Decided over 100 years ago? What the **** are you talking about? The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment did, in fact, guarantee and individual right to own firearms. And the only way you'll get guns away from people and keep them out of their hands is to begin violence against them to forcibly ********** the firearms, or to threaten to do such. Gun ownership is a nonviolent and victimless crime, and to initiate violence against people for that means you're no better than the common thugs that people need guns to defend themselves against anyway. Gun control defeats its own purpose.

See, that's the idea behind it, but do you really think that a bunch of civilians armed with assault rifles and large-caliber hunting rifles can match the most powerful military on the planet, armed with millions of fully armed and armored soldiers, tanks, planes, etc.?

The only reason guns are still around in our society is that they're so deeply ingrained in American tradition and culture. 'Murica needs its guns, and people don't want them taken away. In a practical modern view, it has nothing to do with preventing tyranny.

Sun Tzu, the American Revolutionaries, North Koreans, the NVA, Vietcong, and the Taliban would all like to have a word with you

None of those apply. The Revolutionaries in the colonies and the communist groups fought against the most powerful nations in the world, yes, but you must remember that they did so fighting them from the other side of huge oceans and against limited effort, so to speak.

A domestic uprising in the USA would be completely different from an attack on a US-owned or US-supported territory. You're not sending people across the ocean, you're not fighting politics (like Vietnam). You're going on an all-out war with people trying to topple your government. If the US brought its full and total military might upon Korea and Vietnam, it might have made the Cold War too hot, so it held back. Also, the people were against the wars in both situations. In addition, both N. Korea and N. Vietnam had armies and support from the USSR, not just armed civilians.

TL;DR None of those examples had a country pouring all of its resources into crushing the opposition.

fair point, (and as a disclaimer i do not think there is a chance in hell there will be a civilian uprising here any time soon) but what I was trying to express is the one thing that American civilians would have in common with these groups, they wouldn't play by the rules, guerrilla warfare if you will, which is also why i included Sun Tzu in there, since he practically wrote the field manual. It doesnt matter how big, bad, and organized you are, you cannot beat an unorganized force.

reference The Art of War.

Afghanistan and Vietnam didn't seem to have any problem fighting back.

14+ million registered gun owners in the US. Around 300,000 armed service members. Granted the military is very powerful, 14 million is a tough nut to crack.

to be fair a smart leader will not openly oppress the people. A smart "leader" would trick them into following him by acting upon what they want to hear (Hitler) and in doing so he will get so much of the population on his side it doesn't matter how many people have guns. Although I fully agree with you that people can have a firearm if you want. Theres just the problem that alot of the "responsible gun owners" are not really responsible and cause mayhem which is why i personally believe there should be mental examinations and background checks.

The second amendment also says that you should have the same firepower as the military, AKA nukes and tanks.
It was written at a time where muskets was the most powerful firearm around. I don't think they had Accurate automatics in mind.
Also, it's not like the government is going to "take over" more than it already has. This is where most of Europe and Canada is a fine example.
Why would the government try to "take over" when they already have control? And how would they do it? Do you think people in the military would agree to that?

Take over are you ******* listening to yourself like the gov is so hungry for power they will turn against the only thing keeping it up.

since when was our government absolute power ******* swaggot

It is not absolute yet, but it is slowly becoming that way. With minor freedoms being restricted eventually leading to major freedoms being restricted. It is the peoples job to make sure the government never obtains absolute power

>Implying governments haven't oppresed unarmed civilians before

no I understand its happened but it is not like we are living under the rule of some primal leader like back in the days anymore, the united states government won't just go against abounch of innocent civilians, for what reason?

Talk to any 9/11 truther and they'll tell you

Simple, money and resources. Even if they're the government they're still people. They are still looking out for themselves. All you need is an intelligent power hungry man with a plan and boom. It's Germany all over again.

I don't think our gov is abounch of gold hungry jews that want world domination, there are still moral and ethical people in the government surprisingly enough.

