5 ms·

Do people seriously claim this, though? Like, people legitimately keep guns in their homes because they might have to fight against the US Army some day? I thou

Do people seriously claim this, though? Like, people legitimately keep guns in their homes because they might have to fight against the US Army some day? I thought this was a joke, something people say with a smile and a wink while they mean "we just think they're fun".

pseudo0 5y ago
The argument is generally that a well-armed civilian populace is ungovernable without their consent. Could a modern army nuke them or firebomb them into oblivion? Sure. But then they'd be "governing" a burnt-out husk of a country and likely have become an international pariah to boot. Occupying a hostile territory while keeping the population alive and productive involves having a relatively small number of soldiers on the ground managing things and keeping people in line, and that system rapidly becomes infeasible if the locals are far more numerous and armed with semi-automatic weapons. Of course the odds of a situation like that happening are extremely low, but then again my grandparents never imagined the possibility of their country being occupied during WW2 either, so who knows what the future can bring.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  > The argument is generally that a well-armed civilian populace is ungovernable without their consent. Do you believe this? How would the populace subsist without food or imports? Maybe this was possible in the 1800s, but I'd imagine guns are the least of the worries now...
  - busymom0 5y ago
    This has happened several times in history. People get disarmed, then their rights get taken away. The most recent example is Venezuela. 2012: "Venezuela bans private gun ownership" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-18288430 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-18288430 2017: Venezuela: Video Shows Armored Vehicle Rolling Over Protesters https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuela-video-shows-armored-vehicle-rolling-over-protesters-n754891 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuela-video-shows-ar... 2019: "MSNBC Admits: Because Venezuelans Were Disarmed, They Have No Power Against the Government" https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/05/01/msnbc-admits-because-venezuelans-were-disarmed-they-have-no-power-against-the-government-n2545639 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/05/01/msnbc-... I have friends in Hong Kong who literally prayed that USA doesn't give away their guns. I have heard that argument many times "oh your guns won't stand a chance against military bombers and tanks" but that is logically flawed for two reasons: 1. If that were the case, then what's even the point of freedom of speech or any individual liberty either since the government can always trample them without a problem? You could use that reasoning to argue against literally anything that the government would oppose. 2. That's actually not the case as has been proven several times in history - including recently in Afghanistan as of this moment. The ground troops of Taliban haven't been able to be defeated - neither by USA (for 20 years) nor by the Soviets few decades ago. Another example would be USA losing to Vietnam. In a war scenario where the guns are used, both sides do not simply line up & start shooting and whoever has the biggest guns wins. Guerrillas can beat massive armies and ammo. If inferior forces couldn't defeat bigger stronger ones, then the Arabs and British would still be ruling everywhere. Thankfully, most of the cops are also aligned with the "freedom" loving population and know that entering a house without a warrant to try to disarm them will get them shot. This is one of the reasons why no-knock warrants go sideways and arguments can be made that they are unconstitutional. As for food, that's what preppers, MREs etc are for. The people who are very into firearms are also often into prepping, keep MREs stocked up.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, because leftist revolutionary types believe it. Pretty high on most of their checklists is disarming the populace.

pseudo0 5y ago

The argument is generally that a well-armed civilian populace is ungovernable without their consent. Could a modern army nuke them or firebomb them into oblivion? Sure. But then they'd be "governing" a burnt-out husk of a country and likely have become an international pariah to boot. Occupying a hostile territory while keeping the population alive and productive involves having a relatively small number of soldiers on the ground managing things and keeping people in line, and that system rapidly becomes infeasible if the locals are far more numerous and armed with semi-automatic weapons. Of course the odds of a situation like that happening are extremely low, but then again my grandparents never imagined the possibility of their country being occupied during WW2 either, so who knows what the future can bring.

StavrosK 5y ago
> The argument is generally that a well-armed civilian populace is ungovernable without their consent. Do you believe this? How would the populace subsist without food or imports? Maybe this was possible in the 1800s, but I'd imagine guns are the least of the worries now...
- busymom0 5y ago
  This has happened several times in history. People get disarmed, then their rights get taken away. The most recent example is Venezuela. 2012: "Venezuela bans private gun ownership" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-18288430 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-18288430 2017: Venezuela: Video Shows Armored Vehicle Rolling Over Protesters https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuela-video-shows-armored-vehicle-rolling-over-protesters-n754891 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuela-video-shows-ar... 2019: "MSNBC Admits: Because Venezuelans Were Disarmed, They Have No Power Against the Government" https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/05/01/msnbc-admits-because-venezuelans-were-disarmed-they-have-no-power-against-the-government-n2545639 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/05/01/msnbc-... I have friends in Hong Kong who literally prayed that USA doesn't give away their guns. I have heard that argument many times "oh your guns won't stand a chance against military bombers and tanks" but that is logically flawed for two reasons: 1. If that were the case, then what's even the point of freedom of speech or any individual liberty either since the government can always trample them without a problem? You could use that reasoning to argue against literally anything that the government would oppose. 2. That's actually not the case as has been proven several times in history - including recently in Afghanistan as of this moment. The ground troops of Taliban haven't been able to be defeated - neither by USA (for 20 years) nor by the Soviets few decades ago. Another example would be USA losing to Vietnam. In a war scenario where the guns are used, both sides do not simply line up & start shooting and whoever has the biggest guns wins. Guerrillas can beat massive armies and ammo. If inferior forces couldn't defeat bigger stronger ones, then the Arabs and British would still be ruling everywhere. Thankfully, most of the cops are also aligned with the "freedom" loving population and know that entering a house without a warrant to try to disarm them will get them shot. This is one of the reasons why no-knock warrants go sideways and arguments can be made that they are unconstitutional. As for food, that's what preppers, MREs etc are for. The people who are very into firearms are also often into prepping, keep MREs stocked up.
- beerandt 5y ago
  It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, because leftist revolutionary types believe it. Pretty high on most of their checklists is disarming the populace.