Thank reflexive gun rights advocate Barack Hussein Obama for that loophole.

Maybe if you stopped getting bogged down in hypotheticals your proposal would be something we could take more seriously?

Then maybe you should ****ing argue for it instead of against it? It doesn't sound like anyone thinks you are anti gun here, maybe you should look in the ****ing mirror for a minute.

Why? If the reason for owning guns is to stop government oppression or intimidate them from oppressing they will be necessary along with far more powerful weapons.

considering the question was posed in the context of my proposal, yes, that response was clearly within theoretical land


your second point may be better informed by asking what "the gun owners of america" would look like under my proposal, rather the current situation which, and I can't stress this enough, is undesirable

it is way too easy to get guns atm

This is a paranoid delusion touted by gun nuts. No such purpose is recognised by the Second Amendment, which is concerned solely with the defence of the state.

Every one of these guerilla groups that's been mentioned in this thread made use of really heavy weapons that (I think?) everyone agrees private citizens shouldn't have. Mortars, rockets, heavy machine guns, etc.

Good thing nothing has changed in 50 years. We also weren't in a hot war like what is being proposed...

yeah, this board has a major problem with false duality


either I'm pro punch-a-nazi or I'm pro nazi

either I'm against all guns or I demand a gun on every belt

because we don't have adequate safeguards (against misuse) in place right now


it's like people are only reading the things I say that they feel like disagreeing with...

How many courageous warriors could I put together without the state noticing ahead of time? Also, most of us are too cowardly, or too intelligent, to throw our lives away on a suicide mission.

You should be arguing for looser restrictions if you want to protect against the army and gov. We will need stingers and stuff.

Oh. So if we have these ill described safeguards fully automatic is ok.

3 somewhat unrelated points:

1) I've always been a fan of guns providing an equalizing effect in clear asymmetrical spots. Think 20 year old college female facing mentally ill rapist who outweighs her by 100 lbs. Providing that she carries this gun in an iron-clad lockbox that opens only when it detects nearby rapists, is this thread OK with that?

2) I don't disagree with the assessment that taking down a big government with privately owned arms is nearly impossible. But I do think that an armed citizenry can make things miserable to the point of causing said government to change its plans, or devote resources to "solving" the problem that might have caused more damage elsewhere. Would you rather be a jewish guy in the warsaw ghetto with a crappy handgun or just hop on the train?

3) Is the political will of the country to "ban guns" in some form or another there? There are some gun-loving democrats- so its not a clear cut partisan issue. Like every other "big" thing, unless you can come up with some kind of bipartisan agreement, it either won't work (whatever tax scheme is being developed currently) or will breed forever resentment (see obamacare)

it doesn't have to be a secret

in fact, it's probably better if it isn't


* and importantly, by the time the state reaches the point where we would need this kind of organization, it will then be exceedingly difficult to orchestrate it

I would imagine that many cops and soldiers would defect if there was ever a war on the people. So I got that going for me in addition to all the citizens with guns that will be on my side. I'm neither alone nor helpless. In fact, if I was alone, then it would be a total waste of time for the government to come and get me. By that time, I'd be hunting and gathering to sustain myself, likely with an illegal hunting rifle and an outlawed fishing pole. The war would already have been fought so why bother little old me?

at a certain point, yes those who demonstrate responsible ownership over time should have looser restrictions

it's kinda like the driver's permit process - start w/ a learner's, graduate to a limited, obtain your full

Pretty sure said government would just stick back and play video games with the drones dropping bombs on all our liberty fighters.

So how long should a person have to keep his cool before reaching commander level and having access to rocket launchers and full auto weapons? What weapon do we stop at?

Really tough call here trying to decide between a system where sometimes people get mowed down by machine guns and a system where it never happens.

I don't think an IRA equivalent would last very long with today's technology. Fighting the good fight against a tyrannical US government just seems like a wet dream.

I don't have it worked out to that level of detail, of course.

I'm proposing a rough framework to approach this issue, not a ready-to-implement solution.

lol

Like, it's not that there were no Jews who fought back rather than just complying. They are ~all dead, ~all killed in relatively short order.

Why do you think we are arguing about it?

Pick a side. So far the side you said you picked isn't the side you're supporting, which makes you a hypocrite and we hate hypocrites from other forums laying their truth bombs on Politics.

No, but that's why everybody thinks Americans are past helping. Go right ahead and make the country safe for guns and not people, because guns matter more than people. And, while you're at it, carry on with a medical system that forces the victims of gun violence to resort to GoFundMe to pay their medical expenses.

I wasn't trying to be hyperbolic when I called us a suicidal death cult. It's the best way I can think of to describe our governments policies at the moment.