(02-22-2021, 07:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah...nope. Not going to happen.

I should clarify. Not going to happen because leftists would be against it, those right of center would be against it, and with the number of firearms already in civilian hands there is no way to effectively capture them all.

(02-22-2021, 08:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a few problems with a registry.  One, it is currently against the law.  Two, you'll see mass non-compliance.  People will, correctly IMO, see a registry as a tool for later confiscation efforts.  They won't register their firearms.  The problem is the Dems have lied about their intent on guns so often that no one believes a thing they say on the subject now. 

(02-22-2021, 07:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A gun confiscation law wouldn't be constitutional.

(02-22-2021, 10:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They would let militia member keep theirs.

(02-22-2021, 09:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would all these people be against it?

And it doesn't matter how many are out there if owning one without registration is illegal.  Most gunowners would not chose to becoem criminals by refusing to register their guns.

(02-23-2021, 08:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because it is seen as a slippery slope. There is a large proportion of firearm owners, Fudds included, that see civilian ownership of firearms as a protective barrier against a tyrannical government. The government knowing who has what firearms is a threat to that barrier. They don't trust the government with that information, and I don't disagree with them on that point. An armed populous is a bulwark, and it's something that both the right and left agree on (I'm talking actual leftists, not the centrists that are the Democratic party).

(02-23-2021, 09:16 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is kind of off-topic, but it's a fantasy to think civilians with rifles and small arms can put up any resistance to this government and the military weapons we have today. It made a ton of sense at the time, but they never could have dreamed of the weapons we'd possess today. This is where people will point to tribal resistance in other countries, but the reality is that tracking foreign terrorists is much harder than finding U.S. citizens on our own grid. If it was a true resistance they would launch aerial assassinations via drone strikes and with the NSA ability to track comms, especially those on U.S. backbones, people would be found almost instantaneously. 

There are reasons to own guns, but the fantasy of checking a government that possesses weapons that can vaporize millions of people in seconds isn't one of them. Of all the arguments I think that is actually the weakest today. 

(02-23-2021, 09:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is all working under the assumption that the military and LEO communities would be on the side of the tyrannical government. There would be a split that would greatly reduce the effectiveness of our military and intelligence communities.

(02-23-2021, 09:33 AM)Au165 Wrote: Ehh, I mean you have to work on the assumption that any such resistance wouldn't be needed unless they had the majority of the forces on the government side. If the Government didn't have most of the forces it wouldn't be in a position to make any such moves that would require resistance. Even still, if the numbers were depleted as such you'd have a tyrannical government in desperation mode and the level of weapons available (the most sophisticated in the world) to deploy would become more lethal. Hell, even high altitude EMP's could cripple the country in a day making resistance communication and movement nearly impossible. 

Just saying, it is more fantasy than practicality. 

(02-23-2021, 08:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A militia is typically an ad-hoc organization made up of the citizenry.

Also, Heller established the individual right to own firearms, and we aren't going to see that precedent overturned any time in the near future.


Because it is seen as a slippery slope. There is a large proportion of firearm owners, Fudds included, that see civilian ownership of firearms as a protective barrier against a tyrannical government. The government knowing who has what firearms is a threat to that barrier. They don't trust the government with that information, and I don't disagree with them on that point. An armed populous is a bulwark, and it's something that both the right and left agree on (I'm talking actual leftists, not the centrists that are the Democratic party).

(02-23-2021, 09:16 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is kind of off-topic, but it's a fantasy to think civilians with rifles and small arms can put up any resistance to this government and the military weapons we have today.

(02-23-2021, 08:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A militia is typically an ad-hoc organization made up of the citizenry.

Also, Heller established the individual right to own firearms, and we aren't going to see that precedent overturned any time in the near future.

Quote:Because it is seen as a slippery slope. There is a large proportion of firearm owners, Fudds included, that see civilian ownership of firearms as a protective barrier against a tyrannical government. The government knowing who has what firearms is a threat to that barrier. They don't trust the government with that information, and I don't disagree with them on that point. An armed populous is a bulwark, and it's something that both the right and left agree on (I'm talking actual leftists, not the centrists that are the Democratic party).

(02-23-2021, 09:16 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is kind of off-topic, but it's a fantasy to think civilians with rifles and small arms can put up any resistance to this government and the military weapons we have today. It made a ton of sense at the time, but they never could have dreamed of the weapons we'd possess today. This is where people will point to tribal resistance in other countries, but the reality is that tracking foreign terrorists is much harder than finding U.S. citizens on our own grid. If it was a true resistance they would launch aerial assassinations via drone strikes and with the NSA ability to track comms, especially those on U.S. backbones, people would be found almost instantaneously. 

