The woman in this video (Lily Tang Williams) just won her primary for Congressional seat in New Hampshire. "Can you guarantee our government will never become tyrannical? No? Then the gun control debate is over."
Posted by AbolishtheDraft@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 215 comments
Lionofgod9876@reddit
Most Americans have no idea what life is like outside the US and have no appreciation for our freedoms and rights and are willing to give them away out of apathy and laziness.
sargethegemini@reddit
Knock knock, it’s the patriot act and citizens United. The two most right limiting acts of our lifetime are still in play. As long as you keep the masses divided against each other it doesn’t matter if they have guns. Guns provide an illusion of freedom in the US.
They won’t rise up if one side sees trans, and illegals as the biggest issue of their time.
HTownLaserShow@reddit
Yeah, ok.
Don’t you have a riot you’re late too?
sargethegemini@reddit
Are CU and PA not limiting?
HTownLaserShow@reddit
Sure
But you dismissing illegal immigration and calling the 2nd amendment a “illusion of freedom” tells me all I need to know about you.
sargethegemini@reddit
How have you used the 2nd amendment to defend your freedoms? No one has, no one will. As long as people are divided on menial social issues and concerned with what their neighbor is doing there won’t be able to be a unified force the take on the government with or without the 2a.
Who is dismissing illegal immigration?
HTownLaserShow@reddit
How many purple headed lesbos are practicing their right to an abortion?
sargethegemini@reddit
Try and have a reasonable discussion but your crowd gets realllll triggered realll fast.
Buddy can’t answer a single question without overheating.
HTownLaserShow@reddit
It was an absolute legitimate response to your absurd question about a constitutional right.
sargethegemini@reddit
Love it. Let the rage build!
archerships@reddit
Citizen's United decision protects your right to free speech.
sargethegemini@reddit
That’s like saying the Patriot Act is helping you be more of a patriot.
Your statement would be valid if I was a corporation. Citizens United was designed to increase corporate and super pac influence.
“The Court assumed that unlimited corporate campaign spending would pose no threat of corruption or the appearance of corruption because it would be “independent.”
However, it has become clear in the years since that voters are not getting enough information about the true sources of campaign spending and this supposedly independent spending in support of candidates or their campaigns is often intentionally coordinated.”
archerships@reddit
I don't think the USG should be able to put people in prison for airing a movie critical of a sitting politician 30 days before an election. The ACLU agreed:
https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/citizens_united_sc_08_acru_brief_amici.pdf
sargethegemini@reddit
So Citizens United financed a conservative movie and that means they protect my rights?
That’s like saying the NRA is in favor of protecting gun rights rather than making money..
HTownLaserShow@reddit
It’s also like saying Planned Parenthood gives a fuck about women, children, and their health (they don’t)
Or that PETA cares about animals
Or that the BLM cares about black lives.
sargethegemini@reddit
Are those meant to be gotchas? They are also great examples of CEOs of supposed non profits making an insane amount of money + funneling donations to execs. It’s just that while PP does provide services… NRA doesn’t, and they rarely provide legal support to gun owners. Sure some cases like in Chicago.. but the biggest cases like the Milford act and bunk stock ban they were absent.
I’m sure you’ll have a very well thought out response ! Looking forward to it!
HTownLaserShow@reddit
None of those special interests give a fuck about anyone they pretend to serve.
Unions might be the most egregious of the bunch, by the way.
Pixelhead0110@reddit
Nah having guns matters like this badass woman eloquently stated. Also, how in the hell is citizens united limiting on you? Have you actually read the opinion?
sargethegemini@reddit
Do you see any issue whatsoever with this?
The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations.
How much money do you think the average person has to donate to a political campaign? The only group that unlimited campaign donations applies to is corporations and superPACs.
What benefit does citizens United give the average person that they didn’t already have?
Modig7176@reddit
If you think a ak47 can project you from the might and power of the Us military, I have a few things to sell you.
Glooryhoole@reddit
The Vietcong would like to tell you a little story
Ok-Ingenuity465@reddit
The Vietcong were armed to the tits with Soviet weaponry. Heavy machine guns, rpgs, anti tank and personnel mines, mortars, rocket launchers, guided missiles, grenades, IEDs, etc. The US population has access to none of this stuff.
HTownLaserShow@reddit
What?
The largest army on earth is the American Hunter, Chief. And we are armed to the tits.
Also. The military would lose roughly 1/2-3/4ths of its force due to people simply not willing to fight their own families. You’re insane if you think your typical service member would open fire on his brothers/sisters/mother/father…regardless of the stances
MROLOQ@reddit
You are overlooking the fact that support for movements like the Vietcong didn’t arise in isolation. If significant civil unrest were to occur in the United States, similar support, whether from internal factions or external political entities with similar interests, would likely be directed against the US government. Political dynamics would inevitably come into play, just as they did in other conflicts.
However, an unarmed population would stand no chance, as they would be crushed long before any support could materialize. The sheer fact that the people are defenseless would not only make them easy targets, but would also strike hesitancy in potential allies, who might not back a cause that has no means of resisting such oppressive force.
Ok-Ingenuity465@reddit
"You are overlooking the fact that support for movements like the Vietcong didn’t arise in isolation" Absolutely right. When a civil war is gonna break out various outside actors who are invested in the outcome of the war will supply the population with weapons. Much more heavy duty stuff then anything you or I could ever get out hands on here in the US. This has been the case with every civil war that has occurred in the last 150 odd years. Plus its far better to get your weapons from a foreign supplier since ammo would be much easier to come by. Really begs the question why focus so much on stockpiling guns right now in peace when it won't really matter when a civil war breaks out anyways.
MROLOQ@reddit
You completely missed the point on the second paragraph.
The thing is, check the example of Ukraine. Do you think they would have stood a chance if they hadn't prepared for the Russian invasion and Russia had been able to blitz their way into Kyiv and capture it in three days? Even though the circumstances are indeed different, the logic is the same.
Without preparation, an unarmed population wouldn’t stand a chance. They’d be crushed before any external support could even come into play. Just as Ukraine’s readiness was key to receiving aid, the same applies here; a defenseless population not only invites swift suppression, but also makes potential allies hesitate, seeing no feasible path to resistance.
Ok-Ingenuity465@reddit
"a defenseless population not only invites swift suppression, but also makes potential allies hesitate, seeing no feasible path to resistance" This is a very silly statement since most of the groups supplied throughout the last 100 years were not armed at the beginning of the conflict, let alone heavily armed. Using Ukraine as an example is again comical because their readiness for a Russian invasion was along the lines of anti-aircraft and missile systems, ballistic missiles, tanks, attack helicopters, etc. This is leaps and bound away from people owning AR-15's. It wasn't like Russia's invasion was halted by the population owning AK-47's. Not to mention its a war between two modern mechanized armies, not civilians against their own government. Preparation is having a centralized organization, command structure, clear objectives, key strategies and tactics, ready access to supplies, critical intelligence gathering, deep connections with a sympathetic foreign nation, steady supply of recruits, etc, etc. The Vietcong, IRA, Taliban, Hezbollah, ISIS, Iraqi insurgency, FLN, Yugoslav and Soviet Partisans had all of these things. Armed Americans have none of these things.
MROLOQ@reddit
The comparison to Ukraine remains valid. While their preparation involved heavy military equipment, which I never denied, the key point is that they were ready, which delayed Russia long enough for foreign aid to come in. The same principle applies here: a population that is unarmed or unprepared would be crushed before allies could intervene. Preparedness, even on a smaller scale, is essential to prevent swift suppression. Otherwise, explain that to the people who were prohibited from owning weapons while living under tyrannies: Venezuelans, Cubans, or North Koreans.
