[Beren]

The NRA is pretty much like AIPAC, by the way. What sense does it make to support Israel that much? What sense does it make to stockpile tons of guns and ammunition at home? What sense does it make to have SUVs when you don't need them? What sense does it make to have hundreds of TV channels broadcasting the same shit? Many elements of American culture and lifestyle simply don't make sense.

[Sivad]

Just because lots of people own lots of guns in the US it doesn't mean they could defend the country or overthrow tyranny or an ineffective or traitorous government

There's a better chance of mounting an effective resistance with lots of guns than with no guns. There have been many effective insurgencies in modern history so an armed resistance is not nearly as ridiculous as liberals like to think it is. Liberals seem to have this simplistic picture of armed ranks marching onto a battlefield to openly confront the full force of the state military, in reality it would be a dirty war like Iraq or Argentina where insurgents hide within the population and the state conducts counterinsurgency operations. The outcome of those kinds of wars all depend on popular support(hearts and minds) not superior force.

A lot of people think it's silly to even worry about it ever coming to that in America but the fact is the American deep state is extremely reactionary, it has carried out dozens of coups around the world against popularly elected governments, it has assassinated American civil rights leaders and politicians(possibly even a POTUS), the deep state engages in illegal secret policing and mass surveillance of the population, and it has standing secret plans for mass arrests of dissidents. It's not inconceivable that one day populist politics might threaten the corporate oligarchy and the oligarchs have been preparing for that eventuality for some time. We've seen over and over again how they respond when their interests are threatened abroad and there's no reason to think they wouldn't respond in the same fashion here at home.

James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution, spelled it out, the function of the government is to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and prevent "agrarian reform".

[Oxymoron]

The NRA is pretty much like AIPAC, by the way. What sense does it make to support Israel that much? What sense does it make to stockpile tons of guns and ammunition at home? What sense does it make to have SUVs when you don't need them? What sense does it make to have hundreds of TV channels broadcasting the same shit? Many elements of American culture and lifestyle simply don't make sense.

Yet we had only one revolution, and have had a stable Republic for over 200 years. Guns insure the government does not overreach. Israel is a Western style ally in the most important strategic area of the Globe, our support of them makes a whole lot of sense. But a Hungarian who only knows occupation would not understand this.

[B0ycey]

So a benefit of guns is to prevent Trump being a tyrant?

At least people are acknowledging the potential dangers of US presidents.

[Sivad]

[Beren]

There's a better chance of mounting an effective resistance with lots of guns than with no guns.

Oh really? I love when smart lefties or fascists pick words or sentences to prove how stupid or simplistic liberals are. Sure, guns could help overthrow the US government, but they won't because that's not the reason for Americans purchasing guns, which is clearly what my whole post was about. With or without guns, lumpenproles, criminals, and crazies won't make a revolution.

Guns insure the government does not overreach. Israel is a Western style ally in the most important strategic area of the Globe, our support of them makes a whole lot of sense.

How do guns insure the government does not overreach? You have the biggest government ever while you have the most guns ever too. If it were up to guns, you should have a libertarian government, or no government at all.

As to Israel, you always talk like it's supported so much because of its strategic importance, whereas it's because of the highly effective Zionist lobbies in the US. The US could live without Saudi Arabia too, not to mention Israel, if it really wanted to. It's Israel and the Saudis that need the US badly, not vice versa.

[Oxymoron]

How do guns insure the government does not overreach? You have the biggest government ever while you have the most guns ever too. If it were up to guns, you should have a libertarian government, or no government at all.

As to Israel, you always talk like it's supported so much because of its strategic importance, whereas it's because of the highly effective Zionist lobbies in the US. The US could live without Saudi Arabia too, not to mention Israel, if it really wanted to. It's Israel and the Saudis that need the US badly, not vice versa.

They allow people to do more then voice opinions, and the US was founded on a moderately strong Federal government that balances freedom, security and growth. Private Guns prevent the government from going to far in any of the three directions.

Yes US can live without many of its geopolitical alliances and positions, but would that be in our benefit? Having Israel, and SA, and Egypt as Allies or friends is worth the expense of doing so. The benefit from ignoring those countries is yet to be determined, as far as geopolitical interests go.

