The 'pro Gun' Argument Makes No Sense.

The 'Pro' Assault Weapon Argument:
The 'Right To Bear Arms', 2nd Amendment is joke argument.  All this talk about the government taking over like Stalin, Castro, Hitler and the right to defend ourselves against the radical gov't is an argument that is a little too late in history - about 90 years too late.  

 First of all, the powers of our society have already taken over - they don't use guns, they have you 'over the barrel' by controlling and manipulating the money supply.   They have control over all of us by modern warfare -economic  control.  The Lords of the Federal Reserve /Central Banks and Wall Street should be of more concern more than anyone else.

 Second of all, when the 'Right To Bear Arms' was legislated it was gun against gun.  If the U.S. Government wanted to take over our population, you would have a Drone in your courtyard, a  tank on your front lawn and a stealth fighter jet in your neighborhood.  What do you really think your going to do with your AK Assault Rifle and your 40 count magazine clips?  

 The argument to keep AK Assault Rifles on our streets are ludicrous arguments by ludicrous people.

DreamWizard DreamWizard
51-55, F
6 Responses Jan 9, 2013

The desire to ban assault weapons is because they are, according to Dianne Feinstein, killing machines. Per her own stats, they account for a whopping 0.6% of all gun homicides every year - which is why the original assault weapons ban was such a flop. Hand guns account for 90% of gun homicides every year, rifles about 5% and shotguns about 5%. Not sure what your rationale is. But if you think the gov't could take over the US population, you need to think again. Yes, the gov't would have a huge technological advantage, and yes it would lead to extreme civilian losses for sure. But here's the part no one ever thinks about. A substantial percentage of the military would flip sides and support the people. And that portion of the military would be aligned with 100 - 200 MILLION really pissed off citizens - perhaps more - 80 million of which will be well armed. THAT is the reason the event as you describe it will never happen.

I agree with your argument, but, I can't help myself...: who's Stolin? :-p (I know, Stalin, bad bad typo though).


Stalin was Dictator of the Soviet Union who was responsible for the disarmament of his own people and the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen. If you do the research, you would find out what a rotten SOB he really was. Yet he promised his people the Utopian Ideal disarmed them and murdered many who were critical of him or his policies. I dont think that would have been tolderated by most people in the USSR if a significant number of them owned or possesed firearms.

I find your comment insulting to my intelligence. Of course I know who Stalin was, half my family is Polish (Slavic people know plenty about Stalin...) and I'll be majoring in History!

My comment was a little joke to point out the typo in the story, that's all.

Really? Assault weapons... "Clearly it makes it much harder to put the "Dicatatorial Bootheel" down to oppress the citizenry."

Your assault weapons won't help if your gov't truly wants to take over. Your assault weapons will prove useless against the drone you are fighting.

And you think I live in the land of make believe?

Well Dream the issue is not about me alone the " lone voice in the wilderness", but small arms and ammunition in wide circulation among the general population. Its clearly something that any dictator or totalitarian regime detests as a threat to their power. The potential for disruption and the absorption of potential costs, creates an atmosphere where freedom is and will be tolerated. Clearly it makes it much harder to put the "Dicatatorial Bootheel" down to oppress the citizenry.

Dream the problem with you is that if you were around prior to the nations founding you would have allowed the then British Government to take the Small Arms of the Colonists under the belief that the government will "take care of people" no matter how miserable the failure to do so is. We would likely still be a part of the British Empire had the Colonists ceded their arms to the English Crown. The British Government then did not succeed in taking the firearms of the citizens. So under our Second Amendment, why should we trust the Government of our day to "take care of us" and turn in all privately owned firearms for vague promises of saftey and security?

Dream Wiz is a good handle for you as you seem to live in the land of make believe and a mindset of the Utopian Fantasy.

Your argument is Ludicrous!

Your comments about the Powers that Be having control over our lives are interesting. While I may disagree with you about that. I have to say how much more control these Powers that be which you allude to would have over the general population if they were unarmed. That is why we have a Second Amendment.

Every Dictator or Totalitarian regime wants to have a monopoly on weapons and the legitimate use of Force. In fact even a US Army Field Manual on Counter Insurgency says that Government must have a monopoly on weaponry and the "Legitimate Use of Force"

Importantly, if there were ever a Citizen Revolution against a Government which became Tyranical the costs to "The Powers that Be" would be extremely high when the populace is armed when considering the costs of oppressing a Freedom Loving People. Its not just about pay for a Military that may enforce the will of a Totalitarian Regime, but the potential for lost Assets, lost Profits and the loss of Human Capital that a Totalitarian regime may hold dear.

We know from Tiannamen Square China that unarmed Citizens who protest a Totalitarian Regime are Crushed to Death with Tanks, with Survivors being imprisoned at little cost to a corrupt regime.

I love my freedom. In fact I revere it. My ancestors fought and bled for it, and its not for you or anyone else to use the Constitution as Toilet Paper.

Youre quite Naive. Could things get worse if the Powers that be determined they could get everything they want through force, when the populace no longer is able to own them?

Your argument makes no sense and your view on history is lacking.

Do you honestly think they couldn't get things by force if you are allowed to own an assault weapon?

I comepletly agree