This is a straw man argument. Of course, "no". The problem is not that we are under tyranny now, here or elsewhere. It is that we could end up there at some point.

*edit: on a national scale. There are neighborhoods today in the US where police protection is a joke and people do need to protect themselves with fire.

for it's part, the Right needs to stop insisting that individuals should be able to have assault rifles at status quo

background checks and waiting periods are below what the baseline requirements should be, and arguments against this do massive damage to their cause

How about the one right before you just ask another question?

the one asked AFTER you made your false accusation against me?

the one which I answered shortly after it was raised?

It's a masturbation fantasy, and literally nothing else. This is completely standard for gun fetishists.

Criminals break into my house and threaten my family? I blow them away with my huge semi-auto! I am celebrated as a hero. My erection is large and magnificent.

Terrorists attack while I'm shopping at the mall? I blow them away with my concealed carry 9mm, saving hundreds of lives. I am celebrated as a hero. My erection is large and magnificent.

Government comes to put me in a FEMA camp? Me and the boys prepare for siege, mowing down waves of deep state lackeys for days until the government runs home crying to momma. Having defeated the evil government, I am now President. My erection is large and magnificent.

The US isn't even especially free. Everyone knows about the stupid laws and harsh penalties, but just regular walking around is so limited. In the nordic countries you can walk and camp almost anywhere.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

Does this correction make it clearer?

Indeed, incrementalism is the only way the Left will get the Right's politicians to do anything at all, and the reaction the Right's politicians must fear is not mere emotional triggering--it's physical triggering that leaves them bleeding on a ballfield like Rep. Steve Scalise. There is some small percentage of the populace that absolutely would use their guns against politicians if they got whipped into a "they really ARE coming for my guns!" frenzy. And Republican elected officials know that. I believe there is a genuine fear that the monster they created is beyond their control.

Sorry but this also has been proven false, way back in 1861. Not only did the military continue to follow their orders and fire on fellow citizens, they fired on members of their own families.

And not only that, but back then the rebels had actual weapons parity with the government forces, including small arms, cannons, cavalry and even a navy -- and they still lost. Today even the small arms private citizens can own are no match for what the actual army carries, never mind the far more important stuff like artillery, mortars, missile launchers, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter planes, strategic bombers, naval ships, unmanned drones, and oh by the way tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. The idea that you and Festus would be able to defeat a military like that with nothing but small arms in any kind of actual engagement is so ridiculous it's barely worth discussing.


And not only that, but the even more hilarious part is that when an actual authoritarian demagogue comes along, it turned out that it was the right wing gun nuts who rushed out to vote for him in droves. Then the first thing he did upon getting in office was start violating the Constitution six ways from Sunday and there wasn't a peep from any of them. The notion that these are the same people that would break out their AR-15's and stand up for the little guy is as laughable as the fantasy that they could actually accomplish anything by doing so.

Some people are so concerned about government tyranny that they feel like they need to have guns to protect themselves from potential government action. Those same people elect a President who seemingly admires strongmen and who definitely leans towards an authoritarian style of governance.

Something doesn't make sense.

It's not that it's ignored; it's that the Supreme Court weighed in on it and, for now, gave the pro-gun side an easy answer, which they regularly use. J. Scalia, in the infamous Heller decision, dismissed the "well regulated militia" part of the 2A as a mere prefatory clause that gives historical context but has no legal effect of expanding or restricting the right in the operative clause. J. Stevens, in dissent, saw it differently (of course). But Scalia signaled to his flock that they could dissociate the historical context from a current individual right to carry handguns, and the flock definitely got the memo.
If you get into a legal argument with an educated gun nut, you will almost certainly get the Heller rejoinder to your point about militias.

Scalia's rationale under Heller belongs under the 9th amendment. He did massive disservice to the 2nd by shoehorning it in there.


That said, Scalia does make a really good point about the Congressional control over the militia and the problem thereby created if the militia is to be a check on Congress.

Ah yes, I remember all the rebellion and militias coming up out of the weeds when they rounded up a bunch of Americans because of their Japanese heritage. ICE is rounding up people because of Hispanic heritage right now and holding them without trial! Why haven't you started shooting yet?

Ya but wait until they round up real (aka white) Americans.

lol, why control the majority by rounding them up in camps when you can control them by having them be the herders?

My friend the admiral, who has a certain position at Court and lives in St James's Palace and sees HM most days, says she is a great person to work for. In fact, after years of dealing with the types you find in high command in Britain and in NATO, I think she's a bit of a relief. He doesn't do gossip much, but as far as I know HM has never given him a wedgie. (She did once raise an eyebrow at him because he said, 'Welcome home, Your Majesty,' after she came back from her summer stay in Balmoral, and he immediately recognised that you don't welcome your sovereign back to her own gaff. She's hosting you, you're not hosting her. But she didn't make a thing of it.)

You're making my point, though.

If liberals make the argument that all guns should be banned, the NRA can more legitimately claim that evil libs are trying to take your guns away and you need to oppose ANY reform.

Who is actually doing that though?

But really they just like shooting guns

I think you meant to say that Scalia is a blowhard phony, you human juicero

Lots of people?

If you mean democratic politicians specifically, then yeah, I agree with you and microbet. Most of them are focusing on incrementalism and it's not working. I know, I'm not saying it should be easy for them to succeed.

This post needs way more love

We really need to just catalogue the pro-gun arguments so we can save time when a new gun rights advocate enters the thread. Off the top of my head:

Argument: You'll never prevent all murders and shootings
Response: That's OK, dramatically reducing them is a great goal

Argument: Gun control won't make a difference anyway, people will find other ways to kill/commit suicide
Response: Well, it has in every other civilized country. Plus since guns are very effective killing tools, it's not exactly a leap of logic to think that fewer guns would mean fewer murders and shootings.

Argument: Guns and the second amendment are a guard against tyranny
Response: Good luck with your gun against a drone, also an armed citizenry did nothing when their fellow americans were rounded up and thrown in internment camps during world war two.

Argument: I need my gun for personal protection
Response: You're more likely to shoot yourself or your family than use your gun to ward off a home intruder. In short, statistically your gun makes you less safe, not more.

Argument: bats/rocks/cars/tricks kill people too
Response: That's true, but guns kill far more people, are way prevalent, and are far more effective at killing people

Argument: gun control is ineffective because people would still just find ways to get guns
Response: Sure there might be a black market, there probably is in other civilized countries, but buying goods on the black market is risky and expensive. Some people would try to do that, but many more would not.

I know there are a couple I'm forgetting