[Sivad]

Sure, guns could help overthrow the US government, but they won't because that's not the reason for Americans purchasing guns, which is clearly what my whole post was about. With or without guns, lumpenproles, criminals, and crazies won't make a revolution.

That's kind of irrelevant, it doesn't matter why Americans purchased the guns, the important thing is that there are lots and lots of guns around and if the need ever arises they'll be available. I prefer to keep it that way.

[Beren]

That's kind of irrelevant, it doesn't matter why Americans purchased the guns, the important thing is that there are lots and lots of guns around and if the need ever arises they'll be available. I prefer to keep it that way.

Sure, they are available when someone feels the urge to kill people randomly. I wonder whether gun culture really helps the cause or it rather helps keep people dumb and unaware. As Oxy falsely believes guns prevent the government from overreaching, you may be wrong as well to believe that lots of guns will help on the barricades against heavy weaponry and air force.

[Sivad]

you may be wrong as well to believe that lots of guns will help on the barricades against heavy weaponry and air force.

Liberals seem to have this simplistic picture of armed ranks marching onto a battlefield to openly confront the full force of the state military, in reality it would be a dirty war like Iraq or Argentina where insurgents hide within the population and the state conducts counterinsurgency operations. The outcome of those kinds of wars all depend on popular support(hearts and minds) not superior force.

[Beren]

Liberals seem to have this simplistic picture of armed ranks marching onto a battlefield to openly confront the full force of the state military, in reality it would be a dirty war like Iraq or Argentina where insurgents hide within the population and the state conducts counterinsurgency operations. The outcome of those kinds of wars all depend on popular support(hearts and minds) not superior force.

So you belong to the Che Guevara school? Do you really believe that's how the US government could or should be brought down? With an armed insurgency with popular support? Is that the non-simplistic picture of yours? Even the barricades seem more realistic.

[Sivad]

So you belong to the Che Guevara school? Do you really believe that's how the US government could or should be brought down? With an armed insurgency with popular support?

No. Armed insurgency is the absolute last resort. All I'm saying is that if a majority of the population ever begins to strongly insist on meaningful social, economic, and political reforms the iron fist of oligarchy will most likely come out and at that point an armed insurgency will be the only option.

[Finfinder]

It's symbol for going black and never coming back.

Look it's Navin R Johnson

[Beren]

if a majority of the population ever begins to strongly insist on meaningful social, economic, and political reforms the iron fist of oligarchy will most likely come out and at that point an armed insurgency will be the only option.

If a majority of the population ever begins to strongly insist on meaningful social, economic, and political reforms, they're going to happen because the elite won't risk an armed conflict, mostly because the military wouldn't side with them. The US military couldn't be used against the majority, it's even getting harder and harder to use them in dubious military adventures abroad. Why would they oppose meaningful social, economic, and political reforms anyway? They seem less reactionary than many GOP politicians do and they would absolutely accept the democratic will of the people I guess.

[Sivad]

If a majority of the population ever begins to strongly insist on meaningful social, economic, and political reforms, they're going to happen because the elite won't risk an armed conflict, mostly because the military wouldn't side with them. The US military couldn't be used against the majority, it's even getting harder and harder to use them in dubious military adventures abroad. Why would they oppose meaningful social, economic, and political reforms anyway? They seem less reactionary than many GOP politicians do and they would absolutely accept the democratic will of the people I guess.

Over the last century the American ruling class has repeatedly demonstrated around the world and here at home that it has no respect for democracy and no qualms about brutally repressing entire societies, so I'm not willing to bet my country's future on the restraint and rationality of known psychopaths. I hope you're right but it's better to have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it

[Beren]

Over the last century the American ruling class has repeatedly demonstrated around the world and here at home that it has no respect for democracy and no qualms about brutally repressing entire societies, so I'm not willing to bet my country's future on the restraint and rationality of known psychopaths. I hope you're right but it's better to have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it

I'm sure they use all the tricks against the people, but I doubt armed conflict with the majority is an option for them. However, I'm not against gun ownership anyways, I'm rather against gun cult, and I also don't believe America's internal problems could or should be solved by guns in any way.

