Well we have guns and we have a very oppressive system.

Who is "we?" Yes the public has access to guns but chooses to be complacent in their police force instead. Gun owners are far from the majority of society and that's the problem.

So yes, guns exist in America and are legal to own and carry. However, it's far from the societal norm. For most it's "they" instead "we" for guns.

People ask "why should I need a gun?" Well, why do you have insurance of any kind? There's no sense in not owning and carrying a gun on you. No it doesn't have to be an AR-15 or big caliber handgun or a Glock with 30 round mags. It can be just a simple revolver or pocket gun.

Society needs to stop looking at guns as a menace and respect them as a tool and weapon. That respect and proper handling should continue to be passed down generation to generation to preserve and exercise the 2A.

They are not the tool anyone will win freedom with in this country

Watched the news lately? The AK isn't exactly trumping drones

Kill a few people with guns sure, end the american empire with guns? Not going to happen

And even if you got enough people together to "retake" the country, you could just save yourselves the trouble and vote

Voting is an illusion of choice. Do you think if Romney won we would be in any different a situation now? We get choice D and choice R which both are corrupt (or will be) puppets.

We have to take the power back ourselves. When our legal and democratic means are broken we have no other choice.

Drones aren't the kings of the battlefield. First, they're unmanned but not autonomous -- someone has to fly them remotely. Think our military is going to be gravy with killing their own people on American soil? Second, they're hackable and can be jammed (GPS).

Kinetic weapons will always be somewhat effective. Even with body armor and armored vehicles it doesn't make you invincible. The numbers are also not in their favor.

Again read a history book

There is nothing wrong with our democratic system, only our culture and perspective.

There is a reason people spend trillions to control public perception. Because it matters

If you looked at history you would notice we have the hallmark signs of an impending tyrannical state and revolt.

Don't bring history into this because you won't win the debate with that one.

Revolt doesn't have to be violent, it becomes violent because of bitter people like you who escalate a conflict.

Tell me... Why would the powers that be give two shits about people in the streets holding up signs? Think corporate fatcats are going to change their ways and stop influencing politics? Not unless they have real consequences.

Go look at the Turkey riots. Started as a peaceful protest (sit-in). Guess who made it violent first?

Because enough signs means votes

A small segment of the population holding up signs means nothing

50% of the population holding a sign and our world will change overnight

We can hope so. However, when has that ever happened in history? Fasting, voting, and crying and looking sad doesn't stop a government like the Baath or East German regimes. Shooting the bastards running the show does.

FDR's reaction to the great depression to save capitalism is a great example of how our society can change basically overnight.

If voting were a threat, we wouldn't be alowd to do it.

It's not a threat because of propaganda, not because our underlying democratic system takes away the power of our vote.

Now if you are making an argument that if we were going to do something like end capitalism through the vote, the powers that be would stop it. I can see that argument

But if hypothetically we were to all vote 3rd party in 2016, without giving any indication to the establishment. Our country would change very quickly.

Go read into the great depression. We don't need anything but popular support to change this country.

Thank you for saying that Mookind.

I love this argument, because it fails to look at the bigger picture. Yes one guy with a small revolver cannot fight a tank or an F18. However, a war is seldom won on firepower alone.

First off, drones can be shot down with shotguns or larger caliber rifles. So that's an easy one...

Secondly, we could equate a battle between the Gov't and it's citizens, with the Vietnam War, fought between the mighty Americans and the tiny country (the size of Montana) of Vietname. The Vietnamese managed to defeat the Americans with a less diverse military, less power, and fewer troops. Here's how:

1) They intermingled their troops with ours. This rendered the far superior American air power useless as it would have resulted in an equal amount of collateral damage.

2) The Vietnamese chose the time and location for every skirmish. When they didn't want to fight, they let the American troops stumble through the jungle. When they were ready, they were ready... (look up the Tet offensive)

3) They had the will of the people. The Vietnamese troops were convinced this was their destiny and this would make them hero's. The Americans, on the other hand, could not wait to get "out of country." They did not want to be there and as a result "didn't have their heads in the game"

Sun Tzu writes about how much smaller forces have fought against much larger and more powerful forces and won. It has been happening for 1,000's of years. (Read the Art of War, then read a military analysis of the Art of War)

The fact that you (and many, many others) cannot do anything to change the system is as a result of "their" brainwashing. "They" make you feel powerless so that you (the group) do not think you can do anything and just lay down. This is furthered by the fact that people don't see a need to own guns.