Then you come with this: "The Vietcong, IRA, Taliban, Hezbollah, ISIS, Iraqi insurgency, FLN, Yugoslav and Soviet Partisans had all of these things. Armed Americans have none of these things." You are missing the fact that all these movements started as guerrilla forces. They didn’t have access to heavy military resources from the outset but grew by using small arms and irregular tactics to resist larger, more organized forces. The point of being armed isn’t to match a mechanized army head-on; it’s to create enough resistance to survive and build strength, just like these movements did. You’re essentially implying that Americans would face a different outcome (because…?).
Moreover, your argument is self-defeating. You acknowledge the necessity of weapons to resist oppression (once they're supplied) but refuse to see the logic in being armed beforehand. If weapons are crucial in the fight against tyranny, then why wouldn't being prepared in advance increase the chance of survival and eventual support?
Ok-Ingenuity465@reddit
My key point is that Americans are not ready, not even a little ready. Prepared means centralized organization, command structure, clear objectives, key strategies and tactics, ready access to supplies, critical intelligence gathering, deep connections with a sympathetic foreign nation, steady supply of recruits. Americans have absolutely none of those things. Ukraine had all of those things. So your example does work just not in the way you initially intended. Imagine you live in a town separated by a river connected by one bridge. That bridge is old and in dire need of repair and when the next storm rolls through there is a good chance that old bridge will collapse. Instead of setting aside a budget, hiring engineers, drafting plans, hiring a construction company, and gathering necessary resources all in the preparation for that day. What you do instead is give all the people in your town a hammer and do none of that other stuff. That is essentially what America is except with guns.
"You are missing the fact that all these movements started as guerrilla forces" No you are missing the point that those movements existed as political, social, or religious organizations before the war even started. You get organized then start the war, you don't start a war then get organized. Foreign nations don't hand over heavy weapons to individuals, they hand them over to organizations. Are you part of an organization that could easily transform into a guerilla force? 99% of Americans are not.
"Moreover, your argument is self-defeating. You acknowledge the necessity of weapons to resist oppression" The right weapons are a necessity in resisting oppression, in the right hands. 100 million random people with small arms is basically useless. Any conflict on US soil would result in an insane spike in crime as people would spend more time having a go at each other then fighting any tyrannical government. It would be more akin to the Maquisards then to the Vietcong.
You wanna be effective in a civil war? Learn how to make IED's and have then detonate with a cell phone. Do you know how to fly a drone? That is 100x more useful at this point then knowing how to shoot a gun. One good drone pilot is more useful then 40 dudes with AR-15's.
byond6@reddit
You sure about that?
Ok-Ingenuity465@reddit
Yes.
byond6@reddit
Well, it's OK to be wrong.
Ok-Ingenuity465@reddit
Go read up on the Vietnam War.
byond6@reddit
I already have.
Ok-Ingenuity465@reddit
Then you would already know that landmines, IEDs, and booby traps made with various howitzer shells were one of the leading causes of US deaths during the war. What do you think the Vietcong used to shoot down 11,846 helicopters? Ak-47s? Comparing Americans with their kitted out AR-15's to the Vietcong is like comparing a high school football team to the Kansas City Chiefs.
byond6@reddit
You're proving my point.
Rifles and improvised weapons.
Ok-Ingenuity465@reddit
You think the Vietcong shot down the helicopters mostly using rifles? I thought you said you ready up on the Vietnam War? I recall it was recoilless rifles, rocket propelled grenades and heavy machine guns that did the trick. Know anyone with a gun cabinet full of recoilless rifles or rocket propelled grenades?
byond6@reddit
Is the AR-15 a dangerous weapon of war or useless against a modern military?
Do you think the US would use helicopters against American civilians?
Would those helicopters go door to door? Occupy street corners and cities?
Who would fly them? Are those people bulletproof? Where do their families live?
These weapons you don't think Americans have.... Those are made by people, right?
I think it's best we just agree to disagree here. I don't like thinking about what the American people would be willing to do to any military that tried to attack us on our home turf. I don't need that kind of brutality on my mind today.
I don't think I'm going to change your opinion and I don't think you're going to change mine and that's ok.
Ok-Ingenuity465@reddit
Its not agree or disagree. Its not understanding how these things actually play out. Americans have this fantasy that they will gather with their knucklehead buddies and fight off the baddies like its a John Wick film. If its anything like most of the civil wars over the last 80 odd years it will consist of lots of bombings, kidnappings, mass executions, rounding up people and torturing them for information, cutting off supplies of food and water, people betraying each other right and left, etc. Believing just having an AR-15 can really help you in a civil war is fantasy thinking along the lines of believing the Lord of the Rings is real.
byond6@reddit
Again, we've seen how these things play out. In Vietnam. In Iraq. In Afghanistan. In all the other places we've stuck our noses and spent billions of dollars and sacrificed our soldiers trying to kill locals armed with rifles, small arms, and improvised weapons only to pull out in defeat years later.
It's not a fantasy, it's history. It's not something I want to see happen here or anywhere else. The toll on both sides is always too high.
History has also shown us what governments tend to do to their citizenry once they've been disarmed. That's something else I don't want to see happen here. History has also shown me that I can't trust our government. I certainly don't trust them to have a monopoly on the use of force.
History is the reason many Americans will not give up their guns. I don't want to see history repeat here. We fight at the polls so we don't have to fight with our guns.
I really am done arguing about this.
I hope you have a good day.
Gorilla_Krispies@reddit
Tbf, they had AK’s and were small and fit enough to fit into tunnels and climb trees etc. The vast majority of American gun owners are not anywhere close to being able to crawl around booby trapped tunnel networks.
Also an ocean between your land and the invaders helps a lot for longevity.
MROLOQ@reddit
The Taliban too.
HTownLaserShow@reddit
If you think the US military would be at its full might and power and fire on their own families, I have a few things to sell you.
Only idiots have this POV in this argument.
If you have members of the military in your family (you don’t) and they’d fire on you on behalf of a tyrannical government….They’re fucking cowards.
Spiritual_Bourbon@reddit
Uh, according to estimates by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, there are around 20 million semi-automatic rifles in civilian hands as of 2023. Unsure if this also accounts for what inventory gangs and criminals have. Then you can add to that between 4.5 million to 5.75 million former or retired military between the ages of 25-50, around 1 million sworn police officers + recently retired, 1 to 1.4 million gang members, and 15 to 16 million hunters. That's over 20 million people who are at least familiar with guns and many who are highly trained. For comparison, there are around 1.3 active-duty military with about 800k members in the reserve components.
Now obviously just being a part of any of those groups does not imply what reaction the person would take and the one side has zero organization but from a manpower perspective I'd like to see Vegas lay some odds on how it would turn out. In other words it's not just a ak47, as you suggest.
Modig7176@reddit
And it will take one drone bomb and they will be gone. They literally have bombs that pull your lungs from your chest.
MROLOQ@reddit
You really have no idea what you're talking about. If it were that easy, no one would have a problem with terrorism or guerrilla tactics.
Spiritual_Bourbon@reddit
So, in your view, "one" AK47 isn't enough to resist, but "one" drone bomb is enough to oppress? That's something...
That's before you get the actual actions and the psychology of those actions. You're placing a lot of trust in the idea that a 20-something drone pilot is going to be able to bomb a building in Missouri or Texas simply because a general put out the order based on some bureaucrat. It's one thing to drone bomb a Somali warlord or a member of ISIS, but dropping a drone bomb on a school building in your hometown or a town that looks like your hometown is entirely different.
Where do you get the confidence in the rank-and-file US military having the stomach to follow through with such a request? Repeatedly, by the way, because it would take more than just one drone bomb.
