A gun control convo with my liberal friend....

[SoCalNoMore]

So we were having a nice discussion over gun control etc. The one topic that stood out was magazine size and weapon type. Ya know, why do regular people need 30 rounds, why do people need AR's etc.

So I asked him- Steve, are you immune from being a victim of a crime? He said no, but I dont hang out in crime areas and don't have a risky job or live in a risky neighborhood. I said ya, I understand that. But where do you think criminals go when they want to rob a house, or invade a house to rob and rape a woman? He said, well I guess nice areas.

I then asked, Steve if we were at my house where you know I have guns to protect myself and my family and 3 guys kicked in the door and had guns, what would you want me to do? Get my gun or call 911? He said, well of course get your gun. I said great, that is exactly what I would do. I would protect you and whomever is in the house with us to the best of my abilities. I then asked, what would you do when I ran out of my 7-10 bullets and there were still 2 guys standing and charging towards you. Would you yell call 911, or would you pray I could reload quickly so I could save you and stop the threat? He slowly replied, well of course I would hope you could reload. I then asked if my AR was sitting against the wall, would he run to get it or would he leave it alone because it is now illegal to posses it? He said, I get your point.... and then we had a beer.

I learned when you can get a gun grabber (who at least is somewhat logical) to visualize why they would "need" something for protection, they DO start to rationalize why any citizen would need protection.

Now our conversation does not cover all points of the gun debate, but Steve really did start thinking about it differently.

Share your story of a "conversion".

 

[<*(((><]

The lion's share of our NEED to have military-style weapons at our disposal as citizens is to keep our government in check, that is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. If we had a government that decided they wanted to make the current president dictator because he/she is so well loved, and after he/she becomes a dictator, becomes tyrannical and decides he/she loves power more than his/her citizens, then that is where we must have weapons that are at least close to the firepower of the military that takes his/her orders (and this is not to say that the military would take his/her orders, but I'm not letting anything go to chance, as I know we have a great military that truly serves the American people).

And if you don't think that this can happen, and that I'm just some tin hatted, inbred, bitter clinger from Idaho. Do some history on how Hitler took over Austria, Austrian people saw stability and many likened Hitler to rule them. Well they got more than they could bargain for with that nut job.

I'm not saying that what you said to your friend was wrong, as I'm right there with you in using firearms in defense of my family, I just feel the American people often forget that the right to bear arms is possibly the most important Amendment as it protects all other Amendments and Rights on the Bill of Rights from being stripped from us under tyranny (whether a soft tyranny or heavy handed).

Anyways, good for you in calmly explaining it to your friend, next time you have a beer with him, I suggest you talk to him, maybe give him some insight as to the 2nd Amendment being a protection of peoples rights.

I'm glad that your conversation went well, I've had a few with some of my old college buddies and they weren't as receptive. But I think I still got them thinking. I'm not giving up however as I feel it is vastly important that all governments know that it is US the people of the country that pays their paychecks and that we are over them, not the other way around. And there should be a healthy amount of fear in the government of the 88 million in it's populace that are gun owners.

What was that line? "A government of the people, by the people and for the people," oh how sad it is when you try and apply that to our current situation and the politicians WE have elected. We can't even get our government officials to be required to have the same nationalized Obamacare as they have forced on us. So much for, "a government of the people." They have made themselves into a different class of people than us, I just wish more people would open their eyes to this.

 

[627PCFan]

Ive repeatedly gone down this road with my MIL. I keep getting, "I couldnt kill anyone even in self defense, I would rather be dead than take a life." I through in "what about your family, your daughters?" Still same answer. It was then that I realized that some people just dont get it and dont value their own lives. And theres no getting around that.

 

[mcdonl]

My answer to the question of why is typically because I should have the same tools at my disposal the deputy who could be 20 minutes away has at his disposal.

 

[JustinJ]

The lion's share of our NEED to have military-style weapons at our disposal as citizens is to keep our government in check, that is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. If we had a government that decided they wanted to make the current president dictator because he/she is so well loved, and after he/she becomes a dictator, becomes tyrannical and decides he/she loves power more than his/her citizens, then that is where we must have weapons that are at least close to the firepower of the military that takes his/her orders.

I'm sorry but if anybody thinks AR15's will provide anything close to the firepower of the military then they are living in la-la land. And if they think it is a good idea to make artillery, armor, anti-tank and and anti-aircraft weapons readily available they are also living in la-la land. And before anybody tries to claim otherwise there is no parallel between defeating a modern military at home and afghan fighters trying to make it too costly to continue an occupation on the others side of the planet.

