Does it look like a police force that performs extrajudicial killings of innocent civilians in the streets with seemingly no fear of consequence?

No man its hillary/obama/biden! :P

North Korea doing slave raising and dumping into the ocean

DNC

/drop mic

Legit lol.

But if you don’t know what a tyrannical govt looks like, how will you know when it’s time to use your guns?

I meant what would a tyrannical govt in America look like, such that the 2nd becomes a reasonable justification for fighting against the government.

And does that make killing cops okay?

I come from Argentina, yes I know what tyranny looks and feels like.

And what does it look and feel like in an American context?

The transition of the United States to a socialist tyrannical state will indeed be the ugliest event in the history of the world. The US has surveillance tools the likes of which the Stasi and the NKVD and other secret organizations police forces would have given their first born child for. There will be NO dissent, NO criticism, NO questions. There will be no freedom, Gulags in Alaska and the desert Southwest and re-education centers staffed by social workers with agendas. The white race will be banned and executed and then you will have a serious tyranny that will be almost impossible to dislodge.

Yeah and its just a Biden victory away! :P

We are headed that way, government expansion has not slowed down, and every time they get a chance to take more guns away from law abiding citizens they do it, usually triggered by a shooting that consequently leads to more gun control via legislation, funny part is that bad guys don't get affected by legislation because of the fact that they don't follow rules 🤷

Ah, I think I've made the mistake of making this a 2nd Amendment-centred question rather than maybe just a US Constitution one. I don't mean to make this a debate of whether there should be more or less gun control.

What I'm wondering is when normal American's think they'll need to arm themselves and fight back. Particularly, if they believe like you do, that the country is already headed towards tyranny.

Nazi Germany didn't happen overnight. Maybe if the German people had seen the signs and been armed, they might have been able to stop the Nazi's from gaining power and consolidating it through restricting freedoms and empowering state-policing.

Is the government/police response to these protests legitimate or simply part of the slide towards authoritarianism?

No dissent, no criticism, no questions?

What about when someone speaks ill of the military? American's are notorious for their attitudes towards "Supporting Our Troops" and people who disrespect those who have served etc.

No dissent, no criticism, no questions?

Is that behaviour part of what's nudging the US towards being a tyrannical state?

One of Hitler's key moves was disarm civilians with the promise of protection by the government, that's why people in this country rightfully get nervous when the government pushes gun control with .....the promise of protection by the police, BTW this is the same police that's is and has been under scrutiny for the past 3 decades (don't forget Rodney King). We supposed to lean back on them? Give me a break, broken promise from the start, people see that no matter what their political affiliations are, I have lots of Democrat friends that don't want their guns taken.

The police response is dictated by the atmosphere around them, I've watched riots go down and police being overwhelmed in many cities, I've also watched peaceful protesters working together with police thus making it a successful rally for a cause we can all agree on, so the question you pose is very fluid, not all protests are peaceful, if you start assaults and breaking stuff, naturally the police response will change.

Appropriate response given the situation, nacional guard comes in, order is restored, the nacional guard did a better job than local police, that proves we need a major overhaul of the police force, and it starts with their union leadership that protects them from accountability.

I just dont understand why you think your AR15's can stop tanks, stealth bombers and cruise missiles. If your govt was truly tyrannical and with the weapons they have today, and with the surveillance they have today, you can't hide in the woods, you can't hide in your homes, you will just be hunted down one by one and incarcerated/killed.
So that arguement is null and void.

'But but, the criminals have guns', you say. 'And so we need guns to defend ourseles, ofc!'. This is all well and good until you realize that the criminals have a way easier time to get firearms because there are so many legal unregistered firearms in circulation. It makes it harder for police to crack down on criminals, not to mention all normal conflicts in bars, stores, traffic, etc get supercharged by one or both of the conflicted parties being armed with lethal firepower, or the fact that unarmed civilians have to be considered armed until proven otherwise by police, instead of the opposite, which IS the case in most other countries. So you need more cops which swells the costs, and you need them armed better and you need them more ready to shoot at civilians because, 'hey, he could have been armed you know, better to shoot first', which leads to more of these issues.

