EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j2ct0av wrote on December 31, 2022 at 7:48 AM

Reply to comment by 17times2 in Man accused of stealing AR-15 from Cincinnati police vehicle by slytherinprolly

But we as individuals, as communities, and as a nation do have to outgun the other guy. What enemy country would you be fine with them having stronger weapons than you?

Why would you want someone to be able to come to your home, and threaten you with so much violence you had no means to resist?

While I agree that it seems odd having police with apc and mini guns, but I realize two things. If I don’t want police to have this stuff, then are they good police? And secondly, if there is someone out there who has this thing, then I should have equal power to defend against it, because I cannot depend on the police or the government to defend my family. I have to do it myself. Ergo, <insert second amendment here>

17times2 t1_j2eo5wj wrote on December 31, 2022 at 6:29 PM

> But we as individuals, as communities, and as a nation do have to outgun the other guy.

Because we as a country use violence as the first response to anything. You want the upper hand when it comes to killing the other person because you're afraid of what they would do if THEY had the upper hand with weaponry, because controlling the other with fear and violence is the only tool you have.

> If I don’t want police to have this stuff, then are they good police?

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying are police even good people if we can't trust them with heavy ordnance? I think people have proved throughout history, time and time again, that people do not do well with power over others.

> And secondly, if there is someone out there who has this thing, then I should have equal power to defend against it, because I cannot depend on the police or the government to defend my family. I have to do it myself. Ergo, <insert second amendment here>

So your reasoning why we should have high powered guns is because the enemy can have high powered guns, and you must always be able to outgun that enemy. However because guns are freely sold in the US, you've basically excused yourself to have any type of gun in the world, because you both allow and demand that others here also have access to those guns. Do you see where the circular logic is coming into play?

I've known a lot of people who insist they need to defend themselves from something. Not once in their lives had their family ever been under attack. Not once in their father's lives had their family been under attack. Not one of their friends had their family come under attack. In no scenario are you engaging someone with a gun. Stop scaring the dick off yourself thinking that highway bandits are stalking your home ready to strike with their assault rifles and grenade launchers.

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j2f05x6 wrote on December 31, 2022 at 7:52 PM

> Because we as a country use violence as the first response to anything. You want the upper hand when it comes to killing the other person because you're afraid of what they would do if THEY had the upper hand with weaponry, because controlling the other with fear and violence is the only tool you have.

violence is a last resort. but it sometimes is necessary. No amount of economical therapy changed russia into a contributing member of the world economy. They are aggressing their neighbor despite us buying their products, and sanctions for the smaller transgressions, and now only violence will stop them. That is just one example.

> I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you saying are police even good people if we can't trust them with heavy ordnance? I think people have proved throughout history, time and time again, that people do not do well with power over others.

Are you suggesting we disarm the police? How do you disarm an armed man? By having more force and violence than them. If you just tell them disarm without being armed yourself, then what weight do your words carry? Now that you have truly decided to disarm them, and have armed yourself to do so, you are the armed person with power over others. Will you somehow disarm yourself? LOL

> So your reasoning why we should have high powered guns is because the enemy can have high powered guns, and you must always be able to outgun that enemy. However because guns are freely sold in the US, you've basically excused yourself to have any type of gun in the world, because you both allow and demand that others here also have access to those guns. Do you see where the circular logic is coming into play?

Sure, if we never had them in the first place, it might be possible to not have them now. They are here. The knowledge to make them is 1000 years old, simple physics, and is spreading as we speak. They will never be truly gone. Every government has them, and every government has used them for evil. That is reason enough alone for every adult to have one.

> I've known a lot of people who insist they need to defend themselves from something. Not once in their lives had their family ever been under attack. Not once in their father's lives had their family been under attack. Not one of their friends had their family come under attack. In no scenario are you engaging someone with a gun. Stop scaring the dick off yourself thinking that highway bandits are stalking your home ready to strike with their assault rifles and grenade launchers.

There's 25 million civilian owned AR 15's in the US alone. Not counting other semi automatic modern sporting rifles, this is nearly 10 times as many military and law enforcement personnel exist. In the last 2 years, we've been on the verge of civil war, world war, and a revolution against the police sparked by george floyd but the protests spread worldwide. We are watching as myanmar gets coup'd, Ukraine gets annexed, Taiwan gets assimilated, and you're trying to tell me, after literal trillions of dollars went to arming Ukrainian citizens, that nobody wants to take what we have in the richest country in the world and i should get rid of my guns? LOL, how can you form your lips to say that?

The supply chain shortages during covid got us a glimpse of what scarcity can cause. Dudes in officewear shoplifting from walmart because times are that hard. Just imagine when the water wars kick off.

17times2 t1_j2f4s65 wrote on December 31, 2022 at 8:25 PM

> Are you suggesting we disarm the police?

I think you need to reread what you quoted. Notice how I'm talking about heavy firepower and you talk about disarming them completely. I guess if cops can't have the biggest caliber weapons, might as well strip them down to fisticuffs, right? 🙄

> Sure, if we never had them in the first place, it might be possible to not have them now.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in every other country that actually tried to do something, rather than throwing up their hands immediately and declaring there's nothing to be done and no point trying.

> In the last 2 years, we've been on the verge of civil war, world war, and a revolution against the police sparked by george floyd but the protests spread worldwide.

