Question for gun folks...

[jeeper]

Do you guys honestly think that any country that declares war on the US would do so in a way that your guns would matter? I mean, beyond providing you power and security in the post apocalyptic wasteland that you'd be living in?

Not another country, but our own, yes.
Although I disagree with the Bundy’s, one could not deny that the gun toting Americans did their job stopping a perceived government injustice.
The bunkerville standoff ended with the gov backing down when Americans stood their ground ready to fight.

I also remember stories from years ago about Texans taking up arms against the cartel that were entering their properties and kept them at bay.

 

[Cody]

A lot of farmers in the middle east held their ground well enough to be a concern and annoyance to the largest military industrial complex in the world. 🤷‍♂️

Why would we nuke a bunch of farmers?

 

[Cody]

And... So because of [Theoretical scenario A] we should all just give up our guns? Nah.

Who here once said we should give up our guns? I simply said if you're physically or mentally unable to safely operate a weapon, you probably don't need to have one on you in public.

Anybody mentions anything about even thinking about looking into making even the slightest change to any gun law, and it's instantly "you can't take our freedom, nobody invades America because of my collection of firearms I'll protect my home from the government it's my right!".

 

[Herzog]

Why would we nuke a bunch of farmers?

So we don't need guns because they'd just nuke us? hmmm. So really, why didn't we (they) nuke the middle east then? What's your game theory here?

 

[Herzog]

Anybody mentions anything about even thinking about looking into making even the slightest change to any gun law, and it's instantly "you can't take our freedom, nobody invades America because of my collection of firearms I'll protect my home from the government it's my right!".

That's because with every inch that is given, a mile is taken.

 

[Cody]

So we don't need guns because they'd just nuke us? hmmm. So really, why didn't we (they) nuke the middle east then? What's your game theory here?

If someone declared war on the US and wanted to attack mainland us, yes I do think that would be the kind of way we'd see. Where on earth could ground troops stage, in sufficient quantities, to make any meaningful attack on the US? Mexico? Canada? Cuba lol?

There is simply no way to get to the US outside of long range missiles.

 

[DAA]

So... I believe. You can take this as "choose to believe" if you wish.

I believe 2A is about being able to keep the gov't at bay. And I think it's effective in that regard.

- DAA

 

[mbryson]

So... I believe. You can take this as "choose to believe" if you wish.

I believe 2A is about being able to keep the gov't at bay. And I think it's effective in that regard.

- DAA

Can't agree more

 

[glockman]

It is absolutely effective in that regard. If you don't think the government would ever come for you, I have dozens of examples in the last 30 years. The ATF is going door to door asking about guns purchased that they are not legally allowed to have a list of. If you think these ass clowns would not overstep their authority the second they knew there was not an immediate threat of death, you aren't paying any attention the last 5 years.

 

[anderson750]

So... I believe. You can take this as "choose to believe" if you wish.

I believe 2A is about being able to keep the gov't at bay. And I think it's effective in that regard.

- DAA

While today warfare on US soil would not be something like Ukraine, the fact that there are so many guns in the hands of private citizens takes that possibility entirely out of the equation. Any warfare on US soil will be mass casualty.

I agree while heaetedly with @DAA ‘s comment here. Tell me to take my tinfoil hat off if you would like but if it were not for our 2nd amendment rights I think you would see more authoritarian actions against US citizens over history from our own .gov and 3 letter agencies.

A different rabbit hole here …..why do IRS agents need firearms. They are not considered law enforcement…..they are tax enforcement.

 

[Pike2350]

A different rabbit hole here …..why do IRS agents need firearms. They are not considered law enforcement…..they are tax enforcement.

While I may not agree with them being armed...I can see the "need". They tend to be hated and can deliver bad news., much of the time people don't like. People are unpredictable.

I think ofnit like a repo guy, ir process server carrying a gun. They may not need it often, but if they do, law enforcement won't be available quick enough. Just my thought...and again I don't agree with it, but can see the rationalizations.....at least for the "field agents"

 

[glockman]

While I may not agree with them being armed...I can see the "need". They tend to be hated and can deliver bad news., much of the time people don't like. People are unpredictable.

I think ofnit like a repo guy, ir process server carrying a gun. They may not need it often, but if they do, law enforcement won't be available quick enough. Just my thought...and again I don't agree with it, but can see the rationalizations.....at least for the "field agents"

I'm fine with the Fed government allowing them to concealed carry. I oppose them providing the gun and training and making it a requirement for what should be accountants. The IRS doesn't need an enforcement arm. They should use the already established and paid for enforcement branches.

