Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"Liberal agenda" is one of those things that annoys me. You could say democratic agenda, which makes sense because democrats do have an agenda (although I don't think it goes to actually banning guns) Liberals do not have any agenda, because "liberal" is not a group. I'm liberal, leaning radical at times, and I don't want to ban guns. Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they want to ban guns, and just because someone wants restriction on weapons doesn't mean they want to ban guns. I want certain restrictions on weapon (I don't want civilians armed with RPGs, rockets, or insane stuff like that), but certainly don't want guns banned.



And I will point out that "Liberal Agenda" is one of those things synonymous with conspiracy theories. You will find yourself taken more seriously if you don't use that particular term.

Dunno man... Hillary Clinton coined the phrase "the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™"

It's just hyperbolic man... you gotta just weed through it.

I have similar opinion of that. People seem to think that all liberals are the same and all conservatives are they same, which is pretty damn stupid. And people use liberal for democrat and conservative for republican. There are plenty of conservative democrats and liberal republicans (Democrats usually for social reasons, Republicans for economic, or at least that's what I have seen).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"Liberal agenda" is one of those things that annoys me. You could say democratic agenda, which makes sense because democrats do have an agenda (although I don't think it goes to actually banning guns) Liberals do not have any agenda, because "liberal" is not a group. I'm liberal, leaning radical at times, and I don't want to ban guns. Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they want to ban guns, and just because someone wants restriction on weapons doesn't mean they want to ban guns. I want certain restrictions on weapon (I don't want civilians armed with RPGs, rockets, or insane stuff like that), but certainly don't want guns banned.



And I will point out that "Liberal Agenda" is one of those things synonymous with conspiracy theories. You will find yourself taken more seriously if you don't use that particular term.

Fair enough.

I apologize for referring to an over generalized "Liberal Agenda" myself.

But semantics aside, it's fact that there are many social and political groups that do want to ban all guns, and many are willing to start with banning ammo, or implementing registration, etc. and going from there. That's fact, not paranoia. And that's the concern.

Just a friendly reminder to keep it civil, folks. If you're directing remarks at another poster, best make sure that they're friendly ones.

 KiloFiX wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"Liberal agenda" is one of those things that annoys me. You could say democratic agenda, which makes sense because democrats do have an agenda (although I don't think it goes to actually banning guns) Liberals do not have any agenda, because "liberal" is not a group. I'm liberal, leaning radical at times, and I don't want to ban guns. Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they want to ban guns, and just because someone wants restriction on weapons doesn't mean they want to ban guns. I want certain restrictions on weapon (I don't want civilians armed with RPGs, rockets, or insane stuff like that), but certainly don't want guns banned.



And I will point out that "Liberal Agenda" is one of those things synonymous with conspiracy theories. You will find yourself taken more seriously if you don't use that particular term.

Fair enough.

I apologize for referring to an over generalized "Liberal Agenda" myself.

But semantics aside, it's fact that there are many social and political groups that do want to ban all guns, and many are willing to start with banning ammo, or implementing registration, etc. and going from there. That's fact, not paranoia. And that's the concern.

Oh, there are definitely people who want to ban guns, but they are firmly in the minority. Think about it, even in Britain you can still own guns. Mostly "anti-gun" people want restrictions whether it be large, or small. At the same time, a lot of "pro-gun" people to balk at any restriction, even reasonable stuff like "You can't own grenade launchers". This, it seems to me, is largely based on mis-information that both sides spew, and fear which both sides propagate.

I remember one story about people fighting against a ban on silencers, which is a pretty stupid thing to fight against IMO. But it is a fueled by the "evil liberals after your guns" attitude of groups like the NRA. Honestly, the NRA seems to just give gun enthusiasts a bad name.

Why should suppressors be illegal? They're not illegal in the UK, and from what I can tell they are not difficult to get for someone who can legally own a firearm.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for wanting to own a suppressor, beyond just "I want one" (which really should be enough on its own, suppressors don't really add some incredible capability like they do in films).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


Oh, there are definitely people who want to ban guns, but they are firmly in the minority. Think about it, even in Britain you can still own guns. Mostly "anti-gun" people want restrictions whether it be large, or small. At the same time, a lot of "pro-gun" people to balk at any restriction, even reasonable stuff like "You can't own grenade launchers". This, it seems to me, is largely based on mis-information that both sides spew, and fear which both sides propagate.

