Last speech I heard in which he addressed the issue, some time back, he basically said that he gets that the concerns of people living in cities with high homicide rates are not the same as those of people living in the backwoods who go hunting on a regular basis. Which struck me as sanely noncommittal. I’ll be surprised if he pushes anything significant related to firearms.
Well, obviously in a general revolt you’d hope at least some of the military would break with you. And once there’s enough chaos some gunrunners’ll show up with all the Chinese made, Soviet designed RPGs you’ll ever need!
Also, read the comic DMZ. It presents a red versus blue state civil war which results in Manhattan becoming a demilitarized zone between the opposing armies.
Also: WOLVERINES!!!
All they had was some hunting rifles, a shot gun and a couple horses to begin with! Imagine how effective they could have been had they started with a basement full of guns of every shape and size!
Firing an assault rifle is quite different from firing a hunting rifle. They usually fire lower-calibre bullets, are easier to handle and more maneuverable than hunting rifles. It’s been a while since I fired anything, so I might be pulling this out of my ass, but it also seemed to me that assault rifles have less recoil than hunting rifles.
I’ve never maintained a hunting rifle, so I wouldn’t know about that, but the only assault rifle I’ve got extensive experience with, the AG3, was literally five minutes of oiling and cleaning after rough use.
A joke that a militia will need to come into conflict with the US military or a joke that they’ll be able to do anything against them? If it’s the latter, I’m probably going to agree with Lizard_King. It’s at least debatable, which would render it not a joke.
Wait, is it the same joke that the liberals like to forward around to eachother about the blue states seceding from “Jesus Land”? Because I think precedent teaches us that such a division would not be peaceful.
Originally Posted by Rimbo
it’s only a joke because i can’t afford an abrams m1a2 and they won’t sell me one
Don’t worry, you can probably get a T72 on the cheap. I hear some Somalians just came into a few…
fuck that shit
i want to be able to fire on the move accurately
What gun would be best for an insurgency that adopts bunny-hopping as a battlefield tactic?
It’s a joke to think any sort of organized, nationwide, armed rebellion could take place that would wage open warfare against the government. As this election has shown it’s hard enough to bring people together for a peaceful cause let alone one where you expect them to shoot people. And who exactly would you be shooting? The police? All I know is that it would be a bloodbath.
Peaceful (yet forceful) protest is always the better option. How about a million protesters in Washington? People will probably die, but thousands are guaranteed to die in an uprising.
What if that’s an effect of the very ideas you think are a joke? :)
It’s way too soon after the 20th century, where governments killed hundreds of millions of people, to be tossing out the option for a last resort. I know you think college kids with tape over their mouths, lying in front of the Kremlin could have brought Stalin down in his prime, but let’s bring it up again next century, just to be safe, okay?
Anyway, this is a stupid tangent.
ESPECIALLY in America!
Yeah, that’s totally apt.
Is this where we sign up for the private army?
Well, I sure hope that scumbag who emptied an AK through his front door at a trick-or-treater the other day gets life in prison, for what it’s worth.
I was thinking of a situation in America, not Communist Russia where shooting (on the spot or later) protesters would be the norm. And I suppose an armed rebellion in Soviet Russia would have worked so well! Stalin was known for being forgiving to his enemies.
But I agree, stupid tangent.
Yes Rimbo, eleven states seceding is exactly the same as a civilian rebellion against a totalitarian government.
So you’re saying we have to choose only certain kinds of civil wars to discuss, and other kinds of civil wars don’t apply?
A civil war is a war between a state and domestic political actors that are in control of some part of the territory claimed by the state. It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale.
I’m absolutely saying that, because having entire states secede means there’s a whole industry, infrastructure and governmental system to back you up. How on earth is that relevant to individual gun ownership being necessary to prevent a corrupt government? If you own eleven states I don’t think gun supply is going to be non-existent just because civilians aren’t packing.
There is a massive difference between an armed rebellion and a full-blown civil war.
It’s not worth much, because no one sane would disagree with you. Seriously, is this some kind of argument against AKs? Ban them or people will shoot you thru their front door for knocking?
I’m in California - whatever restrictive laws Obama could get through congress on firearms, California already has been there and done that. Besides - what in the world would I do with an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine? Shoot zombies? There are better target shooters and hunting rifles out there.