Now, I'm not suggesting armed revolution. I am, however, suggesting that "they" know they have something to fear, and are trying to combat this by taking away guns, and making those with guns feel that they could never do anything with them.

So you want us to fight a guerrilla war for the next 20 years on the home turf of the biggest empire that the world has ever seen?Why the hell would we as the American public pick a fight on grounds that we at best are simply going to fight a war of attrition with them.

Instead of using more effective non violent solutions. That have been proven to work. Want to bring the empire down? Stop consuming and paying your taxes. Bam done over

If you truly had the popular support you're talking about to start a war. You'd have enough votes to change the country. That is why we have the system

I understand that the fight seems hopeless. But what you're describing is even more terrible than our current situation.........And will likely end with less freedoms for all of us, and a lot of dead innocents

As I said earlier, I am not suggesting armed revolution.

What I am suggesting is that "they" have something to fear, and they know it.

They want to combat their fear in 2 ways.

1) Getting rid of guns (obviously most effective for them)

2) Making everyone feel helpless.

Also, voting is a sham called the "Illusion of Choice". Both parties are two wings of the same bird.

Just because a candidate isn't included in the two parties doesn't mean he can't be voted in

Ralph Nader could have served two terms and that was before the internet. Parties have died in the past they will die in the future

Guns are a social problem and the only reasonable purposes they serve are hunting and self defense. Arming yourself to fight a civil war is not reasonable in 2013.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/19/why-cant-anyone-agree-how-many-mass-shoo

Not sure if it linked properly but mass shootings are defined by more than 4 victims in a single incident. We have about 25 a year going back decades. In a country like Australia they got rid of their guns and haven't had one in a decade.

I don't like the idea of prohibition of anything, it doesn't work. But perceiving a weapon as giving you power you don't have is something people need to get over.

Now, you are debating a completely different topic.

So if I understand correctly, you don't think people should have more than 4 rounds at a time?

It is seeing this debate that is depressing to me when I think about it, your country is becoming divided, at least from what I see, I'm sure it's a small % but there are those who want war, certain patriot groups scattered across your country, not enough to do any damage but what gets me is how would the rest of America react? more & more people are beginning to "wake up" & while I can't profess to see the bigger picture, I do see a country whose history I favor, you were born with these very ideals & then from creation you rose like a pheonix from ashes, but you are nearing your peak, & the true disaster is your military is why the world is not tearing itself apart, everyone else is afraid of you, but if you were to have the slightest internal strife, that could create to perfect storm, a bad sorce but if you wikipedia "conspiracy theory" down the page they paint a grim picture, & if some American can tell me in depth that its just talk that would be great because its sad watching my brother die.

1) The US military/Government is in fact the ones tearing the world apart (Afganistan, Iraq, political assassinations in South America, gun running around the world, etc)

2) Its very funny (to me, anyway) that you would compare the US to the Phoenix. The Phoenix is used a lot in occult "organizations" to symbolize the US. So much so, that it is even on the back of the $1 bill. In order for the Phoenix to rise from its own ashes, it must first be destroyed. Which is where they are trying to take us.

That is why I said I can't profess to see the bigger picture, the end game, who benefits from destroying America & the world? looking at 3rd world countries, especially ones we've invaded, it wouldn't help anyone for the US to go that way. So be that as it may, it's a depressing thought. & I just figured wars in the middle east waged by America was semi-legitimately trying to stabilise regions with your usual corrupted officials trying to profit on the side. my point was if America falls, not that China is a bad country but there leaders have no backlash to fear & would need say Taiwan to make up for losing america economic benefits. & Russia would have no one to fear, & the EU would see no alternative to using nukes in self defence, Pakistan & India both have nukes & aren't friends, & I don't think I need to point out the obvious Israel & Iran.

TL;DR My problem is if America falls, the world will see worse than the "war on terrorism" & fearfully in my eyes worse than WW2 if nukes are involved.

I was commenting on the "guns to make you feel helpless" when most people don't feel that a gun some how empowers them to fight the state.

