Would Jorbtar move to America?

[Potjeh]

Clearly the way forward is privately owned nuclear arms then. Or maybe privately owned biological weapons.

But yeah, for the record, I'm not against gun ownership, provided there's at least enough proof of mental competence and stability as you need to drive a car. But the whole idea of armed resistance to the government is ridiculous. Most people don't have a problem with killing armed rebels. Killing peaceful protesters though tends to make people angry. Nothing brings about a popular uprising like martyrs. And popular uprisings don't need guns to work, once majority of people stand up in protest the government can't order killing them because the military will rebel against such an order. And it's easier for the soldiers to switch sides if the opposition hasn't been shooting at them.

[shubla]

Anyways access to guns doesn't spur people to violence. Find out who the violent people are, don't let them have guns.

Getting gun in USA is ridiculously easy.

Its dumb.

[Direkled]

I'm probably already on a terrorist watch-list

Might as well make the most of it, then.

إن شاء الله

[Jalpha]

And popular uprisings don't need guns to work, once majority of people stand up in protest the government can't order killing them because the military will rebel against such an order. And it's easier for the soldiers to switch sides if the opposition hasn't been shooting at them.

The 4th of June 1989.



Peaceful protests always make an impression but they do not always succeed. Just because we've been lucky in the west for some time now it would be foolishly sanguine to believe that will always be the case. Not all soldiers are willing to fire on the people they are meant to protect but enough are. Armed protest is also not as difficult as you think, even with todays military technology, assuming you had people with the right skillsets you could overcome any of the current military tech people seem to believe is invulnerable. All of it has vulnerabilities, pretty much the only thing I can't envision an uprising being able to combat is long range missile strikes. Don't get me wrong it would be bloody and a lot of people would die, I hope nothing like it ever happens but it is definitely possible to win against the goverments armed forces.

[Potjeh]

There wasn't a critical mass. For counterexample, see breakup of Soviet Union. Armed resistance in best case results in civil war, and those can go on for decades.

[Jalpha]

The reason why there wasn't a critical mass was that the military escalated to violence early. Also I very much doubt that Chinese citizens were allowed to own weapons of any kind in Communist China. Even if they had resorted to violence they would have been at an enormous strategic disadvantage.

It is almost always the case that he who throws the first punch wins.

[shubla]

A rational persons goal would be to maximize the quality of life while preserving the most liberty

I dont see any reason why anyone would have to own even single gun.

[shubla]

Argument that US people need guns in case that they want to wipe out government is just idiotic.
Good luck fighting against things that your military has with handheld guns.

And if you get military on your side, then your citizens dont need guns anyway.

[Jalpha]

Don't worry guys, nothing bad will ever happen, if we get unhappy the government will always listen to us and if they don't we can just ask the army for help.

Lol.

[MagicManICT]

Anyways access to guns doesn't spur people to violence. Find out who the violent people are, don't let them have guns.

Going by this logic, only the people that currently own guns shouldn't have them and those that have proven to be violent. After all, isn't the definition of a "violent person" something along the lines of "one who has or is willing to cause harm to another?" (I simplified, of course). Therefore, only those willing to cause harm would actually own a gun. Pull the bullshit out of the brain by pulling your head out of your ass. The only ones that shouldn't be allowed to own guns are the ones that have constitutional rights suspended for some reason.

And yes, as I said before and as shubla reiterated, getting a gun is stupid easy even if you're a convicted felon who would go back to prison for just handling a firearm. This whole "anti-gun" thing has gotten so stupid that if you've been convicted of any felony then you can't even handle primitive technology.

And as far as to why I need to own a firearm... I prefer to catch my meat myself. It's half the cost or less of buying processed beef, chicken, and pork. Do I need something like an AR15? Hell no. I can get by with a 12 gauge shotgun, .30-06, and .22 rifle (birds, large game, and small game respectively).

Armed resistance in best case results in civil war, and those can go on for decades.

I think everyone here agrees with that. The point is that it's a last resort option, but it should be an option. Without that option, tyranny slowly takes hold. Even in a democratic nation, there is still the possibility of it. (Wasn't Hitler elected by popular vote?)