Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[bripat9643]

Sure. What I “spew“ is advocated by the majority of not just the left, but the majority of all citizens including gun owners. So really, you’re FOS.

wrong, shit for brains. Gun owners definitely do not support gun registration

 

[Dagosa]

wrong, shit for brains. Gun owners definitely do not support gun registration

Gun registration ? Ha ha
We just want you private gun dealers not to sell guns to criminals. But now that you bring it up. Sure, let’s register firearms like we do full autos and rpgs.

 

[miketx]

It makes you sound mentally challenged.

Having guns is not going to protect you from the police or military. With normal police equipment, SWAT teams, police tactics and fire power etc, they can easily neutralize any armed threat or movement. They wouldn't even break a sweat. Not to mention, police surveillance tactics will make it impossible for an anti-government group to organize a big enough threat to the regime. You don't have a chance. And that is only the police. Your little AR-15 isn't going to do anything to a drone, tank, apache helicopter, fighter jet or combat unit (much less special forces). There is a reason you have not seen a people's uprising to over-throw a government even in Africa in decade. And really only Sudan has been overthrown by a military coup.

No, the only reason you want certain guns (such as a AR-15) is because you like to have them.

It is true the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and good people, including AR-15 owners. But that 1% or 0.05% that are not responsible can cause havoc, as we just saw in Highland park (an event I was on my way to attend and an event to which I know many people that were directly effected).

If you want to hunt, then a single shot hunting rifle will suffice. If it is about home defense, then handguns and shotguns (which as both short-range) would be sufficient.

There are many things that can be done, such as arm teachers, have cops in schools, secure soft targets, better mental health facilities, red flag rules and immunity for snitching, involuntary institutionalization, high standards for gun ownership, higher and minimum sentences for illegal gun possession, Federal no buy lists, vicarious liability for guns for the gun owner etc., but stop with the argument that you need guns for tyrannical governments! Because it is foolish.

There should be a ban on all guns other then single shot hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Now I know handguns are by far the weapon of choice in the vast number of homicides, but so called "assault rifles" (yes I know that is a term the liberals made up) it by far a more sufficient weapon to commit mass murder then a handgun, even if they are semi-automatic (vs full).

Keep sticking to these stances that turn off the moderates (e.g. ban on abortion and do nothing on guns) and then cry about how Demorats can win with gas over $5-6, out of control inflation, major blunders in foreign policy and everyone hating woke politics. If the Demorats keep the House and pick up senate seats you are going to see the most radical changes to this country that we haver ever seen.

Make them stop saying it commie.

 

[miketx]

Sure. What I “spew“ is advocated by the majority of not just the left, but the majority of all citizens including gun owners. So really, you’re FOS.

What you spew are lies..

 

[bripat9643]

Gun registration ? Ha ha
We just want you private gun dealers not to sell guns to criminals. But now that you bring it up. Sure, let’s register firearms like we do full autos and rpgs.

There's no constitutional right to own an automobile, dumbass, so let's not. It's already against the law for criminals to own guns.

 

[Dagosa]

Our military is required to follow orders unless those orders would violate the constitution or are illegal, and that is as it should be. I don't want the president to be able to use the military as his personal strike force, do you?

Fear mongering. Governors have a greater opportunity to use military force by activating guard units then the president does For domestic purposes.

The orders given by the president stupid, have nothing to do with his personal strike force…... . He has none .

 

[Dagosa]

Our military is required to follow orders unless those orders would violate the constitution or are illegal, and that is as it should be. I don't want the president to be able to use the military as his personal strike force, do you?

Yada yada.
the military is more likely to be used by a state gov on the domestic front then the president.

 

[Dagosa]

I have guns because I like things that go bang!

You have guns ? Not impressed.

 

[hadit]

He does stupid. He makes the final DECISION on who to go to war with and who to “take out”. It’s very personal.
You're being pretty ridiculous. Maybe you never served in the military. The orders given at the lower level are always subject scrutiny as far as the military is concerned. His powers here are limited to the cabinet position authorities having to do with domestic law enforcement. That ain’t the military.

Fear mongering. Governors have a greater opportunity to use military force by activating guard units then the president does For domestic purposes. You’re a loser.

The orders given by the president stupid, have nothing to do with his personal strike force…... . He has none .

If the military is supposed to just blindly follow orders, as you have indicated you wish, that's exactly what he has as top of the chain of command.

 

[Dagosa]

There's no constitutional right to own an automobile, dumbass, so let's not. It's already against the law for criminals to own guns.

