Hurr durr, but australia

If the MIC wanted you dead, you'd be dead, assault rifle or no.

In case of a civil war 55 to 70% of the military would side with the civilians. Not only that but at least 10% of those who side with the civilians will remain at their post and spy for the civilians.

You really think Americans are going to just start slaughtering their friends and family because the establishment tells them to?

Really? All the dudes who joined a gang without research so they could make money are going to fight the hand that feeds them? Really?

Butt hurt conservatives downvoting you

Tfw you obviously know no one in the military because that was a blanket ignorant statement also only about 2% of the military is in combat roles and majority are anti MIC and if it came down to a civil war would not kill their brothers and sisters.

They still signed up to help in this stupid facade.

What is this? The 19th century?

The enlisted ranks of the military today are heavily pro 2A, so there's that.

What do you think would happen if citizens couldn't have guns? It's not like they'd even be able to slow down the US military/police.

Well that's pessimistic. They can at least make them hesitate for every step. The full force of the US military still has difficulties in urban guerilla warfare. And they are better trained than these police playing with their older brother's toys. Add in the fact I don't see air support being used on our own country and it's not as sewn up as you think.

As a quick counterargument, not a perfect analog. Police in the US kill about a thousand people each year. Only about 70 police die by firearms. It seems like police are handily winning when they're up against armed criminals. I doubt the everyday law-abiding citizen would fare much better.

Meh minus however many of those people were unarmed and however many took up the gun they had with them when they were confronted out of desperation.

It's not the same as a coordinated effort. Having to fight street by street with an entrenched enemy is far different.

It's a real damn shame 70 police officers have to die every year just to keep us safe.

Slow down the military from what? I don't know a single enlisted person who would actually carry out whatever you're thinking about.

That sort of makes the point, that we need armed civilians, moot. If they're not fighting police or the military, who are they meant to fight?

No it doesn't. It's a deterrent so that the government doesn't even try that type of thing. If they even tried to do something, two sides armed with guns ends in a fight, and nobody wants to fight their friends and families. If only one side is armed, there is no fight, it just happens.

What if I told you that there were killer robots in the sky that could bypass all human emotion and follow through with orders without a nanosecond of thinking about whether what it's about to do is morally detestable.

ICBMs?

I think he is referring to armed drones.

Surprise, drones require human operators.

Your statement is incorrect. They can be fully automated. Even facial recognition tech can be implemented.

http://www.airobotics.co.il/press-releases/airobotics-granted-worlds-first-approval-fly-fully-automated-commercial-drones-without-pilot/

Drones with ordnance will still have an operator, I can promise you. If anything for safety of the people that own them.

Just like the U.S. military should have no problem with those Vietnamese rice farmers. The war will be over in under a year, tops!

You're sort of making my point for me. Why do we need armed civilians then?

Those rice farmers had guns. And, it doesn't matter whether we need them or not. We have the right to bear arms, our government doesn't need to take that right away, and they couldn't if they tried.

Resorting to it being a right doesn't change the discussion being had, which was about civilians needing to be armed to defend against the military.

civilians needing to be armed to defend against the military.

I'm not even sure how you could reasonably argue that an armed populace isn't better equipped to deal with a tyrannical government than an unarmed one.

I don't think either are up to the task of taking on the US military.

Ah, so its hopeless. Might as well give up our arms to that potentially tyrannical, all-powerful central government who already has and can use all sorts of firepower.

It doesn't seem to be going poorly in the countries that have strict gun control. Plus, they get the benefit of little gun violence/death.

In case of a civil war 55 to 70% of the military would side with the civilians. Not only that but at least 10% of those who side with the civilians will remain at their post and spy for the civilians.

You really think Americans are going to just start slaughtering their friends and family because the establishment tells them to?

No, I don't think that. The people that think civilians need to be armed seem to though.

You're talking about the people that believe in the 2nd Amendment. What do you have against American freedoms?

Oh give me a break.

Traitor

Sorry I hurt your feelings.

Haha take on the tanks and drones with your pew pew pew

You don't get it. A rifle won't take down a tank or a drone, but it will give you a better chance at procuring weaponry that can.

This is what I keep reminding people. I think generally we'd be safer without them but while we do have guns, they aren't for gangsters or hunters or collecters or whatever excuse you use to justify your selfish politics: they are for holding the government to account.

I don't see nearly enough dead politicians to justify all this blah from right-wingers. The 2nd Amendment isn't a nicety. Ooh we get to have guns, suck it Europeans. We obligation to protect the American ideal by holding our government to account with deadly force.

We also weren’t supposed to have a standing army though. The 2nd amendment was supposed to get around the need for one.

It wasn’t wrong, that’s how it should be

I can’t argue against that. I doubt it would work with modern society / world powers, but I could be wrong. Right now the 2nd is a bastardization of politics and intentions and either needs to be changed, or used how it was initially written about by Madison.

