Not American, but isn't it also a misconception that most Americans have guns? I thought some Americans have a lot of guns, but most don't have a gun at all.
I assume Texas is Texas, but I doubt it's that different.
This is true. There are a lot of guns, but a good chunk of gun owners own more than one firearm so the "average" is skewed. Look at the ones that have massive collections or the preppers for instance. Some owner collections have dozens or even hundreds of firearms.
There's also the clear assumption the OP photo makes that all of those owners are conservative and willing to fight for Texas. I have quite a few friends with firearms, on both sides of the aisle. In fact, most of the gun owners I know personally are Democrats. None of them would ever do anything to help Texas.
I am pretty hard left. Come from a family that leans to the left. I own probably 30 ish guns. Never bought a single one. Comes from parents, grandparents, great grandparents. Father in law. Everytime a family member passes away I have to buy a bigger gun safe. My side of the family was hunters, wife's dad was a collector. They were like logos for him, he was always cleaning or fixing up a project gun. That being said, Texas can suck my balls. Just hoping my retarded, conservative, Mexico bordering state doesn't get involved.
Either way, all these gravy seals can pretend to be tough, but no American is going to shoot another American (on a large scale) over this bs. It's all politics and bull shit. They talk all tough, but are they willing to shoot at the military people they love so much wearing Kevlar and all the other latest technology with their AR they just got out of pawn over some brown people coming from Mexico? Do they think Joe Biden himself will be on the battle field? No, it will be a bunch of 20 year old American kids they are shooting at.
They went from telling everyone they should "just comply" and hero-worshipping the police to beating and crushing cops on Jan 6. I don't put anything past the hopefully small number of freaks that will actually show up.
I am a gun owner with more than 5 guns locked away in my basement safe. One of those "these people need protection when escorted to the health clinic because the right wing nut jobs are trying to block access and the pigs won't do anything about it because some of them joined" kind of people, who will happily use every ounce of legal force I can bear to ensure they aren't stopped by mouth breathers who don't understand that they don't have any rights over a woman's body.
Of the people I know well enough to know their gun owning status, I'd say less than half own guns. But the half that do almost all own more than one. Mostly in .22LR (small caliber) for "plinking" (shooting small objects/targets for fun at a range or range-like area of your property) but most of the ones that aren't are for hunting. Maybe 5 or 6 people have an ar-15, and the ones I've seen are set up for medium range target shooting.
Now I am certainly biased in who I know, because I do not willingly associate with "peppers" (it's always guns and cans of beans in a basement, never anything else) or right wing assholes. None of the people I associate with would even strike you as gun owners, because they don't look the part, don't drive lifted pickups, don't wear oakleys/aviators backwards with a punisher skill thin blue line shirt and camo cargo shorts on. (generalization but you know the type)
They're very much the "those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable" kind of people.
Now from my younger years, being hauled in to church every week, I'd say it still holds true for that area at that time, under 50% but they own multiples.
So it's less "everyone owns tons of guns" and more "the under half that own guns own more than 2" I guess.
(Also not American) The numbers in this tweet, if correct, would imply that ~80% of Americans don't own a firearm. If memory serves there's a slightly over 1:1 ratio between registered firearms and American citizens so that would suggest an average of 5 guns per owner.
That's from 2017, before COVID and trump really amping shit to the max. That 33% thinking about getting a firearm, many of them have. I'd say we're probably around %45 at this point. Many on the left have armed themselves since trump and COVID.
A Firearms Transaction Record, or ATF Form 4473, is a seven-page form prescribed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) required to be completed when a person proposes to purchase a firearm from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder, such as a gun dealer.[1]
Form 4473 contains the purchaser’s name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, and a short affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law.
The firearm dealer is required to record some information from the Form 4473 into a "bound-book", called an "Acquisition and Disposition Log”.[6] The dealer must keep the Form 4473 on file for the lifetime of the FFL, and is required to surrender the log book to the ATF upon retirement from the firearms business.
The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of, the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five-day period must be reported to the ATF on Form 3310.4.
ATF form 4473 is de-facto registration of every legally owned gun in the United States of America
I really like the guitar analogy. Most people don't own a guitar, most people who do own a guitar only own one, and most people who own more than one own a lot of guitars.
Depends on the area.
Rural means guns to deal with vermin or wildlife.
Urban poor means illegal guns in bulk.
Urban middle-class, if there still is one, means self-defense as desired.
Urban high class means private security, personal gun optional.
Then you have your gangs, cartels, cults, communes, independent secessionists, hobby hunters, gun lovers and political party zealots - in no particular order or affiliation.
Mix in some mass media fear mongering and everyone is suddenly armed to the teeth, willingly or not.
I’m pretty confident there’s not many Americans willing to sacrifice themselves for their respective political party lol. Who’s chomping at the bit to take a bullet for Cruz or Menendez?
Fuck Texas. Let them break away and rot. Their entire society would collapse of they didn't have the federal government to blame for every problem in their shithole state
Every gun owner I’ve talked to on the internet claims they do this to protect themselves from the US government. Every gun owner I’ve talked with on the internet doesn’t have an answer for when I discuss the massive firepower the US has in comparison to their pew pew sticks.
edit: I should qualify this a little. There are responsible gun owners, and I have talked with some on the internet. There sure are a lot of vocal irresponsible gun owners as well, and those are the ones I have spent far more time arguing with online. You know the ones - they buy the gun and expect it to do all the work for them.
The other 95% of us gun owners, such as myself, who DON'T broadcast it to the world and make it our entire personality, have guns as a hobby or as tools to use on the farm. And give zero fucks about whatever the hell the feds or Texas is up to...
Nope! The only photos I have of my guns are either records of the serial numbers and attachments for insurance value purposes, or of me and my friends together on range days once in a while.
It's good to look back on those memories fondly, after that unfortunate accident on the boat where every single gun fell overboard. Lost forever. The shame! :(
Gun owner here: that's a stupid mentality. Putting aside the fact that I rather like the federal government, the best you could hope for in a war against the feds is an indefinite insurgency. You'll suffer an abismal casualty rate, and you'll really only be able to "win" if you saturate the government with sympathizers. If that happens, well, "you" won't be doing the winning, it'll be the people who got themselves into established positions of power.
It’s a very stupid mentality born out of fear. I had a conversation with someone on reddit once in the comment section for a news article about a child (5 year old) finding a gun in the bushes. Her reply as a gun owner was “I’d rather live in a world where 5 year olds can find guns in bushes than live in a world where they cannot”.
It blows my mind. These folks are going to end up killing their children in a case of mistaken idenity if they’re not careful (and they aren’t careful).
I know someone whose son killed himself with a gun he found in Daddys night stand.
Daddy was a broken man afterwards and had to force himself raising his daughter until she had a job, a fiance and left the house. The next day Daddy shot himself with the same gun as his son.
Such a sad story. Dad wanted to be at the ready for a home invader which never came. Kid was too young to understand and/or a curious small human learning about the world. What’s worse is that stories like this get written off as “anti-gun / anti-2nd amendment propaganda”. The reason the person I was arguing with wanted to live in a world “where a kid can find a gun in the bush” was, as they explained: because any argument or statement that can be construed as for gun control is a threat to our right to bear arms - they would rather live in a world where we have so many guns that they are showing up in bushes where children can find them, than live in the only other option, which is a world in which no guns do not exist in any sense of the word.
It’s wild, really. Protecting yourself makes sense, but a world where guns are accessible to literal children is not a world most folks want to live in. And it’s the world americans live in.
Handle doesn't check out lol. Your points are very well-reasoned. The saddest part for me is that education goes a LONG way with these things, but the issue is now so heavily politicized it's hard to make any headway with anyone.
In school districts you're often up against zero-tolerance hoplophobes and panic parents who are just plain terrified that guns exist (understandably), and would rather just pretend they didn't instead of educating themselves and their kids. (Irrationally)
Then sometimes you have the ones wanting to teach these classes having some ulterior gun-worship political motive...
But for real:
We teach kids not to play around moving cars or trains or downed power lines, but having "If you find a gun..." safety talks with children doesn't happen as often as it should, and they're way smarter than we give them credit for.
I stash mine securely, and if my nephews saw me cleaning one they'd be curious and staring. I'd always kindly tell them like it was:
"This is a dangerous tool. This is a tool to defend from someone attempting to kill you. It can seriously hurt or kill people. This is not to be played with. What do you do if you EVER find something that looks like this?"
"Don't touch it. Go tell an adult."
"Good boys."
They need to know they can trust the grownups in their lives to teach them instead of punish them for curiosity. Then these things stop being taboo and fascinating.
Finally you have owners who, as the tragic story said, just keep it in a nightstand. No lock or anything. Wow.
Proper home security and an emergency preparedness plan with your family should buy you more than enough time to safely retrieve a securely stowed weapon to protect yourself from a very determined attacker.
The people who think they'll just wake up one night and suddenly find themselves having to mag dump into a ninja make me sad.
Kids are way smarter than we give them credit for, absolutely! I’m the kind of guy who would rather not live in a world with guns, or violence for that matter. I’d be willing to ban lots of weapons for this purpose. I’m that guy who gun advocates hate to deal with in that respect. The only reason I’ve carved a small niche for “responsible gun ownership” is because my dad was very open about getting one. He told us he got it, he explained why, he took a firearms class, got a concealed carry permit, would clean maintain it regularly even though I’ve never seen him fire it. He told me stories about how gun owners would be too quick to react when hearing a home intruder and accedently shot a family member who was coming home late. He showed me how to hold the weapon, but that was about it. That small bit went a long way.
Well it kind of already happened. The Confederacy lost but their ideology somewhat retained and now a sizeable chunk of the elected government officials are sympathetic to it.
I think the people of Vietnam had a lot less fucks to give than your average Texan. I don't see Texans building and living in an underground tunnel system that they themselves dug out. I dont even know how those idiots survive without a chick fil a within driving distance. Guerilla warfare involves some terrible living conditions for the guerilla fighters, and Yall Qaeda is not strong enough to live that way.
Aww, did you delete your reply? That's not very big, brave gun owner of you. Thankfully, it still arrived in my inbox.
Washington DC area, 2002. Did two guys with a rifle paralyze a major metropolitan area?
While I'm all for people changing their deeply stupid beliefs, it's still surreal that for at least a few minutes, you thought that a good argument was "Our guns will be all we need against an actual military because we can use them for domestic terrorism targeting pregnant white women".
I reconsidered because I thought someone would misrepresent/ misconstrue my meaning. Congrats.
If the shooting starts, it won't be the old scooter patrol on the front lines on the Texas border. It will be a guerilla war and the targets won't be pregnant women. People who lack critical thinking skills or haven't studied history think bombs and tanks matter in that sort of war. Hurr durr, no one can stand up to the military. Lol
Leaving the union: All social security, Medicare, Medicaid disappear immediately. Who is fighting the U.S. Navy for the oil wells? All imports stopped. All exports stopped. The companies who drill the oil and lobby the politicians are going to choose to sell to the U.S. instead of a single entity that won't be able to pay. Now there is no fuel for vehicles.. workers aren't at the power plants, electricity failing more often than already overloaded grid they failed to maintain. It's 100+ degrees in Texas how often?
People dying, starving, traveling back in time... Do they still think they are better than the immigrants coming over to offer work and pay sales taxes?
Maybe brokering a deal to figure out immigration policies where they are processed cheaper, documented and turned into workers paid for by the the entire U.S. won't sound so bad then... Maybe they will even think assisting other countries so the people don't leave will be so bad either.
