New 2a argument to use against elitist snobs

[Jnitti1014]

Bear with me....
Went to see Les Miserables tonight with the wife and in laws and was struck by a 2a argument that could be made from an example in the movie. Especially when dealing with elitist types who think we are all uneducated rednecks.

Towards the end of the story the french revelutionaries have constructed a barricade against the brutal and fascist government forces. It remains at a stalemate (both sides using small arms and edged weapons for the most part) until the govt brings in superior firepower in the form of heavy cannons.

My inlaws are very anti-gun and can't figure out why anyone on earth NEEDS an ar-15. My point is the cannons were the ar-15 of that era and the peasants didn't have them. Not having them allowed the tyrannical forces to triumph and overrun the freedom fighters, killing 99% of them. A free people need to be armed (somewhat) equally for effective self defense.

Comments?

 

[sleepyone]

I can see that analogy. I think a more accurate one might be comparing heavy cannons to tanks, and I still don't like my chances with my AR against a tank.

 

[hso]

You're not going to get anywhere with your in-laws using revolution and battles with government forces as the basis of your argument.

 

[Jnitti1014]

Actually I didn't use that argument, they know my position and I know theirs, thankfully neither of us brought it up. I'm not calling for revolution either.

Just appeared to me as an example of why the forces of good need equal firepower to the forces of evil. Whether it was in 1815 or 2013, the technologies change, the reasons do not.

 

[leadcounsel]

Lightly armed unedcuated "pheasants" in Afghanistan and Iraq bogged down the mightiest standing Armiest in the history of the world for a collective 30 years (10 for the USSR)(8 years in Iraq, 12 in Afghanistan for the USA), pheastants in Vietnam drove the US out after a bloody decade-long stalemate (a generous characterization). All the technology, tanks, bombs, and modern weaponry did nothing to move the ball forward for these hardened fighting forces.

 

[gunNoob]

Would the outcome be the same for all those jews that got killed if they had their own guns? Probably not.

 

[JFtheGR8]

^^^^ This. I ask anyone that wants to debate with me about my pro gun stance if they would rather die in a gas chamber or if they would rather die fighting. Nobody ever picks the gas chamber.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[Buck Kramer]

well that escalated quickly...

You're not going to get anywhere with your in-laws using revolution and battles with government forces as the basis of your argument.

I agree here.

 

[JustinJ]

Towards the end of the story the french revelutionaries have constructed a barricade against the brutal and fascist government forces. It remains at a stalemate (both sides using small arms and edged weapons for the most part) until the govt brings in superior firepower in the form of heavy cannons.

My inlaws are very anti-gun and can't figure out why anyone on earth NEEDS an ar-15. My point is the cannons were the ar-15 of that era and the peasants didn't have them. Not having them allowed the tyrannical forces to triumph and overrun the freedom fighters, killing 99% of them. A free people need to be armed (somewhat) equally for effective self defense.

How can you conclude that the cannon of then would be the AR15 of today if it was the weapon available only to the government forces? The disparity between modern military weapons(tanks, planes, artillery, etc) and AR15's is infinitely wider than that between cannons and muskets. No offense but your thinking is blatantly backwards. Rather than looking at a scenario and then forming your opinion you have formed your opinion and then tried to twist the scenario to support it.

 

[josiewales]

Lightly armed unedcuated "pheasants"

Well, have you ever seen a heavily armed, educated pheasant?

 

[trook]

I like the argument about the gas chamber...

Do you remember hearing about the millions of Jews who died in the gas chambers?............ Don't you think the outcome might have been a little different if they had used AK-47's to defended themselves from the Germans?

 

[TX1911fan]

Yep, we'd be toast against government weaponry anyway, tanks, planes, missiles, etc. This in fact is one liberal argument against the 2A. They say, "what good will your rifle be against a tank, so the government will still win." However, this is why it is vitally important for the National Guard to remain state organizations. I understand they can be controlled by the Feds, but I have confidence that the Texas National Guard would stand with Texas and not with the Feds should a fight come. That would at least give us some chance.

I think the Holocaust is a much better argument. Also, the TV show "Revolution" is a good argument as well. The "government" bans gun ownership for civilians, and then runs rampant over the population. It's a crap show, but from a 2A standpoint, very good.

Or, you can always use Harry Potter. Ask them how the good wizards would have been able to triumph over the bad if their wands were banned? It was not the wand that was evil, but the person using it.

 

[holdencm9]

Yep, we'd be toast against government weaponry anyway, tanks, planes, missiles, etc. This in fact is one liberal argument against the 2A. They say, "what good will your rifle be against a tank, so the government will still win."

I disagree. Not to derail the thread, but how many defectors from the military would there be if something like that went down? Last I checked, officers in the military swear an oath to protect the constitution. How about supply chains and logistics? The military certainly has stockpiles of arms and ammo but private companies supply them with everything they have, if they continued to supply them then they would become likely targets of sabotage. But again, don't want to derail the thread or get it closed talking about revolution, which I am against, for the record.

