Why we can't allow the government to take away our right to armed self-defense.

Is that how you think mao and other genocidal regimes killed their people? They shot at them from planes?

Initially, they starved their populations, then moved in and finished the job using propaganda designed to dehumanize the opposition and put fear into anyone riding the fence.

Nope, cause they weren't killing armed citizens. My point is simple. Armed citizens are no match for a better armed military. If the US government really wants to kill you, your little pea shooters aren't going to stop it.

So what has been happening in the middle east exactly, then? We've been fighting militias in the mountains of afghanistan for almost two decades now. Why haven't they been crushed if it's so easy?

To put things in perspective, back in 1776 the british military had trained officers, an established logistic tradition, cavalry, mercenaries, artillery, a monster of a navy, and arguably the most experienced and well funded military on the planet. That is a "better armed military" that failed to stop regular people with muskets, balls, and a little foreign help

So you would consider reducing a resistance to a bunch of guys hiding in the mountains some kind of victory for a nation? Do you honestly think that the Taliban are anywhere close to expelling our troops? The same would occur here. The country would continue on whatever path was dictated to it while a bunch of people hide in mountains waiting for their day to die.

Afghanistan is a small, sparsely populated country in comparison to the US at 35 million compared to 340+ million. We have learned through experience that when we call air strikes in on afgan towns, the people turn against us. What do you think will happen when A-10s start firing on americans? (If the pilots are even willing to pull the trigger). TBH I'm suprised it is you I'm arguing this with, you've always seemed more sensible than "lol the air force will just carpet bomb americans"

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2016/08/afghanistan-controls-160823083528213.html

That's more than just a few guys hiding in mountains waiting to die; they control nearly half the country. Wake up, the US military is good at fighting conventional war and we've proven time and time again we are terrible when it comes to fighting guerillas

All I'm saying is that our guns, aren't going to stop the military if it really wants us dead or gone. Most will just turn int their guns and the few who are left will not offer up enough opposition to stop whatever the rogue government is trying to do. I'm in no way taking the side that weapons should be confiscated. Just pointing out an inconvenient truth. The only reason we haven't completely taken out the Taliban and whoever, is because our government lacks the will to do what it takes. My scenario involves a government hostile to its own people, with the backing of the population on the whole. If you dehumanize the opposition, brother will kill brother. People will turn in their neighbors and family if you can twist their minds enough. No gun will stop that kind of revolution, only complicate it.

The people talking about the 2nd Amendment being used to rise against the government are kind of counting on the fact that Americans aren't going to back a totalitarian government, especially one that turns real weapons of war against its own people. Even nations like Syria don't just sit by and let their government slaughter them at will. There is virtually NO chance of a US government forming that is willing to call in air strikes on neighborhoods that will have the backing of most of the populace, and even 10% of the populace turning against it would put the military at a disadvantage in numbers of 30-to-1. What are they going to do? Kill 30 million americans and risk another 20% turning against them? I never said it would be clean or lack a LOT of blood, but the idea that a million man military could stop a real revolution at a home in a nation of over 300 million is a joke. They wouldn't stand a chance, realistically speaking.

We're speculating here, but I don't see a revolution taking place like that. There is always a division, a dehumanizing campaign and a rounding up of dissenters. You know good and well that there are many already that would love to see you dead, indeed they post as much, and would feel they were doing humanity a service, even God, if they helped get rid of you. All you have to do is envision America continuing down this road, haters getting more numerous every year. China has literally locked up 1 million Muslims without a peep from its citizens or the rest of the world, and without firing a shot.

I imagine that is how they'd like things to go, but I guess I still have enough faith in our citizenry to think that it would be a minority going along with something like that. If you're right and it ends up being the majority of the population though, sure.. we wouldn't stand much of a chance. I imagine most of us would have migrated elsewhere if things get THAT bad, considering the country we love would be dead and gone by that point. I agree on the hate bit though.. if the US doesn't get it under control we are headed for some very nasty times. Just hopefully not as nasty as you're suggesting :)

An Ar-15 would.

Timber, you're thinking total, I'm referring to the genocide during mao's reign.

I don't know which number is correct, but it doesn't change the problem or the conclusion.

Boring. The fact the peasants didn't have guns anyway.....you can't take away what they didn't have.

Anyway, the majority died through famine not by being shot, but history eh, who needs it when you have words on a picture!

Of course they had guns. Everyone that served in military in China kept their weapons, when conscripts were called up, many came with their own weapons. It was common throughout Asia … which is why many Japanese families still have swords and pistols from their ancestors going back over a century.

Those who died from famine did so because government confiscated their food and property. They weren't dying from famine before the communist takeover.

And the mass graves have a lot to show about what the communist government did to their people. Why do leftists like dismissing millions of deaths so much?

Well I'm not a lefists or a liberal in the American sense and how many people do you think served in the Communist rebellion against the Japanese and then against the Nationalist government? Not that many compared to the overall population and the only reason they won, and it was a close run thing was because the Americans were giving the Japanese a good kicking.

The same thing in Russia. People didn't have guns, because in those days guns were expensive. So to say these people took away guns from the population to make it easier to control them is nonsense, there was nothing to take away in the first place.

To be honest I don't really care about the gun debate in America, Americans seem happy to live with thousands of gun deaths a year, mass shootings at schools, cinemas, shopping centres and even places of worship. So why should I want them to give up their god given 2nd amendment rights to slaughter each other in the name of defending themselves against a rogue government..... Islamic terrorists don't need to kill Americans themselves, all they need to do is open gun shops all over the country and Americans will do it for them.

Russians had guns. A lot of them. During the revolution they used those weapons beat the Tsar's military including the feared Cossacks. I'm attaching one the posters from the post-civil war era in which the new communist government was asking citizens to turn in their weapons.

It won't be surprising to know how many citizens had guns in the Soviet Union if you just look at how much of the country consists of forests and is far away from major cities. Those people were hunters and it was actually those hunters that were instrumental in many of Soviet WWII victories, along with the civil war veterans who had an opportunity to be well versed with firearms and formed a citizen's militia like the one we have in US.

In other words, Mozais, please don't talk about history you know nothing about. History is a combinations of facts, not assumptions.

Correct. Russia only abolished serfdom in 1861, so where did all these dirt poor peasants get the money to buy guns? It just wasn't a priority when most of the country was still agrarian and getting enough food to eat was.So up to WWI the smallest percentage of Russians had guns. Yes after WWI some soldiers would've made it home with guns as the Russians left the war in 1917, but where do they get the bullets? Home made? lol.

So to say the ordinary Russians had lots of guns is nonsense, its just what you want to believe to suit your narrative of gun control. yes the soviets confiscated weapons but there were not that many to hand in anyway.

They had guns because of conscription and hunting. Guns were tools of those trades. Conscription of peasants was throughout history and not just during WWI.

Does the US Army let you take your M15 home with you once you left the military?

I'm sure you mean the M16, but no, US military doesn't do it. In fact most modern militaries don't unless you are an officer in the reserves.

Rest your brain, Sew.

Accurate much?