Ambition doesn't stop at morals. A wave of the hand and those politicians are in prison or found in a river down state. Bad **** happens to the good my friend and usually it's in the "bad guy's" favor.

Considering how the Government gets whatever money it has left from the Federal Reserve (Owned by the Rothschild family, it's about as federal as federal express) if they decide to enslave humanity, disarm us, put us all in camps unless we assist them, and promise the Rothschild family world domination they'd have every single bit of money at there command. The only countries they wouldn't be allowed to have their fingers in money wise is Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Otherwise every single Dollar, Peso or pound you hold in your hand is an IOU to that family. So no. We don't keep anyone afloat.

Yea but still we are a developed society and thinking that our own government is going to "enslave humanity" and put us in camps is just pretty ******* far fetched

so was Germany, Bosnia, Paris,Rwanda, and Syria ,ect. Just because we are a first world nation, doesnt make us imune to power hungry people with to much power. Crack open a history book

Sounds like your living ******* good with a computer and resources on demand, you guys should stop whining.

Im pointing out that a power hungry goverment takeover is more commonly seen in 3rd world nations, but can just as easily happen to a 1st world nation

alright I can acknowledge where your coming from but it might not happen just as easily as a third world country

This debate isn't about the impending government takeover of our lives, we are just simply discussing the plausibility of such an outcome. None of us think that a New World Order is imminent (except for a few conspiracy theorists) but a lot of us seem to be in agreement that such an event could happen

defenetly not as easily, but we are just as prone as anyone else. And if we think we're not just because we arent a "poor nation' it'll happen before we know what hits us

so if you don't want a government that takes ******* care of you how about you go to Somalia and don't call me when you get hungry.

A successful government needs to maintain a healthy balance of security and freedom. You can be the freest individual in the world living in Somalia, but you will be fearful for your life. On the other side of the spectrum, security that restricts any freedom makes you feel worthless and is very depressing. These kind of countries would be Cuba or North Korea. It is a good thing that the government is taking care of us, but at the same time we must be protective of our freedoms

That's how the Germans felt when Hitler took power... Legally... And used his version as Chancellor's 'Executive Order' to post-pone elections due to economic stability, people supported it was so bad at the time. Seriously the only reason we are'nt revolting here is because the FDA helps keep us fat and the Media keeps us entertained, otherwise we'd be putting foot to ass alongside our military in a coup.

that was in the 1900's and the mindset by Hitler clearly was not moral, he wanted domination not the best for the people.

Hitler wanted the best for all of his white, non-jewish people. He had his morals, albeit he did some pretty ****** up things.

seriously? over the course of humanity, 70 years isn't much. I'm sure the germans thought death/concentration camps were a little far-fetched, too. "I mean, come on, its the 1900's! we're much more civilized now! our government would never do that to us."

You are living in a fantasy world. People kill people, it has been the law of history since the beginning of time, it doesn't matter if you outlaw guns, people will continue to kill people. Isn't this what the boston bombings have taught us? Is that people will be ******** via explosives, knives, poisoning, fire. You can outlaw guns, it will not prevent homicidal death across the nation.

The point of keeping guns legal is to give the innocent a way to protect themselves against the resourceful criminal. If a 250 lb burglar who is skilled with using a knife is attacking you, only a citizen of equal strength and skill will be able to combat him. Criminals can find dozens of ways to kill you, whereas your average citizen does not have nearly as many defense mechanisms, except for being able to fire a gun. That's why guns need to stay legal because its a sure way a citizen can know he's protected from any time of psychotic killer

exactly thank you

And Obama wants to take our guns away, the same guns that would help us defend ourselves from his cronies... Putting two and two together yet?

The government has taken over...

that's why they're the government.

The government is a form of representation. We elect people who talk about problems that we can't be bothered to deal with. They are not supposed to ******* take over.

They don't represent us, though. They don't even know who voted for them, so there's no way they're representative.

Take over what exactly?

Governing? I'm pretty sure that's their job.

He probably means "assumes authoritarian control".