Leaving the union: All social security, Medicare, Medicaid disappear immediately.
To be fair if we're talking Texas this part is kindof a moot point and might not be felt.
They're one of like 11 states (don't quote me haha) that rejected free money for Medicaid expansion, so you need to be making like $1,900 a YEAR to be eligible for any kind of aid...unless you're an individual and not a family, in which case, they want you to either suddenly get lots of money or die in a ditch.
Agreed, it would be a fucking mess, particularly if some of the states that are supporting Texas join in secession. But if there isn't a border, there isn't a country. And 2 million a year is beyond sustainable, and with zero vetting is beyond stupid and beyond dangerous. Who is coming in? MS13, Hamas/ ISIS? Trafficked children? Or is every single one just looking for a better life.
We have immigration laws, and the Biden administration isn't following them. They are in fact, actively ignoring/breaking them.
I always bring up resources management. They probably won't go full hog in an armed uprising on US soil. Every bridge bombed is a bridge needed to rebuild. A carpet bombing of Texas will hit non-combatant citizens. A preemptive point against this would be the first civil war. Sherman's march ( the goat ) was different because the largest militaries decided to be neutral during the conflict. A crippling of an armed uprising will also cripple defense against China or Russia if they get froggy. Or if the damages could be justified. Like say a critical bridge was one of the MANY bridges that are on the verge of collapsing. Bomb it now and make Texas pay for it call it Biden's bridge etc. Or a track of land being used by rebels is prime railroad land/oil/etc.
A simple scroll on this thread alone seems to indicate against this statement. Plenty of good non-fashy-non-tankies who understand the problems with disarmament of the people.
Look, I wouldn't mind having a gun personally, I get that they're fun, but societally speaking, I am very fucking happy basically nobody has them here. Theoretically.
If that works for your locale and you personally, that's great. No argument. It's a complicated topic for sure.
From a perspective here, unfortunately here in the U.S, they're many times necessary for personal protection, especially out in the boonies, because the territory is just so dang BIG you simply can't rely on a police service to protect you from skullduggery at all times. (And then, yeah, police are a contentious topic too lol...I digress)
My only nudge with your comment was "Every gun owner on the Internet seems..."
The vast majority of us are on the Internet, quiet, responsible, and really hope we're never forced to sling lead at another human being, and we're just as embarrassed as you are about the ones you're talking about.
If anything, those types' out of control posturing and dangerous toddler antics will end in screwing us all over once they've "othered" every single potential ally the responsible folks could have had.
I hope maybe in some way it can help you feel like the world is a little less crazy when people on "the other side of the issue" are all too happy to agree with you on how out of hand it's all gotten.
I think a huge core of it is that arms companies need to stay in business by putting more product in exponentially more hands every quarter, and they'll use every astroturfing, lobbying, culture-warping trick in the book to create a never-ending "gun fandom."
Briefly, artist put a live goldfish in a blender as an art exhibition, connects blender to a big red button for any attendee to press. If they want. They did.
The thought being, sooner or later, it doesn't matter, given time, some bumfuck is going to press it. And they did. Plenty of people did (I think all the goldfish died, there were ten blenders like this, I think the artist even knew that 1 wouldn't be enough and that 10 might perhaps drive the point home even more).
If you give people the option to select between life and death for someone else, people are going to die, a lot. It doesn't matter that it was perhaps one in five hundred who pressed the button for whatever reason, the fish still got massacred.
That was a fantastic one yeah. I really can't imagine what it's like being one of those people yelling about these crazy things and being wrong every single time
Everyone seems to have this romantic idea of a US Civil War would be like. It's either "76 million gun owners becoming patriots" or the US military will crush the secessionists with some airstrikes and drone strikes, all in time for dinner.
The first stage would be political chaos. Some US governors will see this an attempt to seize even more power and side with the Secessionists (looking at you, DeSantis, you shit head). Some US governors will wait to see if a political solution can be sought before picking sides, and other governors will side the US government. Congress will have to figure out what do with US Representatives from Secessionist States. Some members of the military will start to defect or desert for various reasons.
If a political comprise can't be sought, we move to the second stage. Secessionist States start seizing US military bases and their assets and more members of the US military and Secessionist States start to desert/defect. Russia, China, Iran, and other countries sensing an opportunity, start to exploit the ongoing chaos. This includes massive disinformation campaigns, funding violent organizations, and isolating US allies.
A small amount of far-right militias sensing an opportunity with the US government dealing with the beginnings of a civil act, start to act. Small bombings and assassinations to further their political goals. Conservatives in Northern California start terror campaigns in Southern California. Progressive groups start being targeted and band together for safety. Foreign interference becomes more involved. Refugees start fleeing.
Third stage is full out war. Battles between Secessionist forces and the US Military start happening. Every state has either decided to join one side or goes their own way. Political crises pop up in US territories. Local insurgencies break out amongst groups fighting for power as central governments are pre-occupied with fighting a civil war. Foreign inference is at a maximum with direct financial, military, or logistical support to whatever group aligns with foreign powers.
We saw this with happen with the Iraq War with it's multitude of Shiite and Sunni militias fighting each other and the US. Same thing happened in Syria, with groups supporting the government against those fighting against the government and the Kurds. We saw what can happen with a dedicated low tech insurgency can do in Afghanistan and Vietnam against a far more advanced military.
“I support the former things” is such a stupid fucking slogan. It’s not catchy and sounds like someone tried to rephrase “The good old times” five times in a row. How about:
That's the appeal of conservativism. If you are a member of the in group, you are good, and anyone who isn't in the group is bad. That's all the justification a conservative needs to say or do anything that benefits the conservatives in the group.
It's not a contradiction at all. When it serves them to argue you need thirty 5.56 rounds, a silencer, and a bump stock to hunt quail or whatever, then that's the argument they make. When it is best to argue that their assault-themed hunting rifles will help them overthrow the government, that's the argument.
When it helps them to push moral wedge issues to lather up their small minded constituents, they will promote their credentials as the last bastion of moral authority in a world filled with demons. When one of those demons rises to be the leader of their party, they fall in line and claim he's the fucking messiah.
Those arguments aren't contradictory or hypocritical, because when they make them, they are benefitting themselves. Previous statements or positions are like farts in the wind. When they criticized government handouts, it was correct because the criticism helped them get elected, and spending less on social programs let them spend more on benefitting themselves. When they accepted government handouts, it was correct because it benefited themselves.
See how easy this is? Rational people are often confused, and assume there must be some Olympic level mental gymnastics going on inside of the mind of a conservative. It's not that complicated, and there isn't hardly anything going on. That's the appeal. You don't have to think, you don't have to remember, and you owe nobody an explanation. You are right because of who you are and therefore anything you want to do or say is righteous. Just don't go against the in-group.
It's worth pointing out that there's almost always some sort of intellectual bulldozer on their side who has to assemble a legal or logical explanation to bamboozle normies, and it's unfair to think of those folks as stupid per se... but they shouldn't be assumed to be intellectually honest, either. Your average Scalia or Buckley or Alito is very bright, but uses their intelligence to create post-hoc rationalizations in support of positions that are otherwise unsupportable. Underestimate them at your peril, but never give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to integrity.
I don't think you understand. Let's say you prefer red wine over white wine. But you go to dinner, and maybe you feel like having fish and so you decide to have white wine. Have you contradicted yourself? Maybe tomorrow, you are in the mood for steak, and so you pick a full bodied red to go with it. This is also not a contradiction from the previous day's order.
This is how the conservative mind views political positions. They might have a loose sense of rules, but what is true on Tuesday is irrelevant on Wednesday. That's not contradiction, because what you wanted before may or may not be what you want later. For a conservative, hypocrisy isn't even a possibility, because nothing is set in stone.
They say that because “assault rifle” has a definition which the vast majority of citizen owned AR-15s do not meet.
Every time someone uses this term incorrectly, like now, it reinforces their perception that those opposed to gun ownership have no idea what they’re taking about regarding guns.
To avoid this, we should be willing to at least look up the simplest of definitions.
Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
Then, usually, the response is “yeah well now we’re just splitting hairs/arguing about terms which doesn’t matter” to which I would respond “this thread started with arguing about terms”.
You're right, they have the same outer shell with a completely different firing mechanism. The best anyone can legally get (to my knowledge) is a binary trigger. It fires when pulled, fires when released.
Binary triggers are a drop in mod, as are rotary triggers that fire as long as you turn the crank. Forced reset triggers are another loophole that's become popular, they physically reset the trigger so that as long as you pull with the right amount of force, not too much not too little, the gun will continue to cycle. Its also not hard to adapt an ar-15 to have an autosear. They mostly use the same trigger configuration as a full auto assault rifle, just with the auto-sear and selector switch missing. Its as simple as drilling 2 holes and then adding the 2 parts and a spring.
A few years ago, maybe still, you could buy modified parts literally on Ebay to turn an AR-15 into a full auto, for really cheap. I have a family member who's a conservative gun nut and bought one, so I can personally confirm it is legit that easy. Probably suuuper illegal, but clearly no one was(is?) keeping an eye on that kind of shit to even catch it.
I tend to agree. I wouldn't give a fuck if the weapon I'm currently being shot at with is considered an assault rifle or not. It's still just as capable of killing me.
I'm just frustrated at people unwilling to update their definitions when provided good evidence that theirs is wrong.
Assault rifle refers to the calibre and application of a rifle.
The smaller 5.56 round is an assault rifle round, this is to distinguish it from the previous larger battle rifle rounds.
The AR-15 was designed with select fire. The ones sold to civilians don't have this capability because it's illegal.
The only people that define these in such a way as you have a gun nuts. Trying to hide the fact that people are selling and marketing a weapon of war to civilians in a peaceful country.
Assault rifle refers to the calibre and application of a rifle.
I gave the definition that excludes what the vast majority of civilians own and gave a source.
If you're claiming the round is the only consideration then please source your claim.
The only people that define these in such a way as you have a gun nuts.
Also the US Army, which seems relevant.
Trying to hide the fact that people are selling and marketing a weapon of war to civilians in a peaceful country.
And there it is. I'll refer you to the last part of my initial comment. I can't believe I pre-addressed this and it's still a thing.. lol.
Except that's not usually how this argument comes up. None of the nuts are saying, "but it's not an assault rifle" when others claim guns kill people. It's always a direct response to "AR'15's are assault rifles". My simple suggestion is to stop being incorrect about a simple term.
Similarly to the way I, a techy IT guy in the industry for ~15 years, don't want old farts who know fuck all about the internet to be regulating it or the way that women don't want old men who know fuck all about reproductive health to regulate their bodies - It's understandable for those who know what they're talking about to not want ignorant people regulating their shit.
But it's not hard to just be aware of simple definitions...
I’m always reminded of this loon when I hear well meaning idiots try to argue about assault rifles and magazine capacity:
Rep. Degette said "I will tell you these are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."
It's literally a semantics argument while ignoring linguistics which allows the people who use words to change them over time.
It's also why they decry they aren't racist, just biased. They don't have stereotypes for no reason...
Yet when you ask them to use correct language like Mr. Ms. Mx. or not call someone by their dead name, they throw a fit. Even if we legally changed the definition right now through law, they still wouldn't agree it's an assault rifle because the military made use of them for war, but now it's not full auto. Just can be with small modifications. Because everyone at war always dumps their mag on full auto whenever they see anyone, right?
