TLS c/o 2020 - In #Squad We Trust Forum

[chargers21]

.

[Gitaroo_Dude]

Also, if anything I would think the last few decades have shown that you don't need to match a major military's tech in order to resist.

[amta]

Also, if anything I would think the last few decades have shown that you don't need to match a major military's tech in order to resist.

#syria

[chargers21]

.

[amta]

My usual is just 6+1 and I carry a spare mag, but my full size is 17+1

jelly y'all. jelly. i live in a won't issue city, in a may issue county. have to wait till i move for LS to get my CCW.

[R. Jeeves]

i think it is immoral to reproduce

that is my hot take tyvm

[luckyirish13]

I'm not sure about this. Do people have an inherent right to own chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons?

i mean, i have a very lockean conception of government by tacit consent and right to revolution. i think citizens have a right to any weaponry the government posses, which i understand is unrealistic, but i'm speaking theoretically. high capacity magazines and armalite rifles are just practical applications of that theory.

+1

On the government waging war against me thing, I would say that if they were willing to do that to their citizens, I would be willing to be squashed like the puny bug I am standing up to them. I wouldn't want to live under that kind of tyranny

But that tells me the point of owning guns is not actually to protect ourselves against government tyranny, because the guns wouldn't even work for that. I do think that guns are generally positive, but they're for fun, or for protection against individual threats, not to fend off a tyrannical power. Unless you're comfortable with all citizens having the ability to possess chemical weapons, biological weapons, and any other weapons of war the government has (and honestly I'm not comfortable with that even though I am mostly libertarian) there is no way the citizens would actually be able to fend off a tyrannical government due to it's significant technological advancement. Even if you are comfortable with citizens possessing biological weapons, just the inherent risk of an unsecured weapon to public safety might be more dangerous than the threat of a tyrannical government. Either way, there's no winning here. Maybe in 1776 the point of letting people have guns was to protect against government, but if we make that argument today, it doesn't lead anywhere positive.

[chargers21]

.

[amta]

yeah man. im gonna carry a glock 19. i am not a fan of single-stack sub-compacts, so i doubt id ever go much smaller than the 19.

[chargers21]

.

[twiix]

I'm not sure about this. Do people have an inherent right to own chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons?

i mean, i have a very lockean conception of government by tacit consent and right to revolution. i think citizens have a right to any weaponry the government posses, which i understand is unrealistic, but i'm speaking theoretically. high capacity magazines and armalite rifles are just practical applications of that theory.

+1

On the government waging war against me thing, I would say that if they were willing to do that to their citizens, I would be willing to be squashed like the puny bug I am standing up to them. I wouldn't want to live under that kind of tyranny

But that tells me the point of owning guns is not actually to protect ourselves against government tyranny, because the guns wouldn't even work for that. I do think that guns are generally positive, but they're for fun, or for protection against individual threats, not to fend off a tyrannical power. Unless you're comfortable with all citizens having the ability to possess chemical weapons, biological weapons, and any other weapons of war the government has (and honestly I'm not comfortable with that even though I am mostly libertarian) there is no way the citizens would actually be able to fend off a tyrannical government due to it's significant technological advancement. Even if you are comfortable with citizens possessing biological weapons, just the inherent risk of an unsecured weapon to public safety might be more dangerous than the threat of a tyrannical government. Either way, there's no winning here. Maybe in 1776 the point of letting people have guns was to protect against government, but if we make that argument today, it doesn't lead anywhere positive.

The only way that guns would prove ineffective against your own government is if they were effectively starting a genocide of everyone. They can't/won't bomb, nuke, gas, fighter pilot machine gunner mounted in a helicopter, driver over with tank, etc. to every single citizen in the country. The only way things could logically play out is how they have for the last hundreds of years. Yes, you can bomb a huge city.. but there will be foot soldiers holding barricades and what not to lock cities off from supplies before they ever nuke somewhere. This is where guns matter.

[amta]

But that tells me the point of owning guns is not actually to protect ourselves against government tyranny, because the guns wouldn't even work for that. I do think that guns are generally positive, but they're for fun, or for protection against individual threats, not to fend off a tyrannical power. Unless you're comfortable with all citizens having the ability to possess chemical weapons, biological weapons, and any other weapons of war the government has (and honestly I'm not comfortable with that even though I am mostly libertarian) there is no way the citizens would actually be able to fend off a tyrannical government due to it's significant technological advancement. Even if you are comfortable with citizens possessing biological weapons, just the inherent risk of an unsecured weapon to public safety might be more dangerous than the threat of a tyrannical government. Either way, there's no winning here. Maybe in 1776 the point of letting people have guns was to protect against government, but if we make that argument today, it doesn't lead anywhere positive.

