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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
That our government will become totalitarian, and we'll be saved because of the 2nd amendment? Yeah, that's never going to happen.

a. The idea of our government doing that is laughable. They'd never be able to come to power in the first place. It would require either getting rid of the constitution/bill of rights which you'd never be able to get enough support from the states to do, or just ignoring it, and nobody would obey you then, not even your own military.

and

b. if a totalitarian government rose to power, you realize the first thing they would do is disarm the citizenry.

I think you mean TRY to disarm the citizenry. And the point being made is THAT may prove pretty difficult and is one of those 'straws' many can see as breaking the camel's back. And why the incremental infringement (and atempts at further infringement) of the 2nd is so darned disgusting and worrisome to many. 'Who needs a 30 round magazine?' 'Who needs anything other than a gun for hunting?' 'If your a legal and law abiding gun owner why can't you be reasonable and accept some type of national firearms registry?'.

Until world peace is achieved and you can say with 100% confidence that no stable government will ever become unstable saying its lost its original purpose is false.

Just because its unlikely doesn't mean its necessary.

The odds of me having a car crash is very low. Yet I am still required to carry insurance to cover the possibility. Thats what the 2nd amendment is, insurance.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
a. Of course not, it's just so unlikely to not even be a factor. I don't see other strong democratic countries with mass gun control (UK, Japan, ect. ) turning into dictatorships any time soon, do you?

b. False equivalence. Just because two groups would do the same thing, does not mean they have the same goals.


That being said, I'm not pro-gun control, I'm just saying that the 2nd's original intent doesn't really mean much anymore. I'm not even saying it should be repealed.

England and to a lesser extent, (but still drastic) America are slowly eroding rights and spying on their own citizens. They're not kicking down doors with jackboots, but if they know everything about you, they won't have to.

So... going back to the thread title for a minute.

I went to Walmart the other day because I got a PMR-30, and I wanted to see if they had any .22WMR. They did not, which wasn't super surprising because .22WMR has turned out to be fairly hard to find around here.

What was surprising was what else they didn't have: There were no 9mm +P (which they usually have at least some of), not a single round of 7.62x39, and very limited .223. Notably, I didn't see a wall sticker for 7.62x39, either - it appears they may have stopped carrying it. Additionally they seem to have substantially reduced the gun section of sporting goods. The only firearms were various shotguns and deer rifles - maybe 4 or 5 tops.

On the downside, Walmart was a very good source of ammunition for me; it was so cheap it ran about even with buying online even with shipping costs, and no wait.

On the plus side, there is no reason for me to ever go to Walmart ever again, which is nice because literally the only reason I ever go there is for ammo. I am quite averse to the store otherwise.

Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.

My Wal-Mart has .38. Thats it. They never have any other ammo (I saw 30-06 once). Which is weird because it is the only "general" store in my area. Even the Amish go there.

The only way I wish to imagine the guns being sold in walmart either has them filled in a giant pile in a cage like they sell giant rubber balls or in a vending machine where you normally see snack food or drinks and in japan possibly used panties because japan can be weird (cultural differences are great sometimes).

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Not sure any of the Wal-Mart's by me ever carried them.

Not that I'd buy my guns from Wal-Mart anyway with two local ranges, a Mom & Pop gun shop, and Cabela's nearby.

I do appreciate the ignorant loaded comment from the British OP, however.

Hardly ignorant. Your 2nd Amendment is a completely unnecessary part of your constitution (IMO). It's a relic of an age where you guys were fighting for independence from the British Empire.

Relic huh? Hows the powdered wigs going over there?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.

That's a badass Walmart you got there, what with almost dying twice in the parking lot.

Relapse wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.

That's a badass Walmart you got there, what with almost dying twice in the parking lot.

It doesn't really count unless you've been mugged 3 times and had your life threatened 5 times.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.

That's a badass Walmart you got there, what with almost dying twice in the parking lot.

It doesn't really count unless you've been mugged 3 times and had your life threatened 5 times.

I stepped in gum once, does that count?

Depends how fresh it was

Fresh enough, and it was a hot day.


Dammit.

Relapse wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even cheap ammo couldn't get me into Walmart, I'd gone like four years without going into one and then when I had to go in for an emergency, everything I always thought about the place was re-confirmed and I was almost killed twice in the parking lot.

That's a badass Walmart you got there, what with almost dying twice in the parking lot.

Fun fact, the very first manager of that Walmart was shot and killed in the parking lot by an angry customer. Even more amusing, the median income in the city where this Walmart is located is ~$92,000/year...

Back on topic, we picked up a cheap 'sit on' kayak at a local WalMart last Friday so we would have enough kayaks for my family and a few guests we had coming Sunday (up to 4 singles and one tandem now). It game me a chance to check out their guns and ammo. Guns were pretty sparse (a couple hunting riles, a .22 and a couple long/full stock shotguns) but ammo seemed to be pretty varied and plentiful.


