We need guns so we can fight the government

>we need guns so we can fight the government
In theory, that might work. In reality, guns just give people the illusion of freedom. Gun owners will tolerate any amount of tyranny as long as they get to keep their guns. "Keep the guns. Just give us the freedom," is a very effective sales pitch for politicians.

Look at venezuela. That's what happens when only one side has all of the guns

If the people are too cowardly or too complacent to use guns, then the effect is the same as if they did not have them.

Plastic rifles. Plumbing SMGs. 3D printing.
Supplies arise to meet demand!
Be careful with whom you deem your interests to lie!

>In theory, that might work. In reality, guns just give people the illusion of freedom. Gun owners will tolerate any amount of tyranny as long as they get to keep their guns. "Keep the guns. Just give us the freedom," is a very effective sales pitch for politicians.
>>>
> Anonymous (ID: LvRJLXfN) 08/12/17(Sat)09:12:41 No.137084906▶
> (OP)
>Look at Venezuela. That's what happens when only one side has all of the guns

what is america, but one big illusion. It's an illusion against the establishment, which helps the people, which is the entire point.

All dictators take the citizens rights of owning guns when the first come in. It's for a reason. It adds another layer of a paralyzed public that fully rely/turn to government for protection.

There's no lack of supply in weapons. Tens of millions of Americans own them. ARs are dime a dozen. The will to use them simply isn't there.

I agree OP, I think guns are necessary for liberty, but look at the state of America, every single person in the US is spied on, but they're happy because they've got guns. If the guns-for-freedom types gave a fuck, they'd be dying in the streets, but then I can't talk because I shoot all the time and live in the biggest surveillance state on the planet..

Third world dictators rule by force. First world dictators rule by deceit, which is just as bad. The state uses propaganda and aesthetics to reinforce conformity to their authority.

>Gun owners will tolerate any amount of tyranny as long as they get to keep their guns.
actually we'll tolerate most tyranny until it becomes so bad that we cant eat. or if they try to take our guns.

>but they're happy because they've got guns. If the guns-for-freedom types gave a fuck, they'd be dying in the streets
nope it just hasn't gotten bad enough for us to actually rise up yet. we need to have guns for when it inevitably gets much worse. you haven't seen anything compared to full blown economic crisis and civil unrest

People, gun owners or otherwise, are not in the street because things aren't that bad. Most people can get along with the surveillance state and reduced liberty because it doesn't ruin their day. Armed citizens oblige the government to a frog boiling strategy that keeps the nation stable and the people comfortable. That's the point btw, a national deal to make sure nothing changes too fast lest civil war/revolution break out. You might not like where we are or where we're going, but they can't make America into Venezuela redux in your lifetime.

The whole argument of
>the gun owners should have revolted long ago - but still haven't
Is pretty fucking stupid. The person who fires the first shot will ALWAYS be vilified, and you know what happens when gun owners become the villains(more so that they're already made out to be) we lose more ground in out 2A rights, or lose our funs altogether. So until the government starts actively fucking us in the ass, we'll probably continue to tolerate their bullshit, much like every other civilized person would.

>inb4 the drones and tanks meme

>nope it just hasn't gotten bad enough for us to actually rise up yet
And it never will. Human beings have a remarkable ability to accept truly awful situations as normal. Consider the fact that even Stalin had massive popular support. Even many years after his death, old people in Russia still looked back on the Stalin days with nostalgia.
>People, gun owners or otherwise, are not in the street because things aren't that bad
It's "not that bad" if your idea of a good life is having plenty of bread and circuses, both of which are in abundance in America. The state of civil liberties and political freedom is utterly dismal.
>The person who fires the first shot will ALWAYS be vilified
Unless you win. Might makes right when it comes to government.
>until the government starts actively fucking us in the ass,
They have for 200 years.

Just like that time the federal government encroached on some texmex's land and the government steam rolled him instead of having to fight long and costly legal battles because a bunch of gun owners never showed up to make the feds back down from their strongarm strategy.

OH WAIT, Bundy Ranch DID happen.

This is true.
However, guns are also useful for self-defense.

We need guns to preserve a necessary distribution of power, which is absolutely required for authoritarian pricks to afford us any liberties whatsoever.

>government starts actively fucking us in the ass
What exactly do you mean by this? Can you give an example of a government action which you consider "hard fucking in ass".

>They have for 200 years
Still nothing that would justify the means in the publics eye. There have been single instances of government overstepping their bounds, some with consequences, but it's never been more than a tit-for-tat. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy ranch, ect. You won't see a full on revolt until our military starts going door to door and snatching people from their homes across the nation.

See above

Well, in fact, what you advanced is also a theory.
Fuck off pleb it's not because you feel really strongly about something that it's true.

We don't get torch marches in Canada.
Fucking pleb.

>Bundy Ranch
You need to read the real history of what actually happened. The Bundy standoff was hardly a victory for the defenders. Cliven Bundy and 18 others were indicted on federal felonies. The government isn't going to let you defy them once and get away with it. That would set a bad example. They only way you beat the government is by totally destroying it and replacing it with a new system.
Self defense against criminals is a perfectly legitimate use of a weapon, but don't confuse that with the "guns as freedom" issue.
Necessary, but not sufficient.
>You won't see a full on revolt until our military starts going door to door and snatching people from their homes across the nation.
Actually, there was a time when there was a full revolt against an American military dictator whose troops went door to door terrorizing citizens.
>Well, in fact, what you advanced is also a theory.
Like gravity.

My point is that there's no clear indicator of what you're claiming.
The right to have weapon according to everything we know increases the national sentiment.
As the individuals feel like their have a certain weight over the state force.
You kept it to 1 variable = direct complacency from not feeling without any means. Though you do not consider the impact that gun ownership by itself has on patriotism.

>Actually, there was a time when there was a full revolt against an American military dictator whose troops went door to door terrorizing citizens
Early 1900's and prior rebellions hold no relevance in todays political climate.

That's probably true, but it only proves my point further. Yesteryear's rebellions aren't relevant to today's political climate precisely because Americans today lack the backbone of our ancestors. We have the means, but not the will.