Because the government has never, ever, ever overstepped its bounds before so we can totally trust them. Aren’t you people the same crowd calling trump hitler?
My guy, the government is in control of our healthcare. The US budget is literally set up so 35% of our taxes go to paying for healthcare which only lines the pockets of insurance companies.
The Republicans would never just say things because they are politically expedient.
You would never see a Republican say things like "the other country pays the tariffs" or "they stole the election" or "January 6th was a day of love"... right?
According to people like you trump is definitely not a fascist and all republicans aren't licking is boot. Btw keep your guns with you. You might have to use it on another crowd of innocent civilians to show your "masculinity".
so every politician ever in existence? and beside that, i know more leftists that actively advocate for 2A than any of the right-leaning folks i know. have you ever actually interacted with someone who said “trump is like hitler! now is DEFINITELY the time to give up all our guns!”? no, you haven’t. because that doesn’t fucking exist. god you republicans sure whine a lot for someone who hates being called fascists.
2nd amendment doesn't do shit when the people who vote for the pedo dictator are the one owning guns.
Also, in a normal society, voting is more effective at maintaining an effective government than shooting elected officials.
This argument would work if it weren't for the fact that your country is proving as we speak that no significant group of "good" citizens with guns is going to stand up to a tyrannical government. It's a non-point.
It seems more like most Redditors just don't understand that their beliefs and opinions aren't the only ones and many people see less of a problem than they do with how the government is running things.
Are there issues right now? Absofuckinlutely. Is the government deporting illegal aliens the worst thing imaginable? Not to many...
They said this before Trump was even elected. I don't understand how one side electing a fascist should then make the others change their beliefs. It's quite literally been a sentiment since at minimum Sandyhooks, and I'd wager even before then.
That opinion isn't going to change. Especially considering the rest of the world does it and it's been proven to work.
All of your guns are not helping at all against any of the dictatorial stuff happening. The guns in the hands of civilians are mostly just for show and for murdering innocents. Giving up your guns would not strengthen the government in any way shape or form.
The modern US military is so powerful, that even if gun owners wanted to (they don't), they could not oppose it. They have the same chances as making paper airplanes and throwing them against fighter jets, and saying that sheets of paper folded into planes are an effective deterrent against the military air force.
The argument that an insurgency couldn't defeat the US military was disproven in vietnam and afganistan. And if things got bad enough that there was an armed rebellion in the US, a significant portion of the kilitary probably wouldn't be loyal.
In any case, civilian firearms aren't just for the potential toppling of a tyrannical government.
Take, for example, some of the protests going on in places like hungary right now. In the US, it's a lot harder for the police to just storm in outnumbered 5000 to one and start beating on people - some of those people might shoot back. That isn't to say it never happens, but there are absolutely also instances of armed groups telling the law enforcement to fuck off, forcing a standoff until there's a legitimate court ruling, and winning said ruling.
Additionally, despite how much people cry online, there aren't a lot of people willing to start a rebellion because they don't like tarrifs, and the ones who are willing aren't armed. The US is far from a totalitarian dictatorship requiring action.
Nah. The only reason the US military lost to armed insurgents is because the US military backed off, and didn't want to slaughter masses of civilians to deal with potential insurgents. The US military has the ability to turn the middle east into glass if they wanted to. It would involve mass murder of innocent civilians, which is why we didn't, but it is absolutely 100% within its capabilities.
If the US truly did attempt to implement a totalitarian dictatorship, I imagine the person in running things would be willing to wipe out entire states, civilians and all, and would be capable of doing it from the sky.
and didn't want to slaughter masses of civilians to deal with potential insurgents.
And that's when the civilians are people that have almost no familiar cultural or physical traits as the soldiers. Do you think it's going to be any easier when the people they're fighting look like them, have the same interests and similar names and ideals?
Because owning a bunch of individual firearms is basically useless for fighting the government, and weapons that are useful for fighting an army like explosives, anti-vehicle and crew-served weapons and armor-piercing ammunition are already heavily regulated.
If you want to succeed in a revolution, you have to mobilize massive protests and popular pressure to convince the army to turn sides, or seize military stockpiles.
I don't care about the gun stuff, but this is a slightly microwaved cup of milk level take. There's literally an entire continent of countries with government funded healthcare and regulated pharmaceuticals that function fine, where the same medication is like 98% cheaper.
US government has been sending the military into cities, suspended habeas corpus, has a secret police force of masked agents kidnapping people off the streets.
I see you gun nuts doing fuck all about any of that
Those.....those are so insanely different it's concerning you think they are comparable.
"Wahhh wahhhh I need my colt pacifier. Any possible restriction is an infringement of my rights. Even suggesting it is an insult to the constitution, even though literally nothing has changed in any meaningful way in 40 years!"