Modig7176@reddit
Yeah yeah I didn’t realized I crossed over to the crazy libertarian subreddit
Spiritual_Bourbon@reddit
Totally get it. You did come off as someone who would have trouble with situational awareness, among other things. Hope you find your way!
byond6@reddit
Vietnam. Korea. Iraq. Afghanistan. Etc. Etc. Etc.
chronicpenguins@reddit
Yeah must be wild experiencing a culture where basic healthcare is covered and you don’t have to live in fear of kids being shot at school
ShadowPrezident@reddit
You can not use your personal emotions to take away others rights.
I think your lawn is ugly, therefore the government should take away your property.
arushus@reddit
I wish I could upvote this more.
Daverocker1@reddit
You forgot stupidity.
byond6@reddit
We should not let the government control education.
deathangel687@reddit
Ok. And then who educates us?
byond6@reddit
The private schools we choose based on their cost effectiveness and quality of outcomes.
deathangel687@reddit
The thing that I always worry about though, is that the incentives of the private companies to just seek profit may lead to better efficiency but can lead to them ignoring low income people, who need it the most. And if the focus is on making the most profit, what are the cost saving measures they will take and how will this affect students.
byond6@reddit
Those are certainly valid concerns. I have more faith in a market free from government manipulation to address them than the current system.
If private school become too expensive for low income people, that creates an opportunity for additional private schools to fill that void. Perhaps non-profits.
Stew21221@reddit
That right there, my friend, is what is already destroying our country. Believe me, I know firsthand. I have 4 kids, 2 bio 2 steps. My 2 went to a non-religous private school. My stepkids went to public school. They're all within 4yrs of age with each other. The step were 13/15 when I met their mom. Now they're in their mid-20s, and the general outlook of life is soooo different. My 2 work hard have good values and none of this entitlement bullshit. The other 2 are entitled, lazy pieces of shit. Not completely my wife's fault, no father she worked 2 jobs till we got together, so so the school system and internet raised them. I tried my best, but they resisted. My stepdaughter dates black dudes(which I have zero problems with at all), but her reasoning is guilt of white privilege and being racist. She graduated in 17, so they've pushing this stupid crt shit for a long time.
DeadDolphins@reddit
Yeah, this is not really true. I went to a public school in a very very blue state around the same time as your kids - no one is pushing "CRT" and "white guilt". Seriously. I'm not going to say there aren't some wacko teachers out there who will say that all white people should be guilty, or are racist etc but I just do not buy that any significant number of school districts are pushing this as a part of curriculum. If you've got any evidence that they are, I'd be happy to consider it. If we're talking about anecdotal evidence, private school kids (who I had a lot of interaction with through high school debate tournaments and other activities) were most of the elitist, arrogant people that I met. A lot of private school kids were generally nice, but it's a system that has its own flaws
Stew21221@reddit
Well, when covid hit and the kids went online and the crt thing came out, I paused a news show and brought her down and asked her if this is what she was taught. Her reply was yeah why. We had mental issues with her during high school with depression, she was cutting herself to punish herself for who she was. At this point she had graduated 3 yrs prior. Now I'm baltimore county md. They don't call it crt just race theory, but they were teaching it.
Oddgar@reddit
The truth is more important than your hurt feelings.
Maybe if you hadn't been telling lies on the internet no one would have called you out in the first place.
Also don't you think it's funny that you are on a libertarian subreddit, using liberal as an insult? Maybe you should look up what liberal means.
Stew21221@reddit
And to show your ignorance being liberal and libertarian are completely different
Oddgar@reddit
God you're a moron.
Libertarian is a political stance that advocates for self reliance and small government with minimal government interference.
Liberal is a word relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise
If you can see how those two philosophies overlap, you are beyond any help.
Stew21221@reddit
Yawn 🥱
Stew21221@reddit
Lol, if you only had a clue. I have papers from school work tht taught racial theory. There was a local school board meeting here about it. So stop spreading your misinformation.open your eyes bud, our government does not care about our kids. When you grow you will learn
Oddgar@reddit
No, you do not have any papers.
School board meetings discuss topics brought up by parents, and do not reflect anything actually happening in schools.
You're an idiot if you think the government SHOULD care about our kids. You are responsible for the life you bring into this world. You shouldn't be lazy, and rely on the government to do it for you.
I am 33 years old. Eat my ass.
Stew21221@reddit
Well I'm 52 and have never relied on anything from the government. I'm an 8 year veteran, was in desert storm, have never been in a VA hospital because I want zero interaction with government agencies. If you read the parent comment it about NOT letting government control school. Troll
Stew21221@reddit
Yeah lmao liberals need/want government control. Libertarians want the government to be as minimal as possible
Oddgar@reddit
It doesn't make a difference, and no she wasn't being taught CRT.
CRT is not an approved curriculum option for teachers anywhere in the country and never has been.
Stop making shit up on the internet.
Stew21221@reddit
Fuck off dude, you don't live in my household and don't a fucking clue what we went through. So keep your liberal ass thoughts to yourself
CaffineIsLove@reddit
if people arent afraid of the govenrment the gov has to listen to the people. If the People are afraid of the govenrment the people MUST listen to the gov
byond6@reddit
gotbock@reddit
And fear. Don't forget about fear.
BandicootRaider@reddit
those americans would be the first to play victim and cry "how could I have known!" if they ever get their communist wish.
r0xxon@reddit
and fear
PeterRevision@reddit
Thanks for the heads up! I am in her district and will vote for her!
HTownLaserShow@reddit
Fuck yeah.
My wife, from Venezuela, would echo these exact sentiments.
incaman88@reddit
Such a stupid argument lol
tbjfi@reddit
if you think its a bad argument, you are free to not own guns.
incaman88@reddit
Thanks. I own a gun for personal safety. Someone tries to rob my house, comes to hurt my family, etc.
Thinking I can stop the United States military from anything with a couple AR’s and handguns is insane lol
tbjfi@reddit
You should read history.
incaman88@reddit
Which part
tbjfi@reddit
American revolutionary war. French resistance during WW2. Irish rebellion of 1798. Texas revolution.
rdear@reddit
The story of the american musket wielding soldiers taking down the English predator drones and stopping King George's tank regiment is truly inspiring.
Even if the collective might of American gun owners were enough to stop your tyrannical government boogie man, which they are not, they're too spread out across the country to be an real resistance.
If the government as a whole were to decide tomorrow to confiscate all weapons, which they won't, how would you stop them? They know many americans are armed. They won't just walk up and ask nicely. To be fair, they won't do it at all.
Our government can't agree on making any decisions, good or bad, as a whole. They definitely aren't going to come together to subjugate the people.
Your only weapon to prevent tyranny is voting in good people who want to look out for those they serve.
AnxiousVariety386@reddit
How did our tanks and cruise missiles work out for us in Iraq against an insurgency of truck driving, AK-47 wielding rebels? 20 year war that decimated the country's infrastructure. You're imagining the outcome to be decisive, and it would never be. Imagine our government waging that kind of war against our own people, where the collateral damage and innocent bystanders were pro government US citizens? Gorilla warfare will always be effective due to the difficulty it is to combat without collateral damage. Maybe there would never be enough organization and numbers amongst people willing to sacrifice their safe, comfy lifestyle for their right to bear arms, but to think that a scattered, underequipped but motivated group of people wouldn't devolve into a big problem for this country, I think that's naïve.
rdear@reddit
Like I said, the US didn't go scorched earth in any war. If they turn against their own people, the kid gloves are off. There's no need to fight fair when subjugating your own people. See all the dictators that turn on their own people.
doktorjake@reddit
What makes you think the government will from 0-100 on the evil scale overnight?
Just like, think through your stance for a minute, man. You’re arguing for a completely preposterous scenario. Humans don’t suddenly transform into genocidal maniacs, they do it by degrees.
If the government were to declare war against its people, it won’t be like tomorrow they wake up and say “ok army start killing every man woman and child”. Even if they did, individual members of the army (let’s not forget that they are real people with moral compasses, too) would probably not follow those orders. Why? Because that’s a batshit crazy order and we aren’t even close to that.