[Drlee]

Yet we had only one revolution, and have had a stable Republic for over 200 years. Guns insure the government does not overreach.

No it doesn't. Just the opposite. Republicans are more armed than any other political group in a country that is armed to the teeth, and they are spending like drunken sailors. GWB and the largest social welfare program since medicare and completely unfunded. GWB and his war without a cent of tax to support it and now Trump trying to lower taxes and thereby raising deficit spending to a level never imagined. How about republicans building a defense structure against existential threats that do not exist. (And I am a conservative and republican.)

Also Sivad. Please stop using the term "liberal". You obviously do not know what one is. You make yourself look foolish.

Ronald Reagan. Liberal. Amnesty for illegal aliens and huge deficit spending.

Richard Nixon. Liberal. Invented the EPA. Proposed a guaranteed annual wage and universal health care.

Mitt Romney. Liberal. As governor of MA instituted government health care.

George W. Bush. Liberal. Gave free, single payer, government drug coverage to millions. Did not enact taxes to pay for it. Went to war without so much as a war bond to fund it. Invented the TARP bailing out big business from mistakes these same business made. Massive intrusion into local schools through the No Child Left Behind Act.

Dwight Eisenhower. Liberal. Enormous public works projects at government expense. Income tax for the highest earners under Eisenhower? 90%.

Bill Clinton. Conservative. Balanced the federal budget and cut welfare more than any other president.

Jimmy Carter. Conservative. Cut the Capital Gains Tax and proposed massive tax relief for the middle class.

Barak Obama. Conservative. Continued the war. Deported more illegals than any other president. Maintained tax cuts. Reauthorized the Patriot Act.

So, son. Stop watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh and crack a book.

[Sivad]

I'm sure they use all the tricks against the people, but I doubt armed conflict with the majority is an option for them.

I don't think they'll just overtly declare war on democracy, they'd create a pretext for repressing the opposition which would likely polarize the population and lead to an armed insurgency. This is something that happens all the time in our world and has happened countless times throughout history, it's a distinct possibility that you can't rationally disregard.

I also don't believe America's internal problems could or should be solved by guns in any way.

Whether they should is a philosophical question, that they could is a fact -

With a few exceptions, lasting insurgency endings are shaped not by military action but by social, economic, and political change. At their core, insurgencies are battles for the control of public support. Therefore, violence is useful to the insurgents only when it creates a level of instability that allows them to effect social change in their favor, and violence is useful to the government only when it helps stabilize the population long enough to effect lasting change in its favor. The government may defeat the insurgent military cadre, but, with few exceptions, insurgencies do not end until case-specific root causes are addressed: The kind of grassroots support necessary to build and sustain an insurgency is fed on social, economic, and political discontent.

If a government successfully addresses root causes, it is possible to defeat an insurgency without defeating the insurgents themselves. Conversely, as we saw in Vietnam, Algeria, and South Africa, it is possible to lose while defeating or suppressing the insurgent cadre. One could argue that, since insurgencies stem from root-cause discontent and lasting victory necessitates the government address the root causes of the insurgency, insurgents—or at least the people they represent—win every clearly decided case. This could be true even in cases in which the insurgent cadre is wholly annihilated but might not necessarily apply to insurgencies or terrorist groups that never represented a legitimate social movement or cause
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG965.pdf

[Beren]

I don't think they'll just overtly declare war on democracy, they'd create a pretext for repressing the opposition which would likely polarize the population and lead to an armed insurgency. This is something that happens all the time in our world and has happened countless times throughout history, it's a distinct possibility that you can't rationally disregard.

Whether they should is a philosophical question, that they could is a fact

I don't say armed conflict can never be useful or necessary, however, I don't believe the Che Guevara thing would ever work or happen in America. I could rather imagine another open civil war instead, but it's just too simplistic for you I guess.

[Sivad]

I don't say armed conflict can never be useful or necessary, however, I don't believe the Che Guevara thing would ever work or happen in America. I could rather imagine another open civil war instead, but it's just too simplistic for you I guess.

We've already been over that and it's an obvious straw man, if you're just plum out of valid criticisms then just say so and we'll call it a day/