That kid could of killed twice as many people using home made explosives, let's not pretend that the gun is the only vessel that drives one's insanity.

It's simple math.

He’s trying to add a supporting point to your argument for you.

An argument using simple math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Honest question man, you think if the government wanted to come get you, you could do anything to stop them? I'm kinda tired of seeing people argue that this is why we need guns. You're already out gunned here.

Why am I coward? Because I wouldn't fight the government and die real quick? Alright. Dude you could get all your friends and family together and try to fight them. You'll still die dude. Even if there was a revolution. You'd all lose. But that's not gonna happen.

You seriously worried that the government is gonna turn on you?

Hasn't happened yet though dude.

I'm 30. How old is America now? The government hasn't turned on us one time since we started out hundreds of years ago.

It happened in the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Germany... sure... it hasn't happened in the US, but I wonder why?

If you're imagining a tyrant going apeshit and starting a civil war with modern technology, then I think any rational person would agree that that's not a possibility anyone who cares about their individual freedom should take lightly. Good governments turning into indescribable nightmares are the norm in every place on earth for centuries, not the outlier.

But what most people like myself are talking about are simply the government passing bad, lazy, regressive laws to appease a mindless threatening majority, and thus making the future look bleaker and more restrictive than a country deserves. Which is what's happening right now, and would be worse if it weren't for good people fighting for good causes.

You don’t get it.

People don’t fear guns.

They fear that one bullet.

Politicians hate assassins, and a nation of them in potential, unless they are all neutralized as a threat.

People fightbgovernments with explosives you can make from soil and wood ash.

Not guns. They kill individual soldiers and targets of opportunity, like collaborators and politicians, with guns.

Anyone with liters of blood to lose or a brain stem hates bullets, and hires men with guns to protect them from other men with guns.

Imagine if they do don’t need protection and that hired weight was just used to push people. . .

What a winner /s... you might as well say, "If my family and neighbors are being raped, pillaged, unjustly imprisoned, I won't fight back because we'll lose."

They do have the resources to get those Iraqis they simply weren’t employed effectively. I would know, many of my family members are active duty or veterans.

Striking that balance is part of “melting resources effectively”.

The US has the resources even if it has yet to make proper use of them.

I should think "resources" includes the willingness to fire on the American public.

Now once they replace the armed forces with robots, we're kinda screwed.

If being screwed means lacking the proper means to fight back, we’re already screwed.

The “right to bear arms” was intended to allow citizens to keep pace with the governments arsenal, but it has long since regulated that right away.

We may or may not be. Funny enough, it comes down to a spiritual question of whether the troops have enough goodness left within them to refuse to do evil. And I can't answer that.

But with robots, there is no conscience -- only execution of orders.

They already have much of their lethal technology automated. Drones are a good example, and they have long been testing what would amount to robots. We have no way of knowing how developed that technology is at this point.

You’ve also got bombs and other explosives/gassed that would not need thinking humans to deploy.

Of course, because being in combat is not a prerequisite for being able to process information.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but “being in combat” does not give you magical abilities to know more than everyone else.

We aren’t talking about combat, we’re talking about strategy.

Essentially resources and achievable goals is more akin to macro economics than actually on the ground combat.

Well seeing as that’s not how it would happen at all....

Ignoring for a moment that you pulled those numbers out of your ass, why in the world would the government rely on ground troops? It makes no sense for it to fail to use any number of technologies that vastly out power what citizens are allowed to own.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Considering no one mentioned carpet combing I’m going to go ahead and ignore that asinine point.

The government controls the media and McCarthyism is very effective. They don’t need to start a revolution to fight back. A few well timed attacks and the right coverage will take care of problems quite nicely. Many won’t even realize there is a revolution to join.

Some would even claim we’re already under attack from our own government and I’ve yet to see the grand citizen militia rise up.

Puke all you want, doesn’t make me wrong.

Your perception is very warped, perhaps the point of being able to be corrected.

The war has already started you missed your window for armed war fare.

I don’t think we’ve lost, but the path to victory is not going to be through physical force. The people that would need to unite don’t even realize they are under attack.

It’s an information war now, whether you like it or not.

1) please show me where I said stop buying rifles

2) If the war has already stated why aren’t people in the streets now? I’m pretty sure you’ve mentioned repeatedly that the government starting war on it’s citizens would cause an outright revolution...

The war is already hot. I’m sorry you missed the memo.

That’s pretty rich coming from you.

keep at it man, her_excellency is pretty damn ignorant.

Don't try to argue military strategy with liberals. Your time is better spent discussing any of the other large number of things they're completely ignorant and overconfident about.

Hey hey now, not all liberals are anti second amendment, let's call them leftists.

If you look at my post history you'll see I have a history of hating modern leftism, but yeah, not all leftists are anti gun or as bad as I say. It's a particular kind that I run into often that other people run into that I'm talking about.

Yes, I think they wouldn't be able to. The people they'd send would be police, the majority of whom wouldn't use excessive force on a wide scale like that and of whom own guns as well and would be required to give up theirs, and who would be against any law to confiscate guns.

In the real world, not the fantasy world of liberals, not the dreamy fantasy world where they kick in the door and gun down all law abiding gun owner, the government would fail miserably, like in Australia. They'd do a gun buyback which would fail, and at most would send ATF members to peacefully confiscate guns from people who commit crimes and have a gun registered in their name. In other words, exactly the same amount of confiscation as there is now.

If you think the government going around confiscating things works to keep it out of people's hands, you're fucking stupid.

“But the natives would’ve survived”

The Plague and small pox suggest otherwise

The Plague and small pox suggest otherwise

But we gave them blankets.

I appreciate you, brother.

This is the most disjointed, unintelligible, and misinformed post I have seen today. You have no understanding of history and you obviously lack critical thinking.

Your appeal to authority by saying you were in combat and know what you are talking about is completely ridiculous.

That's exactly my point about this post.

As a "liberal," I don't want your gun. Keep it. I do want you to be required to take classes on how to use it, be required to own a safe (with the understanding that no one but the owner is allowed to handle the gun), be at least out of high school before you can buy it, and be required to have additional training and a thorough background check before you can purchase anything that would allow a gun to fire more than a few rounds per minute (aka enough for a decent duck or deer hunter to be able to enjoy themselves-- anyone who needs 20+ rounds per minute needs to learn to aim).

I support the 2nd amendment. But not everyone is qualified to own a weapon.

This!

If/when the day comes when the government wants to go full confiscation or new rules don't pass the smell test, "liberals" like me will back you up. It's hard to explain to people that I don't like how easily accessible guns are, but understand the pubic needs access "just in case one day....". Everyone seems to want to pigeonhole the next guy as firmly for or firmly against.

Liberty with responsibility seems like good middle ground.

Thanks for being cool about it. Restores my faith that there are some of us out here on "opposite" sides who can still engage in a civilized conversation.

That's exactly my point about this post.