's okay for dozens and dozens and dozens of people to die so you can cling to your fantasy of being like the Taliban.

So, speaking of not engaging in discussion from a place of good faith, you might want to watch those straw man arguments. What my argument boils down to is that I think people should be able to defend themselves, and that it ties in very much with the natural right to self-defense, be it against individuals or against a tyrannical government.

youtu.be/VKcAYMb5uk4

[Admiral X]

Depends on your definition of victory. On the one hand...an AR-15 will do jack all against an Apache. You cannot hope to defeat the US army in open battle, no matter how many of them you have. On the other hand, the Middle East has shown us that the US Army, with all of its firepower, cannot hold society together if a significant portion of the population has AR-15s and the will to burn everything to the ground.

Exactly. The idea isn't so much that an armed resistance would try to win so much as just to make conditions untenable for any occupying force through constant harassment. So basically we'd have to go back to our roots of hiding behind rocks and shooting at the enemy. Of course there's also the hope that a good deal of the military would either come over to the resistance or simply refuse to attack their countrymen. Probably not much of a hope considering

But one would hope that if there's a line in the sand that's been crossed far enough for people to take up arms that the same would hold true of people who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

But I suspect this is fairly academic to the actual gun control debate, which is much more about culture than practicality.

More about the principle of it for me.