If you feel small without a piece while you walk around that's a fault of your own not the rest of us

I'm not sure I understand the what you mean by "guns to make you feel helpless"?

Second:

If you feel small without a piece while you walk around that's a fault of your own not the rest of us

How does owning or carrying a gun cause a problem (or imply fault) for the "rest of us"?

Does the same apply to screwdrivers?

What about pocket knives?

What about mace?

What about a car key?

Yea if you contsantly feel the need to have a weapon/tool to defend yourself with, and get upset when your tool of choice is taken from you. You need to calm the fuck down

Most of us are mentally stable enough to walk around without feeling the need to be able to kill anything that moves in a 100 yard radius

People place way too much importance on this imaginary need to be armed.

You admit that guns are for protection, but not protection from the government?

Most people have no intentions of overthrowing the government; they want to protect their families.

Yea protect yourself from some one more or less equally armed

If the feds come for you, an AR 15 isn't gonna save you. or 20 of them.

But your attitude is "it is impossible why even try" which is stupid.

Most people's attitude is "I will do anything to protect my family"

You say they shouldn't even be able to TRY to protect their loved ones, because it is too difficult.

Let people make their own choices.

If you want to protect yourself from government, arming yourself is not the way to do it. Just giving them an excuse to hurt you and your family. And use you as a scapegoat to take more freedoms

How do you recommend someone protect their family then? Nonviolently protest their rape? Raise awareness of their incarceration?

I'm genuinely curious, but I imagine you and I have DRASTICALLY different definitions of the word "protect" (mine is in the dictionary).

So, please expand. How does limiting the pool of "ways to protect your family" increase the protection of your family?

Am I even MORE safe from tyranny if I don't own knives as well?

Bear mace, alarm system, knife to the back the list goes on in the ways you could defend yourself

Let the gun go

So using bear mace will be more effective versus military grade weaponry than guns?

I was talking about for personal defense

You fucking nut if they know enough to kick down your door they know enough to end you

All the guns in the world won't save you

So now you have to bridge the gap between that opinion and the opinion that therefore noone should own guns.

It would never work so why try it? Perceptions about weapons need to change, the physical things aren't going anywhere until the perception changes

Swing and a miss.

Try again. I'll help.

1) You think that it is impossible for someone to defend themselves from tyranny.

2) ????????

3) Therefore no one should have guns.

Help me understand why your conclusion is valid (or at least "tangentially related")

The conclusion is guns aren't good for much but killing small groups of individuals, not fighting tyranny

Nuts like you who think they are rambo and are going to overcome trillions of dollars and men who have trained their whole lives for situations like the one you describe.

It makes 0 sense to try to engage them in a physical fight, with guns bombs or otherwise

So you are not able to bridge that gap?

Anonymity is protection ....the only protection

edit - rambo

Man the hug-cannon!

Those who are convinced love is a weapon never strike a killing blow.

Yea man we'll fight the war

Then replace the man with real capitalism. And the whole thing will start over again

Fucking idiot

implying

The AK isn't exactly trumping drones

An RPG could, though. Probably even a beer can mortar, if you aimed it well enough.

I can see more of an argument for trying to keep beer can mortars than small arms to defend yourself from big brother

They are exactly what was used to win freedom in this country just a few hundred years ago.

Yea a few hundred years back when we were all armed with the ultimate weapon, a muzzle loader

Just out of curiosity: what feels oppressive to you?

Well that worked out just swimmingly.

So how are we supposed to fight back?

We can't. It's hopeless at this point.

I guess what I was saying was that the majority of Americans do not understand the point of the 2nd Amendment. And the government has become oppressive.

There's still hope...I don't want to be part of this "brave new world"

Please let me know what can be done. The system is so broken that representation no longer works - the two parties who are really the same thing have made sure of that. And if small cells of people so fed up start actually attacking government facilities and people to start some form of revolution, they will be quickly labeled as terrorists and more laws will be passed to oppress people even more. I really don't see how this ends with anything but a downward spiral into complete and utter tyranny.

If everybody just stopped playing the game, there would be no need for a violent revolution, at least instigated from the public.

Whether or not the ruling class will sit around doing nothing as we stop playing their game, that is a different question.

Shhh stop making sense, I need my gun to protect meh from tyranny

Well you might. I guess you didn't understand the second part of my comment.

