• "The Government Has Nukes" warns Eric Swalwell[D - CA] to Gun Owners
    154 replies, posted
If they're die hard red and also single issue then what exactly makes you think that democrat's positions on guns has nothing to do with them supporting republicans Your original post was specifically in response to a hypothetical scenario where the democrats dropped gun control entirely, and if they did that, what reason would these people have left for voting republican if they're single issue voters?
I'd argue weapon possession forces governments to use more inefficient methods of control, such as information control and shadowy legal bills, but that's a whole other can of worms. I'm a European who is just visiting the US, so am constantly amazed by what the Republicans get away with. It seems they have the support of gun owners, even ones who support liberal policy, because they're the 'pro gun' party. If, as others in this thread have said, the democrats ease up on their gun stance, I'm sure that they'd be a whole lot more popular. Instead it's ironic, as the party that supports the 2A is the one allowed to undermine freedom and equality in other ways because of said support.
Why would you act like democrats as a whole don't have a well known problem with shitty gun control laws
On one hand I don't know why it's okay for 2A types to threaten civil war but not okay for someone to respond in kind. On the other hand, we probably should hold our representatives to a higher standard than "some dipshit on twitter" and there really is nothing to be gained by rising to the "so you want a civil war????" bait.
Because these die-hard Republicans were basically raised from birth to not trust any blue politician, that's why.
So you're saying american revolutionists would require outsider support from tryannical regimes, be communist, fight a drug war against other armed thugs, kill civilians and have tit-for-tat murders with the military and other paramilitaries?
The irony is that true lefty types like your socialists and communists generally agree on arming the proletariat. Dems taking guns away and claiming to be the american "left"" is a pretty unique stance imo
Anecdotal here. I agree with a decent chunk of the Dem. platform, probably not near as much as most here but still a decent portion, but I don't see myself voting for any democrat considering they universally don't seem to believe I'm competent enough to be responsible for my own safety, or they think that if I am that it's still worth it to remove that right from me to hopefully maybe also take it from someone who isn't up to their standards. I'm sure there are democrats who's personal belief falls somewhere short of that or probably dead on with mine, but if they're voting for Feinstein-esque proposals along party lines they're functionally hardliners where it counts. Talk all they may, it doesn't matter to me if they aren't going to vote with those beliefs in mind.
We're not talking about "die hard republicans" we're talking about single issue voters Where are all these "die hard republicans" that don't give a shit about immigration, abortion, identity politics, or anything economic, and only care about guns
I have argued in the past that Democrats should back off on gun control, even if just slowly over time, but given how the party is currently fractured between establishment centrist and progressive social democrat types I'm worried that this would just drive the wedge further.
And the people living there will still the local land better than the government. Where to go and what to do, they'll know what happen there when the weather changes. Helicopters, Drones and tanks cannot be used on their own populace, and if they are. They have lost. Good luck maintaining any sort of stability when someone in your town gets drone striked. You can't just roll in tanks and airplanes when some dude in an stolen truck decides to firebomb the local post office. So.. someone did something in a white, mid-2000 silverado or gray Honda civic. You cannot subjugate people with planes, tanks and drones. You need people on the ground to do it, and if you've blown up Jimbo from down the street on accident because you thought he was someone else or he was just in the wrong place in the wrong time the local government/police force and people aren't going to want to deal with you. You're also going to have to find people in the service who are willing to do it. Any sort of legitimate attack on US citizens is going to fucking bad. The Russians have already said they would aid Texas if they decided to succeed from the US. People will turn against the Government, and with modern mobilization? You bet other countries would be sticking their finger into that pie. Pretty much what @Geikkamir said, they aren't afraid of anyone because it will never come to that point when they can just scare people into passing retarded laws that invade privacy, strip away freedoms and keep you working two 40h a week jobs to afford your apartment. The wedge has been stricken deep as of the last few years. It isn't "Well, I'm red. But a little blue on some issues." or vise versa. It's one or the other now, no middle ground.
why do you american revo types seem to enjoy the idea of being supported by foreign nations, just like the IRA. You guys do realize they're doing that for themselves, not you? "The Texans would be supported by the Russians!" Gee that sounds great I'm sure that couldn't possibly be a bad thing at all
They're die-hard single-issue-voter Republicans specifically because they're convinced Democrats can't leave guns alone, is why.