Either way works for me, but this middle ground is garbage.

But then they can band together and Revolt. This is how it was before the Civil War, but then afterwards soldiers were kept with soldiers from different states to keep them from banding together

I'm a bot, bleep , bloop . Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [ /r/lasvegasfalseflag ] Just a reminder that the 2nd amendment was added as a safeguard for citizens to protect themselves against the government in case of tyranny. • r/conspiracy

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. ( Info / Contact )}

good bot

When did we start letting this bot in here? I thought it encouraged brigading or some other excuse?

That's funny. I'm way more afraid of civilians with military weopons than the actual military guarding our country. Last time I checked the military wasn't carrying out mass killings on the American public. Can you tell me the last time that happened?

So you're afraid of black people?

Black people aren't the ones rolling around with AR15s with bump stocks installed.

No, they're just the ones committing the vast majority of all shootings.

If i was sitting in inner city Baltimore in a drugged up neighborhood, yeah I'd be scared. A lot more scared then standing next to a black marine. You're not really doing anything to downplay my point. I'm more afraid of civilians with guns than I am of the military.

You should leave American then because civilians will always have guns.

I'm good thanks.

We're not, as long as people like you are here.

Well sorry you don't get a safe space. I couldn't give less of a fuck.

What does being traitorous scum have to do with safe spaces?

Love it.

damn dude really

https://i.imgur.com/OC3J4aY.jpg

in 1794, George Washington mustered 13,000 militia from four states to enforce the collection of a tax on whiskey. It was clear from then on that the 2nd Amendment was never again going to protect the people from the President and the US military. The lesson of the handling of the Whiskey Rebellion has been completely lost on every successive generation since 1794 - the 2nd Amendment isn't worth the paper it was written on.

Thiiisssss.

Why does everyone assume gun control means no guns at all? That would never happen as long as there are people who want to sell weapons. I'm totally okay with a person having a gun for self defense. But at least make them a little harder to obtain. You know it's bad when ISIS tells American supporters/recruits that it's easy to get guns in the States.

It's much easier when our government runs them to them for free. Fast and Furious.

But at least make them a little harder to obtain

No.

If someone is too dangerous to be armed, they are too dangerous for society.

I'm totally okay with a person having a gun for self defense.

Refresher from the title. 2a was created as a hard stopper to a tyrannical government. Self defense is an inalienable right, irrelevant to the discussion.

Why does everyone assume gun control means no guns at all?

We have tons of other nations and historical events to compare to. They created 2a deliberately, those who do not learn from histories mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

But here's the thing: I don't see the need for a tyrannical government if that same government has been, and still is, screwing over American citizens for years. If that government saw profit in killing Americans left and right, no doubt they would have already done that. But they don't have to. They're already robbing you, not giving a fuck about what benefits you, and not asking for your consent. And besides that, the people that join the army are joining it because they want to defend their nation. Why on earth would they begin attacking the people they aim to protect? A large majority would be on your side. They have nothing to gain if they side with the elites.

But honestly, I think the best thing to do now is wait. If this was in fact a false flag attack, the motives behind it will surface shortly.

I see things a little differently, it's a slow creep to greater profits rather than a sudden unveiling. Go back 50-100 years and suggest gay marriage, people would be burning shit in the streets. Now? "Oh well." Tranny rights? Pro pedo views? Mass immigration? Yeah. It's a slow creep to doom, if you push it too hard too fast, people will freak out. Most people hardly notice it. They are marching us to the edge of a cliff, I am pointing to that cliff, and you are trying to convince me it's just for a drink of water.

Because that's the end goal

Sadly we would be protecting ourselves against Nukes so those weapons we have won't help much

You are delusional if you think you or any of your friends stand a chance against the state if they decide they want you dead, even with your second amendment arms.

The state is far too powerful to resist through violent opposition if the police/armed forces don't come over to the people's side.

Yeah some poeple forget that things have changed abit since 1787.

Surveillance would pick them up ages before they coule organize anything.

It worked out for the Jews in Germany 75 years ago if i recall correctly.

So when the government rolls up on us they will have tanks, jets, helicopters, drones, etc. We will have a couple of AR's, how is our AR supposed to protect us against the full might of the military?

The real question is: "will the military obey when they're told to start massacreing civilians wholesale"? Based on things like Kent State and Wounded Knee I'm inclined to believe they will.

I really hope not. I thought about that too, I would hope when faced with killing fellow Americans that our soldiers would refuse but you really don't know

I don't think either are up to the task of taking on the US military.

What if I told you that there were killer robots in the sky that could bypass all human emotion and follow through with orders without a nanosecond of thinking about whether what it's about to do is morally detestable.