Right: It's a clip not a mag for a Mosin Ganant! See you don't know what you're talking about so you can't say take away the guns people use to go on terrorist murder sprees or threaten democracy with!
Left: ... We just want you to not be able to shoot through body armor, people, and others en masse, please? I don't really care that it's called an assault weapon.
Right: 2ND AMENDMENT.
Left: We already put restrictions on that and most of the right agrees with stuff like red flag laws and not letting violent criminals have them.
Right: SORRY EVERYONE SHOULD OWN A GUN EVEN IF THEY'RE AN ABUSER. 2ND AMENDMENT. ORIGINALIST. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MURDER ANYONE WHO STEPS FOOT ON MY PROPERTY.
Left: Doesn't the bank own your property, lifted truck, and a company own half your farm equipment and big rig?
Sure, if you ignore any sense of context and appeal only to extreme nonsensical arguments made by WORMs (white old rich men) reinterpreting what other WORMs said 300 years ago.
This is a new one. I've never seen anyone but the least educated claim that ARs aren't assault rifles. Automatic, sure, but there's no definition of assault rifle that doesn't include an AR.
Assault rifles, by definition, have select fire capabilities. Commercially available civilian AR-15 is semi-auto single fire only. People are often confused by the AR designation, but that stands for Armalite, the original manufacturer of the rifles. They are officially called "assault-style" rifles, although that term isn't very popular because it seems like a minor quibble. In all other measures (shorter rifle, intermediate cartridge, detachable box magazine, range of 300 meters) the AR-15 meets the criteria to be called an "assault rifle," except for the select-fire.
It's worth mentioning that many popular models can be easily modified by a competent gunsmith to add burst and/or full auto firing. It's illegal, but that doesn't stop a terrorist who thinks they are going to need their rifle to join the insurrection. At that point it would be an assault rifle.
The AR-15 defined assault rifles in a way. Outside of experimental weapons. Most countries that use assault rifles are based on the AR-15, the cheaper to licence AR-18 or the Soviet response to the American AR-15/M16.
They're both assault rifles and weapons of war. So what's your point? Since the Revolution Americans have owned military-grade, and usually better grade, rifles.
Good thing the most well funded military in the world, greater than the next 9 nations combined, is also at their beck and call. This isn't the NVA, this is a bunch of 280 pound guys who practice shooting from benches, going against drones, artillery, bombers, tanks, missiles, etc.
One of the fattest countries in the world aren't hardened fighters after years of various occupations. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. is not comparable to the US and Texas
Quick googling let me know there are about 10 million households in Texas and 40% of those have at least one gun. Lets say that transfer to one gun owner per household. 4 million gun owners in Texas. Lets say 2% of those show up to die. That's gonna be a great army of 80k.
Assuming these bumbling fools will be about as effective as Russians in Ukraine, they will have a mortality rate of about 431 dimwits a day. I would say this is generous, considering what they would be up against.
If they fight to the last man; they will last about 185 days. Though it is unrealistic they would fight to the last man. lets say they capitulate after 20% losses. That hypothetical conflict would last about a month.
I would like to believe they would just get cold feet before any violence sets in. It's easy to talk tough on social media, but when cold reality washes over them, they will do the smarter thing.
My numbers might be way off. It was just a fun little math exercise. Edit: I didn't take in to account that only about 39% of adults are republican voters.
Bruh I'm a gun owner for sport, don't lump me in with the stupid crowd. I don't care if I couldn't own guns anymore, I'd just find a different hobby. I'm sure as shit not coming to the rescue of Texas
Civil wars and these memes are dumb, the military isn't going to bomb anything...on top of that, you probably live in the same building or next to a neighbor who would be a target, and bombs aren't that accurate, you will be collateral damage.
No, they aren't going to bomb anything. They'll set up military road blocks and patrols to secure federal control over the area, and the soldiers doing it will come from the nearest army base.
So to actually fight against the federal government, the chucklefucks would have to shoot their soldier neighbors, friends, sons and acquaintances in the head while other soldiers watch them from behind a heavy machinegun. Not gonna happen.
More who needs bombs when you've got the NSA? All insurgents have their assets frozen, health care suspended, social security numbers frozen, banned from legal employment. They become second class citizens overnight, relying on others for food and money. Their movements tracked through phones and cars. All associates are under scrutiny. Then it's just a matter of sending the FBI round to arrest them
Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of poison gas and explosive bombs left over from World War I were dropped in several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and Blair. At least one did not explode and was recovered by the miners; it was used months later to great effect as evidence for the defense during treason and murder trials. On orders from General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used for aerial surveillance.
Tiktok and its consequences have been a disaster for reading comprehension (I do not condone the Unabomber's actions and want to stress the ableism, sexism, and fascist overtones in his manifest)
If the American government came after Texas (as in they seceded) how would they have 72m gun owning Americans to join their cause? They wouldnt be part of the U.S. at that point.
Not all of those 72 million people are chuds. Statistically speaking, like 50 million of those 72 million can't make it to the end of their driveway without needing to catch their breath.
Entire nations know better than to take on the US military, who have a larger budget than the next ten nations combined and won’t even give you a target to shoot at, and these dick weasels think they can do it with commercially available weapons and no training?
LMAO. Go ahead, try it. I’ll be here with popcorn.
Entire nations know better than to take on the US military
The US isn't just a military stick, it's also an economic carrot. The folks that end up wrangling with the stick are inevitably the ones denied the carrot.
Countries like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and I guess now Yemen had been in an economic conflict with the US - via embargos and proxy wars - long before the first American soldier arrived.
The thing about Texas is that a handful of jerk-offs posting from their 8086s in Beaumont aren't the guys who will feel the pain in a serious break away.
It's Dell Computer and Exxon and fucking Pizza Hut that will hurt. And their executives will drag these dissidents out back to the wood shed themselves long before The Republic of Texas dipshits need to worry about a B-52 over their heads.
You might have a point here. Nowadays I can 100% see in my head, a little playfully maybe, corps coming for the kneecaps. This timeline so damned deranged it doesn't seem farfetched atm.
Idiot right-wing gun-lovers who actively support the kind of fascism we need to be fighting aside...
The idea isn't to fight tanks and jets with rifles head-on. The idea is that an anonymous armed insurgency is really hard to defeat. Anti-armor vehicles work great against armor, but trying to use them on small insurgents made up of random individuals is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer: you do a lot of collateral damage but the actual target is fine.
Overconfidence in stealth jets and aircraft carriers is why Iraq and Afghanistan turned into decades-long engagements before we'd just gave up and left. The regular Iraqi army was defeated in under 2 weeks, but we still lost the war.
And if it were to happen here, the government would also have to worry a lot more about troops unwilling to kill fellow citizens, unlike in the middle east where they were all strangers speaking a different language.
Finally someone else who realizes telling the military to carpet bomb cities has never worked against an insurgency except maybe in Chechnya, but it's hard to call that an ideal win.
The idea is that an anonymous armed insurgency is really hard to defeat.
The US army is very good at that. That’s the kind of conflict they’ve been fighting since Vietnam. If you think a distributed guerrilla army can stand against the US military on their own soil, you’re delusional.
I’m not talking about tanks and jets. That’s so last century. That’s not how wars are fought now. There’s just no way homegrown militias would have any hope against the US military in their midst. Ask anyone enlisted in any branch of the military. I promise they’ll tell you that’s a pipe dream.
You mean the military that's consistently failed to win those kind of conflicts?
The US military was driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan and that's with pretty much 100% troop loyalty. You start ordering the military to shoot Americans on American soil they won't even have that.
In the US Civil War, this exact scenario played out. All it took was first blood, and even family members on opposite sides fought each other.
US soldiers will definitely kill our own. We saw this during the 70's with National Guard units shooting Kent State students. We see it today with our police forces. If the opposition can be cast as the villain, soldiers will fight.
Sure, but the American army can (with the almost assured ok from Mexico) literally surround Texas and just starve them out. What exactly is going to get through the US Navy, Army, and Air Force into Texas if they don't want it to? It'll be a guerrilla army against the American Military that literally can fly any operation they want 30 seconds to and from target. The US has one of the most insanely good logistical abilities in history, around the world, imagine inside their own borders. What exactly are Texas Militias going to do? Approach the borders and take pot shots? The second they try to get through a drone army flying 24/7 will either take them out themselves or constantly send locations to artillery, tanks, etc. All the AR-15/M16/M416/etc in the world won't help you against what the American Military has on offer.
I think you’re missing the point that it wouldn’t be a war, it would be a police action. The local national guards would shut that shit down quickly.
If you think your small arms could stand against the US military on its own turf, you’re hilariously mistaken. I get that you want to believe that’s what gives you your freedoms, but come on. Nobody who actually understands how that would play out takes those dreams seriously.
You have guns because they fulfill your fantasies, not because that’s in any way realistic.
No, the 2A wasn’t meant for individual people to keep arms for that reason. It was written before the US had any sort of army (and several of the founders were actually against a national standing army), with the point being each state would keep enough arms and accoutrements and train the people to be ready to be called up to defend their state.
It was meant to create something like what became the National Guard.
The Supreme Court changed that definition in 2002 with the Heller decision, so now it’s even further removed from its original meaning. I suppose that makes it deficient if you’re reading in an original meaning it never had in the first place.
To be honest, we "lost" those wars because of our intolerance for splash damage. We often knew where the insurgents were, but to take them out would mean killing a lot of civilians. We had to wait until they were in a place where the collateral damage was minimal, even if it meant they got away. Israel and Russia don't seem to have this problem, but look at where it's landed them on the stage of world opinion.
People that believe in a "surgical" war are why we lose. We would have prevailed in an all out conflict where civilian casualties are acceptable. We have the firepower. But that might be viewed as genocide, which is unacceptable.
This is why the US is involved in so many conflicts. War is supposed to be terrible, and therefore avoided by all sides. When rules are in play, the weaker side believes they can win by hiding among civilians. This is the insurgents' playbook - let the other side play by the rules, and when they don't, scream foul. Never mind that combatants hiding among civilians is also against the rules.
When you fight an insurgency with cruel force, especially with disregard for civilian casualties, all you do is further the circumstances that led to the insurgency in the first place. These groups are recruiting for a fight against a foreign army. If said army just brutally killed your innocent brothers and sisters, you are a hell of a lot more likely to get radicalized and join. It's certainly no recipe for post-conflict stability.
This is what is so absurd about Israel's war right now, and it was absurd about the US' war too. And I disagree that the US would've "won" if it was "ok with more splash damage".
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria. Insurgency is very different from peer/near peer. Not to mention in the event of a civil war, at least some amount of the military would side with them. And another portion would not want to bomb urban areas especially.
If it ain't the gravy seals, then it's completely incompetent nerds like Patriot Front with their cute little matching outfits and their very masculine shields.
They are a joke, but that doesn't mean they're not dangerous. In the face of the US military? No. Dangerous to themselves and anyone in their immediate area? Sure.
These people are a huge joke, what are you on about? These are the kind of people that are poorly educated and easily conned. These people were dumb enough to believe that they could just waltz into the Capital and overthrow the government with funny signs and hats.
Equating gun ownership with sedition and secession is pretty stupid. Go for it, Texas. Your backup numbers are fewer than you think.
There was an article a few weeks ago about how Texas is the least-free state in the union. They have the fewest liberties, yet they can carry guns and that's all they care about.
Equating gun ownership with sedition and secession is pretty stupid.