And if you don't think that this can happen, and that I'm just some tin hatted, inbred, bitter clinger from Idaho. Do some history on how Hitler took over Austria, Austrian people saw stability and many likened Hitler to rule them. Well they got more than they could bargain for with that nut job.

So if the majority of Germans supported Hitler to begin with what good would a small group of rebels do in defeating the German military while holding the support of the majority of the citizens?

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

I think a lot of these people think the government can do no wrong. They almost worship government. They think it is crazy to talk about tyranny. These people will never appreciate the 2nd Amendment.

 

[gossamer]

The lion's share of our NEED to have military-style weapons at our disposal as citizens is to keep our government in check, that is what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Yes, the 2a is partly about a balance between rights of the citizen and power of the Government. A reading of the history of 2A shows it was motivated by a few things including defending the US and, yes, even hunting.

Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, Rhode Island and Massachusetts ratifying conventions all suggested adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution containing - among others - provisions in favor of a RKBA.

States, (eg, Pennsylvania) recommended an amendment be added saying,

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals..."

(emphasis mine) [Robert Churchill, "Gun Regulation, the Police Power and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Early America: The Legal Context of the Second Amendment," Law and History Review 25 (2007)]

The founders' motivations for the Second Amendment were diverse and about many things including hunting and protecting the US.

I'm happy the OP was able to demonstrate the value of the diversity of tools at ones disposal for defense of self and others.

 

[Tommygunn]

I'm sorry but if anybody thinks AR15's will provide anything close to the firepower of the military then they are living in la-la land. And if they think it is a good idea to make artillery, armor, anti-tank and and anti-aircraft weapons readily available they are also living in la-la land. And before anybody tries to claim otherwise there is no parallel between defeating a modern military at home and afghan fighters trying to make it too costly to continue an occupation on the others side of the planet.

And if you don't think that this can happen, and that I'm just some tin hatted, inbred, bitter clinger from Idaho. Do some history on how Hitler took over Austria, Austrian people saw stability and many likened Hitler to rule them. Well they got more than they could bargain for with that nut job.

So if the majority of Germans supported Hitler to begin with what good would a small group of rebels do in defeating the German military while holding the support of the majority of the citizens?

You're right. I agree completly. If our government SHOULD somehow devolve into a murderous tyranny, it would be far better to live out a wretched, miserable existance, or even be fried up extra crispy in some oven, than have even the "snowball's-chance-in-hell" of being able to resist having a weapon would offer. We all know there is never any dignity in dying while fighting off a tyrant as such people are never revered; better to succumb to the terror because your photo may someday be displayed in a Holocaust Memorial somewhere.

 

[JustinJ]

You're right. I agree completly. If our government SHOULD somehow devolve into a murderous tyranny, it would be far better to live out a wretched, miserable existance, or even be fried up extra crispy in some oven, than have even the "snowball's-chance-in-hell" of being able to resist having a weapon would offer. We all know there is never any dignity in dying while fighting off a tyrant as such people are never revered; better to succumb to the terror because your photo may someday be displayed in a Holocaust Memorial somewhere.

Anything is possible, i suppose, but there are some dramatic differences between our government structure and that of pre-Hitler Germany. But if one really does worry about such things a far more effective strategy would be actual involvement today in preventing such an event rather than thinking it can be fixed afterwards with personal gun collections. If just a fraction of the attention paid to protecting the second amendment was spent defending the others it would go much farther to preventing the unlikely tyranny scenario to begin with.

 

[Tommygunn]

Anything is possible, i suppose, but there are some dramatic differences between our government structure and that of pre-Hitler Germany. But if one really does worry about such things a far more effective strategy would be actual involvement today in preventing such an event rather than thinking it can be fixed afterwards with personal gun collections. If just a fraction of the attention paid to protecting the second amendment was spent defending the others it would go much farther to preventing the unlikely tyranny scenario to begin with.

I absolutly agree that doing something active today would be far better than waiting until the SHTF - which is why I just sent what for me is a pretty phantasmagorical amount of money, $100.00 to the N.R.A. to help them deal with the political shenanigans that are currently underfoot.
Structural differences between us and prewar Germany exist but I'm not sure how meaningful they are; history may "repeat" itself but I don't think that means it has match up precisely through each iteration. I do, however, think the price goes up every time history repeats . . . . . . .

 

[va1911]

Ive repeatedly gone down this road with my MIL. I keep getting, "I couldnt kill anyone even in self defense, I would rather be dead than take a life." I through in "what about your family, your daughters?" Still same answer. It was then that I realized that some people just dont get it and dont value their own lives. And theres no getting around that.

It is so unbelievable to me that you can value the life of a criminal scumbag over your own life let alone your children. I am sorry but there is something wrong with your MIL. More proof that liberalism is a mental illness.

