Open Carry

hmmm, what are you trying to say? i'd love to debate about it with you, but hyperbolic conjecture and ad hominen insults do nothing but make you look like the mentalist.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
hmmm, what are you trying to say? i'd love to debate about it with you, but hyperbolic conjecture and ad hominen insults do nothing but make you look like the mentalist.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. This has come a something of a shock. Its the kind of thing you would expect from some South American Banana Republic, that citizens live in such fear they have to carry a firearm.

One question about the notion of the RKBA. If it is to fight the tyranny of government, how will this work?

In the red corner, some citizens armed with pistols and rifles. In the blue corner a trillion dollar war machine.

Good luck with that fight.

But surely rather than attacking government buildings, wouldn't it be better to develop a more rigorous democracy where the government wouldn't dare turn on you?
 
AnyOldIron said:
One question about the notion of the RKBA. If it is to fight the tyranny of government, how will this work?

In the red corner, some citizens armed with pistols and rifles. In the blue corner a trillion dollar war machine.

Good luck with that fight.
Click to expand...

This discredited argument is STILL stupid. It is not likely that the American military will turn against the people. It is even less likely that it would do so unanimously. The possibility of that is so remote it might as well be called impossible. If any sort of breakdown happened their would likely be factions and division among the military and the people.
 
This discredited argument is STILL stupid. It is not likely that the American military will turn against the people. It is even less likely that it would do so unanimously. The possibility of that is so remote it might as well be called impossible. If any sort of breakdown happened their would likely be factions and division among the military and the people.

I would hope that the American Military wouldn't turn on its people. That would be uncivilised.

But if this is true, why would you need to keep those bear arms in response to the tyranny of government?

Seems slightly absurd to me.

If they are for personal protection that would make more sense, but it is a shame American society is at a point where you would need firearms to be safe.
 
AnyOldIron said:
This discredited argument is STILL stupid. It is not likely that the American military will turn against the people. It is even less likely that it would do so unanimously. The possibility of that is so remote it might as well be called impossible. If any sort of breakdown happened their would likely be factions and division among the military and the people.

I would hope that the American Military wouldn't turn on its people. That would be uncivilised.

But if this is true, why would you need to keep those bear arms in response to the tyranny of government?

Seems slightly absurd to me.

If they are for personal protection that would make more sense, but it is a shame American society is at a point where you would need firearms to be safe.
Click to expand...

You expect in a country of 300 million there not to be violence?
 
AnyOldIron said:
This discredited argument is STILL stupid. It is not likely that the American military will turn against the people. It is even less likely that it would do so unanimously. The possibility of that is so remote it might as well be called impossible. If any sort of breakdown happened their would likely be factions and division among the military and the people.

I would hope that the American Military wouldn't turn on its people. That would be uncivilised.

But if this is true, why would you need to keep those bear arms in response to the tyranny of government?

Seems slightly absurd to me.

If they are for personal protection that would make more sense, but it is a shame American society is at a point where you would need firearms to be safe.
Click to expand...
This is actually quite ignorant of current effective means used against that same military by people who are not much better armed than the US citizen.
 
You expect in a country of 300 million there not to be violence?

Of course not. Belgium has violence and there are only six of them.

But to feel so afraid that you constantly have to carry firearms? You would expect that in some Mickey-Mouse crap-hole like Cochabamba, Bolivia or Bogota, Columbia.

 
Last edited:
AnyOldIron said:
You expect in a country of 300 million there not to be violence?

Of course not. Belgium has violence and there is only six of them.

But to feel so afraid that you constantly have to carry firearms? You would expect that in some Mickey-Mouse crap-hole like Cochabamba, Bolivia or Bogota, Columbia.
Click to expand...

Would you like to walk through East Oakland with me? You'll feel like you need a WWII tank to be safe.
 
This is actually quite ignorant of current effective means used against that same military by people who are not much better armed than the US citizen.

I very much doubt US citizens will be supplied with RPGs by the Iranians. And after the Iraq war is over I would hope that the US military will have learnt the lessons of this type of warfare and be far more effective at dealing with insurgency.

And in the situation where a tyrannical regime came into place, opinions of whether tyranny was in place would differ. I would imagine that, as was mentioned before, factions would arise and a civil war would ensue. Which would allow access to military weaponry to both sides.

Which still makes the argument that keeping firearms as a defense against tyrannical govenment largely specious.
 
Would you like to walk through East Oakland with me? You'll feel like you need a WWII tank to be safe.

I wouldn't fancy walking through south Manchester or the Meadows area of my own city, Nottingham, after dark. But I don't feel the need to carry a shooter. I just avoid those areas after dark.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Would you like to walk through East Oakland with me? You'll feel like you need a WWII tank to be safe.

I wouldn't fancy walking through south Manchester or the Meadows area of my own city, Nottingham, after dark. But I don't feel the need to carry a shooter. I just avoid those areas after dark.
Click to expand...

Well that would be the smart thing to do but unfortunately for the residents of the neighborhood they can't really avoid it. And the unfortunate fact is issues in that small community easily spread to higher level income neighborhoods where on the surface one might feel safer but in reality dangers still exist. Now I personally don't own a gun but I would have no problem if my neighbor owned one (as long as they didn't shoot me).
 
AnyOldIron said:
You expect in a country of 300 million there not to be violence?

Of course not. Belgium has violence and there are only six of them.

But to feel so afraid that you constantly have to carry firearms? You would expect that in some Mickey-Mouse crap-hole like Cochabamba, Bolivia or Bogota, Columbia.
Click to expand...

Where does it dictate that we 'HAVE TO"??
 
let's set the record straight. we don't carry guns because we are afraid. We are unafraid because we carry guns.

as for fighting against tyranny, you still miss the point. IF any part of the military were to be ordered to shoot against american citizens, the politician(s) that gave that order would be the targets, as well as their families, friends, and neighbors that supported that decision.
 
AnyOldIron said:
You expect in a country of 300 million there not to be violence?

Of course not. Belgium has violence and there are only six of them.

But to feel so afraid that you constantly have to carry firearms? You would expect that in some Mickey-Mouse crap-hole like Cochabamba, Bolivia or Bogota, Columbia.
Click to expand...
You don't have to, they just want it to be legal to carry them openly. Currently I can legally carry all I want to, but I have to hide it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top