How would an assault rifle stop the government from going 1984?

[Type Username Here]

I dont think too many people were having these kinds of conversations ~10 years ago.

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.

Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”

Guns became central to the Panthers’ identity, as they taught their early recruits that “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.” They bought some of their first guns with earnings from selling copies of Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book to students at the University of California at Berkeley. In time, the Panther arsenal included machine guns; an assortment of rifles, handguns, explosives, and grenade launchers; and “boxes and boxes of ammunition,” recalled Elaine Brown, one of the party’s first female members, in her 1992 memoir. Some of this matériel came from the federal government: one member claimed he had connections at Camp Pendleton, in Southern California, who would sell the Panthers anything for the right price. One Panther bragged that, if they wanted, they could have bought an M48 tank and driven it right up the freeway.

Man, some of you don't even know your own history.

The Secret History of Guns - Adam Winkler - The Atlantic



Here is the author by the way, since some of you are going to claim he's some right-wing nut jub:

Winkler is a nationally recognized expert on American constitutional law. A frequent contributor to The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, his commentary and opinion pieces have been featured in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, National Public Radio, The Tavis Smiley Show, and The National Law Journal.
His writing on the right to bear arms, which is notable for its middle-of-the-road position—recognizing both the individual right to possess firearms and the legitimacy of effective gun control—has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous lower courts.[3] His book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America details the importance of the right to bear arms throughout American history, while also showing how that right has been balanced with laws to enhance gun safety since the founding era. Leading gun-rights advocate Dave Kopel called Gunfight "one of the few genuinely moderate books ever written on" the right to bear arms.[4]

Adam Winkler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

What do Malcolm X/ TBP have to do with 2003?

I said 2003 because that was a time of prosperity. People don't really start questioning the govt until either their pockets/stomachs are hurting or they are clearly getting second/third class treatment.... like black folks leading up to and during the Civil Rights Era, or like the middle class today

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

Im damn near right in the middle on this debate but I will say.....

Afghan farmers with the help of the mountain terrain and assault rifles have kept the US military and many others on their toes for centuries.

fixed.

granted guns > bow and arrows but without the terrain the afghan farmers would be paste.

 

[Shogun]

fixed.

granted guns > bow and arrows but without the terrain the afghan farmers would be paste.

you done a combat deployment there? I have...

Were the insurgents in Iraq immediately turned to paste? Tell me about the mountains in Fallujah...

Spoiler

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

you done a combat deployment there? I have...

Were the insurgents in Iraq immediately turned to paste? Tell me about the mountains in Fallujah...

Spoiler

breh that's not the point. afghanistan has been turning back invaders before the inventions of guns. a urban landscape can leveled but there is no leveling the himalayan mountains. fortunately i was too close to the end of my enlistment to do a deployment in afghanistan.

 

[Shogun]

breh that's not the point. afghanistan has been turning back invaders before the inventions of guns. a urban landscape can leveled but there is no leveling the himalayan mountains. fortunately i was too close to the end of my enlistment to do a deployment in afghanistan.

Again...how did the Iraqi insurgency thrive with nothing but urban landscapes and desert?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Again...how did the Iraqi insurgency thrive with nothing but urban landscapes and desert?

Because the goal wasn't to oppress and enslave. If we wanted to conquer Iraq Afghanistan or the entire region it could be done easily. We are passing out guns feeding families and training solders who's guns and skills ultimately get turned around on us. A tyranical goverment wouldn't do this they'd tell us get down or lay down, and individuals having guns could do absolutely nothing to change the situation.

 

[Shogun]

Because the goal wasn't to oppress and enslave. If we wanted to conquer Iraq Afghanistan or the entire region it could be done easily. We are passing out guns feeding families and training solders who's guns and skills ultimately get turned around on us. A tyranical goverment wouldn't do this they'd tell us get down or lay down, and individuals having guns could do absolutely nothing to change the situation.

I hear ya breh. In regards to collateral damage and us soldiers turning on the population, I just typed out my thoughts on that...
check page 5 if you're interested.

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

Again...how did the Iraqi insurgency thrive with nothing but urban landscapes and desert?

with the help anti-american foreign nationals and some of the iraqi population. plus it came down to a war of attrition which was a game we didn't really want to play. the point was about afghanistan though and like i said afghanistan has been giving foreign invaders the business before the inventions of guns.

my bad i didn't know already went over this with someone else.

 

[Shogun]

with the help anti-american foreign nationals and some of the iraqi population. plus it came down to a war of attrition which was a game we didn't really want to play. the point was about afghanistan though and like i said afghanistan has been giving foreign invaders the business before the inventions of guns.

we gon have to agree to disagree at this point.

And the point of this thread isnt Afghanistan. That was just an example. The point of the thread was to argue that assault weapons re not enough to test the US military. I think they are.

If Afghanistan is bad example to you due to the mountains, I accept that. Its a valid point. The example of Iraq, however, works against your mountain argument....which is why I brought it up.

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

If Afghanistan is bad example to you due to the mountains, I accept that. Its a valid point. The example of Iraq, however, works against your mountain argument....which is why I brought it up.

that was my point and touche

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Because the goal wasn't to oppress and enslave. If we wanted to conquer Iraq Afghanistan or the entire region it could be done easily. We are passing out guns feeding families and training solders who's guns and skills ultimately get turned around on us. A tyranical goverment wouldn't do this they'd tell us get down or lay down, and individuals having guns could do absolutely nothing to change the situation.

Yea from day one its been pretty unclear what we've been there to accomplish

Play whack a mole w/terrorists?
Topple regimes?
Rebuild the country?

Seems like a conflicting set of tasks.

And our military is a lot more sophisticated than it was back in Vietnam. Not to mention, seems like morale was a lot worse, which combined with the unfamiliar territory/conditions and the drug problems also kind of take it out of the running for comparison.

The pro 2nd amendment people need to decide what exactly the govt would want to accomplish, and how far it would be willing to go to do so, before we can even start the discussion

 

[rapbeats]

Considering warfare has changed since 1776 (thanks AJ), why would guns be the government's obstacle to taking away our rights away altogether?

i said this a 1000 times in here. and no one has the answer.

how is your little ar15 and your little hand guns going to stop a hum V, a tank, a grendade, a real assault rifle. not some semi nonsense. the real automatic chopper. air strikes, and drones?

the answer is. its not. so those who use that as an excuse to keep these kinds of guns are lying. they only reason you have that kind of gun is because you think its CUTE. now if you're a hood dude, in dem streets or you're up to illegal ways. then you need the biggest and baddest gun you can get your hands on. any law abiding citizen cant make a case for having an AR. period point blank.

 

[rapbeats]

Im damn near right in the middle on this debate but I will say.....

Afghan farmers with little more than assault rifles have kept the US military on our toes for over a decade now.

thats because the terrain is really tough to deal with. we dont have that kind of terrain in america.

 

[rapbeats]

The real question is this:

If these cacs decided to turn the clock back to 1860, put you back in chains and treat you like subhumans again, would you die fighting them?

Would it matter to you if they had tanks, drones, jets...?

Would you be a man or a coward?

Because it sounds you like are a coward.

Mind you, you are trying to lecture one of the few people on here who have been in combat, dealt with insurgency and was part of this scary Military, yet you seem to imply you might be more familiar with these things more than Shogun is.

horrible question to ask. makes no sense.

if they (cacs) decided to put you back in chains. and if US people of color within the military didnt assist us with military weapons. having a few pistols, some ar15's , etc. we would lose, and lose quickly. now because one doesnt have an ar doesnt mean he wont fight. it just means he will probably lose that much quicker. thats all.