If the state of Texas ever went into serious revolt, the first thing it would need to do is flood the streets of Houston, Dallas, and Austin with military police to contain their own domestic insurrection.
Half those gun owners would happily Texas Book Depository Greg Abbott if he was ever in their line of fire.
If Texas decided tomorrow they were seceding, Abbott and everyone else involved in that decision would be hogtied and presented to the feds within the week after
Every electric plant in the state was bombed. This works because TX has its own grid to dodge fed rules. Hence why it fails in winter because capitalism means fuck safety rules.
Every credit and debit card in the state stopped working, along with likely every bank account, which is vaguely related to 1 but also for its own reasons.
Every grocery shelf went bare. We saw what COVID did.
In a smart system, they'd try everyone involved and lock them all up for life and the incident would serve as a reminder that if you fuck around you will find out. Of course with our luck we'd get some dipshit president to fuck up that bit just like after the civil war
Because the US military would totally treat a war on their own soil the same as bombing the shit out people half way across the world, not at all like one would involve every ounce of force available,
I don't think the military would even end up having to much anyway. Kind of just sit there and wait a couple weeks, then head on in with the aid Texas pretty please asked for.
Absolutely ridiculous that you think carpet bombing would be
A. Effective
Or
B. Politically possible.
There wouldn’t be a fight. It would be half suicidal for federal troops for a long time, and to think brother would blindly fight brother is crazy talk. Our military, through every end of our ranks, is filled with Texans and their family.
It would never happen, but the idea that Texas would just be overrun like Iraq is absolutely stupid.
Nope. Born in CO and raised in GA. Please understand that I think secessionists are dumb, just that the idea that the federal government would just roll them is stupid.
I agree! I don’t think secession will ever actually happen, I’m just saying that, in a clown world where it did, the idea that federal forces would just roll over Texas is laughable.
It's amazing the people that deliberately avoid "CRT" topics and push defunding schools do not know the events ov Blair mountain, the bombing of MOVE in Philadelphia, and/or black wall street. Absolutely shocked!
22% of gun owners have only a single firearm. So if the 72 million number is correct, that means 15,840,000 single gun owners, and the remaining 418,160,000 guns are owned by 56,160,000, or 7.45 guns per owner.
Sounds about right. I grew up in central Missouri, and while relatively few of my friends had guns, the one that did had a goddamn arsenal in his bedroom. Two shotguns, three rifles, and a "big" handgun that all stayed in a gun safe, and a .22 pistol he kept under the bed "for safety." And that was just his room, as a high schooler... His brother and his mother both had other weapons of their own.
Even people who are just hobby shooters or hunters rather than 2A "mah guns" weirdos like said friend was tend to accumulate weapons over time. It's like any other hobby in that regard.
Yeah, there are a lot of shades of gray for multiple gun owners.
Own a single handgun for self defense
Own a single rifle for hunting
Own both of the above
Own different rifles for hunting different animals
Own a Shotgun for hunting birds (plus some combination of the above)
Own an old/historic gun more as an art piece (but it's functional if wanted)
Owns a fucking arsenal
Add in the fact that some people sort of end up collecting guns the way some people collect guitars...I wouldn't be so quick to turn away from the original statistic.
It would be interesting to compare gun ownership to guitar ownership, because the analogy tracks pretty well.
Some people just wanted a guitar. They might play it often, or it might sit in a closet.
Some people have specialty guitars for different reasons. An acoustic for impromptu jam sessions, an electric for band practice, a fancy guitar to play on stage, different bodies for different sounds, etc.
And some people just like collecting guitars. They have a bunch that they have acquired over the years, some favorites, some are investments, some are projects.
I would bet the distribution curve of guns per owner tracks pretty closely with the curve of guitars per owner.
I'll say that while I do know a couple of people that seem to be prepping for an apocalypse scenario where guitars are the most valuable currency, gun owners have a much larger spike at that end of the bell curve.
Other than that I think it'd be a pretty similar distribution, though.
I lived with a guy who had a kayak collection. Different boats for different rivers or different things he wanted to do. You can only be in one boat at a time, so how many can you need?
He once explained to me how he didn't have too many kayaks, he actually had too few. He did not have the money for more boats.
LHaving met a good few gun fans. Yeah 7 to 8 guns seems like a low average.
Helped a friend move from a apartment to a new house. Over 15 guns. I say over as he also had a number of parts. I do not know enough to know if complete guns could be built. Looked like a few complete guns possible to my non gun fan eyes.
This was when I lived in GA. He was not considered unusual by most of the friends helping us.
What seems less likely to me. Is all 72m around the US siding with Texas.
Oh, the math in this is all kinds of fucked up. OPOP knows stats exists, they just haven't met it personally.
Not all 72M gun owners live in Texas, and not all of the ones that do support these turds. They mention an AR15 stat, and then completely ignore it in the conclusion.
Also, as someone else reponded, yeah: 6 guns per owner seems about right on average. I have 6: two rifles and 4 handguns. And there are a few more I'd like to collect; I wouldn't be surprised if I had 10 or 11, eventually. It's a hobby, and I like to shoot. And I don't even hunt; hunters are going to have different guns for differrent game, and might have even more than average.
It's a hobby, and like hobbies, the people who are into it are going to own predominantly more of the thing. The 2A and gun violence make it a political and socially sensitive topic, and changes the verbiage, but otherwise the same hobby trends apply.
By the pigeonhole principal, that means that some gun owners must own 2 guns, because there's more guns than people.
Anyways, multiple guns per owner makes intuitive sense, because different guns are for different things. You aren't going to hunt an elk with the same caliber rifle you'd hunt a rabbit with. Either you won't kill the elk, or you'll just have a fine mist that used to be a rabbit.
For another thing, ammunition costs are different for different calibers. You can buy .22 lr for under 10 cents per round. Meanwhile, 30-06 is over $1 per round. So you can do more target practice for the same money with a cheaper round.
This idea that the US military is just gonna bomb Houston without the people in the Air Force saying, hey, wait a minute, I've got family there, is just stupid. If you think that US Civil War Part II is going to be over quickly and easily, without the same kind of grind that we had the first time, well, I've got some bad news for you.
There's not going to be a Civil War. Stop believing all the posturing that Texas is doing. They can't even survive a bit of cold weather (or a bit of hot weather!).
While I agree that the Texas bullshit is a big nothing burger, I can see scenarios where if Trump is President again and orders the military to do something unconstitutional some parts of the military refuse to carry out the order (as they're supposed to) and other parts of the military (possibly not understanding the constitution) feel duty bound to carry out an order from the commander in chief.
Probably not. But you know what is going to happen? Abbot is going to stoke fears over undocumented migrants, and say that the feds refused to do anything --while he has been actively working to prevent them from doing anything--allowing Trump to say that he's the only one that has a strong anti-immigrant stance. That gets the MAGA shitheads riled up and excited to vote, despite Republicans accomplishing fuck-all in the last four years, while Biden has managed to deal with a lot of shit.
And if Trump doesn't win? Then all this shit goes to SCOTUS, which further weakens the ability of the federal gov't to do anything for public good.
While you do have a point that is also how every civil war starts. People don't want to fight until they do. Lincoln was in command of the troops in south until he wasn't. Even Ceaser had some mutiny because civil war is not fun. Scary part is it happens anyway.
There were people prior to the US Civil War that actively committed terrorist acts for the political purpose of ending slavery. Some of those actions arguably galvanized public support for a war. Such as John Brown; his raid on the arms depot in Harper's Ferry was used as propaganda in the south to say that the north would never accept slavery, and therefore the "rational" thing to do was to secede.
We've already seen small far-right groups milling around the edges of terrorism; the Proud Boys, Threepers, Patriot Front, etc. They're pushing the needle.
Expect to see right-wing militias committing acts of terrorism in an effort to push the Overton window. Abbott is pushing it now, with the idea that states have the right to overrule the federal gov't.
going by Ukraine, which is the only footage I've seen of real modern warfare: I saw a video of a drone detecting a soldier from high up. The soldier is lying prone aiming their rifle..The drone drops an object. There is a small pop and the soldier dies. It wasn't a big explosion, you couldn't even see blood or a wound, probably just enough to be fatal without causing a horrible mess.
That's what I imagine it'll be. A bunch of people sitting around bored and they don't even know they're dead until one second they are looking at the horizon, the next second their intestines in confusion as their consciousness fades.
This goes both ways though, doesn't it? Texas is one of the largest tech hubs in the US, just after California. And a number of companies have been relocating to Texas because it has cheaper corporate taxes. (Screw them workers, gotta earn that dolla.)
If you think that US Civil War Part II is going to be over quickly and easily,
Oh it'll be simple. Any state in rebellion no longer has federal say. You'll easily pass a law that punishes any company headquartered in a rebellious state, and you're done by the afternoon. The oil and gas companies will personally coup Abbott if the federal government refuses them infrastructure otherwise.
Democrats don't give a shit about the issues you care about, they just want your vote. Remember when Biden was gonna end student debt and raise the minimum wage?
There is zero chance of secession and zero chance of texas being bombed by the us air force
The only shooting will be gun crime and in schools, which is business as usual for the USA and apparently not really even that noteworthy given the level of media coverage.
I know probably a hundred gun owners since I have my own range, none of them own firearms because they're afraid of black people... considering about half of them including myself are POCs...
You're statement which is false as fuck just makes you sound like a racist.
Effing us army is woke - all those “other” guys are allowed in and they’re taking our rights (to die horribly in third world countries where no one wants us and we don’t even know why we’re there)
What's funny is that the people who are most into this ideology are also the "Screw you, got mine"s that will snitch on coworkers and rat on neighbors to the HOA. But claim the government is always evil.
Later they drive like they own the road and bully other drivers on (sub)urban streets, while poofing coal-black exhaust from their double-wide trucks and oversized SUVs decorated with skeletal middle fingers and American flag punisher skull window stickers.
Let's add truck nuts into this picture too, it's statistically not-unlikely.
They have some fantasy that a bunch of self-absorbed hyper-individualist misanthropes just like them are going to somehow cohesively band together to fight...the federal government...over... petty stupid things like manufactured culture wars...so that they can achieve a miserable little hate-driven utopia...? Do I got that right?
Meanwhile, neighborly, responsible, quiet, trained, community-minded gun owners will gladly organize amongst themselves to aid inevitable victims of all this nonsense, and would fare a heckuva lot better as a group.
They're the ones that would make foreign invaders or overstepping republics think twice.
These arterial-grease-ridden LARPers are being used so hard and they think it's all their idea.
As their disgraced and treasonous Great Leader(TM) might tweet:
Yes and no. We played that game by rules only we abided by.
Had we gone in and stayed without those rules, it would've been over within a year. But then we'd have committed a genocide and would be ruthless savages.
I feel that's some hubris chief. Similar to Vietnam the military objective was met, but the reason for war, and so the victory conditions, are the political objective. We failed those. And breaking our rules does not de-motivate the insurgency or move us to the political objective. Let's remember that one of those is a democracy and US ally in government in those countries.
We did not exhaust all options in Vietnam either, we tried to achieve a near impossible victory while restraining the level of violence we could achieve.
It's always funny to see those secessionist traitors act like we're all going to be on their side. A lot of us gun toting Texans have no problem fighting for our nation against the traitors in our state.
American gun owners don't challenge the government. They take their anger out on women and children and themselves at the very end. The government will be fine.
Yeah that's the only reason they're allowed those guns, because any ACTUAL civil war would be decided by air superiority and armor. Honestly let's do it, it would be hilarious.
