School shooting survivors announce national march on Washington - Polidicks

I can't tell you exactly what the call to arms will be or if it will ever come, no. That's why I don't really hang any of my arguments on the idea of overthrowing the government. I think if push came to shove we'd see a benevolent military coup before an armed revolution of the people, but I don't really see that happening any time soon either. Most pro-gun arguments from people who are not hovering over their firearms drooling and waiting for an excuse focus on the validity of sport shooting and collecting as a hobby, hunting as a way of life for rural people, and self defense as a survival mechanism for one or more people. I haven't heard overthrowing the government propositioned by anyone I'd consider sane.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53143785]I can't tell you exactly what the call to arms will be or if it will ever come, no. That's why I don't really hang any of my arguments on the idea of overthrowing the government. I think if push came to shove we'd see a benevolent military coup before an armed revolution of the people, but I don't really see that happening any time soon either. Most pro-gun arguments from people who are not hovering over their firearms drooling and waiting for an excuse focus on the validity of sport shooting and collecting as a hobby, hunting as a way of life for rural people, and self defense as a survival mechanism for one or more people. I haven't heard overthrowing the government propositioned by anyone I'd consider sane.[/QUOTE] I've seen "guns as tools for necessary partisans" floated as a reason on /k/ by debatably sane komrades. Then again, most of them either read or partook in enough speculative New Civil War simulations that their plans would hinge more on attacking America's wretched energy and food infrastructure to overwhelm the National Guard with civil crises, so I don't think owning personal firearms would help much with that.

Democrats say it's a gun issue. Republicans say it's a mental health issue. Republicans then defund mental health coverage. We all know that in countries with a whole lot less guns, mass shootings don't happen much at all. Those countries also generally have universal health coverage, and provide mental health along with everything else, at an extremely affordable price in taxes. So they have the best of both worlds when it comes to preventing mass shootings, being good gun control and easily accessible mental health facilities. Now, America has been developing with a sort of backwards philosophy of needing guns to protect against a tyrannical government (not that a people-run militia could do anything to the largest military in the world, nowadays). America has been bred and raised on "fighting evil", in whatever nebulous form it takes. It is accepted (emphasis) into law that people can and should have guns. Therefore, we must solve the other of two (there are likely many more, but I'm simplifying this for time's sake. It's 1 am over here.) issues that lead to gun violence. The first is guns themselves, which obviously can no longer be solved currently. The other can in some ways be argued as more important. Mental healthcare. It must be accessible to all people, and it must be paid through taxes, just like all healthcare (i.e. mental healthcare is simply a facet of universal healthcare). Unfortunately for conservatives, both possible solutions to the problem are "liberal". Nothing has been really done forever, because conservatives don't want gun control or universal healthcare, and liberals are often too deep in the pockets of pharmaceutical countries to want universal healthcare (though it is growing in popularity among liberal congresspeople). You want solutions, conservatives? If you don't see gun control as a solution, then stop defunding healthcare and dragging down new bills that seek to solve the country's problem with healthcare. It's pure hypocrisy, but I'm sure you already know that.

[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;53143969]I've seen "guns as tools for necessary partisans" floated as a reason on /k/ by debatably sane komrades. Then again, most of them either read or partook in enough speculative New Civil War simulations that their plans would hinge more on attacking America's wretched energy and food infrastructure to overwhelm the National Guard with civil crises, so I don't think owning personal firearms would help much with that.[/QUOTE] It's an open secret that America's infrastructure is shockingly vulnerable. We're basically running on the honor system. If push came to shove, entire cities could be shut down before the National Guard even get their marching orders.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53147615]This is just really weird strawmanning.[/QUOTE] The republicans in congress could fund healthcare any time they wanted to. they just don't give a fuck

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53147710]The republicans in congress could fund healthcare any time they wanted to. they just don't give a fuck[/QUOTE] And their donors would stop giving them money. If Congresspeople could only receive money through the salary of their job, and PACs were made entirely illegal, many problems of American government would pretty much disappear. Greedy people wouldn't become members of Congress.

[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53141500]A guy I work with was saying that the politicians don't care because it isn't their family and friends in the crosshairs of mass shooters. That once the political elite realize they're just as vulnerable as the rest of us is when something will actually happen.[/QUOTE] It's just like the republicans who vote against gay people until their kid is gay.