Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join Similar Worlds today »

Guns for law-abiding people are probably not bad

I think it's a little bit odd when people tell me that they need weapons because the government could become tyrannical and use the army on the people.

What are you going to do with your small weapon when they send in the tanks ? They have drones and planes. I doubt the people would win.

The best argument to carry weapons is to use the weapon in self defense towards a criminal.

Have you played battlefield ? You might be a soldier running around with a weapon but the tanks will blow you up and you can't hurt them back.
I never believed I needed a reason or defense for my own rights. I own several guns, and when asked why, or why do I [i]need[/i] them, my answer is always the same, "because I [i]want[/i] them and it is my legal right to have them."

As long as I keep them secure and don't use them in a crime, it's nobody else's business how many I have or why.

As for the argument about civilians versus the military... Our soldiers aren't mindless drones. They won't follow any order they see as illegal or immoral against their own country and people. Most of them have families and would not point their weapons at them. Only a handful would carry out orders to attack American civilians. And a private owned gun may not stop a tank or jet, but a single shot can stop a soldier just as it will a civilian.

Plus, no matter how far left our government becomes, I promise you, the last thing they want being shown to the world is them using deadly force on their own nation.
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
posse comitatus act; it's illegal for federal government to use active military as police (to do so would be an act of treason, punishable by death); would be an unlawful order for any military personnel to follow, and they'd be committing perjury by breaking sworn oath.

besides, tanks are easy targets without infantry support, and use of aircraft would incur too much collateral damage to even be considered.

at best, the only thing such an attempt would accomplish is a refusal from most of the military to comply, at worst, a military coup d'etat against the federal government with state backing...

then you have to consider that there are over 19 million veterans in the US (3-4 million of them combat veterans), and I doubt many of them would take such an abuse of government lying down... I certainly wouldn't.

The democrats and media are terrified out of their wits any time some mentally ill active shooter that isn't trained/disciplined starts shooting up some place, or a few civilians protest at the capital...

Imagine how they'd feel if a few million trained/disciplined combat veterans decided to start picking off politicians and government employees?

tanks and planes are scary to civilians and video game players... snipers/marksmen are scary to tyrants...
Eclipsed · 36-40, M
This is a reasonable opinion. One that many intelligent westerners that have never known war would share.. it is understandable that they are unaware of how asymmetrical warfare works and how through ambush and assassination you aqiire the weapons of you enemy. The taliban and isis and many other crude ak47 carrying soldiers never had tanks but now they do.. why is that? takes time and persistence but it works and that's why armed people are a threat to governments everywhere. Special operations soldiers are trained to do this and teach others how to do this.. its standard operating procedure in a war were the enemy has superior firepower. Those who underestimate their enemies will always fall to them eventually.
[@1178785,Eclipsed] I don't know anything about it. But the army would be better and how often do people that own weapons use them ? Do they even hit anything? I think cops regularly go to the shooting range.
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
[@1229922,Curxuia] cops are generally poorly trained with firearms; most rarely practice enough to become efficient, and fewer still can maintain their cool under fire. They're trained to write tickets and fill out accident reports, not engage in asymmetrical combat.

As for military, the majority of personnel in combat related MOS's are from pro gun states. We're more accustomed to those roles due to lifestyle (hunting, survival, firearms, etc.), a good portion of the training is just an extension of things we're already familiar with.

In other words, leo's and federal agencies wouldn't fair very well with their 9mm's and blaring sirens against a few dozen veterans rednecks concealed in the woods with high powered rifles in a shootout...
Asymmetrical warfare, where you can melt into the infrastructure ... is hard to defeat

■ Concord
■ Stonewall Jackson
■ Guadalcanal
■ Little Big Horn
■ Da Nang
■ Libya

The list is long
There are a hell of a lot more EX military then there is current.. the ‘tyrants’ would be wise not to go down that track..
just saying..
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
[@327405,TheOneyouwerewarnedabout] around 1.4 million active duty military, and 850,000 national guard in the US

as opposed to over 19 million veterans/former military, 3-4 million of them combat veterans...

