Heck, even Michelle Obama is stirring the race pot, no surprise really after the living in a house built by slaves comment, stating that the Republican party is nothing but old white men and the Democrats are the diverse party. And Trump is the divisive one
It is easy to use race....really no defense against using race. And if you do call some full of crap for using it, they scream racism. Weak sauce.
Imho the root or a significant cause is ethics, morality and accountability have been removed from our culture...violence and crime are promoted (games, film, tv and other media) and to a great degree glamorised and not prosecuted...
In my opinion, the whole argument about being able to defend oneself from the government is fundamentally flawed. It is based on the idea that we could fight off our government with guns. No way that happens. If our government wanted to "control" us, they have an incredibly vast selection of options to choose from. Food, water, finance, electricity, gas, medicine, transportation, chemicals, etc., and etc. Having a gun in your hand might make you feel powerful, but when you starve or run out of fresh water etc., big deal. A simple magnetic pulse could shut down the power grid. Just one example of the most simple and mundane way to bring the country to its knees. You could hole up for a while, sure, but that's not doing you any good in the long run. You certainly aren't winning any battles with all the rifles in the country. Kill a few "bad" guys, sure. But, you still lose to a ridiculously superior power. It's pure fallacy to think that you can defend yourself from the government with guns. Comical actually.
I hear you Fletch. I was kind of just thinking out loud. I don't claim to know much about anything. I used to think I did...lol. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I honestly didn't read the whole thread and/or remember any specific comments. I just know I have heard a million times in the last few days that we must be allowed our choice of high capacity firearms because we may be overrun by our government if we cant properly defend ourselves. Every time I hear it, I just chuckle at the thought of a bunch of us rednecks with rifles fighting a 9 headed beast that is our government with so many ways to bring us to our knees that we don't even consider a fraction of the possibilities.
Well, history has proven that you ABSOLUTELY cannot defend yourself if they are allowed to take your guns away. It's not like Hitler just stormed in and killed the Jews. It started with a simple gun registry which eventually led to confiscation which led to millions of people being killed being killed. Whether or not people would be success in defending themselves against an oppressive government is irrelevant. Constitutionally, we have the right to try if necessary.
I get it John Wayne. You'll go down with guns blazing. But, you will go down. That's my point. Dead is dead. So, its a pointless argument to use for your "right" to bear high capacity firearms.
Either way the end result is the same. You're dead and game over. I'll fight like hell with you. Anyone have a dooms day bunker?
Whose to say all government workers are sided with the corrupt government when crap hits the fan? Armed citizens could be the tipping point for the resistance. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Government is not coming after you, relax guys. It would take a leader we blindly follow, who lies his ass off and we see it as truth, would commit a crime in broad day light, yet his followers still support him. Hold on........... I am headed to the gun store and loading up
This is a bit silly... The premise of an armed citizenry as a whole is a deterrent to hold government in check. It's a deterrent for a few reasons. Primarily is the unknown part of the equation, how many rebels, what are they armed with, how much damage can they do, how much are we as government willing to lose/destroy, live with as collateral damage, etc... I think it's an easy conclusion that a nation's military like the US military, if so inclined, is not going to be greatly challenged by citizens guns. It's somewhat like fencing and cattle, there are physical barriers and then there are mental barriers like electric fence. If a 1200# cow decides to go, a little electric fence isn't going to do much but rather it's the threat of a painful experience that is deterrent enough to create a respect for the boundary.
How much of that "army" would actually stand and fight for that cause? One thing Coveymaster's analogy failed to implement is that electric fence isn't free thinking and able to decide whether it should still contain that heard or if it is unjust. I don't fear a government takeover in that regard, I fear having to live in a socialistic society which is what the Left is turning towards. Free everything, your eutopia awaits you. Then eutopia sets in and free got us unskilled, uneducated and uncivilized . We take what we deserve and get a third world country as a result.
The fence doesn't need any ability to think, it's just the deterrent to hold the cattle. In my scenario, the fence would be an armed citizenry and the cattle represents a government potentially over stepping it's bounds. The fence is a mental barrier, if the cattle decide to use their size and challenge the fence with force, the electric fence doesn't stand much of a chance.
I had it reversed in my head, thought the fence was the government(army) trying to contain its subjects and the subjects were trained via short but successful(deterrent) encounters with the fence.
