Change My Mind

Exactly! Take for example:
Russia
Kenya
Chicago
Germany
The Re-United Kingdom
Facist Italy
Islamic France

All of which gave up their guns and paid the price for their stupidity. Now slaves to the overlords

Yes, indeed; slaves to the Overlords. So many of them would just accept their fate with pathetic gladness that at least they're not yet dead.

Often, the only way they would ever rise in revolt is when tyranny becomes so unbearable that they no longer care for their lives but go all out. So many variables must fit in order for the rebellion to succeed and is dependent on no small measure, the cruelty and craftiness of the tyrant, and the moral endurance of the rebels..

As a UK person, I'd like to dispute. First, some countries might've not had "THE GREAT MURICAN GUN RIGHTS" to begin with.
Second, we're not oppressed by overlords. At least not in Britain. Russia are pretty corrupt, and the EU are despotic, but that doesn't mean all countries without gun rights are dystopic.
However, I do understand the need for gun ownership more than the average brit, but the "NO GUN = DICTATORSHIP" thing is utter drivel.

Your country have had a long history of tyrants, do you not? Two that comes to mind is William the Conqueror and Bloody Mary. And, while I know that your country is no longer run by absolute rulers but by parliament, the fact that change like Brexit (a good thing, IMHO), or the realization that Trump became America's president can unexpectedly happen.

The question of tyranny is not if it it happens, but when. Desperation we've seen in Greece gave rise to the ultra right in that country; how long until they gain power? We've seen that before, yes? Hitler, with amazing charisma and skillful use of demagoguery needed only 40% of the vote, and the country is virtually his.

If you see the same happening in your country, will you finally understand the value of the 2nd Amendment and buy firearms? But oh... it's a bit too late to buy the right ones isn't it? Do you honestly think that your government, when it descends into corruption or oligarchy, will allow you to buy semi-automatic, center-fire rifles, with normal or higher capacity magazines, w/out registering it to government (so they won't take it from you when you become a political threat to them)?

Firearms are so regulated in your country that you're limited to pump-actions, and bolt action rifles. Against a government with its troops equipped with select-fire rifles and machine guns your armament is only be a little better than, "spit-balls".

I don't dispute America's right to have guns. If they want guns, they can have guns. It's their right, their constitution. Though it being unregulated completely, I do have issues with. But that's just me.
But even your weaponry isn't a guarantee for protection. Maybe against a thug, yes. But not against a fully organized military with actual guns. And tanks. And planes. Not rifles or pistols. You say that pump-actions and bolt actions are little more than spit-balls, but your semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles are little better than that.
Don't just put all your trust in a fire arm.

History of war teaches us that there are always ways around comparative and even absolute advantages. The Macedonians for example have an absolute advantage on the battlefield because in a Phalanx formation they've used longer spears. Under King Philip and Alexander the Great defeated every army, including the Persians, that came before it until they came up against a new army.

The Romans did not have long spears, but what they did have, is a general who knew how to deal with the Macedonians by the use of topography and flanking. The Phalanx formation needed flat lands for it to work but the Romans chose wisely, a land not quite even. As a result, the Phalanx was disordered and when there was an opening, the Romans took advantage.

Now since the West emerged as dominate since the industrial revolution, and WWII, it was thought that no one can defeat a modern army in the battlefield until the French and the Americans lost to the Vietnamese using only small arms, but coupled with guerrilla tactics. Air power and armor were at once negated because the enemy elected to hide and ambush; fighting a long war rather than face a conventional army in an open battlefield.

Today, since the 1st Gulf War, our militaries have added advantages of stealth, and drones equipped with not just precision munitions, but optics that can detect heat and ambient light but that too was somewhat negated by the Serbs during the Balkan conflict using Low-Frequency Radar to detect an F-117 and managed to shoot it down. Then, in Afghanistan, the mountains.often made it difficult for ISAF pilots to find Taliban fighters because of the ruggedness of the mountains. Furthermore, our night optics is dependent on ambient light and there are cases where there was no ambient light.

There are always a way to win wars; even if faced by a technologically and numerically superior force but I do concede that it will never be easy.

The use of firearms is never a guarantee for protection, you're right, but it is the last line of defense if the press is made silent. And simply having them is nothing without training.

All else depends on the will and minds of the people.

You keep believing that, that’s what your masters want you to believe. Your a good puppet to the overlords n’ invaders

Lol. I think I get you but just to be sure, you do not hate the LGBTQ, yes?

LOL Oh I see; thank you for the correction, :)

One of my favorite misreadings ever lol

And one of my most embarrassing misreadings to date!

I'm sorry about that; I've misread the word you've used.

Okay. Lets just install Mandatory Gun licenses, two month Training and yearly Gun saftey inspections. Fair deal?

One more question, what do you think gun safety involves?

I appreciate your honesty in, perhaps acknowledging the truth of the above meme, but don't you think you're being a bit too demanding? Particularly when you don't know what each involve in the first place?

For example, it doesn't take a whole day to learn basic rules of firearm safety; some of it such as the following is sheer common sense:

1. Always treat a firearm if it is loaded
2. Never point the muzzle at anything you don't want to destroy
3. Never put your finger on the trigger unless you're ready to fire
4. When cleaning your firearm, store ammunition into another room
5. Use correct caliber for your gun

NRA Gun Safety Rules
https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/

... Also, an interesting 'common sense' point:
The NRA would be fools to 'want' gun-related killings or accidents.
Quite the opposite; they cringe every time there is an event...
How would it be ANY advantage for them for gun injury and death to occur?
In fact, EVERY time there is an event, they get blamed...
WHY would they 'want' that?

Out of curiosity, what to you should compose "Two months training"? Is it a boot camp, is it a one day a week course or is it a five days a week marksmanship, ballistics, tactical, and combat shooting class?

Thank you for representing your side with seemingly nothing to offer but insults. And the irony is that you, unknowingly, have just used a celebrity and former Marine (but always a Marine), who is just as pro-gun, as I am.

Thus, concludes our discussion.

Farewell.

A bait not taken. You cannot just come and express your opposition to firearms ownership while ignoring the pictorial premise above.

If you want me to debate your meme, you must acknowledge mine and debate it. Otherwise, you would only be engaged in trolling.