NationStates

Kubra wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Diogenes was a smart ass whose saving grace was that his smart assery was funny.

And, not really? The fact that “having guns” comes with the implicit understanding that you’ll load them does nothing to change the fact that militias are useful for violent insurrection.

Insofar as more violent insurrections fail than succeed, you can understand why it's necessary for any would-be insurrectos to have an idea of the economy of violence, rather than just stockpiling AR-15's.

That’s less an argument against insurrections and more an argument for allowing citizens greater firepower.

Valrifell wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:We should make guns illegal for a week just to show Americans how fucked it would be.

I don't think very much would change, tbh

Because nobody would follow the law.

Sicaris wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
I don't think very much would change, tbh

Yeah. You think.

You’re wrong.

Dude there’s 600 million guns floating around in the US. If guns where banned even for a week nothing would change or you wouldn’t see a noticeable change.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Quite the contrary, "having guns" is the most important matter, the very core of the concept. Your statement proves that. A military does indeed have logistics units, and factories, and trucks. But these are all designed t
the purpose of maintaining and expanding the matter of "having guns"

Shit fam, if this is what leftists think then we should have no problem facing them in combat once civil war 2 starts.

You’re thinking of liberals. Actual leftists are armed to the teeth.

Thermodolia wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Shit fam, if this is what leftists think then we should have no problem facing them in combat once civil war 2 starts.

You’re thinking of liberals. Actual leftists are armed to the teeth.

Eh, they are fewer in numbers though.

Thermodolia wrote:You’re thinking of liberals. Actual leftists are armed to the teeth.

It's ironic that guns are supposed to end democracy but everyone insists that only undemocratic ideologies can have guns. It does make sense. If you want to overthrow the government and spit on the constitution, violence and making sure guns are given to people who share your beliefs are the best way to do so. We shouldn't be buying guns to defend ourselves from extremists, but I guess people like me are generally opposed to starting a civil war and shooting their enemies. I think it's nonsense that you would need any more than a few guns. We shouldn't be forming militias right now, it's only increasing tensions. Militia should be built in emergencies. Stockpiling guns and being 'armed to the teeth' in nonsense. It's not like holding several rifles at once is useful in any situation.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You’re thinking of liberals. Actual leftists are armed to the teeth.

Eh, they are fewer in numbers though.

Just looks that way because they ride single file.

Sicaris wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
I don't think very much would change, tbh

Yeah. You think.

You’re wrong.

You'd have to believe some very questionable things if you think that Americans without guns would lead to lawless anarchy and/or brutal dictatorship within the week.

Genivaria wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Shit fam, if this is what leftists think then we should have no problem facing them in combat once civil war 2 starts.

-Telconi being called a leftist.

Huh?

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You’re thinking of liberals. Actual leftists are armed to the teeth.

Eh, they are fewer in numbers though.

Much fewer in numbers, actually.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You’re thinking of liberals. Actual leftists are armed to the teeth.

It's ironic that guns are supposed to end democracy but everyone insists that only undemocratic ideologies can have guns. It does make sense. If you want to overthrow the government and spit on the constitution, violence and making sure guns are given to people who share your beliefs are the best way to do so. We shouldn't be buying guns to defend ourselves from extremists, but I guess people like me are generally opposed to starting a civil war and shooting their enemies. I think it's nonsense that you would need any more than a few guns. We shouldn't be forming militias right now, it's only increasing tensions. Militia should be built in emergencies. Stockpiling guns and being 'armed to the teeth' in nonsense. It's not like holding several rifles at once is useful in any situation.

Then why should we be buying weapons? Defending oneself from extremists is a very valid reason, albeit not the sole reason mind you.
When should people muster into a militia? If a militia isn't well trained and exercised and waiting until the last minute when an emergency arises to muster it isn't doing any militia any favors nor address readiness.
Why is stockpiling nonsense? It's bad to be prepared and have an ample supply? While one cannot hold several rifles at one time, different types of rifles are just like any other tool, it depends on the application of the work to be done.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:It's ironic that guns are supposed to end democracy but everyone insists that only undemocratic ideologies can have guns. It does make sense. If you want to overthrow the government and spit on the constitution, violence and making sure guns are given to people who share your beliefs are the best way to do so. We shouldn't be buying guns to defend ourselves from extremists, but I guess people like me are generally opposed to starting a civil war and shooting their enemies. I think it's nonsense that you would need any more than a few guns. We shouldn't be forming militias right now, it's only increasing tensions. Militia should be built in emergencies. Stockpiling guns and being 'armed to the teeth' in nonsense. It's not like holding several rifles at once is useful in any situation.