Can we at least all agree on one thing; until the tyrannical govt appears which you may or may not be able to fight effectively OR the criminal appears that you can fend off with help of your AR15 or similar firearms, the ease of acquiring weapons that are developed specifically to kill humans is more of a danger to you and to society as a whole than it helps keep you and your society stable and safe. If you can't agree on that I question your IQ.

I would also wager that you have not fought a tyrannical govt or fended off criminals with the use of your AR15 in your lifetime and we can argue the likelyhood of if you ever will.

There are very few westernized countries in the world that stops people from owning hunting rifles or rifles/pistols meant for competetive shooting. And there is no reason to believe that will ever be the case in the USA, because the mainstream gun control advocates in the US are meerely suggesting that the US takes steps towards the level of gun control in Canada or most western European countries, which allows hunters just fine. I come from a family of hunters in one of the countries with the most stringent gun control in all of Western Europe, and yet I've shot rifles since I was ~8 years old and I've grown up with rifles and ammunition. I have helped produce ammunition, I have shot at ranges and at animals. Almost everything was legal. So there is no way you are saying that hunting will be made impossible or any crap like that and getting away with it.
We have to get a permit for each firearm we get, yes, and in order to get that we have to show that we can store the firearms and ammunition safely in a gun safe. We are also not allowed to carry loaded firearms in crowded areas and certain firearms are not legal.

You do realize that AR doesn't stand for assault riffle, right? Why are you so scared of a hunting riffle? I should question your IQ too then since everyone knows criminals don't care nor follow rules 🤷

Disarming people makes them more vulnerable.

I'll be sure to let the NVA know that they shouldn't fight because we had tanks.

You really think any "freedom fighters" that meant to take on a tyrannical US Gov't would be funded/supplied from another country that supported their efforts? The US isn't the only country that has ever propped up guerilla fighters during civil unrest.

So instead of argueing against what I just said you
1. Argue against what I didn't say.
2. Ignore what I said about criminals and how they get more access to firearms and how its harder for the police to work because of a greater circulation and use of legal firearms.
3. Ignore the rest of my points.

It makes sense because you have no real arguements.


So you will fight the US govt with help from Russia, China, Canada, Mexico and/or European military aid? And that makes all those shootings worth it? I sure hope you all can agree when the govt is tyrannical enough to fight. :P

And I never said an AR-15 stops military grade weapons, why are you so bent in taking my hunting riffle???

Wait, which shootings are we talking about? Criminals shooting people? Police shooting people? Military shooting people during a tyrannical government war?

If Red Dawn taught me anything, it's that Patrick Swayze could really rock a mullet. Also, we can fight a guerilla war on our own soil against tanks and planes.

That was our military doctrine against the Soviets during the cold war, Give every man of military age a Bicycle, a few friends, some survival equipment and a rifle. Arm them with knowledge on how to do guerilla warfare and how to survive in the forest at winter, and give them a command structure that would survive an invasion. When the russian comes we take to the woods. We come out every now and again to take out high value targets, to blow something up, hijack transports, or burn something down, then go back into the woods. I'm certain that in the 50s and 60s this would have been very effective. Maybe even in the 80s. Until IR satellites could pinpoint exactly where we sleep, and a cruise missile or a drone can take us out.

Our doctrine if we kept it, would have been outdated now.


Yes, those shootings and all others. Many of those shootings that you call "criminals shooting people" are done with legally obtained firearms, sometimes very shortly after procurement.

We had a terrorist the other year in some school, dude had a cape, a helmet and a dark vader mask and walked around with a machete lol... I'm sure he would have had a gun or five if he was in the US instead, and it would have been another Columbine. I had to look it up but 4 people died including the purp. I'm sure he would have gotten more if he had a few guns. Even more if he had had grenades as well, more still if he had a dirty bomb or chemical weapons.
Personally, I dont think its enough of a sport to hunt using dirty bombs or even grenades, so Im fine with them being banned here. Every country draws the line at different weapons. But when the federal assault rifle ban expired in the US the mass shootings have increased ever since, and will keep increasing. Which is your choice.
It's all a compromise.
Now I can be stopped from buying weapons at all if Im convicted recently of certain violent crimes. Which I think is a decent compromise that allows me all the firearms I want but forces convicted criminals to find smuggled firearms that are often more expensive and a considerable risk to purchase, own and carry not to mention difficult to maintain, get proper ammunition for and practice with. Im sure your black market for firearms is WAY better than ours, but as I have argued before, part of the reason for that is that you have a vast legal firearms market with the same type of weapons and the same type of bullets. :)

I genuinely have nothing else to ask or add. Thanks for that response, KoH.