Such a facetious argument to act like guns wouldn't in some way limit the military.
Because even if you bomb territory that doesn't mean you can occupy it, see Afghanistan and Vietnam. Infantry is needed for occupation when the enemy is mixed in with civilians.
And furthermore, don't you think in the event of a civil war a fair bit of the military would be a bit unwilling to bomb urban areas?
I disagree with the sentiment of the OOP, but this is and always had been a bad argument. Take a look at the Middle East if you want to see what aircraft does to guerilla militia forces. An AC130 can't patrol streets or breach doors. You need boots on the ground for that, boots that are 100% susceptible to gunfire.
Not to mention the fact that the federal government has lost command of the CBP, who are openly defying Biden's orders.
The enemy in the middle east is ready to live in a cave and use kids as suicide bombers to further their cause. I don't think folks accustomed to Costco and buffalo wild wings and healthcare are ready for that life.
I love a little bit of racism mixed with social inaccuracy. You're right that people wouldn't want to go without Costco or modern luxuries. That's why they'd fight even harder when the people in power told them that it was the evil federal government that had taken it from them and that if they just fight a little bit, things will be better than ever before. You're forgetting how dangerous of a combo that authoritarian govt. + uneducated population (which describes Texas perfectly) is.
Also,
healthcare
What Texans are accustomed to healthcare already lol?
I'm not being racist at all. One of the strengths of the middle east insurgent model is their readiness to live in primitive conditions. And, due to fanatical religious ideals, use tactics line suicide bombing. There's no evidence prospective texan secessionists are anywhere near ready for such conditions or tactics.
All of you upvoting this garbage aren't thinking about what it's saying or how it will negatively affect you.
If a government would be willing to annihilate 72 million of its own people, just for trying to leave no matter how stupid or cruel the reason is... what makes you think it won't do that to you when you try to organize a general strike, or fight it off when it turns fascist?
Do you people think critically about anything you see at all?
Maybe you're missing the context. The last time a group of states tried to leave we had a war about it. The confederates lost, are generally considered to have been in the wrong, and basically cemented the precedent that if any state tries it again they'll get the same result. Everyone pretty much assumes that if Texas really did try to leave it would result in armed conflict, with the scale likely determining if we call it a civil war or not. This is more making fun of the laughable claim that Texas could win in such a scenario, since the US military is better funded than the next 4 or 5 best funded militaries combines. It is generally assumed that the federal government wouldn't fight for Texas for the aforementioned historical reasons. Also there's not 72 million people in Texas, there's around 30 million, and many of those 72 million gun owners wouldn't fight for Texas. I'd hazard to say most.
Well, obviously. But people are upvoting it because "hurr, kill all right-wingers" without actually thinking about what it's saying, and that bothers me.
Seems like the folks I usually am amused by and agree with on a lot of things have chosen to ignore that the use of American bombs on Americans sounds fun to them.
Remember: just because someone disagrees with us does not give us the right to blow them up.
I obviously can’t be invested, good sir, in any argument here.
Y’all have convinced I am surrounded by heady progressives and some practical liberals who — it’s not the best system, but if we dream of eating the rich one day, we can all get along.
Now comes this discussion of Texas secession and the image of bombing citizens.
Yes — these are despicable times and many Texans are behaving despicably.
But liberal values at their heart are humanist— we must honor these Texans as living humans first — and sadly, allow them the privilege of being wrong.
They are wrong.
And they are our countrymen— forgive the archaic language.
Imagining the bombing of our countrymen over decisions thrust upon them by the RECKLESS actions of others goes against who we are and what we all share in common.
It is my hope that when you see violent propaganda if this kind, you remember that United we stand. And that includes our despicable removed cousins the Texans. [pardon use of R word]
I'm not saying I'm okay with just blowing the whole state off the map but the people in charge need put down and the people who support them need severely reprimanded if not join them in the dirt.
Just because their Texan doesn't mean I want them hurt or dead, but if their Texan the likelihood that I wouldn't piss on them if they were in fire goes up a lot
Well, look at afghanistan. B52 hardly made a difference against an army of farmers with AKs defending their homeland. Or the Viet Cong for that matter.
Afghanistan is thousands of miles away, our military has very little local, international, nor domestic support, and the Afghan people are battle hardened people that has been in constant warfare since the industrial revolution and had been trained by the very force they were fighting. Jim Bob and the boys, have no advantage. There would be some support from locals and some from the military but none from high up in leadership and not enough from the people. Comparing the Afghans to how things would go here is laughable at best.
Not American, but isn't it also a misconception that most Americans have guns? I thought some Americans have a lot of guns, but most don't have a gun at all.
I assume Texas is Texas, but I doubt it's that different.
This is true. There are a lot of guns, but a good chunk of gun owners own more than one firearm so the "average" is skewed. Look at the ones that have massive collections or the preppers for instance. Some owner collections have dozens or even hundreds of firearms.
There's also the clear assumption the OP photo makes that all of those owners are conservative and willing to fight for Texas. I have quite a few friends with firearms, on both sides of the aisle. In fact, most of the gun owners I know personally are Democrats. None of them would ever do anything to help Texas.
I am pretty hard left. Come from a family that leans to the left. I own probably 30 ish guns. Never bought a single one. Comes from parents, grandparents, great grandparents. Father in law. Everytime a family member passes away I have to buy a bigger gun safe. My side of the family was hunters, wife's dad was a collector. They were like logos for him, he was always cleaning or fixing up a project gun. That being said, Texas can suck my balls. Just hoping my retarded, conservative, Mexico bordering state doesn't get involved.
Either way, all these gravy seals can pretend to be tough, but no American is going to shoot another American (on a large scale) over this bs. It's all politics and bull shit. They talk all tough, but are they willing to shoot at the military people they love so much wearing Kevlar and all the other latest technology with their AR they just got out of pawn over some brown people coming from Mexico? Do they think Joe Biden himself will be on the battle field? No, it will be a bunch of 20 year old American kids they are shooting at.
They went from telling everyone they should "just comply" and hero-worshipping the police to beating and crushing cops on Jan 6. I don't put anything past the hopefully small number of freaks that will actually show up.
I’m far left and my SO and I own 8 guns of various types, including an assault rifle and a short barel tactical shotgun.
I'm medium left and have a handful of firearms. No assault rifle here, but my gas operated shotgun is pretty cool. All my rifles are bolt action.
You are basically spot on.
I am a gun owner with more than 5 guns locked away in my basement safe. One of those "these people need protection when escorted to the health clinic because the right wing nut jobs are trying to block access and the pigs won't do anything about it because some of them joined" kind of people, who will happily use every ounce of legal force I can bear to ensure they aren't stopped by mouth breathers who don't understand that they don't have any rights over a woman's body.
Of the people I know well enough to know their gun owning status, I'd say less than half own guns. But the half that do almost all own more than one. Mostly in .22LR (small caliber) for "plinking" (shooting small objects/targets for fun at a range or range-like area of your property) but most of the ones that aren't are for hunting. Maybe 5 or 6 people have an ar-15, and the ones I've seen are set up for medium range target shooting.
Now I am certainly biased in who I know, because I do not willingly associate with "peppers" (it's always guns and cans of beans in a basement, never anything else) or right wing assholes. None of the people I associate with would even strike you as gun owners, because they don't look the part, don't drive lifted pickups, don't wear oakleys/aviators backwards with a punisher skill thin blue line shirt and camo cargo shorts on. (generalization but you know the type)
They're very much the "those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable" kind of people.
Now from my younger years, being hauled in to church every week, I'd say it still holds true for that area at that time, under 50% but they own multiples.
So it's less "everyone owns tons of guns" and more "the under half that own guns own more than 2" I guess.
42% of households have at least 1 gun. Actually looked this up recently.
And that's nationwide. Texas is slightly less than that.
I mean, some Americans have RPGs and historical cannons and swords and bows instead of guns
Yup, Pew Research says that only 32% of Americans own a gun.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/#:~:text=About%20a%20third%20of%20adults,else%20in%20their%20household%20does.
(Also not American) The numbers in this tweet, if correct, would imply that ~80% of Americans don't own a firearm. If memory serves there's a slightly over 1:1 ratio between registered firearms and American citizens so that would suggest an average of 5 guns per owner.
Only HI requires firearms to be registered in the USA.
And the last research on it, it's around 1/3 of the population.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
That's from 2017, before COVID and trump really amping shit to the max. That 33% thinking about getting a firearm, many of them have. I'd say we're probably around %45 at this point. Many on the left have armed themselves since trump and COVID.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473
ATF form 4473 is de-facto registration of every legally owned gun in the United States of America
While I agree that, that form is supposed to be destroyed after running it. It's not a registery...even if the ATF is trying to use it like one.
I really like the guitar analogy. Most people don't own a guitar, most people who do own a guitar only own one, and most people who own more than one own a lot of guitars.
I left guns behind along with my childhood.
Depends on the area.
Rural means guns to deal with vermin or wildlife.
Urban poor means illegal guns in bulk.
Urban middle-class, if there still is one, means self-defense as desired.
Urban high class means private security, personal gun optional.
Then you have your gangs, cartels, cults, communes, independent secessionists, hobby hunters, gun lovers and political party zealots - in no particular order or affiliation.
Mix in some mass media fear mongering and everyone is suddenly armed to the teeth, willingly or not.
So to answer your question, I have no idea.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/map-gun-death-rates-lower-cities-than-rural-counties-rcna81462
I’m pretty confident there’s not many Americans willing to sacrifice themselves for their respective political party lol. Who’s chomping at the bit to take a bullet for Cruz or Menendez?
Liberal gun owner here not from Texas . Howdily Doodily ho neighbor
Socialist gun owner checking in. Nice to meet you, stupid sexy Flanders.
Ah yes, because every single gun owner in the United States wants Texas to secede and is willing to die fighting for that cause.
That's not even true of most of the ones in Texas.
Gun owner here.
Fuck Texas. Let them break away and rot. Their entire society would collapse of they didn't have the federal government to blame for every problem in their shithole state
If Texas secedes from the Union, the Republicans will never win another presidential election.
Unfortunately they couldn't get there in time because their mobility scooters ran out of battery.
They're in need of some mechanical bootstraps I see.
Every gun owner I’ve talked to on the internet claims they do this to protect themselves from the US government. Every gun owner I’ve talked with on the internet doesn’t have an answer for when I discuss the massive firepower the US has in comparison to their pew pew sticks.
edit: I should qualify this a little. There are responsible gun owners, and I have talked with some on the internet. There sure are a lot of vocal irresponsible gun owners as well, and those are the ones I have spent far more time arguing with online. You know the ones - they buy the gun and expect it to do all the work for them.
The other 95% of us gun owners, such as myself, who DON'T broadcast it to the world and make it our entire personality, have guns as a hobby or as tools to use on the farm. And give zero fucks about whatever the hell the feds or Texas is up to...
Wait, so you don't buy whipped cream and take instagram photos with your pistol?
Obviously we do.
We just don't post it.
That's for private use.
Nope! The only photos I have of my guns are either records of the serial numbers and attachments for insurance value purposes, or of me and my friends together on range days once in a while.
Not even just a little whipped cream?
Nooe, sorry to disappoint. It's bad for the mechanisms. Stickyyyy 🤮🤮
Sad uwu
It's good to look back on those memories fondly, after that unfortunate accident on the boat where every single gun fell overboard. Lost forever. The shame! :(
Lol
"What will your response be to an AGM-114 Hellfire missile?"