Then why should we be buying weapons? Defending oneself from extremists is a very valid reason, albeit not the sole reason mind you.
When should people muster into a militia? If a militia isn't well trained and exercised and waiting until the last minute when an emergency arises to muster it isn't doing any militia any favors nor address readiness.
Why is stockpiling nonsense? It's bad to be prepared and have an ample supply? While one cannot hold several rifles at one time, different types of rifles are just like any other tool, it depends on the application of the work to be done.

I guess collecting is now considered stockpiling? And you are absolutely right GD, waiting until the last second is a fantastic way to get caught with ones pants around their ankles.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Then why should we be buying weapons? Defending oneself from extremists is a very valid reason, albeit not the sole reason mind you.
When should people muster into a militia? If a militia isn't well trained and exercised and waiting until the last minute when an emergency arises to muster it isn't doing any militia any favors nor address readiness.
Why is stockpiling nonsense? It's bad to be prepared and have an ample supply? While one cannot hold several rifles at one time, different types of rifles are just like any other tool, it depends on the application of the work to be done.

I guess collecting is now considered stockpiling? And you are absolutely right GD, waiting until the last second is a fantastic way to get caught with ones pants around their ankles.

While some people call it stockpiling I call it "maintaining inventory". I myself don't see the issue nor is it any of my business with what or how much another person has. Although I do like the pics when some post of their collection.
Being prepared in this regard is no different than being prepared for natural disasters such as in the case of hurricanes where I live. Watching people freakout at the last minute because they were caught with their pants down, while we sit comfortably at home and avoid the mobs because we did our due diligence many months ahead of time.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
I guess collecting is now considered stockpiling? And you are absolutely right GD, waiting until the last second is a fantastic way to get caught with ones pants around their ankles.

While some people call it stockpiling I call it "maintaining inventory". I myself don't see the issue nor is it any of my business with what or how much another person has. Although I do like the pics when some post of their collection.
Being prepared in this regard is no different than being prepared for natural disasters such as in the case of hurricanes where I live. Watching people freakout at the last minute because they were caught with their pants down, while we sit comfortably at home and avoid the mobs because we did our due diligence many months ahead of time.

I feel exactly the same way.

I grew up in a household in a part of the country where going without power for days/weeks at a time during winter was sadly commonplace due to how remote we were. Generally having a months supply of consumables on hand just in case was pretty much standard for me, and to this day I still marvel at how people literally can't go more then a few days without stopping and shopping for basic goods while scoffing at those who do.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:I guess collecting is now considered stockpiling? And you are absolutely right GD, waiting until the last second is a fantastic way to get caught with ones pants around their ankles.

I absolutely need five AR rifles instead of one good one. Having more than a few guns, more so buying redundantly, is stupid, unless you plan to profit from the circumstances. If I have a shotgun, pistol, and a rifle that doesn’t fire a round as shitty as .223 Remington is that unprepared? Meanwhile, if I buy a hundred thousand of .223 rounds and have five AR style rifles, three of which have collectible color schemes, not to mention an American flag paint job, am I automatically prepared? Flaunting shit around doesn’t make you prepared. Not buying crazily doesn’t equate not being prepared. Prepared for what? Is it prepared for a natural disaster? Enough ammunition to last a while in a war isn’t the only thing I need. If your talking about a civil war, then I doubt I would spend long enough time fighting to use that much. In some cases, like invasions, the .223 lunatics are in more trouble. Their weak rounds are no match for body armor used by some militaries.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:I guess collecting is now considered stockpiling? And you are absolutely right GD, waiting until the last second is a fantastic way to get caught with ones pants around their ankles.

I absolutely need five AR rifles instead of one good one. Having more than a few guns, more so buying redundantly, is stupid, unless you plan to profit from the circumstances. If I have a shotgun, pistol, and a rifle that doesn’t fire a round as shitty as .223 Remington is that unprepared? Meanwhile, if I buy a hundred thousand of .223 rounds and have five AR style rifles, three of which have collectible color schemes, not to mention an American flag paint job, am I automatically prepared? Flaunting shit around doesn’t make you prepared. Not buying crazily doesn’t equate not being prepared. Prepared for what? Is it prepared for a natural disaster? Enough ammunition to last a while in a war isn’t the only thing I need. If your talking about a civil war, then I doubt I would spend long enough time fighting to use that much. In some cases, like invasions, the .223 lunatics are in more trouble. Their weak rounds are no match for body armor used by some militaries.

