In the context of the 18th century perhaps, but I think you’d agree the US military has grown in size and capability a bit since then.

The irony being, who’s usually all for massive military spending…

Spike may be generally out of touch but this is a pretty solid gotcha.

I'm blundering into the middle of a conversation here, but some thoughts:


To me it's pretty obvious, but at the same time, I don't think I could convince anyone who thinks otherwise, so I'm content to leave it at that.

If I've backed away into the hedges, it's because I don't think it's generally a good idea to go online and say "yeah shooting government officials totally works". For many reasons. I don't know what freak might read this.

But I also think when people think about the armed populace vs. the state, they envision traditional military battles, complete with battle lines, total war, etc. That sounds very far fetched to me. An armed resistance can be much more limited and chaotic. Propaganda efforts would be extremely difficult for the state to manage as well when your neighbor's head gets blown into your yard by a drone strike. Then there is military and police morale, saboteurs, goldbrickers...

There are also examples where armed resistance has cowed the US government into backing off, and in situations where they didn't - like Ruby Ridge or Waco - their legitimacy in the eyes of many (including myself) was utterly destroyed. Multiply that a few times, and real revolt, or just change through legal means, might become a lot more probable.


I wouldn't say people should be allowed to have them. I would say that no one has the moral authority to prevent me from owning one, especially the state. Again, the state doesn't grant rights, and one doesn't need to offer a reason or justification to own something. But what about nutjobs? We have to kinda step out of the rights system our society is based on to deal with them...

Also, if the state is completely immune to the people it rules over, I would think that would raise some red flags in the minds of most people, but I am eternally disappointed.

Good stuff, Burt. Thanks for weighing in.

I know I was mocked for bringing this up way-back-when, but quick reminder:

Market Caps:

Smith and Wesson $1.26B
Vista $1.67B
Strum $1.12B
Remington >$700M

The rest are privately held and much smaller... not ironically the majority of their revenue comes from DoD sales, so at any point the feds could force them to choose between them and public sales without worrying about party lines or the gun lobby.

Alternatively, Gates/Musk/Bezos or one of these "ESG" funds could buy them out, shut them down, and save thousands of lives.


We are consciously choosing not to do the easy things to address this.

You're not blundering into it, Burt. You posted a gif of people laughing at the idea that AR-armed people (alone) can't topple the full force of the US Military. Then Mac went off. And as so often happens, the 2nd man in has taken the brunt of the flack despite the real instigating post.

Now, as far as "permission to own ARs":

On the one hand we're discussing why someone would want to own them, to which "fun" and "defense against tyranny" were the offered reasons.

On the other hand is your point, "it doesn't matter why." I'm choosing not to go down that road because it's a different conversation and one I don't feel knowledgeable enough to consider a response. I'll defer to others (if they want) and listen in on that episode.

In specifically talking about why we should all indulge your (or anyone's) desire to own one of these killing machines, is it really worth the risk that "nutjobs" will get them? And by "get them" I mostly mean "so easily", because as you say, it's your stated position that it shouldn't matter if you (or anyone) has them. I'd say it's reasonable to say you can have "if." Or, you can have after providing "x, y, z." We (meaning persons like me that can't fathom owning these things) would like you (meaning persons who want as many of these as they can afford) to have a little more accountability for this choice. It appears to me (and I assume others) that the risk is all on us for not owning our own. I wonder if we could shift it to put more of the risk being on your side (of the argument).

100%. Thanks!

Let the billionaires decide what's right doesn't seem like an ideal plan.

I mean that I've read pretty much none of the replies before or after those posts I made, so I have little idea what people are talking about. I'm not super motivated to change that.

But that's just it, Mac had no explanation for how a civilian revolution would overtake the US gov (were it to be considered tyrannical of course, which it isn't by anyone on RM, Mr. Glowbot reading along). Which seemed to crumble the idea that these things are necessary in our communities to "prevent tyranny." To which I'm still waiting for an actual response to this point. It's not a valid reason bc it's not true. ARs among civilians will not prevent tyranny. And, conversely a lack of ARs will not inspire a totalitarian state in the USA.