One of the problems with a "military style assault weapon" ban is that there is no definition of that. Just what looks scary? My standard duty weapon while I was in the military was a Beretta 92F 9mm handgun. So that is a military style assault weapon. Ban it? Nah, it's not a scary black rifle with a big magazine. Another problem is what constitutes high capacity? Is 30 too high for you? I can empty 30 rounds through my .40 handgun in the same (perhaps less) time someone can empty 30 5.56 rounds through an rifle. I'd guarantee that I'd be a lot more accurate and deadly at a range of 20 meters or less too.

Obviously if you ban something, evil will still find a way. Machete, chainsaw, axe, acid, it makes no difference. What's the acceptable number of people to count as bad? You said 4 people, so in that case did you ban machetes so it doesn't happen again? Why are machetes ok and the death of 4 people not actionable for you?

You're welcome ;-)

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about assault weapons or what the definition should be. Thats completely up to yours and every government, or perhaps state, if they want to make that distinction at all. I never made it even once on this thread, yet twice now I have been refuted with the same thing. You got a list of arguements to draw from that someone wrote for you that you just try to match with what I say? Well you countered something I didn't say.

Machete ban or at least machete control might be something worth debating if this happens regularily and regularily causes other problems, which it doesn't. If it did I'd hope a democratic society would be able to deal with such a debate in a productive way to construct rules that would limit bad use while allowing as much good use as possible, perhaps limiting the sales of machetes to recently convicted violent criminals, or perhaps only sold to those with licences given mainly to parties with plausible needs for such devices. Either way, we are not there, and neither are you.

The fatalities from firearms in the US are higher than other high income countries, a factor 10 higher than the average of other high income countries per capita. That is homicide plus suicide.
The total suicide rate in the US is average compared to other high income countries, while the firearm related suicides were 8 times higher
If we count only homicides by guns, its 25 times higher than other high income countries. You have a sligthly higher non-firearm homicide rate than average, but the total homicide rate, driven by firearm homicides, is 7 times higher in the US than the same high income countries.
For 15-24 year olds the gun homicide rate is 49 times higher in the US than in other high income countries on average.

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext

You constantly say that if you issue gun control the criminals will still have guns, but in all other countries with similar income levels as yours, who all have either somewhat more gun control than the US or significantly more so, that is not the case. More stringent control of legal firearms somehow lead to far fewer homicides by firearms (96% less on average).
You can still hunt in all those countries. You can also go to a shooting range and fire your guns to your hearts content in all those countries. You can do trap shooting in all those countries. But 85% less homicides, and 4% as many gun related homicides.

A government that arms people who claim extra legal or political reasons to farm resources of the country. Then uses the armed standoff to fight the 'normal' government by forming a tyranny in the occupied region. Meanwhile produce enforcements against unsubscribers to their ideologies.

Gerd, if you have access, break down what states and cities have the largest gun related issues, I'm not sure it'll surprise you in any way, but for whatever it's worth, they happen in places where the regulation is the toughest to acquire firearms, I don't know where you're trying to go with this but I can tell you that with 300m plus firearms roaming around the US it be impossible to stop it, you also might want to look at what firearm is "responsible" for the vast majority of firearm related homicide and suicide, I know for a fact it is not the big bad scarry looking AR-15, in fact it is the hand gun, another thing to you should look at is what percentage of those firearms are in legal hands, and by that I mean the perp actually owns it.

I know all of those answers but I want to see if where you're getting your information is accurate or even close, hopefully they aren't politically motivated in their research either, that would taint the numbers, it's easy to move numbers around to create a stat that would make your argument relevant.

Look... Im not gonna go on a huge scavenge for data. if you want to show something you can. I am the only one in here that has referenced a peer reviewed scientific paper. I have been schooled in searching for, reading and critically evaluating research papers, statistics and I have done literature reviews in several areas before. It takes time, I'm not going to do that for this purpose, I'm not gonna spend hours and hours on such a pointless task.