I think the ability to fend off traditional warfare is at least justified

yeah, i def don't buy the "it be dangerous to have it all, so you might as well not have any." argument. nor do i buy the "it'd be too hard to defend against advanced tech weaponry, so we should just dispense with the idea that we could oppose a tyrannical gov't with force." argument. #blessup though fam, i won't save room in my bunker for you.

[shotgunheist]

I'm not sure about this. Do people have an inherent right to own chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons?

i mean, i have a very lockean conception of government by tacit consent and right to revolution. i think citizens have a right to any weaponry the government posses, which i understand is unrealistic, but i'm speaking theoretically. high capacity magazines and armalite rifles are just practical applications of that theory.

Good point. Usually I say there isn't a right to weapons but a right to defend oneself first, which gives you weapons, which makes me usually suggest things like pistols and not fully automatic barrel guns. But this is a great point I often overlook, if the government becomes an enemy.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

I don't have 30 round mags for hunting. I have 30 round mags for the same reason the government does

So what exactly is your plan in the event that the government suddenly declares war on you? Do you also have an arsenal of tanks, bombers, drones, heavy artillery, stealth fighters, etc., and highly trained operatives?

I'm pretty pro gun control, but this argument was always facile to me.

It presupposes that no war has ever been won by the technologically outmatched opponent, and that's just not true. That's to say nothing of the fact that US gov't would most likely not immediately jump to full military might in the event of a resistance. If that's the case then we shouldn't care about anything because they have nukes.

[poptart123]

yeah man. im gonna carry a glock 19. i am not a fan of single-stack sub-compacts, so i doubt id ever go much smaller than the 19.

Carry it on campus! There is a bill in the TX Leg right now to get rid of concealed carried permits altogether and let anybody of age with certain qualifications do it without the license.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/guns/20 ... l-debating

[twiix]

I don't have 30 round mags for hunting. I have 30 round mags for the same reason the government does

So what exactly is your plan in the event that the government suddenly declares war on you? Do you also have an arsenal of tanks, bombers, drones, heavy artillery, stealth fighters, etc., and highly trained operatives?

I'm pretty pro gun control, but this argument was always facile to me.

It presupposes that no war has ever been won by the technologically outmatched opponent, and that's just not true. That's to say nothing of the fact that US gov't would most likely not immediately jump to full military might in the event of a resistance. If that's the case then we shouldn't care about anything because they have nukes.

something, something, American Revolution..

I think we'll find ourselves repeating history at some point, except instead of the british it'll be against ourselves.

[Stephylynette]

Warned ya'll I was gonna start some shit to farm those posts

speaking of starting shit, what the fuck is up with your spelling of y'all dude

Asking the important question. Only Feds spell y'all like that

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Warned ya'll I was gonna start some shit to farm those posts

speaking of starting shit, what the fuck is up with your spelling of y'all dude

Asking the important question. Only Feds spell y'all like that

I conceded before I was buried by a mountain of gun control debate

[amta]

something, something, American Revolution..

I think we'll find ourselves repeating history at some point, except instead of the british it'll be against ourselves.

[youtube]tAAuIpqicMc[/youtube]

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Speaking of Lockean views of government, any atheists here who take a lockean view of nature (and by extension of government?)

I'm only agnostic and I can't imagine anything shot of the super-natural keeping people peaceful the way he describes.

E: Also, anyone here take a non hobbes/Locke view of nature? I don't think I've ever met someone who was say Montesquieuan

[Stephylynette]

Warned ya'll I was gonna start some shit to farm those posts

speaking of starting shit, what the fuck is up with your spelling of y'all dude

Asking the important question. Only Feds spell y'all like that

I conceded before I was buried by a mountain of gun control debate

Yeah I witnessed your defeat after I posted this. Im glad you conceded we can now go back to bonding over our liberal ideologies

[chargers21]

.

[Gitaroo_Dude]

Now that I think about it, can anyone point to examples of a post WW2 super power's military successfully defeating a large scale insurgency/winning a war of attrition? Only one that comes to mind is Russia essentially leveling Chechnya, but maybe there are others?

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Speaking of Lockean views of government, any atheists here who take a lockean view of nature (and by extension of government?)

I'm only agnostic and I can't imagine anything shot of the super-natural keeping people peaceful the way he describes.

E: Also, anyone here take a non hobbes/Locke view of nature? I don't think I've ever met someone who was say Montesquieuan

I haven't extensively read any of Locke's work, could you summarize the Lockean view of nature?

From what I remember (someone who follows Locke will have a better understanding); absent any groups or "proto-governments" people

"order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature."

He goes on to say that reason is the law of nature and what binds humans together. When written it was deeply rooted in English Christianity and as I learned it, reason was imbued in all of us through God.

It's the most popular libertarian view on the state of nature, because in holds that Governments are not very necessary and that human beings will naturally trend towards peaceful coexistence

[ashrice13]

i think it is immoral to reproduce

that is my hot take tyvm

+1