So, the real question is how we get from where we are now to where the next step is to realistically “declare war” on the citizens. The first step of violence would never be all out war, of course, because that’s batshit crazy. The first step would be something more like rounding up hostile citizens, bag-and-tag operations with dissenters. It’s quieter, more effective, and allows the oppressive government to spin the situation to their liking, since things are happening anyway.
How do you stop us from getting to that step? Well, you don’t have to scare the government, you just have to scare Officer Bob the police officer who was ordered to apprehend a dissenter in his city.
For the record, I don’t see the government going this direction. Nowadays people are being all extreme and it’s not as bad as everyone’s saying it is, but keeping your guns is still a good idea regardless. Mostly, your argument was completely stupid and ignored history, facts, human nature, and a long list of empirical examples for how tyranny does and does not play out. It’s really the pure stupidity of your argument that was the most offensive, I’m sure you’re an otherwise charming person.
gerbilshower@reddit
great theory and all. and, in a vacuum it is accurate. they could just nuke New York and we might all fall in line.
but then... they would have nuked New York. the center of the world and killed 25 million people in the process along with insane amounts of their own infrastructure.
i don't think many would take kindly to that. and the result would be a) nuke everything else too, b) fight the guerilla war that will ensue, or c) nevermind this was a terrible idea.
rdear@reddit
Of course they wouldn't nuke new york. They wouldn't have to. All they'd need to do is cut off supplies flowing into the island long enough to show the rest of the country what will happen if they don't fall in line.
Why would they nuke a city? That would be overkill and also endanger all the surrounding areas. Bad theory and all. Even in a vacuum.
tonyroma_47@reddit
The US Army can blow anyone up hiding out in their garage, with a guided explosive, from an untraceable distance, by some sharp shooting kid with a PS5 controller, in his mom's basement while he's playing Clash of Clans and watching Rick and Morty. Kids gonna have a 50/0 KD ratio before the first guys body cools down. Meanwhile the traitor's family is unharmed in their otherwise mostly undamaged house. They have a $850,000,000,000 budget. Get a fucking grip.
rdear@reddit
And I think it’s naive to hope that the tyrannical boogie man government will pull its punches and let guerilla tactics be used against them.
Spiritual_Bourbon@reddit
Why did you phrase this as Americans fighting King George's army? Americans vs. American military is a much different situation.
Yes, the US is massive, and policing the entirety of the United States in a military state is the logistical problem that can't be solved, not armed gun owners resisting in their pockets. And again, the military state would need to be enforced by the American military against other American citizens. We're not talking about cranked-up sicarios who will do the bidding of cartel members. We're talking about a volunteer army that is mostly filled with Americans who signed up with some level of desire to defend the United States, not attack it. Thinking the front-line forces are going to take orders from bureaucrats that involve killing their neighbors is a complicated request to have filled.
That's because, currently, we have a two-party system with the majority of Americans sitting in the middle of the positions between those two parties. But if you ask some people, the entirety of one of those political parties is evil and should be removed from having any power.
If you remove the possibility of conflict and risk, it's much easier for people to oppress others. Just look at what rights are being revoked around the world today where there isn't that possibility of conflict and risk.
I would love to live in your world.
rdear@reddit
You're the one who brought up the revolutionary war and the french resistance. I was pointing out that those examples do not equate to the situation we'd be in if we had to fight our own HEAVILY ARMED government.
Also, the french resistance would have fallen if not for outside support from the allies. They fought a good fight, but the french would't be dropping supplies and ammo into the US to help the resistance.
The US is massive and policing the entire thing is a logistical problem. So they will not risk it. They would be decisive and clear in threats against anyone who would resist.
AGAIN, none of this will happen, but IF it did, your pea shooters will not save the country.
You do live in my world. It's just hard to tell through the fear colored glasses telling you that everyone is out to get you.
Spiritual_Bourbon@reddit
You are confusing me with another poster. I made no such reference. Slow down, read, comprehend what you wrote, and then reply. You're unnecessarily aggressive to the point where you don't even understand the conversations and who you are having it with. Maybe take a break?
You seem to want to ignore why they would not risk it. RISK being the most important keyword. THEY is also another keyword. THEY is both the commanders making the call and those who would be responsible for completion.
The only threat that would be applied to just those who resisted would be violence. All of the other techniques used, such as shutting off the internet, turning off the power grid, or similar, would affect the entire population and create layers of chaos that would be impossible to control without massive and blunt force countermeasures. So you're talking about bombing a building full of people in order to kill a select few people inside.
Interesting word choice. Do you really think it's just "pea shooters" that are out there? You also want to coast by the psychology of such an event: survival instinct, asymmetrical warfare, and the morality of self-defense vs. oppression are topics you should read up on.
Let me flip this to a question, as I am very curious about your thoughts. How about you unpack how the U.S. military would take control of, say, Houston? A city of over 2.3 million people with one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the U.S. If you do, I kindly ask that you pivot your focus from what limitations the people with "pea shooters" face and instead focus on the details of what the military would be asked to do to put down those people with "pea shooters."
Yes, we co-exist in our world. No need to make up straw man arguments. In addition to showing an emotional response, which is telling, the use of logical fallacies shows you're not well equipped to have a rational conversation even if you could control your emotions.
rdear@reddit
This whole thing is a straw man argument. The straw man here is the government and the argument is in favor of zero gun regulations. The straw man/boogie man isn't coming to oppress you. You want to take out Houston? Here's how you (the US government) Do it with ease.
Destroy the main highways entering and leaving the city. I-10, 290, I-45, 90, 249, I-69, etc. including all railroads. Then, with a few destroyers, you blockade Galveston Bay and give no quarter to ships entering or leaving.
This is all simultaneous by the way, destroy every single water treatment and power plant servicing the city. With the main arteries for the delivery of goods cut off, with no power and no potable water, you patrol the perimeter of the city with several squadrons of helicopters picking off people coming and going by vehicle on the smaller roads. Eventually clogging them up as well.
You broadcast the entire thing so every other major city sees this.
Then you wait. Week or months. No amount of radical individualism will prevent you from starving or dying of dysentery. Eventually all you boot-strappers who don't need no big guvernment will turn on each other when supplies run low and people start dying.
And this entire operation would be little more than a training exercise as far as man power and munitions go.
How will you stop battleships in the bay, or gunship flying overhead? What will your arsenal of guns do when the main roads are destroyed and water and power are cut? Who will you shoot to get the medicine for the sick and injured? How will you strong-arm an enemy that doesn't need to be closer than several miles away from you?
If you personally want to go live in the woods, you'll probably be ok. But if you want to live in a functional society, your guns won't help you. You need to stop the tyranny before it starts by electing good people.
We are all very dependent on the supply chain and the creature comforts provided to us like clean water, abundant food, electricity, etc.
Spiritual_Bourbon@reddit
Thank you. I didn't say "take out" Houston, I said "take control" of Houston. There is a difference. I was pretty sure you were a dweeb who is basing their reality on video games and movies but needed to confirm it. So thanks.
rdear@reddit
Did you know that Houston has a population of 2.3 million with the highest rate of gun ownership? Why would they risk an engaging the enemy like that and risk casualties or worse, failing to control the city? Once everyone is dead or weakened, they will control the city.
I want to live in your world where tyrannical governments are rational and peaceful and want diplomatic solutions to controlling their people. Remember how Stalin negotiated with his people and didn’t resort to starvation and sending whole families to gulags?
You’re saying that your guns will prevent the government from oppressing their people right? Just so long as they don’t hit too hard or play too mean though.
I mean, god forbid they were merciless. That would mean your guns would be of absolutely no help and that your misguided sense of duty to stave off tyranny would need to be reevaluated in the face of all the gun deaths in this country.