This was my arguement a few posts back. I'm glad you understand it; the vast circulation of legal firearms and the ease of buying them is exactly what supports the illegal fireams market.


I'm sure you are right. Would it surprise you if I said that obese people are more likely to go on a diet than skinny people? That is also true. In epidemiological studies a few years back in some country it was found that higher milk consumption was linked with more bone fractures. People who are told they have brittle bones try to drink more milk, because they have been taught it promotes stronger bones, and the authors missed that. Correlation with flawed causation. That is why this is a pointless arguement. Especially in light of the international comparison I just linked.


Im not saying you stop it in months. But if you start some time and do the right things you can perhaps see good effects in 3-5 years and great effects in a decade or two.

Handguns require a license here. I've never applied for anything but hunting rifles and a shotgun for trap shooting so I'm not 100% sure if its as easy to get. But basically I can apply for licences of 4 firearms total, without much questions being asked. And if I apply for a 5th and 6th I will have to give motivation for why I need them (I will certainly get them if I dont write something stupid like I need them to protect myself from criminals lol). After 6 firearms it starts getting harder. I know several people who own more than that legally tho, but its supposed to be harder somehow I hear.
What I do is I go to a gun store or some person I want to buy a gun from, and then I agree on a price and then I go home and fill in a form and send it to the police, a few days or a few weeks(depending on the time of year and how busy they are) I get my license if I have done it right, and then I can go and pick up the gun.
Now I think certain weapons should be allowed on license here, that are not, I have had friends who had trouble because of law changes a few years back. But in general, this process, and the type of thinking that permeate the legislation concerning firearms here is something I agree with, and something hunters and hobby shooters generally agree with. It most certainly save lives.

Look, I get your point, but having military members in my family and close friends that are law enforcement, I see both sides of the argument and I understand why law enforcement wants people to not go crazy with guns (buy an arsenal like my brother has) then military guys like my brother wanting every gun they can get their hands on, the part I don't understand is how do you get the guns off of people who shouldn't have them? How and where do you draw the line? We already have laws that prevents those who committed crimes from legally purchase firearms, and they still get them, my buddy that is in law enforcement has pulled over people carrying AK-47 and a ton of drugs...I mean...what do you do?

How and where you draw the line will always be a compromise. Its very difficult to find two countries with identical gun laws. They all make different choices for where to draw the line based on local culture, needs, trends, traditions and perhaps also politics and ideology at times. What the US are doing is saying 'well its hard to make a perfect compromise so let's not compromise at all'.

We need our government to start doing instead of talking about it, we will have more shootings and there will be more outrage and there will be more politicians talking about it, here's the problem, they just talk :-(

I might have made this up, if guns are legal to own and not legal to have them in public places. They are legal to buy in the store and illegal in the parking lot on the way to the car to bring home, driving around in the car and storing it inside a locker but illegal to begin with after transporting them home?

Your car isn't public. Just like if you want to to go to the liquor store in Toronto you can not place even the unopened bottles within reaching distance of the driver. In America some states have open container laws that allows the passenger to drink his head off so long as the driver passes the roadside test.

You are allowed to own a tank, but you can't drive it on streets or place on your property (zoning laws I would imagine for the latter if anybody is part of an hoa?)

We draw the line at weapons of mass destruction. A thirty round clip in an ar14 [sic] is a lot different than a dirty bomb.

By the same token you can make a dirty bomb with every day house hold cleaning supplies 🤷

And in doing so you break the law.
(You can also I'm.told make acid but I want liquid lsd so ko you driving through Oregon or California soon? Grab me a few tabs and I'll send you the e transfer smd the shipping address)

Wait, fluff, you'll ship it to me and we'll have some couple cervasas padron?

Now padron doesn't sound like the word I'm looking for.. what is pal in Spanish?

Also are you still angry over the Falklands?
I am of Welsh heritage so I know British oppression well

Every week I drive to the cesspool known as Los Angeles :-(




I'm angry the Brits didn't take all of Argentina, what a wonderful place it would be if that had happened...a shame they stopped at the islands.

https://youtu.be/R4GLAKEjU4w

And people call me racist, heh, I enjoy talent too much to hate.