Ask yourself, will the people in power just sit around as the citizens decide to stop working, paying taxes, and using their currency? Or will they simply clamp down on the public even more?

I'm reminded of the following quote.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” ― Frank Zappa

I'm not advocating for violent revolution, I'm suggesting our hand will be forced by the people in power.

Violent action wouldn't change anything besides public perception.

Who would you kill? How would you do it. You could blow the head off of 100 oligarchs nothing would change without public support.

Guerrilla war is all about working down the oppositions will to fight you, and I don't think if anyone starts a fight over the core of their power base they will give up, this isn't Vietnam or Algeria.

Edit - You are talking about putting the biggest beast the world has ever known in a corner, then trying to work it down through petty violence. The shit storm that would follow is almost too rough to imagine.....

Again, I'm not advocating violence, I'm saying that the ruling class won't simply step down when we decide to stop playing their game. At that point, what is the solution?

Accept that we're screwed and give up? Stand around passively while they suppress the public with violence and incarceration? Or defend ourselves?

Violence will not be the solution. Period

All violence does is give them a platform to extend their power. They won't even need false flags they will have real terrorists to kill.

Civil disobedience can't be ignored and it can't be stopped.

Civil disobedience most certainly can be stopped.

I feel as if you are not understanding my point, that the ruling class probably won't let civil disobedience be successful, by using violence against those participating in said disobedience.

You're not understanding my point, unless they have public opinion on their side they cannot use violence against dissenters. If they were to crush a non violent movement with violence they would just end up with more dissenters.

So when some whack job decides to arm himself and help "free the country" he instead is used as a scape goat to divide the plebians

Oh, I forgot that the ruling class takes public opinion into account.

Again, I'm not advocating violence, but I'm not going to say its not a last resort.

???? Why the hell would they waste their time with this sham of a democracy if they could literally do whatever they wanted

Because of course they can't, public opinion does matter, and public opinion can change the world. Just needs to be strong enough

China the reactive autocracy? Ring bells?

The minds have changed though. The American public are pussified now. They're all talk. Shit has been bad for decades, and people have fought so hard for gun rights.....to.....do...what? Have their shinies to be range queens?

The meaning of "bear arms" should be carefully considered. It means to point them at people, not to carry them. "To bring a gun to bear" means to aim it. "To bear on the target" means to aim at it. To "bear" a weapon meant to point it at something.

Somehow the language has been changed, and now "bearing" a weapon means to carry it.

The 2nd amendment protects the power of armed citizen's arrest, not concealed carry. And that was the intent! Look it up!

But realistically what are you going to do with a gun? If the government sensed a threat they would firebomb it with fighter jets. Do you really think that a few semi-automatic firearms could compete with todays military forces?

This statement is correct for the times but we have allowed our government too much money and power in the sector of defense and now we have no way to end such oppression but through martyrism.

The only right that gun owners offer to protect with their guns is their right to own guns. They seem to let everything else slide.

Come on, they have tanks and jets.

They had tanks in Tienneman Square, but one guy still stood in front of them.

You- erm...

You have only seen the pictures, haven't you?

The video is a bit different.

I was trying to make a point. If you give up before trying (oh well, they have tanks, might as well not do anything), then you have failed. Better to try.

Also, to compare/contrast, the Chinese protestors were unarmed, whereas hypothetical US protestors would be armed. Also, the prevailing attitude of the military and whether or not they would carry out actions against their own countrymen would be a big factor.

Edit: ...and it's "you're," not "your."

They have tanks and jets... But how many members of the US military would drop a bomb on their own people? I'd say worst case scenario it'd end up pretty even once defections started taking place, although the government would have the advantage of organization and planning.

Now, you are debating a completely different topic.

So if I understand correctly, you don't think people should have more than 4 rounds at a time?

You admit that guns are for protection, but not protection from the government?

Most people have no intentions of overthrowing the government; they want to protect their families.

Oh, I forgot that the ruling class takes public opinion into account.

Again, I'm not advocating violence, but I'm not going to say its not a last resort.

???? Why the hell would they waste their time with this sham of a democracy if they could literally do whatever they wanted

Because of course they can't, public opinion does matter, and public opinion can change the world. Just needs to be strong enough

China the reactive autocracy? Ring bells?