Let’s hope when they do come for our freedoms, they give us a sporting chance and leave the RPGs, tanks and bombers back at the base.
incaman88@reddit
Surprised you didn’t mention the battle of thermopylae lol.
Maybe you should read a little more of that history.
But either way. I hope you have a great day sir/madam.
juflyingwild@reddit
Dude the families of the military become targets too. When they realize that they're just as vulnerable as an organized militia, the civil war ends.
Spiritual_Bourbon@reddit
The U.S. military has, in the past, been resisted by people defending their homes with relatively simple firearms—think "a few ARs and handguns"—in conflicts like Vietnam, Somalia, and Afghanistan.
To assume that the U.S. military is unstoppable against an armed populace overlooks a key factor: U.S. soldiers would be engaging not in foreign lands, but on Main Street in the towns where they grew up, potentially facing their own neighbors.
The quiet quitting we see in U.S. police forces is a perfect microcosm of this dynamic. While many expect police officers to risk their lives for public safety, there is a threshold they won’t cross when it involves unnecessary personal danger or being asked to do something they consider unethical or immoral.
And the people in question aren't warlords or guerrilla fighters—they’re ordinary citizens who know how to use firearms. This includes millions of active/former police officers, veterans, retired military, and hunters. Any such conflict would be prolonged and brutal, the exact opposite of what the military would want.
This concept ties into deterrence theory: the very existence of force prevents aggression. Just as nuclear deterrence maintains a balance of power globally, an armed populace can deter a government from overstepping into authoritarian rule.
ghettodub@reddit
Lily is the best. Love her. We ran for office in Colorado in 2014 (for different offices), and she’s awesome.
MROLOQ@reddit
The disarmament of the American people will invariably lead to tyranny. The government, already oppressive, will become completely unrestrained and even more abusive. There is no avoiding it. If control is already heavy now, imagine when there's nothing left to stop it.
Americans will then face the same hardships Latin Americans have endured for generations.
And look, it’s not as if the Founding Fathers didn’t warn about it. They understood perfectly the value of an armed populace. But newer generations, arrogantly assuming they knew better, ignored those warnings.
Then History repeats itself all over again...
HenryJohnson34@reddit
The tyranny is already here and unrestrained. Thinking an armed populace changes anything is a sad cope.
The populace is divided and the government can disarm and jail anyone they want at anytime. The freedom people think they have from being armed is a facade.
Funky_Cows@reddit
I don't understand how people think a bunch of people with ar 15s are going to do anything against the US government
jdubb26@reddit
The people that control the drones, tanks etc all have wives,children,family members etc. No one is invincible. Not many people are going to want to take orders against US citizens when their loved ones are dying in mass retaliation.
Also there's way more citizens than active duty military. Only way I see them winning is if they literally just nuke every civilian and only Military/LEO and family of them are left to restart civilization.
gerbilshower@reddit
yea, i mean the first thing you always here from the anti-2a folks is 'what is your AR going to do against the F-22?'
and the short answer is - nothing, and lots of us will die. but the only real way to 'win' a guerilla war with an entire nation is to just fucking carpet bomb everyone and everything. and, at that point, what are you actually going to war for? youve ruined any reason to want the land/people at that point. even psychotic dictators realize this.
there will be military personnel that murder US civilians if that order comes down. but there will be plenty of desertions to go alongside them.
who knows how it would end. but there would be plenty of death on both sides until the carpet bombing occurs.
foreverNever22@reddit
Also, the pilot of that F22 can't stay in the jet forever.
Manycubes@reddit
The US government had a similar thought in the 60's. "What can a bunch of rice farmers with semi-automatic SKS rifles do?"
And again some 40 years later. "What can a bunch of goat herders with rusty AK 47's do?"
It didn't go well for them either time.
MROLOQ@reddit
If the US government had convinced Taliban fighters to disarm with the argument, "What can you do against the US armed forces?" the US would still be in Afghanistan.
This is the kind of bullshit that terrorists will never buy into.
MROLOQ@reddit
I go even further. I can’t fathom how someone disarmed could ever be safer than someone equipped with an AR-15.
Perhaps they will try to throw stones? Or maybe toss potatoes?
McSgt@reddit
That is the argument, that is the answer. Well said, ma’am.
CaffineIsLove@reddit
Exactly, the 2nd right was to protect the 1st right
DoingItForEli@reddit
actually it was to help us fight off the British
foreverNever22@reddit
The British, the French, Spanish, our own government. It's meant to thwart tyranny, whoever brings it down on us.
DoingItForEli@reddit
Largely no, actually. It was to give us a fighting chance at the time against an invading force, but what was meant to thwart tyranny above all else was the constitution. Our ability as a people to collectively change the government when it becomes too overbearing is far more impactful than our right to own firearms. I'm surprised more of you aren't aware of this given the entire BIRTH OF OUR NATION stems from the very notion that the British Empire gave ZERO avenues for the people to keep its government in check, which is why violent rebellion was needed in the first place. We no longer need guns and violence in this country, just good ol' representative government alongside a healthy dose of checks and balances. Anyone who threatens those things are a threat to the stability of our entire nation, and represents a sort of antithesis to what the founders set out to do.
foreverNever22@reddit
Elected leaders can be just as tyrannical.
Biggest pile of bullshit I've read today.
You mean like Trump? Hence why we need to own weapons to resist any government that will just ignore and corrupt the checks and a balances?
You're just like those people that sticks out there arm to stop a vehicle from rolling forward, then just gets squished by the vehicle.
DoingItForEli@reddit
I know, it's terrifying that a document and a bunch of people all abiding by the system we agree to is all that stands in the way of horrific atrocities we have already seen countless times throughout human history. We're the most violent species the planet has ever seen. Nobody wants to go back to what nightmares have been seen.
I've long held a fear that our adversaries have studied our system of government very closely and came up with a plan to chip away at it. What I'm hoping is in their attempt to chip away at it, they expose the weakness like cracks in the hull of a ship, and we can repair things and make our government future-proof from further intervention.
Ultimately no perfect system exists and it requires everyone to go along with it. If enough of the country votes to completely undo what has been in place for 248 years, then in a cruel sort of ironic way, that's still representative government. That's our country choosing to F itself in the A.
You say I'm "just like those people that sticks out there arm to stop a vehicle from rolling forward, then just gets squished by the vehicle" but it's time for you to get in the real world. BY THE TIME your firearms are needed because of government tyranny, it will basically be too late already. You likely at that point wouldn't be fighting a modern day military with their tanks and whatnot, but you'd be using your firearm to defend yourself from other civilians. Unless you have military training, you'll largely have an unrealistic expectation of revolutionary war. We the people simply don't have the armorment to do what we did to the British. What we have is the constitution.
foreverNever22@reddit
.. you think most other people do?
DoingItForEli@reddit
that's called a period. It begins a new sentence. There's two separate thoughts.
The first thought was: your guns would be used against people just like you with their own guns, likely fighting over resources or even access to resources like roads etc.
The second thought was: Without having some exposure to what war ACTUALLY looks like, I would say 99% of the people who grew up watching movies and thinking the good guys always win don't comprehend there is a ridiculous amount of armament that is needed for what you think our second amendment is for.
These days the second amendment really is just legal access to self defense. It really should NOT be viewed as the one thing keeping our government from going 1930's Drittes Reich on us.
EditorStatus7466@reddit
"You would need ze nukes!"