 

[gossamer]

We all know there is never any dignity in dying while fighting off a tyrant as such people are never revered;

I don't own an AR15 and am very capable of dying while fighting with what I have.

Sarcasm aside, I think there are stronger arguments for owning and AR15 platform than "Then, I will go down fighting."

 

[gossamer]

I am sorry but there is something wrong with your MIL. More proof that liberalism is a mental illness.

Because anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do must be mentally ill.

While I don't agree with his friends notion that taking another life is worse than losing my own, I also find it equally loathsome to call someone "mentally ill" for their personal choices in life.

Incidentally, there are learned men in our history who took very serious exception to those that passed judgement on entire groups of people because of what they heard or read about them third-hand.

 

[<*(((><]

I'm not implying in my posts here that we are going to become Nazi Germany, I'm just bringing to light how countries in our history books have fallen, you don't necessarily have to look just at Germany. Look at the Roman civilization, they fell because of their own greatness, the populace got complacent, the government tried to create a heaven on earth at the expense of it's people.

The point I'm trying to get across is that 88 million gun owners is enough to give any radical that has his/her sights on a soft tyranny takeover of the US pause, it makes them realize that they must disarm the populace before continuing. I know there are other great reasons for the right to bear arms, but my first and foremost reason for supporting the 2nd Amendment is and always will be to protect the republic our forefathers fought and died for. I'm not the one that is focused on making change after the SHTF, that is why I'm promoting what I am in this very thread and in other areas that I may have little influence in (i.e. writing reps, supporting nra, etc.).

Anyways, I don't want to hijack the OP thread, anymore than it seems that I have, I apologize for taking your thread in a different direction than you wanted. But I will leave you with me reposting a part of my original post which I think is a telling part of where we are as a government and people.

What was that line? "A government of the people, by the people and for the people," oh how sad it is when you try and apply that to our current situation and the politicians WE have elected. We can't even get our government officials to be required to have the same nationalized Obamacare as they have forced on us. So much for, "a government of the people." They have made themselves into a different class of people than us, I just wish more people would open their eyes to this.

 

[JustinJ]

I absolutly agree that doing something active today would be far better than waiting until the SHTF - which is why I just sent what for me is a pretty phantasmagorical amount of money, $100.00 to the N.R.A. to help them deal with the political shenanigans that are currently underfoot.

But again, given the disparity of weapons between the gov't and citizens focusing solely on the second amendment is not an effective strategy to prevent a tyranny. There are other groups and people highly active in defending other parts of the constitution and fighting government over reach but their support, especially from members of the gun community, seems to be greatly lacking. The fourth amendment has been greatly undermined but where is the support to protect it? It is just as important as the second, if not more in modern times, in protecting us from tyrannical rule. If the second amendment is there to preserve the others it has failed miserably.

 

[<*(((><]

I agree with you ^. You make good points.

 

[gossamer]

But again, given the disparity of weapons between the gov't and citizens focusing solely on the second amendment is not an effective strategy to prevent a tyranny. There are other groups and people highly active in defending other parts of the constitution and fighting government over reach but their support, especially from members of the gun community, seems to be greatly lacking. The fourth amendment has been greatly undermined but where is the support to protect it? It is just as important as the second, if not more in modern times, in protecting us from tyrannical rule. If the second amendment is there to preserve the others it has failed miserably.

+1 here.

 

[Cosmoline]

there is no parallel between defeating a modern military at home and afghan fighters trying to make it too costly to continue an occupation on the others side of the planet.

A bullet is a bullet. And if a tyrannical central government is forced to send tanks and shoot rockets against large sections of its own country, that's not just going to cost billions in direct costs, it will cost even more in lost tax revenue because they're essentially hacking away at their own feet. You don't have to look far to see examples of this, from Syria to Libya.

The fourth amendment has been greatly undermined but where is the support to protect it?

People have been suing over those issues for the past decade. It's accomplished little. The recent White Paper from the DOJ confirms the President's authority to murder anyone, anywhere, with no due process whatever. I hope this will ultimately be forbidden by Congress or the Courts. But the arms are there in case the mechanisms of ballot and suit fail, and we do end up with a tyrannical central government no longer beholden to the rule of law. And to be clear, I'm not talking about lone yahoos shooting up places. I'm talking about genuine civil war, with the state governments back in control and the armed forces having to decide which side to support. The small arms we own are not the end-all of such a revolt, but they are the critical lever to open the way. Without them, you can forget it. A disarmed populace has no defense. You also don't have to look far to see examples of that!

 

[<*(((><]

^^^^ applause to that.