I remember one story about people fighting against a ban on silencers, which is a pretty stupid thing to fight against IMO. But it is a fueled by the "evil liberals after your guns" attitude of groups like the NRA. Honestly, the NRA seems to just give gun enthusiasts a bad name.

No idea, but it's a silly thing to make a huge fuss over. Unlike bullets, they are not required for the guns to function and really serve no purpose unless you are doing illegal things. It's like buying lockpicks. some states don't allow you too, even though it may seem silly, it's just out of a concern (possibly misplaced) of people doing illigal things.

Ninjed (by a ninja)

I'm actually against all forms of gun control save 'Don't give them to crazy people/felons' and 'If you want to own one, please take safety classes..'

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No idea, but it's a silly thing to make a huge fuss over. Unlike bullets, they are not required for the guns to function and really serve no purpose unless you are doing illegal things. It's like buying lockpicks. some states don't allow you too, even though it may seem silly, it's just out of a concern (possibly misplaced) of people doing illigal things.

They also allow you to hunt without hearing protection, so you can better hear and identify your game. They also allow newer shooters the opportunity to improve by reducing their startle response. If you have to use a gun in your house to protect your family, a suppressor keeps everyone from suffering permanent hearing loss.

Before the NFA, suppressors were actually mainly purchased by dairy farmers who wanted a way of exterminating pests without freaking out their cows. What a bunch of criminals.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

"Pro-gun" people balk at restrictions because we've been putting up with ridiculous restrictions of every kind - the National Firearms Act, import bans, the 86 manufacturing ban on machine guns (which is different from the NFA), the absurd 94 Assault Weapon Ban (and its ridiculous legacy that lives on in many Democrat-dominated states), and countless other attacks on our rights.

Our gun rights ARE restricted. I'm not going to speak for everyone, but honestly I have zero interest in giving up any more of my gun rights. Let's talk SENSIBLE reform - why the blue feth do I need to pay Uncle Sugar $200 and wait 6 months for the incompetent ATF to run a background check on me, just so I can have a rifle with a 15.9899887799389" barrel?

I feel pretty much the same way. And it's especially annoying because almost anytime an anti-gun person brings it up, they talk about wanting to "compromise." But they don't actually mean compromising, they mean they want to take more gun rights away - they almost never offer anything in return. If they actually brought something to the table, like a shall-issue CCW permit with reasonable requirements that was accepted nationwide, then I might be willing to entertain accepting something like "increased background checks" - whatever those actually are meant to be, since every gun purchased from an FFL requires a background check anyway.

But it's not like that. "Compromise" doesn't mean compromise, it means "further restriction of your already restricted rights."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No idea, but it's a silly thing to make a huge fuss over. Unlike bullets, they are not required for the guns to function and really serve no purpose unless you are doing illegal things. It's like buying lockpicks. some states don't allow you too, even though it may seem silly, it's just out of a concern (possibly misplaced) of people doing illigal things.

They also allow you to hunt without hearing protection, so you can better hear and identify your game. They also allow newer shooters the opportunity to improve by reducing their startle response. If you have to use a gun in your house to protect your family, a suppressor keeps everyone from suffering permanent hearing loss.

Yup, exactly this. The idea that suppressors are only useful for criminals is flat wrong, and the capability they are shown as having in most films is pure fantasy.

Huh, I don't know gak about guns, so I wouldn't know. I just seemed silly to me. Well, it's always good to learn new things.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Huh, I don't know gak about guns, so I wouldn't know. I just seemed silly to me. Well, it's always good to learn new things.