The other issue here is most resistances have to be supported by a foreign state to have any chance at success. Who is going to support a U.S.-based one that such a resistance would accept help from? The only ones that could really provide tech that would make a difference are China and Russia, two places that you'd have to assume this hypothetical resistance would not accept help from.

There are reasons to own guns, but the fantasy of checking a government that possesses weapons that can vaporize millions of people in seconds isn't one of them. Of all the arguments I think that is actually the weakest today. 

(02-23-2021, 10:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: AS another aside I was listening to some stuff about the mob on 1/6 and I got to thinking that they finally got their chance to "overthrow" the government that they didn't believe was legitimate (thanks to Trump's lying) and after a hour or so they gave up and left.

So much for that theory.

(02-23-2021, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, no offense to you, but it honestly hurts my head when people make this statement because it is so wholly grounded in ignorance of actual conflict that it's maddening.  As Bel already correctly pointed out, if this schism, god forbid, ever happened a sizeable amount of the military and police would be on the side of the "rebels".  But this also ignores a basic fact of warfare.  In order to have a country you have to have infrastructure.  In order to hold territory and maintain that infrastructure you need boots on the ground.  A tank cannot stand at a crossroads and check papers.  A drone can't kick in the door to a residence and search it.  To occupy territory you need troops, and troops are as susceptible to bullets as a civilian.  What you're advocating above would be Washington D.C. surrounded by a pile of rubble and nuclear wastelands, because that's the only scenario in which this overwhelming firepower is applicable in a civil war.

(02-23-2021, 12:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: Ugh, no offense to you, but your reply hurts my head and is grounded in ignorance of actual new age conflict. The difference in capability would require a MASSIVE defection of troops, somewhere around 60-70%, not simply sizeable. As mentioned, in most resistances we have seen in a common era the resistance was supported by other nations and in this proposal, I don't see any acceptance of aid from China or Russia. With that lack of backing your strategically disadvantaged in a way, almost no other modern era resistance has ever been disadvantaged.

The technical advantage of the weaponry possed by the state makes this really a nonstarter. The fact you can vaporize people doesn't mean you need to only that you can. Like is the playbook here you go after the ability to organize first so the government would take down coms, but as I mentioned they could also use HEMP to not only take out standard coms but also wipe out unshielded short-range radios. Along with wiping out coms, you would disable a large majority of vehicles making movement by land nearly impossible. Since the government holds a MASSIVE air superiority position now, they would move troops through the air while using their sophisticated radar technologies to ensure anything that went up that wasn't government came down near instantaneously.

At this point the easiest way to end it is to take out leadership, we see the same thing in our missions abroad. This is where you will start seeing targeted drone strikes. With satellite imaging that can literally see people in buildings now, and with no way to communicate and warn other leaders around the country, they will be picked off one by one until the snake is dead without its head. Small infantry units in heavily armored vehicles can then sweep resistance areas and clear out as needed, but most will fold quickly with no power and organization.

Again, resistance is a fantasy. The technological edge that the United States has in most confrontations is massive but one in it's own country on its own infrastructure makes it even more insurmountable. What was the last rebellion that was successful that did not have support or backing from a foreign super power?

(02-23-2021, 12:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your take is 100% erroneous.  We clearly won't see eye to eye on this, so no need to discuss it further.  I'm sure the Taliban will be sad to hear your argument though, they're clearly doomed.

(02-23-2021, 12:55 PM)Au165 Wrote: We propped up the Mujahdien who eventually splintered into the Taliban. They relied on our RPG's to neutralize the Soviet's air superiority (where you getting those here?)

Quote:and then used stockpiles of arms to help them overthrow a war-torn government a few years later. While it's fun to think this situation is anything similar, especially considering Afghanistan's government even before wasn't even comparable to a large state here, then that's cool you are right we won't see eye to eye.

(02-23-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: RPG's to take out aircraft?  You mean Stinger's, which are a shoulder fired missile, not a rocket.  Not exactly bolstering your expertise on this subject here.


Who's propping up the current Taliban?  There must be a reason you ignored the point I was actually making, right?  Because I clearly wasn't talking about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

(02-23-2021, 01:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think we are about to see a major shift in gun control laws.

Back in the 90's when murder and gun violence was twice as bad as it is now most of the killers were inner city gangs. But now we are starting to see these alt-right organizations storming the U.S. Capitol, and making plans to kidnap Governors. They are building a security wall around the Kentucky Governors mansion after a pro-gun crowd surrounded it last year.

Both lawmakers and citizens will take a much different view of gun control when the threat is to all of them instead of just inner city gang members. Guns appear to be a bigger THREAT to our government than a protection against it.