Boy, you have a reading comp problem.
Since when has FULL AUTO been misconstrued as an automobile in a firearm discussion. You’re crazy

 

[hadit]

Yada yada.
the military is more likely to be used by a state gov on the domestic front then the president.

You bounce back and forth between scenarios as if they are one and the same. You said you basically want the military to blindly follow all orders that come down from the top. If you had your way, the president would have total control of the most powerful military in the world and could easily attain dictator status. You keep wanting to simultaneously argue for that while also talking about the current situation, where the military is to follow all orders unless they violate the Constitution or are illegal. Pick a horse and stay on it.

 

[Dagosa]

If the military is supposed to just blindly follow orders, as you have indicated you wish, that's exactly what he has as top of the chain of command.

Because idiot, the top of the military chain for DOMESTIC military force, are the state governments as much as a president. You really never served have you ?

 

[hadit]

Because idiot, the top of the military chain for DOMESTIC military force, are the state governments as much as a president. You really never served have you ?

Okay, so do you want the armed forces of the United States to blindly follow all orders or not? Do you want a state governor to have his own strike force so he can set himself up to run the state for as long as he wants to? You're dodging the point.

 

[Dagosa]

You bounce back and forth between scenarios as if they are one and the same. You said you basically want the military to blindly follow all orders that come down from the top. If you had your way, the president would have total control of the most powerful military in the world and could easily attain dictator status. You keep wanting to simultaneously argue for that while also talking about the current situation, where the military is to follow all orders unless they violate the Constitution or are illegal. Pick a horse and stay on it.

Point out where I said, we should blindly follow orders from the president. You are a real idiot. The president‘s orders follow a chain of command idiot. They have to pass legality through each level. By the time they get to a soldier from his NCOIC for enactment, they will be carried out foolish.

You think a presidential strike force can get through the chain of command to a lawful order to a soldier ? You’re a fking idiot. This isn’t Geo Washington at the bow of a boat waving to his soldiers. You’re are foolish. You’ve been watching too many movies.

 

[hadit]

Point out where I said, we should blindly follow orders from the president. You are a real idiot. The president‘s orders follow a chain of command idiot. They have to pass legality through each level. By the time they get to a soldier from his NCOIC for enactment, they will be carried out foolish.

You think a presidential strike force can get through the chain of command to a lawful order to a soldier ? You’re a fking idiot. This isn’t Geo Washington at the bow of a boat waving to his soldiers. You’re an idiot

Let's review, shall we? This is where it started:

I said -

Nope, absolutely not. They take an oath to the constitution, NOT the president. Would you have wanted the military to be TRUMP!'s robots, doing whatever he wanted them to do?

You said -

"I want a military to follow orders."

What did you mean OTHER than you wanted the president to have personal control of the military? Because what you're arguing now contradicts what you said there.

 

[miketx]

Gun registration ? Ha ha
We just want you private gun dealers not to sell guns to criminals. But now that you bring it up. Sure, let’s register firearms like we do full autos and rpgs.

Lying communist.

 

[Dagosa]

Okay, so do you want the armed forces of the United States to blindly follow all orders or not? Do you want a state governor to have his own strike force so he can set himself up to run the state for as long as he wants to? You're dodging the point.

You never served have you ? You don’t have a fking clue how orders are given through a chain of command. I guess, you’d call it a “deep state.“

 

[hadit]

You never served have you ? You don’t have a fking clue how orders are given through a chain of command. I guess, you’d call it a “deep state.“

Again, we're talking about your stated desire to have the military "follow orders" when I stated that the president should not have total control of them. We're not talking about how orders get down through the chain of command now, we're talking about how, in your idealized world, the military would just "follow orders". Obviously, you didn't really mean that, so why not just say so?

 

[Dagosa]

Let's review, shall we? This is where it started:

I said -

You said -

"I want a military to follow orders."

What did you mean OTHER than you wanted the president to have personal control of the military? Because what you're arguing now contradicts what you said there.

I want the military to follow orders….the president has little personal control over his military dufus. Orders are given through a chain of command. He gives military orders for a mission. The actions of the military chain of command will modify the general mission order into actionable orders that are lawful. Don’t be so stupid. Trump tried this shit. He was shut down at every step……He can only give orders for a general, lawful mission.

 

[hadit]

I want the military to follow orders….the president has little personal control over his military dufus. Orders are given through a chain of command. He gives military orders for a mission. The actions of the military chain of command will modify the general mission order into actionable orders that are lawful. Don’t be so stupid.

And again you dance around the point. Do you want the military to just "follow orders" or do you want them to have the freedom to refuse orders that violate the Constitution or are illegal?