not great odds for the tyrants... 🤔
Virgo79 · 56-60, M
Yea but if we hold out until another joe is elected he'll set us up with some good stuff like the taliban🙂
[@349935,Virgo79] lolz
[@1223841,AmedeusInvictus] If they don't use the tanks. They wouldn't use their other weapons either. But once they have used real bullets it's probably going to end up with tanks being used for at that point they we proven that they are willing to execute people.
AmedeusInvictus · 31-35, M
[@1229922,Curxuia] Good points. It is refreshing to hear original opinions.
[@1223841,AmedeusInvictus] but this isn't original. I have had this same debate with people since Columbine
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
When I was about your age I was in the officers mess having a chat with the guys with lots of scrambled eggs on their hats. I asked them what they would do if the PM of Canada ordered them to take the streets of Alberta if there was an independence vote. The big boys all laughed and said, "I will tell the troops to stand down". It depends on the character of the guys and girls in the tanks.
[@10033,hippyjoe1955] I tried to reply with the comment over but it didn't tag you.
I always wonder what people who are stockpiling arms potentially against our government think they’re going to do if they find themselves facing the nuclear weapons this country has available.
[@573519,PrivateHell] So I ask again, [b]what[/b] do the people think stockpiling arms against their country would achieve when the country in question has nuclear weapons ?
I’m not concerned about Biden nuking the U.S. We’ve already [b]had[/b] a president who wanted to send in the National Guard against citizens just for protesting. Of course, that was only [b]certain[/b] citizens. And that’s why certain citizens lack trust for the government.
[@328496,bijouxbroussard] you're right. But there is a huge difference between sending soldiers against armed civilian terrorists taking over city blocks, and nuking entire segments of our own cities.

You see how upset you and others got over that decision? It would nothing compared to dropping a nuke.
[@573519,PrivateHell] I look at how some people were able to storm the Capitol building while [b]armed[/b]; one was only killed after breaching the inner sanctum. They even established a make-shift [b]gallows[/b] and chanted “Hang Pence” as a [b]terrorist[/b] group would. Somehow some were [b]still[/b] referring to them as “Patriots”.
And every dictatorship and Communist nation’s first order of business was to take the guns. The second order of business was to take everything else. It’s so easy to do when your soldiers know they can kill and rape without any reprisal from a populace that has been disarmed.
[@604557,stratosranger] I understand that it's harder to rule people when they have their own weapons , but it looks like the only difference would be that it would take more effort to beat the people. But the winner would still be the state.
Maybe. But I’d just as soon as go with the option of fighting till my last breath and burning it all down so they get nothing versus being a slave. [@1229922,Curxuia]
Geno1996 · 26-30, M
Okay, doesn't mean nobody should defend themselves. Sorry, second amendment. If you studied any history, you'd know the government can attempt to repeat history of what other governments have done before. Why give them the slightest chance to do that?
[@711771,Geno1996] I think laws are better at preventing things like that. Do you remember the news about the military coup in Asia ? So the army there was separate from the people by class and power. So that army was willing to shoot its own people.

If Americans keep the army like it is now it's difficult to have tyrannical army because they are connected to the people and won't hurt the country should they be ordered. The more likely scenario is that they build drones and find a type of people who don't mind doing the dirty work and teach them how to properly use the drones and now they don't really need a big army to rule the people.
Geno1996 · 26-30, M
[@1229922,Curxuia] You know what? You're absolutely right. We don't need a huge army to rule people. I can agree on that. Also, I don't think we should have a huge government, either. We need to have a very limited government so as to prevent any government overreach, or we'll all be screwed eventually. That and we need to all start being responsible for ourselves and our loved ones, which sadly many people don't wanna do.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Squirt guns against MOABs! Wonderful picture! No need to resort to even small scale nukes.

And soon to be against lasers which don't need to have amo.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[@1229922,Curxuia] better is to be unarmed. A Pizza can be considered hostile! 🙃😈😁
[@412417,DeWayfarer] you should be naked. Show them your have not been hiding anything on your body 😅
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[@1229922,Curxuia] no problem. The one picture on here would surely cause their death by laughing! 😁😆🤣
BigBulge · 41-45, M
I've read that, in most cases involving a criminal, usually the criminal will take your gun away from you.
[@1222482,BigBulge] of course you have. Reporting times when owning a gun actuallybsaved people's lives goes against the narrative and agenda.
BigBulge · 41-45, M
MotherHubbard · 56-60, F
Gee. Too bad we can't use past experience to avoid the future gun harms that we guarantee when we allow law abiding gun ownership.
Asificair · M
I suggest therapy or dildos instead.

Post Comment
27171 people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Groups Category Members