No one's enjoying it, just saying it would happen.
Reminder the US militaries budget and weapons aren't the thing you're fighting in a hypothetical war against the government, its the soldiers themselves. Your military has been enshrined into the hearts of many people to an almost fanatic degree. Who on earth would support a bunch of armed freaks gunning down THE BRAVE AND YOUNG SERVING OUR COUNTRY EVERYDAY TO KEEP YOU FREE! OUR BOYS IN BDU, THEY'LL SHOW EM OFF.
I wonder why they're convinced of that
This politician is backpedaling so hard he could win the tour-de-france going the wrong direction.
I love this country. I am not proud of some of the things it has done, and am downright embarrassed and ashamed of the current administration. But it still shows such promise, and for the most part that is because of the tenants it's been founded upon. But boiling down my argument about the benefits firearms ownership has against tyranny because those who support 2A are in some sort of narrow-visioned stupid box means you do not want to engage with those types of people in meaningful discussion anymore. Part of the reason politics are so polarized is because those on one side feel that they are either being completely ignored or degraded by those on the other, and turn to extremes within their own political sphere to get what they want. But what the fuck do I know, because I'm a dumb fucking redneck. I'm done here.
Which it wouldn't because the magical combination of CIA/ATF/FBI/NSA is just waiting for something like this to even come near. You think that Waco and the Oklahoma bombings would work in armed groups's favour? Pfft, its just made it impossible to rebel now.
It's not being an 'american revo type', it's just the truth in that scenario. If the federal government did use an aggressive tank campaign or even drop a nuke on Texas I'm sure they'd welcome Russian assistance. Of course Russia would be doing it to fracture the forces of their greatest rival, but Texas would want the help in that event. Simply dismissing the idea that foreign nations would help isn't correct. Plus some nations would help because they thought it the right thing to do anyway, like the American people funding the IRA because of some 'roots' they feel they have and the idea that they were an underdog fighting an oppressive regime.
Agree to disagree, I guess. Shit of all sorts of variety flows pretty freely across the southern border. I don't see why materiel would be any harder.
the US wouldn't go nuclear to take back territory, its just not needed. Nukes are only good for strategic deterance nothing else, and our nuclear arsenal reflects this, we have very few weapons that could be used for tactical purposes.
Once we find out how to disable friendly fire on the server settings, nukes will become the only weapons used in wars
You're a revo type if you seriously consider any event like this remotely possible. How on earth would the US end up with a scenario envolving the use of nuclear weapons on its own soil or an aggressive tank campaign? You've got the strongest inter-country government forces in the West possibly barring China, ever since Waco the scenario's been in the militaries mind since the start and once again how would a popular campaign to fight a war against the US military work anyway when the military is enshrined?? The fact you're even considering a conflict in the United States which would evolve to the point of foreign nations giving aid is what makes a revo type. The insanity of even considering it beyond a Tom Clancy novel.
I'm aware of that, but it nicely links the current conversation to totally disagreeing with the idiotic tweet in the OP.
I don't think anyone considers an armed uprising against the US Government likely. We're a long, long way from actual tyranny.
I don't see the part where I said I enjoyed it. I said it would happen. I don't think anyone would be happy about it coming to fruition. A civil war in America would be disastrous for everyone in the US and outside. Foreign intervention would be catastrophic. When people start having their friends and family members killed by drone strikes or being oppressed? Some people just might not care that some innocents on the other side got hurt as well. Also WACO is a bad example, there is still a lot of discussion to this day if the Government was right or wrong on that.
You're a fool if you don't see how your current political divisions aren't far from open conflict. Hell, I'd say all it could take is Ginsburg dropping dead to kick it off. If revolution broke out by one side against the other, the military wouldn't be a homogenous group. It would split too. Current estimates indicate 35% democrat, 65% republican.
I'd argue that information control and legal bills are probably more efficient than just using the "I have the bigger stick, do what I say" argument. Because when you've got the information control down, people don't even want to oppose you, they don't see any reason to. Though in general I very much think that the dems need to shut the fuck up about gun control, it's a toxic subject and only hurts them.
As I said, it's another can of worms. I am very interested in the concept of information control and political conditioning, however no matter their effectiveness, it could be said people would be more on-guard and alert to such tactics if they didn't have the rifle (symbolizing freedom) hanging in their living room.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.