"Well I'll shoot it of course."
Gun owner here: that's a stupid mentality. Putting aside the fact that I rather like the federal government, the best you could hope for in a war against the feds is an indefinite insurgency. You'll suffer an abismal casualty rate, and you'll really only be able to "win" if you saturate the government with sympathizers. If that happens, well, "you" won't be doing the winning, it'll be the people who got themselves into established positions of power.
It’s a very stupid mentality born out of fear. I had a conversation with someone on reddit once in the comment section for a news article about a child (5 year old) finding a gun in the bushes. Her reply as a gun owner was “I’d rather live in a world where 5 year olds can find guns in bushes than live in a world where they cannot”.
It blows my mind. These folks are going to end up killing their children in a case of mistaken idenity if they’re not careful (and they aren’t careful).
I know someone whose son killed himself with a gun he found in Daddys night stand.
Daddy was a broken man afterwards and had to force himself raising his daughter until she had a job, a fiance and left the house. The next day Daddy shot himself with the same gun as his son.
Such a sad story. Dad wanted to be at the ready for a home invader which never came. Kid was too young to understand and/or a curious small human learning about the world. What’s worse is that stories like this get written off as “anti-gun / anti-2nd amendment propaganda”. The reason the person I was arguing with wanted to live in a world “where a kid can find a gun in the bush” was, as they explained: because any argument or statement that can be construed as for gun control is a threat to our right to bear arms - they would rather live in a world where we have so many guns that they are showing up in bushes where children can find them, than live in the only other option, which is a world in which no guns do not exist in any sense of the word.
It’s wild, really. Protecting yourself makes sense, but a world where guns are accessible to literal children is not a world most folks want to live in. And it’s the world americans live in.
Handle doesn't check out lol. Your points are very well-reasoned. The saddest part for me is that education goes a LONG way with these things, but the issue is now so heavily politicized it's hard to make any headway with anyone.
In school districts you're often up against zero-tolerance hoplophobes and panic parents who are just plain terrified that guns exist (understandably), and would rather just pretend they didn't instead of educating themselves and their kids. (Irrationally)
Then sometimes you have the ones wanting to teach these classes having some ulterior gun-worship political motive...
But for real:
We teach kids not to play around moving cars or trains or downed power lines, but having "If you find a gun..." safety talks with children doesn't happen as often as it should, and they're way smarter than we give them credit for.
I stash mine securely, and if my nephews saw me cleaning one they'd be curious and staring. I'd always kindly tell them like it was:
"This is a dangerous tool. This is a tool to defend from someone attempting to kill you. It can seriously hurt or kill people. This is not to be played with. What do you do if you EVER find something that looks like this?"
"Don't touch it. Go tell an adult."
"Good boys."
They need to know they can trust the grownups in their lives to teach them instead of punish them for curiosity. Then these things stop being taboo and fascinating.
Finally you have owners who, as the tragic story said, just keep it in a nightstand. No lock or anything. Wow. Proper home security and an emergency preparedness plan with your family should buy you more than enough time to safely retrieve a securely stowed weapon to protect yourself from a very determined attacker.
The people who think they'll just wake up one night and suddenly find themselves having to mag dump into a ninja make me sad.
Lol sorry for the rant.
Kids are way smarter than we give them credit for, absolutely! I’m the kind of guy who would rather not live in a world with guns, or violence for that matter. I’d be willing to ban lots of weapons for this purpose. I’m that guy who gun advocates hate to deal with in that respect. The only reason I’ve carved a small niche for “responsible gun ownership” is because my dad was very open about getting one. He told us he got it, he explained why, he took a firearms class, got a concealed carry permit, would clean maintain it regularly even though I’ve never seen him fire it. He told me stories about how gun owners would be too quick to react when hearing a home intruder and accedently shot a family member who was coming home late. He showed me how to hold the weapon, but that was about it. That small bit went a long way.
Well it kind of already happened. The Confederacy lost but their ideology somewhat retained and now a sizeable chunk of the elected government officials are sympathetic to it.
And Republicans have been demonstrating for decades now that saturating the government with sympathizers works just fine without an armed rebellion.
As a gun owner, guns are for hunting and defending against these drooling idiot, neo-nazi seditionists who are trying to forment civil war.
Here's your answer.
All the bombs, missiles, planes, and tanks are how the US got a decisive victory in Vietnam.
Were the Vietnamese fighters morbidly obese, middle-aged men with no training who wouldn't even tolerate a paper mask to save their families?
I think the people of Vietnam had a lot less fucks to give than your average Texan. I don't see Texans building and living in an underground tunnel system that they themselves dug out. I dont even know how those idiots survive without a chick fil a within driving distance. Guerilla warfare involves some terrible living conditions for the guerilla fighters, and Yall Qaeda is not strong enough to live that way.
I'd like to see them attempt the CNN-monkey-bars thing to posture though. Just for laughs.
And Afghanistan.
4 presidents, 20 years, and trillions of dollars, and we successfully replaced the Taliban with...the Taliban.
A perfectly bipartisan effort, too! A true symbol of what we can do if Republicans and Democrats work together
Aww, did you delete your reply? That's not very big, brave gun owner of you. Thankfully, it still arrived in my inbox.
While I'm all for people changing their deeply stupid beliefs, it's still surreal that for at least a few minutes, you thought that a good argument was "Our guns will be all we need against an actual military because we can use them for domestic terrorism targeting pregnant white women".
I reconsidered because I thought someone would misrepresent/ misconstrue my meaning. Congrats.
If the shooting starts, it won't be the old scooter patrol on the front lines on the Texas border. It will be a guerilla war and the targets won't be pregnant women. People who lack critical thinking skills or haven't studied history think bombs and tanks matter in that sort of war. Hurr durr, no one can stand up to the military. Lol
Leaving the union: All social security, Medicare, Medicaid disappear immediately. Who is fighting the U.S. Navy for the oil wells? All imports stopped. All exports stopped. The companies who drill the oil and lobby the politicians are going to choose to sell to the U.S. instead of a single entity that won't be able to pay. Now there is no fuel for vehicles.. workers aren't at the power plants, electricity failing more often than already overloaded grid they failed to maintain. It's 100+ degrees in Texas how often?
People dying, starving, traveling back in time... Do they still think they are better than the immigrants coming over to offer work and pay sales taxes?
Maybe brokering a deal to figure out immigration policies where they are processed cheaper, documented and turned into workers paid for by the the entire U.S. won't sound so bad then... Maybe they will even think assisting other countries so the people don't leave will be so bad either.
To be fair if we're talking Texas this part is kindof a moot point and might not be felt.
They're one of like 11 states (don't quote me haha) that rejected free money for Medicaid expansion, so you need to be making like $1,900 a YEAR to be eligible for any kind of aid...unless you're an individual and not a family, in which case, they want you to either suddenly get lots of money or die in a ditch.
Edit - there's a source so I wasn't being intellectually lazy lol. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/medicaid-expansion-benefits-legislature/
And to add to all the rest of your very good points:
With their power grid, if they actively became hostile we'd just have to wait til the extreme weather crumbles their utilities infrastructure again.
Agreed, it would be a fucking mess, particularly if some of the states that are supporting Texas join in secession. But if there isn't a border, there isn't a country. And 2 million a year is beyond sustainable, and with zero vetting is beyond stupid and beyond dangerous. Who is coming in? MS13, Hamas/ ISIS? Trafficked children? Or is every single one just looking for a better life.
We have immigration laws, and the Biden administration isn't following them. They are in fact, actively ignoring/breaking them.
Why?
Crazy. Almost like it's just hollow self-aggrandizing so they can pretend they're a hero.
I always bring up resources management. They probably won't go full hog in an armed uprising on US soil. Every bridge bombed is a bridge needed to rebuild. A carpet bombing of Texas will hit non-combatant citizens. A preemptive point against this would be the first civil war. Sherman's march ( the goat ) was different because the largest militaries decided to be neutral during the conflict. A crippling of an armed uprising will also cripple defense against China or Russia if they get froggy. Or if the damages could be justified. Like say a critical bridge was one of the MANY bridges that are on the verge of collapsing. Bomb it now and make Texas pay for it call it Biden's bridge etc. Or a track of land being used by rebels is prime railroad land/oil/etc.
Every gun owner on the internet seems to be 100% on board with using their guns to install a fascist US government.
A simple scroll on this thread alone seems to indicate against this statement. Plenty of good non-fashy-non-tankies who understand the problems with disarmament of the people.
They're just also not loud and obnoxious. =\
Look, I wouldn't mind having a gun personally, I get that they're fun, but societally speaking, I am very fucking happy basically nobody has them here. Theoretically.
If that works for your locale and you personally, that's great. No argument. It's a complicated topic for sure.
From a perspective here, unfortunately here in the U.S, they're many times necessary for personal protection, especially out in the boonies, because the territory is just so dang BIG you simply can't rely on a police service to protect you from skullduggery at all times. (And then, yeah, police are a contentious topic too lol...I digress)
My only nudge with your comment was "Every gun owner on the Internet seems..."
The vast majority of us are on the Internet, quiet, responsible, and really hope we're never forced to sling lead at another human being, and we're just as embarrassed as you are about the ones you're talking about.
If anything, those types' out of control posturing and dangerous toddler antics will end in screwing us all over once they've "othered" every single potential ally the responsible folks could have had.
I hope maybe in some way it can help you feel like the world is a little less crazy when people on "the other side of the issue" are all too happy to agree with you on how out of hand it's all gotten.
I think a huge core of it is that arms companies need to stay in business by putting more product in exponentially more hands every quarter, and they'll use every astroturfing, lobbying, culture-warping trick in the book to create a never-ending "gun fandom."
That can't be good for anybody.
Thanks for putting in the effort for a good reply.
I think the way I see it is this:
https://www.iflscience.com/an-artist-placed-goldfish-in-blenders-and-asked-visitors-to-turn-them-on-they-did-63638
Briefly, artist put a live goldfish in a blender as an art exhibition, connects blender to a big red button for any attendee to press. If they want. They did.
The thought being, sooner or later, it doesn't matter, given time, some bumfuck is going to press it. And they did. Plenty of people did (I think all the goldfish died, there were ten blenders like this, I think the artist even knew that 1 wouldn't be enough and that 10 might perhaps drive the point home even more).
If you give people the option to select between life and death for someone else, people are going to die, a lot. It doesn't matter that it was perhaps one in five hundred who pressed the button for whatever reason, the fish still got massacred.
You get what I'm saying?
I'm willing to believe that large enough chunk of gun enthusiastics comes from Texas or Texas-like states.
“Everything’s bigger in texas” including the fear of gubmint
Remember Jade Helm, when the army held a training exercise in Texas and a bunch of yokels thought it was an invasion?
That was a fantastic one yeah. I really can't imagine what it's like being one of those people yelling about these crazy things and being wrong every single time
I own a gun.
Fuck Texas. I won’t be supporting them in anything ever.
Yeah, I'm a gun owner and am pretty "on board" with democracy so I'm not gonna help those hypothetical traitors secede.
Sign me up for the pro gun anti sedition group.
Everyone seems to have this romantic idea of a US Civil War would be like. It's either "76 million gun owners becoming patriots" or the US military will crush the secessionists with some airstrikes and drone strikes, all in time for dinner.
