- Joined
- Aug 6, 2019
- Messages
- 15,086
- Reaction score
- 6,810
- Location
- Bridgeport, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The contention was no civilian needs a firearm. And here we have them praising civilians getting firearms if they don't need them why do they need themIt only makes good logical sense for every mouth breathing idiot and every tired middle aged housewife to walk around with a .50 cal strapped on.
Ya know....just in case of "invasion".
Maybe also driving tanks to the grocery store would be good too, just in case. Think of the FrEeDuMbZ$™.
ffs what in the he!1 is wrong with people.
Chances are they'll foolishly disarm themselves and thus any revolution they try to have will be squashed.Progressives might do well to own firearms to defend against fascists or other types of authoritarians at home or abroad.
really stupid postConsider this:
View attachment 67377046
I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.
But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:
View attachment 67377047
They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.
One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:
1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.
2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.
Who is “they” in your post?Chances are they'll foolishly disarm themselves and thus any revolution they try to have will be squashed.
I'm glad they're inconsistent we don't need to try failed policies again here.
The contention was no civilian needs a firearm. And here we have them praising civilians getting firearms if they don't need them why do they need them
So called "progressives" I guess the title is supposed to be ironic.Who is “they” in your post?
They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.
Consider this:
View attachment 67377046
I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.
But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:
View attachment 67377047
They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.
One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:
1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.
2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.
people who think like you do, are exactly why a freedom loving society needs to be well armedNo you don't need an AR-15
If the country is invaded, the government will provide rifles, not an ad-hoc collection of shotguns, revolvers and semi-automatic pistols in every caliber imaginable.
Consider this:
View attachment 67377046
I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.
But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:
View attachment 67377047
They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.
One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:
1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.
2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.
I see a distinct difference in circumstances. America is not being invaded by a foreign power for starters.
On Ukraine, I'm not sure it is the wisest decision even under these circumstances. Fighting back may be noble, but lightly armed civilians will be no real match for trained Russian infantry and paratroopers. If this contributes to Ukraine holding out long enough for Russia to get tired and pull back, it may turn out to be helpful, but that is very unlikely. It is more likely that half of those civilians will be killed or captured and the other half will eventually abandon their weapons and run, with very few casualties inflicted on the Russians by comparison.
Given that Kyiv is already surrounded the smarter move might be a capitulation to spare the population needless slaughter.
people who think like you do, are exactly why a freedom loving society needs to be well armed
people who think like you do, are exactly why a freedom loving society needs to be well armed
The government doesn't own enough service rifles to arm more than a tiny percentage of the population.No you don't need an AR-15
If the country is invaded, the government will provide rifles, not an ad-hoc collection of shotguns, revolvers and semi-automatic pistols in every caliber imaginable.
If only any actual politicians were aligned with you. You should get all Democrats to run on a "ban them all" platform.Why sure.
If a person doesnt think the way you think, thats why we all walk around with our Mass Murder Machines strapped on....am I right Turtle? AMIRITE? In case a "9mm colonoscopy" is indicated?
You're a walking advertisement for why people in the USA should never own anything more deadly than a Crayola crayon my friend.
BAN. THEM. ALL.
(crime will fall)
The government doesn't own enough service rifles to arm more than a tiny percentage of the population.
"According to a 2018 estimate published by the Small Arms Survey, the U.S. military possesses some 4.5 million firearms"What figures do you have on the size of the US small arms arsenal ?
"According to a 2018 estimate published by the Small Arms Survey, the U.S. military possesses some 4.5 million firearms"
The U.S. Military Doesn't Even Track How Many Weapons It Loses, And It Has Lost Thousands
A scathing report details how over 2,000 weapons have gone missing from military arsenals in the last decade alone and the data is far from complete.www.thedrive.com
With enough time, someone could look at every service rifle contract that's let by the government in the past twenty years.
4.5M/325M = 1.3%.4.5 million is quite a lot, that's a bit more than a tiny percentage of the population.
4.5M/325M = 1.3%.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?