 

[Herzog]

A different rabbit hole here …..why do IRS agents need firearms. They are not considered law enforcement…..they are tax enforcement.

Ironic isn't it. Our tax dollars are paying for the training of armed agents to obtain more tax dollars from us. Maybe they expect people to start questioning the whole thing a lot more and this is their response?

 

[anderson750]

While I may not agree with them being armed...I can see the "need". They tend to be hated and can deliver bad news., much of the time people don't like. People are unpredictable.

I think ofnit like a repo guy, ir process server carrying a gun. They may not need it often, but if they do, law enforcement won't be available quick enough. Just my thought...and again I don't agree with it, but can see the rationalizations.....at least for the "field agents"

Going back to the original intent of this thread…..I think I would be more concerned about bean counters carrying a gun than an 80+ year old farmer.

 

[jeeper]

Brown city teenagers shooting each other, again. Not old white cowboys.

Teen who died in Saturday shooting identified

A teen who was critically injured in a shooting near 500 South Post Street in Salt Lake City and later died Saturday has been identified.

www.ksl.com

 

[Herzog]

Brown city teenagers shooting each other, again. Not old white cowboys.

Teen who died in Saturday shooting identified

A teen who was critically injured in a shooting near 500 South Post Street in Salt Lake City and later died Saturday has been identified.

www.ksl.com

Sad. So I'm not gonna read the article, but I'm assuming they blame the guns and not the people involved, right? Seems to be the modus operandi.

 

[SoopaHick]

Sad. So I'm not gonna read the article, but I'm assuming they blame the guns and not the people involved, right? Seems to be the modus operandi.

Just what happened. Nothing Biased in it. Just some kid ran up to a car and shot multiple times into it.

 

[anderson750]

It is absolutely effective in that regard. If you don't think the government would ever come for you, I have dozens of examples in the last 30 years. The ATF is going door to door asking about guns purchased that they are not legally allowed to have a list of. If you think these ass clowns would not overstep their authority the second they knew there was not an immediate threat of death, you aren't paying any attention the last 5 years.

 

[Houndoc]

I think the unwillingness to even engage in a conversation with someone who has a different perspective is just absurd. THAT is the problem

That hits the nail on the head.

As gun owners when we refuse to discuss violence and suicide in any meaningful way, it both turns general public opinion away from us and the 2nd Amendment (hard to generate sympathy for our cause when we don't show it publicly when people die) and leaves legislation in the hands of those whose proposals we don't find acceptable.

Join the conversation in a meaningful way and look for steps that may help reduce crime and suicide without limiting the rights of the rest. I will stir the hornets' nest and toss out steps like universal background checks (I will admit to being a little worried when I sell guns privately whose hands they may end up in), raising the age to buy rifles to 21 (two recent mass shootings were 18 year olds who purchased their weapons legally), make juvenile convictions part of a background check up to say 25 years of age, etc.

 

[anderson750]

That hits the nail on the head.

As gun owners when we refuse to discuss violence and suicide in any meaningful way, it both turns general public opinion away from us and the 2nd Amendment (hard to generate sympathy for our cause when we don't show it publicly when people die) and leaves legislation in the hands of those whose proposals we don't find acceptable.

Join the conversation in a meaningful way and look for steps that may help reduce crime and suicide without limiting the rights of the rest. I will stir the hornets' nest and toss out steps like universal background checks (I will admit to being a little worried when I sell guns privately whose hands they may end up in), raising the age to buy rifles to 21 (two recent mass shootings were 18 year olds who purchased their weapons legally), make juvenile convictions part of a background check up to say 25 years of age, etc.

I don't think those are things that stir the hornets nest. However, historically, giving an inch ends up in losing a mile when it comes to the .gov and politicians. Things are typically written legally to a much further point than what they are selling so there is going to be a lot of doubt by peasants who do not trust our ruling class. Kind of the old Nancy Pelosi-ism.....we need to pass the bill to see what is in the bill.

Am I correct in my memory of one of the last mass shooters who was 18 had to get a co-sign from his dad to get the gun. And this was after his parents called the cops on him for making threats with knives within the 12 months before this happened? If my memory is correct, I hope the father is charged with murder also.