So what you’re saying is that we need to make heavy firepower more widely available? This has my unconditional support.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
I feel exactly the same way.

I grew up in a household in a part of the country where going without power for days/weeks at a time during winter was sadly commonplace due to how remote we were. Generally having a months supply of consumables on hand just in case was pretty much standard for me, and to this day I still marvel at how people literally can't go more then a few days without stopping and shopping for basic goods while scoffing at those who do.

So now you’re making this about supplies? I live close enough to stores, but I have enough for emergencies. Fresh food and maintaining important supplies is the only reason I would shop for stuff like that.

Ors Might wrote:So what you’re saying is that we need to make heavy firepower more widely available? This has my unconditional support.

Heavy firepower and not only having trash to ‘defend’ yourself with aren’t the same thing. It is true many combatants aren’t just shot, it doesn’t take excessive weaponry to kill someone. I’m deciding between 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC right now.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:I guess collecting is now considered stockpiling? And you are absolutely right GD, waiting until the last second is a fantastic way to get caught with ones pants around their ankles.

I absolutely need five AR rifles instead of one good one. Having more than a few guns, more so buying redundantly, is stupid, unless you plan to profit from the circumstances. If I have a shotgun, pistol, and a rifle that doesn’t fire a round as shitty as .223 Remington is that unprepared? Meanwhile, if I buy a hundred thousand of .223 rounds and have five AR style rifles, three of which have collectible color schemes, not to mention an American flag paint job, am I automatically prepared? Flaunting shit around doesn’t make you prepared. Not buying crazily doesn’t equate not being prepared. Prepared for what? Is it prepared for a natural disaster? Enough ammunition to last a while in a war isn’t the only thing I need. If your talking about a civil war, then I doubt I would spend long enough time fighting to use that much. In some cases, like invasions, the .223 lunatics are in more trouble. Their weak rounds are no match for body armor used by some militaries.

I almost don't even know where to begin in addressing this almost incomprehensible rambling as it's basically just a tangent going off and attacking an argument that I'm not even making..

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:I absolutely need five AR rifles instead of one good one...

You need ArmaLite Rifle Rifles? Okay.... That being said, you do know that AR's come in different calibers, no? Owning five AR-15's isn't as far fetched as you are trying to make it sound.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote: Having more than a few guns, more so buying redundantly, is stupid, unless you plan to profit from the circumstances...

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree with it though.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote: If I have a shotgun, pistol, and a rifle that doesn’t fire a round as shitty as .223 Remington is that unprepared?

Um... what?

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote: Meanwhile, if I buy a hundred thousand of .223 rounds and have five AR style rifles, three of which have collectible color schemes, not to mention an American flag paint job, am I automatically prepared?

I dunno, do you feel prepared? That's up to you to decide lad, not I or anyone else.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Flaunting shit around doesn’t make you prepared.

There is a difference between showing off a collection and being "prepared" you know....

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Not buying crazily doesn’t equate not being prepared.

Okay, and...? Pretty sure that's an argument nobody here is making.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote: Prepared for what? Is it prepared for a natural disaster?

Personally, as already stated, I absolutely do keep supplies on hand for me and my family for use in common natural disasters that take place in my neck of the woods. I think it's stupid not too and just asking for trouble when shit does hit the fan.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Enough ammunition to last a while in a war isn’t the only thing I need.

Okay, and...? Pretty sure that's an argument nobody here is making.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:If your talking about a civil war, then I doubt I would spend long enough time fighting to use that much.

Now this might come as a surprise to hear, but not everyone is you.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:In some cases, like invasions, the .223 lunatics are in more trouble. Their weak rounds are no match for body armor used by some militaries.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree with it though.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:I absolutely need five AR rifles instead of one good one...

You need ArmaLite Rifle Rifles? Okay....

Just clarifying they don't want ArmaLite Rifle pistols or ArmaLite Rifle carbines.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:I absolutely need five AR rifles instead of one good one...

