Will owning firearms protect us against tyranny?

[-]

GamecockInGeorgia@reddit

Tyranny is cool as long as it's my flavor of tyranny.

That seems to be the opinion of most.

[-]

Lazy_Resolve_9747@reddit

Idk about that. To me it looks like the right wingers think that way and the rest of us don’t want to live under a tyrant.

But that’s how it’s always been throughout history.

[-]

AlarmingDetective526@reddit

Eventually, when the right cause comes along. Not every person fought against England, the overall portion population was pretty low IIRC.

[-]

Owning alone? No. Being prepared to take action when necessary? Yes. The trick is we have to exhaust every political and non-violent method we have to push back on tyranny before armed resistance becomes viable.

[-]

volckerwasright@reddit

I’m at a point where I get more annoyed by the gun culture circlejerks than anything else. No, they won’t, there is not going to be an armed uprising when “they” push too far. People talk big on the internet and comply in real life.

[-]

_Zero_Fux_@reddit

Will not owning them protect you? That’s the real question.

[-]

allisayisbeautiful@reddit

Master baiter.

[-]

Patient-Strawberry83@reddit

[-]

otullyo@reddit

Doesn't seem to be working.

[-]

Mission_While917@reddit

One day when majority of the people have been pushed to the edge , that spark will ignite a shitstorm on the oppressing group that will correct the imbalance that has grown unchecked for years . When the light goes on in the public’s eyes and they realize that they have nothing more to lose. It’s not if but when and I’d rather not get caught up in the non focused group that think pillaging is their right. Remember Katrina and how the masses acted towards their neighbors?

[-]

albatikh@reddit

It will give us a fighting chance

[-]

Affectionate_Cronut@reddit

Well not owning them sure as fuck won't help, so I choose the other option.

[-]

Chemical_Walk_8743@reddit

If all the stories from Africa that I read years ago were true? I’d say yes? They had militia soldiers coming into villages and taking women and children by force. The villagers maybe had a few bolt action rifles. Compare that to militias having AKs and RPKs or RPDs.

In the USA? Maybe it works different bc our military has advanced technology. But that’s only an advantage if they have the people to use them.

Even if they do get to take advantage of that technology? Our military doctrine still includes boots on ground. No disrespect to our military and our veterans, but citizens fighting using unconventional tactics and then dispersing into the population has been an effective way to combat our technology

[-]

Mission_While917@reddit

It will certainly be a deterrent for anyone trying to take advantage of you. When the world, your neighbors or your banker knows that you’re can’t defend yourself, afford to say no to whatever . That’s when it seems everything goes to hell.

[-]

PositiveMix9649@reddit

The militia is the most powerful component of the 2A. Some states explicitly ban them.

[-]

Aggravating_Rest2070@reddit

Owning firearms will only protect those who are willing to use them.

[-]

Major-Assumption539@reddit

Let’s imagine 2 scenarios, both involving one person trying to force another person to, say, jump off a cliff. The difference is as follows:

Person 1: unarmed. His options are to run, fight, or argue. Things aren’t looking stellar based on these facts.

Person 2: has a gun. His options include everything the unarmed man has, except he has the ability to back up his plan with force. It’s pretty hard to make anyone do anything if they can in all seriousness tell you no, and if you push me I’ll make sure it’s the last thing you ever do.

[-]

NoOnesSaint@reddit

To answer that question, ask yourself what you are willing to be forced to give up. That is where your line is drawn. It's not the same answer for everyone but when similar enough, armies rise.

A line in the sand is a poor use of a sharpened stick. A hole in a man is a poor use of a man.