Have you bought guns for the rev?

[CavLancer]

I'm an independent which means I'd have to shoot both ways, screw that, I shoot straight or not at all.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I have a couple of these:

I can fish any enemy of the revolution if water is not too murky. And i will clean him for free.

 

[Kyriakos]

Should be "enemy of the people", cause it sounds more austere

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The biggest threat to life and liberty and the Constitution is conservatives with guns.

This, 100%.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The biggest threat to life and liberty and the Constitution is conservatives with guns.

I heard a guy on the radio the other day say that he thought freedom of religion was a modern, liberal invention. Now I'm not saying he definitely owned a gun, but what are the odds?

The NRA sees an uptick in profits any time an American is killed.

They also do pretty well whenever a Black man is elected President. I imagine gun manufacturers will be pouring soft money into "Corey Booker 2020."

 

[Farm Boy]

Good. Maybe .22 ammo will stay on the shelf for a while one of these years. Ordering ammo online still feels trashy. Fed Ex left a wooden crate on my buddy's stoop once, clearly labeled as ammunition. Now I don't think that's standard and it was about 10 years ago, but there's kids in this neighborhood and I don't particularly want to take the risk.

 

[Cutlass]

I heard a guy on the radio the other day say that he thought freedom of religion was a modern, liberal invention.

Well it is. If you include those modern liberals we know of as the Founding Fathers.

Now I'm not saying he definitely owned a gun, but what are the odds?

Not all liberals don't own guns either....

 

[Old Hippy]

Only have my trusty machete and crowbar for a zombie outbreak

Don't forget to stockpile 'Gaffer tape' (duct tape ) its the most important thing for the end of society scenarios

 

[Commodore]

but liberals as a whole aren't talking about civil war or violence,

You haven't been paying attention to this very forum lately, have you?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What happened to moving to Canada?

We're getting a slew of "refugees" crossing the border into Manitoba, on foot, across frozen snowy fields. A couple of them lost several fingers due to frostbite. The community nearest to this border just isn't set up for this sort of thing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/emerson-refugees-manitoba-border-1.3970089

They're not getting a lot of sympathy in the comment section.

 

[Arwon]

You haven't been paying attention to this very forum lately, have you?

I wouldn't think a lot of the people in that other thread self-describe as "liberals" tbh. I certainly don't.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wouldn't think a lot of the people in that other thread self-describe as "liberals" tbh. I certainly don't.

Me either.

 

[Glassfan]

I admit, it the pre-election panic when we thought Hilary was going to win, I finally bought that AR I always wanted. It's actually been a hoot at the range and I'm keeping it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The biggest threat to life and liberty and the Constitution is conservatives with guns.

I admit, it the pre-election panic when we thought Hilary was going to win, I finally bought that AR I always wanted. It's actually been a hoot at the range and I'm keeping it.

Point proven.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Realistically, there's not a lot militias can do against the military anymore (IE no full-blown "revolution", unless the military itself is involved).

At the time our constitution was created, a random farmer holding a gun was less valuable in combat than an experienced soldier holding a gun. However, that difference was small compared to today. A large enough uprising would still carry a comparable threat to a military. It wasn't that long after the time of levies in the historical sense.

You're not going to find me pointing a rifle up at the sky and trying to hit a military aircraft anytime soon (aka ever), I don't care which political equivalent of unruly sports team fans is throwing the hissy fit.

Having something that might drive off a mass of people looking to do property damage or worse could be useful on the other hand.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There isn't going to be any revolution of the "people v military" form. The military would not be a reliable force in such a deployment. There might come a point where general dissatisfaction becomes high enough that throwing bottles at heavily armed law enforcement becomes widely recognized as insufficient, which would be interesting, and shooting down police helicopters is probably doable by the average citizen.

 

[Bugfatty300]

But there won't be a war if you don't acquire weapons.

There'll still be a war. Although a very lopsided one.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There'll still be a war. Although a very lopsided one.

Wars have been won using weapons confiscated from the side that started out better armed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There isn't going to be any revolution of the "people v military" form. The military would not be a reliable force in such a deployment. There might come a point where general dissatisfaction becomes high enough that throwing bottles at heavily armed law enforcement becomes widely recognized as insufficient, which would be interesting, and shooting down police helicopters is probably doable by the average citizen.

That's not enough for a revolution to work though. You have to be capable of forcing major policy change or new government through military threat outright if we're talking about a "guns-based" type revolution. The military could easily coup if a large enough % of it was on board, and in fact if that happened there would be scant few forces in existence that could stop it.

The populace shooting down police copters will get people shot/put in jail with not a lot of good to anybody in the ordeal. If we're coming to that state of things I'd rather be in another country to be honest, but I don't see it happening as easily as some people like to fearmonger push, at least not until you see major resource scarcity or a similarly pressing incentive.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My point was that you can have sufficient military threat to force change without actually being able to stand up to the US military, strictly because of the qualification you put on the military coup...how much of the military will be on board. When I was in the military I had to wrap my head around the possibility that we would be used to make a large portion of the planet uninhabitable by incinerating most of its population. But I wasn't prepared to incinerate Los Angeles just because Dingbat Don is despised by most people there...even if that led to the people of Los Angeles openly and violently breaking with federal direction. Dingbat Don can't order the military in to put down his opposition because there would be a dangerous portion of the military that would join them. So you don't have to worry about "pointing your rifle at the sky and hoping to shoot down military aircraft." The most that would need to be shot down are police helicopters, which is doable.