See, that's the problem though. There are people (a few actually with some influence) who are trying to increase restrictions on weapons, and they are extremely uninformed about them. I'm not knocking you; you are having a discussion with us, and are open to learn new things, which is excellent! However, before posting here, it probably seemed "obvious" to you that suppressors or silencers were bad, or only served a purpose if you were doing illegal things. It's not necessarily bad to be wrong, or mistaken, but there are people who are misinformed, and not open to learning new things who have tried to restrict our constitutional rights without good reason. I'm sure it seemed "obvious" to people who supported Feinstein's assault weapons bill that the things she was trying to ban were dangerous and only of use in a warzone, even though most of us here know those features are for the most part purely cosmetic.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No idea, but it's a silly thing to make a huge fuss over. Unlike bullets, they are not required for the guns to function and really serve no purpose unless you are doing illegal things. It's like buying lockpicks. some states don't allow you too, even though it may seem silly, it's just out of a concern (possibly misplaced) of people doing illigal things.

Ninjed (by a ninja)

bs. For example, they are great for hog hunting. You can cap a whole group instead of getting 1 or 2 before the rest scatter. And in some places, assuming you get the class 3 stamp, that is perfectly legal (and even encouraged). Feral hogs do a lot of damage.

 The Airman wrote:
Anyone can be a revolutionary, even Bill in IT who fixes jammed printers for a living. The point is to act, and others follow suit. Or they don't. Either way, Bill's a revolutionary. If he shoots every weekend that means he's more proficient at operating his firearms than the average citizen.

Yes, but to make the point again, firearm proficiency is a really, really small part of the issue. Organisation is so much more important. But people who go out shooting typically don't worry about organisation and structure of their potential revolutionary group.

Because they're not really going out shooting to be ready. That's just a fun fantasy they put on top of their fun weekend hobby.

Additionally, I'm not saying that it's impending doom for gun owners, this ban. Only that there's a lot of fear that is might be because of WHY the ATF is going after M855. I mean, if a standard 5.56 ball round out of an AR pistol can pierce a cop's vest, then the rabbit hole of poor logic follows suit. It might sound insane to you, but this isn't the first nor last time there will be restrictions proposed or imposed upon gun owners. I'd say they have a LEGITIMATE reason to be concerned about this ban. It's probably not going to pass, but it does represent the ever present threat to the 2A. Taking out this source of munitions alone will strain the supply of 5.56 to begin with, I'd hate to see it expanded upon.

For what it's worth, I actually think the restriction is bad law. It's pretty iffy given the law (what does 'designed and intended' mean - can you apply that to a round that has since had pistol developed for it?), but more than that it's a law based more on a weird 90s scare than anything real in the gun violence in the US. The number of people, police or otherwise, killed by rifle rounds fired out of pistols is pretty damn close to zero - this cop killer thing was silly scare.

But none of that justifies the silliness that's gone in this thread, the utter lie the OP was originally posted under, the claims that this will lead to all guns being taken, the stuff about taking up guns against government... all that is the same crazy we get in every gun control thread, and it needs to be argued against and dismissed. The health of US gun culture needs to have that nonsense dismissed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that the cell structure, which generally lacks those things, can also be fairly effective.

When you have individual cells operating in isolation it is typically very ineffective. It is when the cells develop means of working without other cells, without comprising the security of each other, that it becomes very effective.

And that, of course, is a very sophisticated kind of organisation.

In a insurgency, or revolution, every man who picks up a gun and fights is a factor. Individually, not a big one, perhaps, but he's got a leg up on the guys who sign on that have never seen a gun before.

Yeah, but operating in isolation or without effective co-ordination, he's pretty close to useless. With effective co-ordination, even a man who's never seen a gun before is vastly more useful.

Do you think that people haven't tried reforms? Campaign finance reform was one step. Man did that die a horrible death. The fact is that the people in the best position to enact reform are also the one's who's jobs hinge on no reform taking place. And they shut it down, faster than you can say 'conflict of interest'.

Campaign finance reform was led almost entirely from the top of the two main parties. When it died there were no protests in the streets, no new political parties sprung up to take this issue directly to the ballots. To argue that the only option left is to take up arms against government is fething ridiculous.