The last 25 years have been "on the verge of war". Even before Bush went after the middle east. People have always used that as an excuse. And the George Floyd protests didn't go worldwide. We had people with signs supporting it, but protests were already going on. They just added a name to their signs for a couple of weeks.

A revolution against the police. Fucking lol. How dare they call them out on how much they abuse citizens and demand some form of accountability. And to drive the point home, the cop's response to those protests was overwhelming violence. Even against people completely uninvolved. In what other country do you see the police firing on people in their own house, or driving around in vans taking potshots at regular people walking around? Yeah, can't imagine why people might want these cops to be held to some kind of standard.

> and you're trying to tell me, after literal trillions of dollars went to arming Ukrainian citizens, that nobody wants to take what we have in the richest country in the world and i should get rid of my guns?

Once again, I need to bring this to your attention. You've brought up once again that I want to take guns away from you, even though at no point I've ever once said that. I did ask why cops need to have rifles at all times even though the situation is extremely rare that they're necessary. You took that one thing and then strawmanned the fuck out of it to get upset about something else.

We didn't spend trillions, we spent $68 billion. We spend 1.64 trillion on ourselves. 68 billion? That's barely a footnote. 4% of our budget. And we didn't arm citizens, we armed the government's military. Ukraine has also been in constant turmoil with Russia, whereas we have no active threat to us. At most you're scared of what, a guerilla attack by an extremist group? The most likely extremist you're going to get killed by in the US is an armed white supremacist, according to the FBI and Homeland.

You think any other country that might attack us gives a shit that Joe Blumpkin owns an AR-15? Nah, they give a shit about our nukes, drones, bombs, and air superiority. Don't delude yourself thinking you're going to defend your country with your personal arsenal.

E: A word

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j2fj3u9 wrote on December 31, 2022 at 10:10 PM

>I guess if cops can't have the biggest caliber weapons, might as well strip them down to fisticuffs, right?

Look at how well Mexico's moderately armed police and military are at dealing with the drug cartels we created.

>Doesn't seem to be a problem in every other country that actually tried to do something, rather than throwing up their hands immediately and declaring there's nothing to be done and no point trying.

No other country has ever had the saturation of guns, wealth, and mental health issues as us. The second most armed nation, switzerland was fine with machine guns in every mans home for decades. Hint: it's not the gun.

>The last 25 years have been "on the verge of war". Even before Bush went after the middle east. People have always used that as an excuse. And the George Floyd protests didn't go worldwide. We had people with signs supporting it, but protests were already going on. They just added a name to their signs for a couple of weeks.

Exactly why we need to be armed. You're not going to talk an armed gang out of oppressing you without something to backup your demands. It's like being yelled at by a toddler. Cute, but, this is what's happening.

>A revolution against the police. Fucking lol. How dare they call them out on how much they abuse citizens and demand some form of accountability. And to drive the point home, the cop's response to those protests was overwhelming violence. Even against people completely uninvolved. In what other country do you see the police firing on people in their own house, or driving around in vans taking potshots at regular people walking around? Yeah, can't imagine why people might want these cops to be held to some kind of standard.

Exactly. Those other countries have removed the will to fight from their people so well, that they are practically defenseless. It was less than a lifetime ago when Hitler took over all of Europe. I do not subscribe to their idea of security.

>Once again, I need to bring this to your attention. You've brought up once again that I want to take guns away from you, even though at no point I've ever once said that. I did ask why cops need to have rifles at all times even though the situation is extremely rare that they're necessary. You took that one thing and then strawmanned the fuck out of it to get upset about something else.

Same reason I need heavy artillery in my backyard. I'd rather have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Again, see Ukraine.

>We didn't spend trillions, we spent $68 billion. We spend 1.64 trillion on ourselves. 68 billion? That's barely a footnote. 4% of our budget. And we didn't arm citizens, we armed the government's military. Ukraine has also been in constant turmoil with Russia, whereas we have no active threat to us. At most you're scared of what, a guerilla attack by an extremist group? The most likely extremist you're going to get killed by in the US is an armed white supremacist, according to the FBI and Homeland.
>
>You think any other country that might attack us gives a shit that Joe Blumpkin owns an AR-15? Nah, they give a shit about our nukes, drones, bombs, and air superiority. Don't delude yourself thinking you're going to defend your country with your personal arsenal.

4% of our budget because a potential ally is fighting one of our oldest enemies. You're saying they're only arming the military, but they prevented males from leaving the country and conscripted them at the beginning of this war, before they had enough small arms to arm them. We were sending rifles at the beginning. I'm saying that if they had them in the first place, Russia probably wouldn't have even tried it. If they still did try it, Mariupol wouldn't be a fucking mass grave of innocent civilians right now. You don't round up 100,000 armed people if all you have is broken AK's.

All Afghanistan had AK's and jeeps. The taliban held off a 20 year war from the world's premier military. Yes an armed population can defeat tyranny from any source, foreign or domestic. The citizens always outnumber the military. If they could only recognize the power of the third box, we could actually fix the world.

"A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box." Frederick Douglass

Speaking of which, I am a black man. I know damn well the most likely extremist I'd be killed by is a white supremacist. So... if they come, the firepower will be equal.