What? No you don't, bud. Weapons of war are built for mass destruction, for fighting a foreign enemy in a conventional war, you don't need an F16 or a tank to fight a tyrannical government because said tyrannical government can't use it against you, that's not how guerilla warfare works. Biden is not going to bomb your apartment complex. it's totally fair to view it (the 2nd amendment) in such way, because it DOES guarantee the American government can't do anything close to that
The 2nd amendment does protect the citizens from tyranny, I don't know nor care for if that was the original purpose, I'm not even American, but trying to wrongfully dictate how others should view it is dumb
I could go a lot deeper depending on your answer, but this is all really surface level stuff, I'm surprised no one has answered you yet
DoingItForEli@reddit
It really doesn't, and it hasn't. We can literally put this theory to the test NOW. Gun owners have sat idly by while our government over the decades has suppressed free speech, enacted a blatant surveillance state, militarized law enforcement, put up barriers to voting for some, completely trashed civil liberties in the form of detention without trial for some or confiscation of cash without cause. I mean, to pretend that people in our government haven't already violated our rights over and over, going all the way back to even Washington, is pure ignorance. Just look at the Whiskey Rebellion and how much the second amendment helped there, and that was when people and military were pretty evenly matched in terms of fire power (muskets.)
The truth is you're upset because I'm the one bringing a dose of reality to pure delusion. Voting for people who respect the constitution, who will give us judges who don't violate our civil liberties, engaging with the constitution's various measures that allow for a peaceful adjustment to our system, that's how you avoid tyranny.
EditorStatus7466@reddit
You're just proving how you misunderstand the 2nd amendment's role. Yeah, sure, some violations of rights have occurred, this, however, does not prove that the Second Amendment is irrelevant.
First things first, the 2nd Amendment's primary function is not to immediately repel every single instance of government overreach, but rather to serve as a long-term safeguard against any extreme forms of oppression, providing citizens with the ability to resist IF the government descends into overt tyranny, akin to Nazi Germany/CCP/Soviet Union. The failure to act against those incremental violations is not a failure of the right to bear arms, but rather of the political and civic engagement and rationality.
I saw you mentioning the Whiskeyt Rebellion, but you just fail to account for context. The rebellion didn't represent gov. tyranny in the way Libertarians fear; it was a response to a tax, which, in a functioning system, can be addressed through legal means. You just overstate the imbalanmce in modern firepower between citizens and the state, even though guerilla warfare in asymmetric conflicts has repeatedly demonstrated that advanced military technology does not guarantee victory, and it's even harded when it's your own people and infraestructure.
Claiming that voting alone safeguards any liberty is naive, the history of the state shows that peaceful engagement with the system can be manipulated by those in power. The Second Amendment is a complementary measure to ensure that the gov respects individual rights, and if the tipping point is to come, that the people are not defenseless. The government knows that, if they push too far, they face resistance from millions of armed individuals, making the cost and progress of any sort of tyranny much, MUCH higher and costly
Fordhoard@reddit
Maybe it's not and shouldn't be viewed as
but it also shouldn't be viewed as moot.
Exposure to war can certainly give folks a head start on what to do, when and how. But I'll take the odds on 100 "good guys" vs 100 govt following brain deads any day of the week.
The 2nd amendment is as important for our freedom as is any other. GTFO with your commie babble; and under this post of all places!
DoingItForEli@reddit
Tell me how the second amendment has protected us from warrantless wiretaps, confiscation of funds, militarization of law enforcement, detention without trial.
Tell me how the second amendment worked out for the Whiskey Rebellion back when firearms were pretty evenly matched in those days.
This isn't commie babble. Commie babble would rail against democracy, but here in the US it's through representative government and our constitution that we avoid true tyranny.
So far gun owners have sat idly by while this nation has seen horrific violations of rights. It's a fantasy to pretend it's what keep our government in check.
Fordhoard@reddit
Strawman.
The Vietnam War is a prime example of an armed citizenry overcoming our all powerful government's war brigades.
Third paragraph we can mostly agree.
True. So the measure of when it's time to invoke our 2nd amendment rights is subjective. Ya know, like people tend to have their own breaking points. But just like assholes, we've all got em.
The moving goalpost of human subjectivity does not equate to an inability to take action when necessary. If nothing else, the fact that we have the right to be armed may have slowed the government's encroachment on our rights. You cannot, nor can I, quantify that impact. If we can assume it's a nonzero amount, it was and will continue to be worth it.
DoingItForEli@reddit
What does tyranny look like to you?
Actually that's a government-backed opposition fighting an invading force. It would be like us helping our military fight off Russia invading Alaska or something.
Another reason the talking point is a fantasy. By the time EVERYONE has reached the breaking point, it's too late. You can't have small groups of people fighting while everyone else does nothing, otherwise they're just deemed terrorists and treated that way. This is yet another reason why our constitution and its framework for changing our government is a far more powerful tool against tyranny.
If you could point to a single example, you may have a valid point here, but given how much I pay attention to this stuff, I already know no example exists to substantiate such a notion.
The thing that keeps our government in check is its system of checks and balances. Throw that to the wind and you end up with a concentration of too much power in which case the very system that guards us from tyranny on the level I think you are imagining breaks down.
CaffineIsLove@reddit
dude no, your insane. The bill of rights wasnt first drafted untill 1789, years after the british were already defeated.
DoingItForEli@reddit
I suggest you read up on our nation's history, it's a very fascinating chapter. Essentially the threat of British invasion remained for decades. Tensions remained even after the British were defeated. The War of 1812, for instance, was a full blown military conflict between the United States and Britain, and lasted almost 3 years ffs.
And in fact, the THIRD amendment, which came right on the heels of the second, is ALSO in response to the British:
This came from the colonial era where the British required colonists to house and feed British soldiers.
A lot of the oppressive government stuff our constitution protects us from had the British squarely in mind. Our Founders saw what happened in Europe with a variety of concentrations of power, and ultimately focused on checks and balances precisely because of the horrors too much concentrated power can result in. They saw how the Catholic church dominated people and undermined their liberties, and how governments like the British Empire operated.
hexeir@reddit
Why the fuck is he laughing
Large_McHuge@reddit
How that motherfuker laughed after she told him 20 million people died... Absolute piece of shit
lgbwthrowaway44@reddit
He does what Kamala does what she doesn’t have any answers: laughs uncomfortably and just hopes they move on.
Warden_of_the_Lost@reddit
Because he a PoS.
dishonorable_banana@reddit
Jfc, your cap-guns will not stop a tyrannical government. I'm really disappointed in all of you. Hope y'all have a better plan than that.
According-Shop-8020@reddit
Worked for Vietnam
rotoddlescorr@reddit
Didn't work on January 6.
rdear@reddit
To add what u/dishonorable_banana said, the end goal in Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc wasn't complete control and subjugation. As awful as some of the stuff we did was, we were restrained and had the whole world watching us.
If the government turned on it's people, WHICH I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH IT WILL NOT, it wouldn't be a "hearts and minds" approach. It would be for control and absolute rule. At that point they'd already be violating treaties and human rights and all. They wouldn't stop at targeting combatants since the people are armed. They make examples of entire cities but cutting them off, starving them, or bulldozing them with tanks and heavy armored vehicles.
Rest assured though, this will not happen. You all seem to forget that the government isn't some far off specter or threat. It's made of the people from our communities. It's us. JD Vance might be a ghoul, but he's not supernatural. He's from Ohio and morons elected him. He can be voted out. There's not need for guns or dreams of revolutionary violence.
speedy2686@reddit
That sounds like exactly the guarantee she was asking for! Congratulations! You win... pending evidence, of course.
rdear@reddit
She got elected right? Is she part of the problem now! Is she now your enemy??
TaxAg11@reddit
I think you contradict yourself here. If a government turned on its people for the purpose of control and absolute rule, it would not just be glassing cities. If you want to rule and control, you actually need people around to rule control. You can't and wont just kill off the populace. This is why the disparity between the power of simple firearms in the hands of people and the war machine of the government is not the deciding factor here. They can't just indiscriminately kill everyone and expect to win. "Making examples" of entire cities is the best way to have literally everyone (including foreign powers, something often left out of this conversation) turn on you and to insure that you will never win them over. They will necessarily have to limit their use of indiscriminate force in order to win, which heavily limits the use of that war machine.
rdear@reddit
No. I didn't contradict myself. That's exactly how it would have to happen. This country is too big and too well armed. To allow the populace time to build a resistance, to organize, isn't something that will happen.