Maybe it's the fact that I can name years I'd have starved to death in winter if it wasn't for the fact I can shoot, and track through nasty terrain. (Deer are delicious, but like sheep, can wear on you after a month or two of nothing but.)

I've been using firearms since i was six. Most of my neighbors have too. I think that when Frazz and I talk about people who practice on weekends, and you talk about them, we're talking very different things.

No, I'm not talking about anything different. I'm coming from a background of having read about the partisan efforts through the 20th century, and while experienced riflemen were very common (especially up to an including WWII) they didn't make anywhere near as much of an impact as effective organisation, and of course all the various political factors.

Being able to disappear in to the woods and potentially snipe at any soldiers that come your way is not actually that useful. Being able to communicate with other revolutionaries and co-ordinate attacks gives you a chance of being effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.

In the ape's defence, it can't read legislation or know that other rounds have already been banned, and that never kicked off a steady banning of other rounds.

I'm not sure excuse we can find for humans falling for the same slippery slope nonsense, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Is there any dispute that the liberal agenda right now is to ban guns? Specifically "military style" "assault rifles" most of which use 5.56? It's a little late for paranoia.

Your argument there is completely at odds with political reality. There is effectively zero political capital for a ban on guns - they can't even get mental health checks over the line.

This is how politics work now. Like boiling a frog - you do it slowly so as they don't realize they are being cooked alive.

This is a myth, by the way. Frogs will jump out of the water.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KiloFiX wrote:
....into Google and you'll find lots of groups with a very directly stated Liberal Agenda to ban and confiscate all guns.

Go hunting around on google and you'll find people who thinkSandy Hook was a false flag operation to take all the guns and install a one world government.

We can spend all day getting scared about groups we find a congress, but the funny thing about random groups on google is that they don't mean gak in a country of 300 million. What matters is the overall, and in this case we simply know when you can't get a law on mental health checks for gun purchases over the line, any attempt to ban guns is complete fiction.

A sensible, mature gun debate needs to worry about what is actually politically possible. Talk about all guns being banned is just political fantasy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It's just hyperbolic man... you gotta just weed through it.

The problem is that once we get through the hyperbole in this thread, there's nothing left. That's frustrating because there is a sensible argument to be made against this move, but no-one here is making it.

Instead of talking about an unnecessary and inconsistent approach to one type of ammo, all we get is silliness about liberal agendas and fantasies about taking on the government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
See, that's the problem though. There are people (a few actually with some influence) who are trying to increase restrictions on weapons, and they are extremely uninformed about them. I'm not knocking you; you are having a discussion with us, and are open to learn new things, which is excellent! However, before posting here, it probably seemed "obvious" to you that suppressors or silencers were bad, or only served a purpose if you were doing illegal things. It's not necessarily bad to be wrong, or mistaken, but there are people who are misinformed, and not open to learning new things who have tried to restrict our constitutional rights without good reason. I'm sure it seemed "obvious" to people who supported Feinstein's assault weapons bill that the things she was trying to ban were dangerous and only of use in a warzone, even though most of us here know those features are for the most part purely cosmetic.

The problem is that much of the anti-gun lobby knows nothing useful about guns, and much of the pro-gun lobby is completely barking. The resulting debate... does not produce useful gun legislation.

 streamdragon wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I've raised sheep too. I know people who've raised sheep.

We unanimously agree that sheep are dumb as rocks.

Science says your anecdote is worth less than sheep manure.

Even if they're smarter than we've thought previously, that still puts them in the "very stupid" category.

I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"Liberal agenda" is one of those things that annoys me. You could say democratic agenda, which makes sense because democrats do have an agenda (although I don't think it goes to actually banning guns) Liberals do not have any agenda, because "liberal" is not a group. I'm liberal, leaning radical at times, and I don't want to ban guns. Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they want to ban guns, and just because someone wants restriction on weapons doesn't mean they want to ban guns. I want certain restrictions on weapon (I don't want civilians armed with RPGs, rockets, or insane stuff like that), but certainly don't want guns banned.