However I'd like to mention, the argument (even if it were true) is silly. It's like saying, you won't stand a chance, so therefore you need LESS well-armed. :banghead:

Hunger games is another pro-2a movie believe it or not. The wife took me to that one. I didn't complain as I am a fan of J-Law.

 

[TwoEyedJack]

When I argue with someone who is really adamant about gun control and uses emotion instead of logic, sometimes I regrettably stoop to their level and tell them "there are more of us, and we have the guns". Pretty much a conversation killer, but it does give them something to think about.

 

[oldbear]

I can see that analogy. I think a more accurate one might be comparing heavy cannons to tanks, and I still don't like my chances with my AR against a tank.

Neither does anyone else with common sense.

 

[oldbear]

New 2a argument to use against elitist snobs

My inlaws are very anti-gun

Jnitti1014, I hope you haven't told your wife that you believe her Mother and Father are elitist snobs, unless you are fond of sleeping in the garage.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Lightly armed unedcuated "pheasants" in Afghanistan and Iraq bogged down the mightiest standing Armiest in the history of the world for a collective 30 years (10 for the USSR)(8 years in Iraq, 12 in Afghanistan for the USA), pheastants in Vietnam drove the US out after a bloody decade-long stalemate (a generous characterization). All the technology, tanks, bombs, and modern weaponry did nothing to move the ball forward for these hardened fighting forces.

Well, thank goodness I don't hunt Afghani or Vietnamese pheasants. The ones out here in CO are unarmed, usually just try to fly away.

 

[Asherdan]

On teh internet, I've taken to posting this and departing.

 

[JustinJ]

However I'd like to mention, the argument (even if it were true) is silly. It's like saying, you won't stand a chance, so therefore you need LESS well-armed.

The fact that a bunch of civilians with privately owned weapons would not stand a chance against a modern military is true regardless of one's stance on gun control. I don't believe that fact is a reason to disarm people but only that it's not a valid argument to make against gun control.

People who believe otherwise do so because they want to. They refuse to look at it objectively and accept the idea that their guns could defeat the government because they are seeking additional rationalizations for their position. Its adopting views to support a belief rather than to form it.

I believe we should have a right to AR's, AK's, etc but not because i think they are a defense against a tyrannical government backed by a modern military. When we use weak arguments that most find absurd to argue against gun control it hurts us more than helps as we are not taken seriously.

Do you remember hearing about the millions of Jews who died in the gas chambers?............ Don't you think the outcome might have been a little different if they had used AK-47's to defended themselves from the Germans?

No, i don't. They were largely tricked by believing in false hopes of the future. If they had known or accepted their fates would they not have fought by whatever means available? Instead they incrementally accepted more and more in an attempt to endure their situation and avoid a fight. Even if they had not surrendered their weapons long before they would have stood no chance against the German military as they were not organized in any effective manner.

In many instances in which people's were exterminated there was first a civil war in which both sides did have guns. Obviously their guns failed to prevent what eventually did happen.

 

[Guillermo]

remember, the person asking the questions can control the conversation.

Ask them why they trust the government more than the people.

If they do, they do, there is no point in discussing anything with them. They believe that they are peasants that the government rules. If that is not the case, you have a chance.

 

[oldbear]

Would the outcome be the same for all those jews that got killed if they had their own guns? Probably not.
__________________

Yes it would have been. The only differences would have been, a quick death after, hopefully, killing a some Germans.

 

[Hapworth]

Went to see Les Miserables tonight with the wife and in laws and was struck by a 2a argument that could be made from an example in the movie.

Towards the end of the story the french revelutionaries have constructed a barricade against the brutal and fascist government forces. It remains at a stalemate (both sides using small arms and edged weapons for the most part) until the govt brings in superior firepower in the form of heavy cannons...

...the peasants didn't have them. Not having them allowed the tyrannical forces to triumph and overrun the freedom fighters, killing 99% of them. A free people need to be armed (somewhat) equally for effective self defense.

Comments?

It's an interesting tact you take, but limited because the French revolutionaries did ultimately win. How would you reply to your in-laws countering that victory was achieved by the underdogs, minus the "AR-15 of the time"?

 

[berettaprofessor]

This discussion was over on post #11 when trook invoked Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies.

 

[suemarkp]

You can start with sharpened sticks if you have to. Its just a matter of how far down the weapons line do you have to begin. You can take what you need after you can have a victory. Works the same way with ambushing cops in a gun banning state -- they get ambushed and their guns taken. Now the bad guys have handguns and maybe a shotgun or AR15.

 

[9MMare]

I've been using that argument since the beginning....mostly on FaceBook with people that insist the 2A only applied to muskets. @_@