The first stage would be political chaos. Some US governors will see this an attempt to seize even more power and side with the Secessionists (looking at you, DeSantis, you shit head). Some US governors will wait to see if a political solution can be sought before picking sides, and other governors will side the US government. Congress will have to figure out what do with US Representatives from Secessionist States. Some members of the military will start to defect or desert for various reasons.
If a political comprise can't be sought, we move to the second stage. Secessionist States start seizing US military bases and their assets and more members of the US military and Secessionist States start to desert/defect. Russia, China, Iran, and other countries sensing an opportunity, start to exploit the ongoing chaos. This includes massive disinformation campaigns, funding violent organizations, and isolating US allies.
A small amount of far-right militias sensing an opportunity with the US government dealing with the beginnings of a civil act, start to act. Small bombings and assassinations to further their political goals. Conservatives in Northern California start terror campaigns in Southern California. Progressive groups start being targeted and band together for safety. Foreign interference becomes more involved. Refugees start fleeing.
Third stage is full out war. Battles between Secessionist forces and the US Military start happening. Every state has either decided to join one side or goes their own way. Political crises pop up in US territories. Local insurgencies break out amongst groups fighting for power as central governments are pre-occupied with fighting a civil war. Foreign inference is at a maximum with direct financial, military, or logistical support to whatever group aligns with foreign powers.
We saw this with happen with the Iraq War with it's multitude of Shiite and Sunni militias fighting each other and the US. Same thing happened in Syria, with groups supporting the government against those fighting against the government and the Kurds. We saw what can happen with a dedicated low tech insurgency can do in Afghanistan and Vietnam against a far more advanced military.
At best, the US is 11 different countries trying to be one country.. At worst, the US is 50 different countries trying to be one country.
Robert Evans of Behind the Bastards wrote an article about the beginnings of a civil war.
So... Every gun in the US is owned in Texas?
No, every person who owns a gun is part of a hive mind that thinks exactly like the person who created this. Or so they think.
Not only that, every last one is apparently owned by people ready to die for Greg Abbot's ego
“I support the former things” is such a stupid fucking slogan. It’s not catchy and sounds like someone tried to rephrase “The good old times” five times in a row. How about:
“Back in the day today!”
“It has been better, it will be better!”
“We chug barrels of cum!”
“Craving for Russian cock uWu”
I swear, the right has zero creativity.
Conservatives are not going to be happy when they find out liberals have guns too. Or what happened the last time the south tried seceding.
This kind of counteracts the "AR-15s aren't assault rifles" argument, no?
The right and contradiction are best of friends.
They don't care about logic, reason of reality. That's why they can scream about family values and support a degenerate rapist like Trump.
That's the appeal of conservativism. If you are a member of the in group, you are good, and anyone who isn't in the group is bad. That's all the justification a conservative needs to say or do anything that benefits the conservatives in the group.
It's not a contradiction at all. When it serves them to argue you need thirty 5.56 rounds, a silencer, and a bump stock to hunt quail or whatever, then that's the argument they make. When it is best to argue that their assault-themed hunting rifles will help them overthrow the government, that's the argument.
When it helps them to push moral wedge issues to lather up their small minded constituents, they will promote their credentials as the last bastion of moral authority in a world filled with demons. When one of those demons rises to be the leader of their party, they fall in line and claim he's the fucking messiah.
Those arguments aren't contradictory or hypocritical, because when they make them, they are benefitting themselves. Previous statements or positions are like farts in the wind. When they criticized government handouts, it was correct because the criticism helped them get elected, and spending less on social programs let them spend more on benefitting themselves. When they accepted government handouts, it was correct because it benefited themselves.
See how easy this is? Rational people are often confused, and assume there must be some Olympic level mental gymnastics going on inside of the mind of a conservative. It's not that complicated, and there isn't hardly anything going on. That's the appeal. You don't have to think, you don't have to remember, and you owe nobody an explanation. You are right because of who you are and therefore anything you want to do or say is righteous. Just don't go against the in-group.
It's worth pointing out that there's almost always some sort of intellectual bulldozer on their side who has to assemble a legal or logical explanation to bamboozle normies, and it's unfair to think of those folks as stupid per se... but they shouldn't be assumed to be intellectually honest, either. Your average Scalia or Buckley or Alito is very bright, but uses their intelligence to create post-hoc rationalizations in support of positions that are otherwise unsupportable. Underestimate them at your peril, but never give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to integrity.
It is contradictory, they just don't care about that. They lack the integrity to care about. It's still contradictory.
I don't think you understand. Let's say you prefer red wine over white wine. But you go to dinner, and maybe you feel like having fish and so you decide to have white wine. Have you contradicted yourself? Maybe tomorrow, you are in the mood for steak, and so you pick a full bodied red to go with it. This is also not a contradiction from the previous day's order.
This is how the conservative mind views political positions. They might have a loose sense of rules, but what is true on Tuesday is irrelevant on Wednesday. That's not contradiction, because what you wanted before may or may not be what you want later. For a conservative, hypocrisy isn't even a possibility, because nothing is set in stone.
They say that because “assault rifle” has a definition which the vast majority of citizen owned AR-15s do not meet.
Every time someone uses this term incorrectly, like now, it reinforces their perception that those opposed to gun ownership have no idea what they’re taking about regarding guns.
To avoid this, we should be willing to at least look up the simplest of definitions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Then, usually, the response is “yeah well now we’re just splitting hairs/arguing about terms which doesn’t matter” to which I would respond “this thread started with arguing about terms”.
You're right, they have the same outer shell with a completely different firing mechanism. The best anyone can legally get (to my knowledge) is a binary trigger. It fires when pulled, fires when released.
That's fucking terrifying
Binary triggers are a drop in mod, as are rotary triggers that fire as long as you turn the crank. Forced reset triggers are another loophole that's become popular, they physically reset the trigger so that as long as you pull with the right amount of force, not too much not too little, the gun will continue to cycle. Its also not hard to adapt an ar-15 to have an autosear. They mostly use the same trigger configuration as a full auto assault rifle, just with the auto-sear and selector switch missing. Its as simple as drilling 2 holes and then adding the 2 parts and a spring.
A few years ago, maybe still, you could buy modified parts literally on Ebay to turn an AR-15 into a full auto, for really cheap. I have a family member who's a conservative gun nut and bought one, so I can personally confirm it is legit that easy. Probably suuuper illegal, but clearly no one was(is?) keeping an eye on that kind of shit to even catch it.
I always took it as the distinction between a moped and a motorcycle. Different even if a lot of the functionality is close.
I tend to agree. I wouldn't give a fuck if the weapon I'm currently being shot at with is considered an assault rifle or not. It's still just as capable of killing me.
I'm just frustrated at people unwilling to update their definitions when provided good evidence that theirs is wrong.
Assault rifle refers to the calibre and application of a rifle.
The smaller 5.56 round is an assault rifle round, this is to distinguish it from the previous larger battle rifle rounds.
The AR-15 was designed with select fire. The ones sold to civilians don't have this capability because it's illegal.
The only people that define these in such a way as you have a gun nuts. Trying to hide the fact that people are selling and marketing a weapon of war to civilians in a peaceful country.
I gave the definition that excludes what the vast majority of civilians own and gave a source.
If you're claiming the round is the only consideration then please source your claim.
Also the US Army, which seems relevant.
And there it is. I'll refer you to the last part of my initial comment. I can't believe I pre-addressed this and it's still a thing.. lol.
Except that's not usually how this argument comes up. None of the nuts are saying, "but it's not an assault rifle" when others claim guns kill people. It's always a direct response to "AR'15's are assault rifles". My simple suggestion is to stop being incorrect about a simple term.
Similarly to the way I, a techy IT guy in the industry for ~15 years, don't want old farts who know fuck all about the internet to be regulating it or the way that women don't want old men who know fuck all about reproductive health to regulate their bodies - It's understandable for those who know what they're talking about to not want ignorant people regulating their shit.
But it's not hard to just be aware of simple definitions...
I’m always reminded of this loon when I hear well meaning idiots try to argue about assault rifles and magazine capacity:
Rep. Degette said "I will tell you these are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."
It's literally a semantics argument while ignoring linguistics which allows the people who use words to change them over time.
It's also why they decry they aren't racist, just biased. They don't have stereotypes for no reason...
Yet when you ask them to use correct language like Mr. Ms. Mx. or not call someone by their dead name, they throw a fit. Even if we legally changed the definition right now through law, they still wouldn't agree it's an assault rifle because the military made use of them for war, but now it's not full auto. Just can be with small modifications. Because everyone at war always dumps their mag on full auto whenever they see anyone, right?
Right: It's a clip not a mag for a Mosin Ganant! See you don't know what you're talking about so you can't say take away the guns people use to go on terrorist murder sprees or threaten democracy with!
Left: ... We just want you to not be able to shoot through body armor, people, and others en masse, please? I don't really care that it's called an assault weapon.
Right: 2ND AMENDMENT.
Left: We already put restrictions on that and most of the right agrees with stuff like red flag laws and not letting violent criminals have them.
Right: SORRY EVERYONE SHOULD OWN A GUN EVEN IF THEY'RE AN ABUSER. 2ND AMENDMENT. ORIGINALIST. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MURDER ANYONE WHO STEPS FOOT ON MY PROPERTY.
Left: Doesn't the bank own your property, lifted truck, and a company own half your farm equipment and big rig?
You dismiss it as just semantics.
Semantics matter, especially in politics.
Sure, if you ignore any sense of context and appeal only to extreme nonsensical arguments made by WORMs (white old rich men) reinterpreting what other WORMs said 300 years ago.
This is a new one. I've never seen anyone but the least educated claim that ARs aren't assault rifles. Automatic, sure, but there's no definition of assault rifle that doesn't include an AR.
Assault rifles, by definition, have select fire capabilities. Commercially available civilian AR-15 is semi-auto single fire only. People are often confused by the AR designation, but that stands for Armalite, the original manufacturer of the rifles. They are officially called "assault-style" rifles, although that term isn't very popular because it seems like a minor quibble. In all other measures (shorter rifle, intermediate cartridge, detachable box magazine, range of 300 meters) the AR-15 meets the criteria to be called an "assault rifle," except for the select-fire.
It's worth mentioning that many popular models can be easily modified by a competent gunsmith to add burst and/or full auto firing. It's illegal, but that doesn't stop a terrorist who thinks they are going to need their rifle to join the insurrection. At that point it would be an assault rifle.
Internet comments are crazy. AR15s are semi auto. The first 3 definitions I found would not include an AR15.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle - this second definition includes semi auto rifles however
The AR-15 defined assault rifles in a way. Outside of experimental weapons. Most countries that use assault rifles are based on the AR-15, the cheaper to licence AR-18 or the Soviet response to the American AR-15/M16.
They're both assault rifles and weapons of war. So what's your point? Since the Revolution Americans have owned military-grade, and usually better grade, rifles.
They aren't the largest army.
They are the largest infantry.
Big difference.
They're definitely the largest by BMI.
Sick burn, bro.
I've seen infantry. I've been infantry. These are NOT infantry.
♫ My bombs go jingle jangle jingle as they fly right merrily along ♫
How little the average redneck understands this joke... I'll explain it like to a five year old:
72 bazillion guns are USELESS against one single B52 carpet bombing the shit out of you.
Modern Warfare makes a gun fight look like a cave men throwing stones.
Yes, but also you're ignoring the reality of the resilience of insurgent forces to air power. You cannot win the war only from the air.
The Texas Gravy Seals are going to have to leave their bunkers for burgers and beer eventually...and insulin.