Who is going to stand against the US? Nobody. They might enact trade embargoes and sanctions but they're not going to roll up and defend cities. Nobody can stand against the full might of the US military without resorting to nuclear weapons.
Tyranny is already too far. If they go that far, there's nothing to stop them from leveling buildings to make an example.
The more realistic situation is that the country fractures and goes to war with itself. And even in that regard, you 2A collection won't help you against an enemy that does not care and is not held to the rules of engagement.
The ACTUAL real situation though is none of this happens and it's all just a crazy right wing/libertarian wet dream.
TaxAg11@reddit
You have such a simplistic view of this all. If the US is in the middle of genociding its own population, it would mean allocating a good amount of war resources to inside its own borders, leaving it weakened outside. You can bet that foreign powers would absolutely jump at that chance to be able to take action against a weakened US, and BE IN THE RIGHT FOR DOING SO. China, Russia, North Korea would salivate at the opportunity to knock the US down a peg while being able to also take the morally correct stance of standing against a genocidal regime. They would absolutely be doing what they can to prop up any resistance to the US government, if not taking direct action themselves.
You talk about leveling buildings to make an example? What example is being made? That they are willing to destroy their own infrastructure? Unless they are killing people, it won't have much affect. The US would be dealing with guerilla warfare in the case of a rebellion. We've seen how effective that type of fighting is at eliminating a lot of the advantages of a modern military. If a tyrannical US is not committed to genociding its own populace, then they will necessarily HAVE to limit the force they bring to bear on their citizens and own infrastructure. They cannot just kill indiscriminately without angering the rest of the populace (and world) into action.
But you are right, this scenario likely won't happen. I would expect more of a civil war for secession rather than an uprising like this. That said, having an armed populace does play a part into the likelihood of this not happening.
rdear@reddit
The country is too blended for a simple secession. That won’t happen either.
So you’re telling me, when the government comes for our guns and freedoms, they’ll be nice about it and give us the option to walk up and hand them over? Of course not! If the government were to turn on its people, it would know that we’re well armed. Why give us a chance to fight back? Do you really think that the most armed and decked out military in the world would hold back if push came to shove and there was a madman running the show? No way.
Also, we’ve got more than enough military forces and equipment to fight internally and keep our enemies at bay. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. Nobody would be a threat to this tyrannical government. Not even its own people.
It’s not genocide by the way. It’s destroy a few cities as an example. But you’re right. This is ludicrous. Just as much as the entire idea of having to fight our government. It’s all bullshit nonsense bedtime stories you tell your drinking buddies when you go out shooting from the weekend and your wives ask why the water got shut off but you were able to drop $200 on ammo to piss away in the woods shooting at cutouts of Uncle Sam.
According-Shop-8020@reddit
It was it just didn't work out, if they could have they would have
dishonorable_banana@reddit
Did it? I'm not saying a concerted effort by a poorly armed populace couldn't hold ground temporarily, but the long term would be devastating. Also consider this, in both Vietnam and the Middle East , we were fighting an enemy without a uniform, which makes it tough to identify combatants. In the case of U.S. vs. Us it would be similar except the might of the US military will be in our backyard, not half a world away. We'd be fighting in suburbs and parking lots, not entrenched in a thick jungle.
According-Shop-8020@reddit
What do you mean "did it" yes it objectively did and you know it did lol. I honestly disagree with everything you've said, yeah they could drop bombs, use drones etc but to control an area you NEED foot soldiers. Also Ukrainians were allowed to own guns with a license before the conflict which is also the main reason that entire region isn't "Russia" right now.
dishonorable_banana@reddit
Were the Ukrainians allowed to own the weapons that are currently keeping them free before the war? Also, military foot soldiers would be more well armed and equipped than you by magnitudes. We didn't lose in Vietnam. We gave up and pulled out, partly because it was a pointless war, but a large part was growing tensions at home. It was bad for everyone and has had long-lasting effects on both countries. But do go on, Sarge.
According-Shop-8020@reddit
"we didn't lose we gave up and pulled out" lol
dishonorable_banana@reddit
At no point was the United States in danger of losing in Vietnam. We suffered heavy losses (not as many as the VC) and decided to pull out. There was no surrender. The optics are bad, and lots of fine people died senslessly. But to say we lost is just not accurate.
According-Shop-8020@reddit
Okay
dishonorable_banana@reddit
If you have a different theory on anything I've said, speak on it. Otherwise, your comments are just time wasters.
op1983@reddit
ape together strong
IJustWantToBeLoved69@reddit
"What a wonderful day"
rdear@reddit
Ape spread over giant country. Most ape not own gun. Most ape not agree with neighbor let alone agree on best tactical strategy to stop government.
Seared_Gibets@reddit
Worked ok for far less strapped countries.
And to top it off the military, that supposedly won't hesitate to murder their fellow Americans at the drop of a hat if understand your "cap-guns" swill right, will split at minimum 50/50, and the greater part will be taking the side that doesn't throw into the grinder of 100+ million pissed off Americans who blow shit up for weekend fun.
Sorry, but I hope you have a stronger gripe than supporting a government that you believe wouldn't hesitate to use heavy equipment on it's population.
IAmDeadYetILive@reddit
Why would red flag laws and background checks result in her guns being taken away?
Mediocre_Cucumber199@reddit
That’s rich thinking that citizens could ever fight the U.S. government with small arms and win.
Boring-Scar1580@reddit
Afghanistan
BenMattlock@reddit
Right…best to just throw your hands up and let them do whatever they want.
What a logical argument.
WhiskeyNick69@reddit
“But… but… Jan 6 almost ended US democracy as we know it!” 😰😅
Mediocre_Cucumber199@reddit
You’re right. It did almost end democracy. Enough fake electors and muddying the waters and it all would have went to the Supreme Court. We know how those spineless bastards would rule.
Asangkt358@reddit
In conformance with the Constitution.
Drakeadrong@reddit
It almost ended democracy, not the government. Two VERY different things.
brushnfush@reddit
“We need the 2nd amendment to protect against a tyrannical govt!!”
daily videos of police carrying out extrajudicial killings of citizens before due process
“Just do any crimes and you’ll have nothing to worry about!!”
gerbilshower@reddit
lol. fuckin got'em.
which is it? i would love to know.
turkishdelight234@reddit
Newsflash asshole, the US has already been tyrannical this whole. ASIP
joosegoose25@reddit
Gun Fever Too: Still Hot
AthiestCowboy@reddit
Crazy she got past the border with those massive balls. That was fucking awesome.
AthiestCowboy@reddit
Crazy she got past the border with those massive balls. That was fucking awesome.
moebiggs20@reddit
Love this woman
RonnyFreedomLover@reddit
Lily is a national treasure.
TigerMill@reddit
She’s actually a communist plant sent to disrupt democracy and you just fell for it.
RonnyFreedomLover@reddit
I've actually met Lily many times and had wonderful conversations with her and her husband. She told be about how to was growing up in China under Mao, and how and why she came to the US. She's 100% libertarian as fuck. And 100% capitalist.
Anyway, democracy is a failed ideation. I don't even believe in it. So when you said she is trying to "disrupt democracy", I honestly just chuckle at your ignorance.
rover_r@reddit
Why cannot we have more people like her in America? 🇺🇸 It’s the best thing I browsed on Reddit today.