You need ArmaLite Rifle Rifles? Okay.... That being said, you do know that AR's come in different calibers, no? Owning five AR-15's isn't as far fetched as you are trying to make it sound.

I know that, I’m actually debating whether I should have 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC, but a majority of them are chambered in their original cartridge. Buying rifles that are physically the same is a waste of money for your own use. Unless you’re going to give them to someone else, having multiples doesn’t make sense. .223 still is far more popular, despite being the best at nothing.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:


You need ArmaLite Rifle Rifles? Okay.... That being said, you do know that AR's come in different calibers, no? Owning five AR-15's isn't as far fetched as you are trying to make it sound.

I know that, I’m actually debating whether I should have 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC, but a majority of them are chambered in their original cartridge. Buying rifles that are physically the same is a waste of money for your own use. Unless you’re going to give them to someone else, having multiples doesn’t make sense. .223 still is far more popular, despite being the best at nothing.

Get .50 Beowulf if you're going to fall for the 6.8 meme.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:If you’re talking about a civil war, then I doubt I would spend long enough time fighting to use that much.

Now this might come as a surprise to hear, but not everyone is you.

How would you move that much ammunition in that scenario? Surely there’s something more useful to move than 100,000 cartridges.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:In some cases, like invasions, the .223 lunatics are in more trouble. Their weak rounds are no match for body armor used by some militaries.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree with it though.

Not being able to kill an opposing soldier by aiming at body mass targets is a pretty big disadvantage in my opinion.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:Get .50 Beowulf if you're going to fall for the 6.8 meme.

Seriously speaking, what’s wrong with it? What is going to be the pricing in the near future? How does it compare? Is getting 6.5 Grendel a better investment? Is this just a joke about making calibers up for ARs?

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:I guess collecting is now considered stockpiling? And you are absolutely right GD, waiting until the last second is a fantastic way to get caught with ones pants around their ankles.

I absolutely need five AR rifles instead of one good one.

I too like to arm militias, but the biggest downside to having 5 guns is explaining to my wife why were eating Tuna from cans for the third night this week as I spoon my $1600 range toy on the couch.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Having more than a few guns, more so buying redundantly, is stupid, unless you plan to profit from the circumstances.

As someone who has more guns than I have bones, I feel attacked and demand an apology. I take ammunition, and recipes for obscure Scandinavian dinners, preferably halal.
I collect guns. It makes no less sense than collecting wins in internet arguments in theory, except my collection has tangible mass and can fling metallic objects in relatively flat trajectories at velocities ranging from 280m/s to 1,320m/s and can be traded with other collectors for other devices that sling lead, or for fiat currency. Its no different or any less esoteric than any other hobby except you sometimes have to socialize with people.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:If I have a shotgun, pistol, and a rifle that doesn’t fire a round as shitty as .223 Remington is that unprepared?

You can do much worse than 5.56x45mm NATO as a general purpose cartridge. Low recoil, light in weight, sufficient terminal ballistics to cause lethal wounding within normal engagement envelopes? Accepting only soviet 5.45x39mm, I am hard pressed to devise a cartridge that competes directly with it that is not in it of itself another variation on 5.56x45mm or an esoteric experimental cartridge for an equally experimental and esoteric cartridge. Or is this 2004 again and our primary source of information is Journalists who have the same understanding of terminal ballistics as the keyboard they typed it on, and are sourced from individual soldiers who were high on Rip Its and epinephrine in a small arms engagement?

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Meanwhile, if I buy a hundred thousand of .223 rounds and have five AR style rifles, three of which have collectible color schemes, not to mention an American flag paint job, am I automatically prepared?

No you dont even have magazines lol

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Flaunting shit around doesn’t make you prepared.

Big mood

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Not buying crazily doesn’t equate not being prepared.

But what will I do when the Deepwater Chineese Infowarriors come to take my guns?

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:Prepared for what? Is it prepared for a natural disaster? Enough ammunition to last a while in a war isn’t the only thing I need. If your talking about a civil war, then I doubt I would spend long enough time fighting to use that much. In some cases, like invasions, the .223 lunatics are in more trouble. Their weak rounds are no match for body armor used by some militaries.

5.56 is fine to defeat the majority of armors in use by military forces, while still being lethal.
If the civil war is in your area, the best weapon is the ability to be a turncoat rapidly or be as ignorant and passive as possible. Be your best sheep! Or else a Fat'wa will be placed on your home!