 

[sota]

It's unfortunate that the money/pay aspect of it wouldn't enact fast enough.
A Gov't that felt it prudent to attack it citizens with it's standing military won't run out of money fast enough for said military's pay to cease such that the "soldiers on the ground" to be uncompensated and decide to desist their activities simply because of that. Unpaid standing armies don't stand for very long.

as an interesting mental exercise if such combat were to occur even on a limited scale, would businesses dealing in the staples of life choose to not do business with those in uniform? the demoralizing aspects of that could be far more useful than other mechanisms of resistance.

 

[J-Bar]

SoCalNoMore:

Thank you for posting your conversation. I plan to copy your approach.

 

[JustinJ]

A bullet is a bullet. And if a tyrannical central government is forced to send tanks and shoot rockets against large sections of its own country, that's not just going to cost billions in direct costs, it will cost even more in lost tax revenue because they're essentially hacking away at their own feet. You don't have to look far to see examples of this, from Syria to Libya.

Except bullets don't win wars today. And considering the level and type of armor currently in use by our soldiers your bullets will do little but tell them where to direct artillery fire. Rebellions against governments backed by modern militaries are highly ineffective until external support is received in the form of effective weapons and/or a significant portion of the military defects.

Private gun ownership in Syria was actually very low to begin with.

People have been suing over those issues for the past decade. It's accomplished little. The recent White Paper from the DOJ confirms the President's authority to murder anyone, anywhere, with no due process whatever. I hope this will ultimately be forbidden by Congress or the Courts.

They've been ineffective because of lack of support. Legislation alone could prevent such activities but just like gun rights it requires sufficient support from the people. Unfortunately it hasn't been there.

But the arms are there in case the mechanisms of ballot and suit fail, and we do end up with a tyrannical central government no longer beholden to the rule of law. And to be clear, I'm not talking about lone yahoos shooting up places. I'm talking about genuine civil war, with the state governments back in control and the armed forces having to decide which side to support. The small arms we own are not the end-all of such a revolt, but they are the critical lever to open the way. Without them, you can forget it. A disarmed populace has no defense. You also don't have to look far to see examples of that!

So you think that we are going to join the military of whichever side and be allowed to carry our own weapons. Not hardly. Also, if you expect a true civil war with states on either side then there will be people on the "tyranny" side to tax and continue industry to support the war which contradicts your earlier prediction.

 

[AlexanderA]

JustinJ wrote:

I'm sorry but if anybody thinks AR15's will provide anything close to the firepower of the military then they are living in la-la land.

If it ever came down to an insurgency against tyranny in the U.S., the AR-15's in the hands of civilians would be just a start. There would need to be centers of resistance (for which the AR-15's would be adequate). Thereafter, you'd see large portions of the military defecting to the insurgency, which would then be armed mostly by capturing military stocks. Privately-owned civilian weapons would be indispensible in the crucial first phase, the "spark" if you will. There's plenty of historical precedent for this in other parts of the world. (Also look at what happened in the early months of our own Civil War.) A situation like this would be so dynamic and fluid, that it's hard to predict the actual outcome.

 

[r1derbike]

Off topic; I have a problem with government overstepping their authority. Kill lists are a big one. Reminds me of the Vietnam war, where Lyndon Johnson hand picked areas to bomb, with military brass standing around, mouths agape with disbelief. Some helped him through the tactical aspects, but you get the drift.

Once a budding dictator gets a taste of power outside the scope of law, there will be unrest. I welcome new gun owners to go to the range and get training. It would be especially good if those range visits were with citizens of other countries, who have lost many of their rights. Bring the Irish, Aussies, and Brits. Bring them all!

I'm for two term limits for all politicians; one in office, the other in prison.

 

[Mark13]

I hear over and over on tv and the internet, and from some of you here on the forums, how the concept of the 2nd amendment as a deterrent to tyranny is ridiculous. That because of modern weapons, tanks, artillery, drones, and aircraft, some small arms would be irrelevant.

One of our nations strengths is that we resolve our differences through the democratic process. If enough of the population became unhappy enough to revolt, you would have millions of armed people causing havoc throughout the country. Just 1% of our population is over 3 million people.

Overthrow the government? No, but consider that our economy is one of the most complex in the world. Manufacturing uses "just in time" production and distribution. We are a huge country with a virtually defenseless and indefensible power and transportation grid. We have huge urban populations that require daily support. Due to the law abiding, and peaceful nature of our society our military and police forces are small and made up of common people.

So, if the average people who actually make this country run day to day were to become unhappy enough to revolt, there wouldn't be enough advanced armaments in the world to stop them and their small arms.