Simpsons_fan_54@reddit
“Democracy” 🤡
lateformyfuneral@reddit
The commies want nothing more than a US Civil War that takes us out of the global competition, and it’s odd that Libertarians don’t see it
XiphosEdge@reddit
What's odd is this argument. If being globally competitive is your concern, then stopping us from casting billions of dollars worth of national defense resources across the planet and bombing whatever ME nation ticks us off should be priority #1 for you. Domestic gun ownership isn't the hill you'd try to die on.
speedy2686@reddit
Please provide evidence.
Plastic-Bluebird2491@reddit
well put!!
Senior-Lobster-9405@reddit
good luck fighting a tyrannical government with your semiautomatic, you'll be going up against predator drones, cruise missiles, and Abrams tanks with essentially peashooters
theoriginaled@reddit
Idiotic Motte and Bailey garbage.
Only morons think you can boil down a complex issue into a fucking single point soundbite.
chinesiumjunk@reddit
Cheers to this woman.
Rippinstitches@reddit
I don't think Australia became tyrannical. Just because guns get more control doesn't automatically mean the government will become despotic.
gornad96@reddit
This isn’t the 1900s and this isn’t foreign territory. The government doesn’t need to rely on ground troops or even force. This is home turf. With the advent of drones and cyber warfare, control of the electrical grid/other resources and absolute visibility of the terrain/geography, your guns won’t do shit. All it takes is a few drones and a sniper to cause absolute chaos in insurgent communities. Or simply shutting off water/electrical supplies and hijacking your mobile devices. Good luck defending yourself with guns.
The argument for owning guns is that it is the best way to defend yourself against other gun owners. The government tyranny argument is laughable. And to use her own argument against her, can you guarantee that your guns would save you from government tyranny? No. So this argument is over.
gornad96@reddit
Can you guarantee that you would be able to defend yourself against the government using guns? No? Then the gun control debate is over.
Phantasmidine@reddit
Fuck David Hogg, he got absolutely destroyed in this "debate".
IncomeResponsible764@reddit
I think this argument is hilarious. People who believe that guns would be an effective weapon against the government have never looked very closely at how the government controls us. The government is corporate interest, and Americans are simps for corporations and the wealthy. The guns we have are more likely to be used on each other and our kids than in a war with the government
luckoftheblirish@reddit
You're thinking of a line of random dudes with AR15s in a field against tanks, artillery, and aircraft, but that's not at all how such a conflict would play out. This is going to sound dark, but it would be a reality if this came to pass: government personnel, military leadership, corporate interest, elites, etc. have homes, businesses, family, loved ones in the country that can be killed/destroyed by a single person with guns and/or improvised explosives.
If these "insurgents" hide out in various cities/suburbs, the military won't just carpet bomb the whole area to kill them. They must rely on ground troops who are vulnerable to - you guessed it - AR15s and other firearms.
The point is that there is a great deal of pain that an armed population can inflict on the government/elites if they become too tyrannical, and guns absolutely can provide meaningful resistance to the military.
IncomeResponsible764@reddit
So you think that in this fictional conflict of yours, they wont be expecting a response from the civilian population? They have us check and mate with regard to preparedness. Who cares if we destroy their homes and their businesses, all they have to do is hideout in their bunkers with their goons and wait until it all blows over. Then they can just rebuild in the way they always do. We have to stop thinking how they want us to think. If we want to actually defend against a tyrannical government, the people have to be willing to stand together. Im a gun owner (hunter) but i know plenty of people who have guns for “protection”. Against who? Whatever the perceived threat is, but rarely is the government cited. This means that this person has armed themselves not to defend against tyranny or elitist control, but in fear of his neighbor.
gerbilshower@reddit
yea its basically this:
does the military personnel actually agree/want to murder civilians? if yes, then -> do the people in charge plan to wantonly exterminate the entire population and destroy all infrastructure thus resulting in an uninhabitable wasteland? if no, then -> the military junta at this point will effectively be required to meet the opposition where they are, ie the streets, their homes, the forests, and parks... and there you are, in a firefight with the 'Vietcong' all over again.
Warden_of_the_Lost@reddit
GWoT and Vietnam vets might have some insight for you.
dxtendz14@reddit
Couldn’t say it any better 👏🏼 as a Cuban that had to immigrate as a political refugee from a military dictatorship I can tell you just how important it is to keep guns in the hands of good citizens. Americans, don’t let politicians make you forget the ideals of your amazing founding fathers.
Architect-of-Fate@reddit
What a smug douche to laugh at her like that
EasyCZ75@reddit
Hell yeah
PorcupineWarriorGod@reddit
I think I'm in love.
WhoTheFuckIsNamedZan@reddit
Number 1 rule of having a gun is follow gun safety.
Number 2 rule is don't talk about having a gun.
How hard is this? It's shit like this that makes the government want to take the guns away.
Seared_Gibets@reddit
Lol?
You don'r actually believe the grabbers would just dry up over night just because people stopped talking about guns, do you?
WhoTheFuckIsNamedZan@reddit
I know their first stop is the people that scream about having guns and they will roll in with full body armor and fingers on the trigger. You do you bro.
Seared_Gibets@reddit
En mass? Or on individuals?
They roll in like that to a pro 2A neighborhood to mass confiscate, one that knows what's coming, they'd better be in full Jackboot Goose-step "no such thing as collateral damage mode" or they're gonna have a bad time.
They do not and will not ever have the numbers they need without first completely neutering the willpower of the population.
Stew21221@reddit
It's coming, I promise you it is. I'm 52 and really hope it's not in my lifetime. But I definitely believe my kids will have to deal with it. I raised them rite so they won't go down without a fight.
TattyViking@reddit
Her's was a bad faith question to start off with, as quite correctly, that gentleman said no one can ever make that guarantee. But anyone with sense can guarantee that no other country will do so little to stop their loved ones dying unnecessarily in mass shootings.
UK and Australian citizens are just marvelling at all the replies here and America's collective hard-on for guns, despite constant mass shootings. Life is cheap in the US.
I await your down votes.
GrillinGorilla@reddit
She is awesome. And let me speak in the left’s language:
Lily is a woman, person of color. Clearly a minority whose voice is suppressed by white privilege and the “patriarchy” of cis gendered white men. By their argument alone, Lily should be celebrated and challenging her opinion is morally wrong and racist!!
Oh? This minority loves guns and independence? She fears tyrannical government based on first hand experience? How dare she legally emigrate, learn our language, and contribute to our society!
She doesn’t support communism and therefore you don’t value her opinion all of a sudden. Your “woke” standards are bullshit, as demonstrated here.
thothankful2live@reddit
You're perpetuating the issue that sparked your comment to begin with. Pretending like you have to change your speech for those who speak the same language, because of some invisible line that we're all standing a lot closer to than the voices echoed through the corrupt media.
She made valid points, those that anyone has the ability to understand, and can choose to dive deeper for context if they're uninformed.
Snacks75@reddit
Yeah, I don't know why we think we can manage human nature. I don't know why we think it's changed. While I don't think it's the norm, there will always be some isolated yahoo that want to control everyone and everything and has the capacity to convince everyone that it's for their own good. Thank you Lily.
choloranchero@reddit
one of us, one of us
TravisKOP@reddit
So unfathomly based
Joyce_Hatto@reddit
Yes!
crf450xbraap@reddit
I’m going to name my next child Lilytang
CharacterEgg2406@reddit
While appreciate her comments I think she is naive to think they don’t want to be just like China. What other reason would you import 20M migrants in 3 years? Then suddenly decide we are going to get them documented with a path to citizenship out of compassion? Nope, they going for one party rule and want to topple traditional red states.
skoz2008@reddit
Damn I wish I lived in NH so I could vote for her
Manycubes@reddit
That speech should have brought a standing ovation from the crowd. Instead there was just stunned silence. Glad to hear she won.
Lanky-Strike3343@reddit
Bro with mic was definitely told to take it away from her and tried to do it slowly
wabbott82@reddit
She is absolutely 💯 correct!
nickcliff@reddit
Bro on panel 💀