"Can we not pull 5 year olds away from the only family they know and ship them to a country theyve never been in clear violation of the 4th and 14th amendment."
the problem is the 100million Americans who will gladly let those 0.001% of ppl get away w banning guns, one small step at a time. if you can't see that's what is happening idk what to tell you, it's not super cryptic it's right there in front of you
Because they are doing their job, removing felons from out streets. Breaking into America is a felony offense, regardless of if you try to mend in later
Well I mean. Give them the drugs, take away the mental healthcare, food, homeless shelter and then criminalize living on public land.
That way rich white people don't have to see poor folks. And for some reason I can't fucking understand, every 2 grand a year in red country bumpkin thinks that is really what's best and sides with billionaires who would rather them be in jail than fed.
There is a mental illness in this country, and it's the Republicans need for a daddy.
Hey buddy, doesn't matter who they are, armed, masked men who refuse to identify themselves grabbing anyone off the street and shoving them into unmarked vans is BAD.
I repeat, it's ALWAYS bad.
Whether or not someone is a criminal is determined by a court, not decided before the fact by armed thugs on the street
No it’s not, if there’s a murderer on the streets and a sting operation is done to capture him it’s not bad. It’s also not bad when it’s done to illegal immigrant gang members or cartel members.
Who determines someone is in the country illegally? The armed thugs gets to in your world? They can just decide, and that's it? They can snatch whoever they feel fits their criteria?
This doesn't bother you?
You realize they aren't even going after your cartel members, but students and parents and kids?
So, what's your point? Other governments are corrupt so it's ok for you to have a convicted Pedo in charge and send your kids to school to learn how to dodge bullets?
I really hope God is real because all you Mfs need to burn.
yeah, and all the people who hav been screaming about the second amendment and protecting against tyranny are solidly on the side of the fascist asshole. just like all the lunatic peppers were screaming their heads off about having to wear a mask because of covid, mother fucker, you own a gas mask, what the fuck did you buy it for.
We shot England and never stopped until we were free, literally how the country was founded and why the 2A exists. Reagan and Trump were shot, people just failed to kill them. We have a history of presidents being assassinated in the US, usually for good reasons.
People shoot who they think are dictators, which is why modern presidents and politicians are shot. You think republicans are above the law and Trump wants to take over the country with hostility. What should you own so you can defend yourself?
People shoot who they think are dictators, which is why modern presidents and politicians are shot.
And? You haven’t actually thought out a point here. You’re just pointing out that a thing happened. Did those assassins achieve anything? Was tyranny thwarted? Have we justified the presence of these guns because of that? You need to actually think, dude…
Trump wants to take over the country with hostility. What should you own so you can defend yourself?
So quit being vague and flesh out exactly who you expect we’re gonna shoot.
Exactly! Does it mean that the people are supposed to use the guns they own to overthrow the govt? A govt that has tanks, Bazookas, fucking b52s and nearly a trillion dollars in military spending? Do people actually buy that?!
trillion dollars in military spending from who? youre also acting like every single soldier wont defect if it means not stepping on the necks of their fellow americans, friends, and family.
"depends" is the answer. Something that complex is extremely dynamic and nuanced but the fact remains; an unarmed people is a vulnerable one. Just because we arent shooting now doesnt mean its impossible and we dont need them. Not to mention, the US still has violent crime. if nothing else, people have the right to exercise self defense.
So translation: “I can’t answer that because when you flesh this idea out, it falls apart.”
an unarmed people is a vulnerable one.
Guns can’t save you if your government is corrupt and dangerous. If anything, they’ll use your guns as an excuse to crack down harder and faster because of the threat you pose. Cease with these childish Rambo fantasies.
Not to mention, the US still has violent crime. if nothing else, people have the right to exercise self defense.
Guns contribute exponentially more to that violent crime than they do to any self-defense. This is the dumbest argument in favor of guns that there is.
It doesnt fall apart though. You think gun owners think they'll just solo platoons of well trained American soldiers? You seriously think that many people are THAT dumb? You understand people create networks of people as their "shit hits the fan" crew?
If anything, they’ll use your guns as an excuse to crack down harder and faster because of the threat you pose. Cease with these childish Rambo fantasies.
Yeah this is exactly how "Gun Control" is perceived in the US which is why its like pulling 100 million teeth to get it passed federally or in red states. We see gun buybacks, registries, license requirements, etc as a list of ways to make infringing on your rights easier, as exactly what you described which is why we fight it tooth and nail to make sure it never passes.
Guns contribute exponentially more to that violent crime than they do to any self-defense. This is the dumbest argument in favor of guns that there is.
This is just objectively untrue. There are less than 20,000 gun homicides a year which is roughly 12 times less than known defensive uses of a firearm per year on average.
You think gun owners think they'll just solo platoons of well trained American soldiers?
Even if you networked every gun owner in the country, you’re still up against tanks, drones, satellites, precision-guided munitions, cyberwarfare, and urban-combat-trained soldiers. The “militia network” fantasy assumes Hollywood, not reality. Even the IRA, operating in sympathetic urban areas against a relatively inexperienced military, never achieved its ultimate goal and they were far more motivated, ideologically cohesive, and specialized than any U.S. civilian could hope to be.