Not sure if this one ever had Cool Black Gunz or not since I'm pretty new to this AO.

 Grey Templar wrote:
As evidence, I submit every dictatorship ever. Saying it would never happen in America is the exact type of complacency that would allow it to happen.

Second, while yes, a totalitarian government would try to disarm the citizens, it would be easier said than done.

People say this sort of a thing a lot. And it makes sense, if we assume that people are all sensible and would actively oppose their totalitarian government as soon as that government's malevolent intentions were made clear. But it never works like that in the real world. The abuses of government, generally justified with security or order, are often accepted or even given support by the population, especially by the people who tend to own guns. Governments don't need to take the guns, and so they don't.

I mean, you say that you submit every dictatorship ever, but then actually submit one. Go find a dictatorship that set about taking away the guns of its citizens. I'll wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
England and to a lesser extent, (but still drastic) America are slowly eroding rights and spying on their own citizens. They're not kicking down doors with jackboots, but if they know everything about you, they won't have to.

But that's the thing. The erosion of rights happens in countries with guns, and it happens in countries without guns. And there's no description of events in which the gun owner uses his weapon to fight our current style of government over-reach that doesn't make the gun owner sound like a complete loon.

The fightback against that erosion happens through activists and through the ballot box, if people can be persuaded to vote on that issue. The guns just don't help in any way.

 sebster wrote:
People say this sort of a thing a lot. And it makes sense, if we assume that people are all sensible and would actively oppose their totalitarian government as soon as that government's malevolent intentions were made clear. But it never works like that in the real world. The abuses of government, generally justified with security or order, are often accepted or even given support by the population, especially by the people who tend to own guns. Governments don't need to take the guns, and so they don't.

I think this is insightful. For example, when the US government set up a set of extrajudicial gulags where we imprisoned enemies of the state, a lot of people were horrified and upset... but, no one took up arms against it. After all, the government told us it was just the really bad people that were there (that this is the same government that can't run an efficient DMV or effective TSA is not considered). So I think it's probably pretty easy to boil that frog.

Anyway, I'm pretty excited about where this thread is undeniably about to go.

I'm just amused that Walmart is claiming a drop in gun sales at the same time news articles are floating around touting a record sales year.

 Ouze wrote:
I think this is insightful. For example, when the US government set up a set of extrajudicial gulags where we imprisoned enemies of the state, a lot of people were horrified and upset... but, no one took up arms against it. After all, the government told us it was just the really bad people that were there (that this is the same government that can't run an efficient DMV or effective TSA is not considered). So I think it's probably pretty easy to boil that frog.

Yeah, people don't realise there's a point where you go from having a gun just in case government goes bad, to actually having to go out and shoot a policeman. And in addition, there's the issue that when things like extra-judicial gulags are set up, well they are obviously human rights abuses and all around gak things to do, but for a scary amount of people that's only obvious with the luxury of hindsight - in the moment loads of people assume those kinds of things are necessary.

Anyway, I'm pretty excited about where this thread is undeniably about to go.

Pretty much


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
I'm just amused that Walmart is claiming a drop in gun sales at the same time news articles are floating around touting a record sales year.

They're claiming a drop in sales in one type of gun, when there's been record sales in general. That kind of thing happens all the time.

Another incident of a gun being used to stop a bad situation from getting worse.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/man-shoots-masked-intruder-dad-st-petersburg-florida

 Grey Templar wrote:
Another incident of a gun being used to stop a bad situation from getting worse.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/man-shoots-masked-intruder-dad-st-petersburg-florida

The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.

 sebster wrote:
The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.

A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year

So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm

Is that good?

Yep. It mans a lot of good people were not harmed that likeley would have been.

 CptJake wrote:
Yep. It mans a lot of good people were not harmed that likeley would have been.

This right here...

I just recently saw an article from the greater Dallas area, of a guy who used a firearm in a defensive situation. Including the "good" shooter, there were 6 people in the apartment, with 2 "bad guys" In this situation, there's one bad guy dead, and one already apprehended and looking at a number of charges; while at the same time, 6 people including 2 very young children are alive and well.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is that good?

That legally held guns in the hands of citizens are overwhelmingly used for self defense? Absolutely.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is that good?

It's actually one of the best things about firearms. It means that the weak aren't doomed to be dominated by those physically stronger than them. It means, for example, that a petite woman, or an old man, or in some unfortunate cases even a young kid can have a fighting chance against an attacker (or multiple attackers) against whom they would otherwise have no defense.

I have to wonder about the cases where a young kid has a CCL though, don't you have to be 18?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have to wonder about the cases where a young kid has a CCL though, don't you have to be 18?

I'm not talking about CCLs specifically. I believe in most states you have to be 21 to have a CCW, or at the very least 18. I was referring to a few cases in which a kid has defended themselves or their siblings from a home invader when the parents were not home. In such a case a CCW wouldn't be necessary anyway.

Ah that would make sense. Although you'd have to be careful with that (young person having unsupervised access to gun).