I personally believe gun ownership should be legal. But if you honestly believe us having guns will stop the government from taking over, you are seriously diluted. The government has drones, and bombs, and jet planes. Literally hundreds of things that can bring raining hellfire down on any dissenters in the country, and there is nothing a redneck with a hunting rifle can do about it

300,000,000 people could put an end to it. But too many people are willing to be the frog sitting in the slowly-boiling pot.

300,000,000; including elderly, infants, children, immigrants, any and all people who are not fit to own a gun/ or choose not to. Not to mention all the people who do have guns and don't know how to use them, and are very inexperienced. The American population is much weaker than gun nuts like to believe

It's a much better check against government tyranny than a disarmed populace. Look what happened to communist China and Russia, and to fascist Germany. Huge death tolls committed by government against its own people, who were by law disarmed.

You misunderstand me. I support gun ownership, I'm just saying the government could still suppress us through military might nevertheless. Yes it is a better check than being unarmed, but it is still an insignificant check

So it's inevitable? I disagree. And even if it were inevitably to happen, it wouldn't last indefinitely. One side would run out of soldiers, money, and morale before the other ran out of conviction and the desire for freedom.

Again, you are somehow misinterpreting what I am saying. I did not say it was inevitable at all. I don't think it is inevitable, I am merely stating that a authoritarian government police state is plausible.

We're in agreement there. I think here in the US we're getting closer every day.

apples and oranges. They were fighting in a strange country against an unknown enemy. If the government did want to control the masses via a military state, they know the exact strategic features of the land, and no exactly who the target is. The American people.

Government tyranny rarely comes in an all-out war, with the only goal to eliminate all the people. It comes in the form of ever-increasing control over individuals, their property, and their labor. They still need the people to get the money and goods and services to remain in power. That's why a guerilla war is possible.

Yes. But its much harder for the government to decide to start a civil war against armed civilians (even if it would be an extermination) than it would be for them to take away the guns and then point them at us.

dumbass detected!
you realize the government is the people right? its made by the people, for the people and of people

inb4 any grammarnazi

Why would the government start a civil war!? How would that even work!?

"Oh god, the governments attacking! they want to kick out the president and replace him with the president!"

It wouldn't be a civil war, it's oppression. Which calls for rebellion, then it's a civil war. Not arguing

Nono. It was a comment towards the individual who thinks that us having guns wouldnt help against the govt because they have drones, bombs, jets, and whatnot. Its not why they would start. Its not if they will start. Its when it will start.

What the **** does that even mean?

Are you 100% sure you're not confusing the government with Skeletor?

Just to be clear, the government are the people CURRENTLY in charge of taking your money and deciding what you can and can't do without going to jail or being executed, along with a whole load of other stuff like managing city planning and road maintenance. They don't need to take over America, they already control it.

Skeletor is a big evil dude who want's to arbitrarily take over things by killing people for no reason. He also looks like a large muscular skeleton. While you may be a ******* idiot, I can understand you being confused by the oxymoron of a "muscular" skeleton, do not fret, it confuses everyone, I suggest you look him up on google images to get a clearer idea.

Yea, you are seriously missing the point. Government has control of the country (duh) but they do not have control of public opinion, so if they wanted to pursue greedy, relentless self-interest pursuits at the expense of other countries, civillians, and the environment they would need a supressed people to pursue such goals, so they would have to "take over the country" (i.e. the public)

I'm pretty sure the government does all that stuff already.

...Are you really this dumb? Do you just want a debate? Ines that what you want? Because its not going to happen.

I was just telling him WHY the government doesn't attack the civilians with guns.

Actually I must admit I am quite dumb.

I actually assumed you were the OP of this comment thread without checking the usernames.

AWKWAAAAAAARD.

Assume the government didn't want to lay waste to an entire country and would prefer to use the people and land as resources.
Why would they drop nuclear warheads on their own country.
On the other hand certain people would want to become a dictatorial giant with the army walking the streets and killing people who defied them.

That is why I never mentioned nuclear warheads