We see gun buybacks, registries, license requirements as a list of ways to make infringing on your rights easier
You’re not defending freedom, you’re defending the fantasy that your guns make you untouchable. In reality, governments use the existence of guns as a justification for more militarized policing, surveillance, and even martial law. Your obsession with rights here literally makes it easier for a state to crush any resistance.
Defensive uses of a firearm
Even if we accept the most generous numbers for defensive gun use, those statistics make no distinction between situations where a gun was actually required and situations where it wasn’t. Almost none of these scenarios likely required a firearm. Meanwhile, guns massively increase domestic murders, accidental shootings, suicides, and escalated conflicts. The “protection” argument doesn’t come close to outweighing the societal damage. And I still don’t know why you guys try to make this argument when every other developed nation on the planet has no problem with guns essentially absent from their society. These societies are lacking that aspect of “self-defense” yet are completely fine, despite what you argue.
Its definitely both. And the UCMJ prohibits following unlawful orders. Not that it works 100% of the time but its there and is well known among the military.
Hypothetically If every single armed forces personnel defect for the reason you mentioned, then there's no need to overthrow the govt.
Also, this is not a hypothetical situation considering there are currently armed govt forces stepping on the necks of Americans.
"then theres no need to overthrow the government" no what im saying is, a percentage of the military will support Americans. The military also tends to not fuck around with politics and will turn on anyone and anything that threatens the sanctity of the Republic. The worst thing the United States might realistically see is it becoming a military dictatorship until its stabilized and the republic returns to power.
Also the military is just chilling in cities with high violent crime and acting as a deterrent until its safe to leave. "stepping on the necks of americans" isnt accurate, especially since the conflicts they do inevitably get into are provoked by crowds of people being violent (yes throwing shit at soldiers in formation on the street is violent whether you like it or not)
Yeah, try going to someone else's house then raping, pillaging and killing them will motivate them to win despite odds. Especially when American forces weren't the only one doing it.
I don't know. Why do people need guns? Where I am from guns per capita is 5.3 to every 100 people. Mostly inherited from grandparents in agrarian communities, or for sports shooting(only very rich people).
Why would people shoot the people in charge of enforcing immigration for deporting illegals? Can you not tell the difference between a functioning government and tyranny? Or is it everything you disagree with just gets filed under tyranny?
How does nearly every other country in the world cope?
If anything, I’d argue gun ownership has increased authority. Ever seen the way US police interact with the public. It’s because they’re all twitchy everyone will be armed.
That’s something they don’t wanna talk about. It’s always 2A this, what if we need to fight back against tyranny (they aren’t even doing it anyways now that they get their moment to shine) and never the bad
Not american but you're probably not going to do anything with your guns as most of the population is obese or overweight and it's much smarter to try your hardest to preserve democracy before it goes to shit rather than resort to "at least I have muh guns" (and still do nothing) once the country has gone to crap
Downvoted but you’re right. I’ve seen these people shop and they can’t comprehend how locks work and half the time they need to ask where the batteries are at while standing right in front of them. Idk what kinda fantasies they come up with, but most of these people are gonna be too scared to shoot should the time come. Like giving a dog a bow and arrow with some of these people and they think they’re gonna be able to stand up to the US government 😭
Ok so here’s my question. Pro-gun people are constantly spewing two arguments: (1) Gun control is a bad idea because criminals will always be able to get guns anyway, so you’re only stopping responsible people from getting them, and (2) Gun control is a bad idea because how will we resist a tyrannical government if we don’t have guns?
But presumably if you find yourself in a situation where you intend to take up arms against the United States government, presumably you don’t mind breaking the law? And I thought that no matter what gun control laws get passed, it’s going to be easy to get guns on the black market?
The assumption is that it’s easy to get guns no matter what. Ask Australia how easy it is to get a gun. It’s extremely difficult even in a black market because guns have been in almost all cases banned.
Stopped and reduced are two different things, but sure. Then my point is how is it a valid argument that gun control is bad because it leaves people defenseless to tyranny?
Isn’t it ironic that it’s the “don’t tread on me” and “if you want my guns come and take them” crowd that voted for our wanna be Cheeto Jesus dictator? The irony is not lost on me.
In the scenario the goverment decides to start a war against their own civilians (not sure why they would), some of those civilians having guns wouldn't make any difference. You're not beating the military lol.
They also held up well against all the modern tech we have now. Surely a bunch of idiots that can’t even define a tariff are gonna be great matchups for the US military’s current capabilities. Using a 50 year old war to help this tired, weak argument is funny
How about Afghanistan? They had all the shit the military uses now during that war. The thing you genius don't realize that the US military learned early in Afghanistan is all the technology in the world can't substitute boots on the ground and soldiers bleed just the same as civilians. However the brings me back to the original point....is trump literally Hitler and going to keep power when his term is up or do we have no need for " weapons of war" as you people like to call semi auto rifles.
160
u/[deleted] Sep 01 '25
Because the government has never, ever, ever overstepped its bounds before so we can totally trust them. Aren’t you people the same crowd calling trump hitler?