And I will point out that "Liberal Agenda" is one of those things synonymous with conspiracy theories. You will find yourself taken more seriously if you don't use that particular term.

You may not want to ban guns but please find me a liberal hero who doesn't want gun control.
As a libertarian (and a contrarian) I regularly get in fights with the rabid right wingers on gun websites (who would have figured Frazzled being ornery on the internetz) but they do have a bit of a point on that front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Huh, I don't know gak about guns, so I wouldn't know. I just seemed silly to me. Well, it's always good to learn new things.

Thats the problem. You self admittedly don't know gak about guns, yet you want to regulate them based on what you think is important WITHOUT KNOWING gak ABOUT GUNS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yeah, but operating in isolation or without effective co-ordination, he's pretty close to useless. With effective co-ordination, even a man who's never seen a gun before is vastly more useful.

I won't disagree. But this is the age of info technology. There are groups out there...now.

And thats nothing new. Revolutions always spring up and develop, even before Da Internetz.

A letter has been sent by 236 members of congress to the director of the ATF to question the proposed reclassification of M855's to "no sporting purpose", among other things.

I'm not sure how it's possible so many legislators are unaware that this was actually already secretly done wayyyy back in 2012, but I suppose they could just all be as dumb as me.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I've raised sheep too. I know people who've raised sheep.

We unanimously agree that sheep are dumb as rocks.

Science says your anecdote is worth less than sheep manure.

Even if they're smarter than we've thought previously, that still puts them in the "very stupid" category.

... the article puts their learning capabilities on par with humans for some things. Smarter than many monkeys.

 Ouze wrote:
A letter has been sent by 236 members of congress to the director of the ATF to question the proposed reclassification of M855's to "no sporting purpose", among other things.

I'm not sure how it's possible so many legislators are unaware that this was actually already secretly done wayyyy back in 2012, but I suppose they could just all be as dumb as me.

It's extremely possible. "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it" readily comes to mind. Many times, regulatory changes dont get much press time/exposure, and many times, it is the staff of the representatives that do most of the reading and only give the rep what he or she needs to know in regards of how to vote on a particular issue. That this is a regulatory change, its not surprising that it went unnoticed for as long as it did.

This article gives a good accounting of how long this move has been in the works, using ATF source documents to bolster it's claims. Give it a read:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/03/06/exclusive-atf-has-already-banned-common-at15-green-tip-ammunition-n1966761

 sebster wrote:

When you have individual cells operating in isolation it is typically very ineffective. It is when the cells develop means of working without other cells, without comprising the security of each other, that it becomes very effective.

Typically, but not always. The Hopper network springs to mind, they were not big on working with others, and still conducted one of the most effective assassination sprees the French resistance managed to field during the Occupation.. And, again, my point about numbers is not refuted by this.

 sebster wrote:
When it died there were no protests in the streets,

Incorrect. Actually, stop by SCOTUS next time you have a moment when they're in session to see how much 'Not Protesting' is still going on.

 sebster wrote:

no new political parties sprung up to take this issue directly to the ballots.

It's been to the ballots. and been declared unconstitutional every time. Even those occasions it's made it all the way to law.

Further, you don't actually get to vote on Constitutional amendments, IIRC. Your state government does. The same ones that also spent so much time loading the dice in the first place.

Oh, and TRY getting a new political party on the ballot. If you think running as a member of a party other than whatever party is dominant in a district is hard, wait till you see the rules to get a new PARTY on the ballot. Hell, PA doesn't even put most existing parties on the ballot. You have to have gotten at least 20% of the National vote, the previous year, IIRC, before PA will put you on.

 sebster wrote:

Being able to disappear in to the woods and potentially snipe at any soldiers that come your way is not actually that useful. Being able to communicate with other revolutionaries and co-ordinate attacks gives you a chance of being effective.

You can snipe, don't get me wrong, but it's far less effective in this terrain, than, say, an IED. Lots of heavy brush and thick canopy. Lot of hidden sink holes and natural caves, too. Low visibility. Generally not fun.