I hate to agree with Burt (why are you people always making me do this?!) but like, c'mon y'all. When was the time there was a successful ground operation by the US military against a dug in local population? Are the Ukrainians not currently holding onto major urban areas with just a bunch of dudes with AKs against a powerful modern army? Twenty dipshits try to take over a national park lodge and they get murked, sure, and I don't think this is a good argument for lax gun regulations, but it's very easy to imagine a less atomized regional movement (something like the Donbas separatists) holding off the US military, maybe indefinitely.

For the record, I don't think it should be so easy for nutjobs to get them, and I think there are a lot of ways to prevent that, and I think the NRA's intransigence on that is sociopathic and probably self-defeating. I haven't followed the stories closely, but it sounds like both the Buffalo and Texas shooters were known to be problems (to say the least)? That would more than justify taking their ability to get guns away.

That said, I wouldn't be for a blanket ban either. It seems that there is a lot of middle ground to be had here.

I'm not sure what risks you think I should take on here. And what responsibility you take on for your own defense is up to you I suppose. But I wouldn't rely on the state to do it for you, and I'm clearly not a fan of people using the state to force me to do anything.

Despite me saying I wouldnt bother, I did offer a rough explanation of why it's possible. Take it or leave it!

Thank you.

I've not called for a ban. I've called for scrutiny/regulation/accountability for these things to be someone's property.

Mickey, Ukraine is not alone. They are not just using AKs, and Donbas seperatists were not alone in their fight against the Ukrainian state.

This has been my point all along. It's not that private gun owners are holding off the tyranny of Putin, it's a proxy war between many states. Which is what would happen here if the US gov. decided it wanted more (explicit) control.

Sorry, do you think a proxy war could never happen in the US? Because I definitely don't think that, but it's a lot harder to have a proxy war if the proxies don't have their own weapons.

Congratulations, you re-invented fascism.

This is a perfect template for a technocratic dystopia where the powers that be decide for the sake of Gaia, cars and single family homes just can't be owned by individuals anymore.

This also seems to give credence to the idea that the NRA/ 'Gun Lobby' drives demand and independent machine shops wouldn't step in to fill organic demand.

Unless you get congress to radically redefine firearm definitions, home built guns will continue to (legally) proliferate. Gun control is dead.

You’re right. Whoever reads this might be stupid enough to think that violence against officials daunts the ruling class, rather than being the one thing that unites them all against you.


Adorable.


When specifically has armed citizen resistance cowed the US government into backing off where the US government itself was at stake?


“Should we drone the violent insurgents, sir?”
“Are you mad, Bennington? Our legitimacy in the eyes of many including internet user Burt Reynolds is at stake.”



Armed violence against the state has a much, much harder ceiling of support than you are pretending here.





I think if a Bill Gates did this, the paranoid conspiracy reaction would be electric. But it is amazing to consider the difference between the amount of adoration and attention billionaires like Bezos and Musk crave, versus how they try to get it. There are so many topics out there where 90% of people agree about the best case end state, but we as a society are unable to navigate a path there politically…the environment, assault weapons, mental health care, homelessness, education, etc. That so many billionaires instead think “maybe if I bought a media company I’d be cool“ is a real kick in the nuts to the idea that they might ever be a source of public good, left to their own devices.


In point of fact, we’re not interested in doing anything. Outside of a few select individuals, the Democratic Party is content to not push the issue and count on it as a voting tool. Republicans have a whole wing of their party that is increasingly fetishistic about weaponry, and it is the same wing that is actively primary more centric figures. Who knows what an assault weapons ban, major expansion of background checks, or ammunition regulation would do.

Just two parties of power players, playing for power. And some time in the next few days, something will happen somewhere that takes our attention away from this. A different thread will rise to the top of the forum. A different argument will claim all the urgency. We will move on.

Shortly after (and all too soon), a bunch of children will be shot to death. Their desperate classmates will cover themselves in blood in a bid to survive a day of school, their parents will wait long into the night for confirmation of their death, and this will start all over.

They are already pretty much united, and anyway that doesn't necessarily make revolt impossible. The French aristocracy was mostly united in not wanting to get their heads chopped off, too.




I wasn't talking exclusively about instances where the US government's existence was at stake. What I mean to say here is that there are instances where armed people prevented government action, or at least required a cost it had to pay.


The state requires the legitimacy to rule. It can't get by only with tanks and drones. This was a ridiculous reply.



You might be surprised!

You'll own nothing and be happy.