Sorry, but something being on ballots and getting voted down does not make it unconstitutional. It makes it unpopular. The vast majority of the population couldn't name the Secretary of State- forget about them knowing about constitutional law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled, show me a conservative, even yourself, who doesn't want some form of gun control and I will show you a nut. You don't want mentally handicapped people and children under five owning guns, do you? That's gun control. Not trolling. Just saying that claims like "show me a liberal that doesn't want gun control" means nothing in that context. I am a liberal. I don't want to take your precious guns, as much as I think you are weak (both morally and intellectually) for wanting to cling to them so adamantly. Morality and ignorance are not the purview of the law. Not my concern. Do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on my constitutional rights to organize peacefully and speak my mind freely (until the voters or the courts legally deem those rights should no longer be rights-god doesn't get a vote).

Edited for clarity and grammar.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I've raised sheep too. I know people who've raised sheep.

We unanimously agree that sheep are dumb as rocks.

Science says your anecdote is worth less than sheep manure.

Even if they're smarter than we've thought previously, that still puts them in the "very stupid" category.

... the article puts their learning capabilities on par with humans for some things.

Guess it's time for me to post this picture again.


Anyway, if there is clearly enough support against this ammo ban, can't Congress simply do their job and legislate?

Seems that's what Republicans are trying to do right now.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I don't want to take your precious guns, as much as I think you are weak (both morally and intellectually) for wanting to cling to them so adamantly.

Could you clarify this a bit more? If you think it's morally and intellectually weak for someone to want to keep their guns, do you think it is morally and intellectually strong for someone to want to take someone else's guns away? Or is it determined by how adamantly someone wants these things? For example, if someone wants to keep their guns, but is only moderately adamant about it, are they not as morally and intellectually weak? Does this only apply to guns, or all rights?

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
A letter has been sent by 236 members of congress to the director of the ATF to question the proposed reclassification of M855's to "no sporting purpose", among other things.

I'm not sure how it's possible so many legislators are unaware that this was actually already secretly done wayyyy back in 2012, but I suppose they could just all be as dumb as me.

It's extremely possible. "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it" readily comes to mind. Many times, regulatory changes dont get much press time/exposure, and many times, it is the staff of the representatives that do most of the reading and only give the rep what he or she needs to know in regards of how to vote on a particular issue. That this is a regulatory change, its not surprising that it went unnoticed for as long as it did.

This article gives a good accounting of how long this move has been in the works, using ATF source documents to bolster it's claims. Give it a read:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/03/06/exclusive-atf-has-already-banned-common-at15-green-tip-ammunition-n1966761

Why is the timeline of this stealth change moving? What happened to it being secretly banned in 2012 - why are we now moving to "it was in the works since 2014"?

 Hordini wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I don't want to take your precious guns, as much as I think you are weak (both morally and intellectually) for wanting to cling to them so adamantly.

Could you clarify this a bit more? If you think it's morally and intellectually weak for someone to want to keep their guns, do you think it is morally and intellectually strong for someone to want to take someone else's guns away? Or is it determined by how adamantly someone wants these things? For example, if someone wants to keep their guns, but is only moderately adamant about it, are they not as morally and intellectually weak? Does this only apply to guns, or all rights?

Sure thing. I think people who cling to firearms (or any physical weapon) as the end all and be all as an oppositional perspective are inherently weak. Anybody who needs to resort to a physical weapon of violence to resolve any conflict, be it personal or political has already lost the war. Look at what we are doing here right now. I am not threatening you, you are not threatening me with any sort of physical violence. We are having a discussion. Someday, someone will will gain a majority of opinion and win the debate. Look at the previous posts. Many (from the pro gun perspective) point out that any insurrection will win because numbers are on the winning side regardless of the quality of arms. That is where the power truly rests, in popular opinion and the ability to sway it. Guns may help sway opinion, but once one has to resort to that last resort, they have failed in every other aspect...so yeah, guns are morally and intellectually weak.

Edit addition: that in no way means that I want guns to be outlawed or overly restricted but I do reserve the right to laugh at people who do to an extreme or don't to an extreme--first amendment came before second.

Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.

Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.