Good thing the most well funded military in the world, greater than the next 9 nations combined, is also at their beck and call. This isn't the NVA, this is a bunch of 280 pound guys who practice shooting from benches, going against drones, artillery, bombers, tanks, missiles, etc.
One of the fattest countries in the world aren't hardened fighters after years of various occupations. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. is not comparable to the US and Texas
“EndWokeness”?
Do these people even listen to themselves?
I nearly spit out my coffee when I walked past a bookstore and saw Ted Cruz’s “Unwoke” on display.
This is just as golden as them being against antifa. Y’all ever stop to think that maybe that leaves you standing with the “fa”?
Many gun owners are democrats, so their moronic stance against the U.S. fucking military is not off to a great start planning wise
What makes them think all those gun owners would be on their side?
Quick googling let me know there are about 10 million households in Texas and 40% of those have at least one gun. Lets say that transfer to one gun owner per household. 4 million gun owners in Texas. Lets say 2% of those show up to die. That's gonna be a great army of 80k.
Assuming these bumbling fools will be about as effective as Russians in Ukraine, they will have a mortality rate of about 431 dimwits a day. I would say this is generous, considering what they would be up against. If they fight to the last man; they will last about 185 days. Though it is unrealistic they would fight to the last man. lets say they capitulate after 20% losses. That hypothetical conflict would last about a month.
I would like to believe they would just get cold feet before any violence sets in. It's easy to talk tough on social media, but when cold reality washes over them, they will do the smarter thing.
My numbers might be way off. It was just a fun little math exercise. Edit: I didn't take in to account that only about 39% of adults are republican voters.
Seems like Texas has less households with guns than the national average
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
Bruh I'm a gun owner for sport, don't lump me in with the stupid crowd. I don't care if I couldn't own guns anymore, I'd just find a different hobby. I'm sure as shit not coming to the rescue of Texas
Weird how all the gun people didn't do a goddamn thing when Citizens United happened
Does Texas not know the ac130 exists?
Civil wars and these memes are dumb, the military isn't going to bomb anything...on top of that, you probably live in the same building or next to a neighbor who would be a target, and bombs aren't that accurate, you will be collateral damage.
No, they aren't going to bomb anything. They'll set up military road blocks and patrols to secure federal control over the area, and the soldiers doing it will come from the nearest army base.
So to actually fight against the federal government, the chucklefucks would have to shoot their soldier neighbors, friends, sons and acquaintances in the head while other soldiers watch them from behind a heavy machinegun. Not gonna happen.
More who needs bombs when you've got the NSA? All insurgents have their assets frozen, health care suspended, social security numbers frozen, banned from legal employment. They become second class citizens overnight, relying on others for food and money. Their movements tracked through phones and cars. All associates are under scrutiny. Then it's just a matter of sending the FBI round to arrest them
Huh? Empire 101: never have locals tamp down rebellion. You mobile forces from the other end of the country for that
See my comment above; the US government bombing US citizens happened before. Given, they weren't fascists but a labour union, but..
The government dropping bombs onto US citizens is more likely than you think: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
Gov. Didn't drop bombs during this and there was hell to pay on both sides.
Tiktok and its consequences have been a disaster for reading comprehension (I do not condone the Unabomber's actions and want to stress the ableism, sexism, and fascist overtones in his manifest)
They bombed Tulsa.
Any American seeing this who doesn't know the reference should read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
And Blair Mountain West Virginia.
Depends, can they put bbq sauce on it
An army is comprised of trained soldiers, not a bunch of jackasses with guns.
If the American government came after Texas (as in they seceded) how would they have 72m gun owning Americans to join their cause? They wouldnt be part of the U.S. at that point.
Curious to see how an army of 72 million angry, obstinate people functions. I'm sure that will be a very cohesive military.
Not all of those 72 million people are chuds. Statistically speaking, like 50 million of those 72 million can't make it to the end of their driveway without needing to catch their breath.
And? Not all gun owners are joining this joke military. The rest of us will be popcorning the show.
An awful lot would be happy to shoot back, in fact
It's a waste of ammo and gas to get there.
Entire nations know better than to take on the US military, who have a larger budget than the next ten nations combined and won’t even give you a target to shoot at, and these dick weasels think they can do it with commercially available weapons and no training?
LMAO. Go ahead, try it. I’ll be here with popcorn.
The US isn't just a military stick, it's also an economic carrot. The folks that end up wrangling with the stick are inevitably the ones denied the carrot.
Countries like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and I guess now Yemen had been in an economic conflict with the US - via embargos and proxy wars - long before the first American soldier arrived.
The thing about Texas is that a handful of jerk-offs posting from their 8086s in Beaumont aren't the guys who will feel the pain in a serious break away.
It's Dell Computer and Exxon and fucking Pizza Hut that will hurt. And their executives will drag these dissidents out back to the wood shed themselves long before The Republic of Texas dipshits need to worry about a B-52 over their heads.
You might have a point here. Nowadays I can 100% see in my head, a little playfully maybe, corps coming for the kneecaps. This timeline so damned deranged it doesn't seem farfetched atm.
Imagine Biden going on TV and announcing the nationalization of all assets owned by texas based companies.
Abbott's head would be delivered to the white house the next day in a Halliburton duffle bag.
Stop it you are exciting me
Lockheed/Martin has MUCH faster planes than "next day".
Idiot right-wing gun-lovers who actively support the kind of fascism we need to be fighting aside...
The idea isn't to fight tanks and jets with rifles head-on. The idea is that an anonymous armed insurgency is really hard to defeat. Anti-armor vehicles work great against armor, but trying to use them on small insurgents made up of random individuals is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer: you do a lot of collateral damage but the actual target is fine.
Overconfidence in stealth jets and aircraft carriers is why Iraq and Afghanistan turned into decades-long engagements before we'd just gave up and left. The regular Iraqi army was defeated in under 2 weeks, but we still lost the war.
And if it were to happen here, the government would also have to worry a lot more about troops unwilling to kill fellow citizens, unlike in the middle east where they were all strangers speaking a different language.
Finally someone else who realizes telling the military to carpet bomb cities has never worked against an insurgency except maybe in Chechnya, but it's hard to call that an ideal win.
The US army is very good at that. That’s the kind of conflict they’ve been fighting since Vietnam. If you think a distributed guerrilla army can stand against the US military on their own soil, you’re delusional.
I’m not talking about tanks and jets. That’s so last century. That’s not how wars are fought now. There’s just no way homegrown militias would have any hope against the US military in their midst. Ask anyone enlisted in any branch of the military. I promise they’ll tell you that’s a pipe dream.
You mean the military that's consistently failed to win those kind of conflicts?
The US military was driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan and that's with pretty much 100% troop loyalty. You start ordering the military to shoot Americans on American soil they won't even have that.
In the US Civil War, this exact scenario played out. All it took was first blood, and even family members on opposite sides fought each other.
US soldiers will definitely kill our own. We saw this during the 70's with National Guard units shooting Kent State students. We see it today with our police forces. If the opposition can be cast as the villain, soldiers will fight.
Sure, but the American army can (with the almost assured ok from Mexico) literally surround Texas and just starve them out. What exactly is going to get through the US Navy, Army, and Air Force into Texas if they don't want it to? It'll be a guerrilla army against the American Military that literally can fly any operation they want 30 seconds to and from target. The US has one of the most insanely good logistical abilities in history, around the world, imagine inside their own borders. What exactly are Texas Militias going to do? Approach the borders and take pot shots? The second they try to get through a drone army flying 24/7 will either take them out themselves or constantly send locations to artillery, tanks, etc. All the AR-15/M16/M416/etc in the world won't help you against what the American Military has on offer.
I think you’re missing the point that it wouldn’t be a war, it would be a police action. The local national guards would shut that shit down quickly.
If you think your small arms could stand against the US military on its own turf, you’re hilariously mistaken. I get that you want to believe that’s what gives you your freedoms, but come on. Nobody who actually understands how that would play out takes those dreams seriously.
You have guns because they fulfill your fantasies, not because that’s in any way realistic.
Objectively then, clearly 2A is deficient. The people need more arms to keep oppressive governments in check.
No, the 2A wasn’t meant for individual people to keep arms for that reason. It was written before the US had any sort of army (and several of the founders were actually against a national standing army), with the point being each state would keep enough arms and accoutrements and train the people to be ready to be called up to defend their state.
It was meant to create something like what became the National Guard.
The Supreme Court changed that definition in 2002 with the Heller decision, so now it’s even further removed from its original meaning. I suppose that makes it deficient if you’re reading in an original meaning it never had in the first place.
To be honest, we "lost" those wars because of our intolerance for splash damage. We often knew where the insurgents were, but to take them out would mean killing a lot of civilians. We had to wait until they were in a place where the collateral damage was minimal, even if it meant they got away. Israel and Russia don't seem to have this problem, but look at where it's landed them on the stage of world opinion.
People that believe in a "surgical" war are why we lose. We would have prevailed in an all out conflict where civilian casualties are acceptable. We have the firepower. But that might be viewed as genocide, which is unacceptable.
This is why the US is involved in so many conflicts. War is supposed to be terrible, and therefore avoided by all sides. When rules are in play, the weaker side believes they can win by hiding among civilians. This is the insurgents' playbook - let the other side play by the rules, and when they don't, scream foul. Never mind that combatants hiding among civilians is also against the rules.
When you fight an insurgency with cruel force, especially with disregard for civilian casualties, all you do is further the circumstances that led to the insurgency in the first place. These groups are recruiting for a fight against a foreign army. If said army just brutally killed your innocent brothers and sisters, you are a hell of a lot more likely to get radicalized and join. It's certainly no recipe for post-conflict stability.
This is what is so absurd about Israel's war right now, and it was absurd about the US' war too. And I disagree that the US would've "won" if it was "ok with more splash damage".
Pure grade copium right here.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria. Insurgency is very different from peer/near peer. Not to mention in the event of a civil war, at least some amount of the military would side with them. And another portion would not want to bomb urban areas especially.
Yeah, I’m not worried about the gravy seals. They can only carry so much ammo on their mobility scooters.
Plus their own fear will cause them to shit their diapers, further weighing them down.
I see a lot of traitors behind bars. Fuck them and their Y’all Qaeda.
Yea
Like a whole lot of fat asses as far as the eye could see.
Found the traitor. This is even more fun than finding the Vegan.
Lmao January 6th was full of old fat rednecks.
If it ain't the gravy seals, then it's completely incompetent nerds like Patriot Front with their cute little matching outfits and their very masculine shields.
Patriot cos players.
See, for instance here’s one now. Thinks having a gun beats the government. Why is that, guy?
No, these people are definitely a joke. You're just upset because you're one of them.
They are a joke, but that doesn't mean they're not dangerous. In the face of the US military? No. Dangerous to themselves and anyone in their immediate area? Sure.
Aww butthurt?
These people are a huge joke, what are you on about? These are the kind of people that are poorly educated and easily conned. These people were dumb enough to believe that they could just waltz into the Capital and overthrow the government with funny signs and hats.
Equating gun ownership with sedition and secession is pretty stupid. Go for it, Texas. Your backup numbers are fewer than you think.
There was an article a few weeks ago about how Texas is the least-free state in the union. They have the fewest liberties, yet they can carry guns and that's all they care about.
i would like to add - not even all gun owners in texas are interested in opposing the feds in this case!
If the state of Texas ever went into serious revolt, the first thing it would need to do is flood the streets of Houston, Dallas, and Austin with military police to contain their own domestic insurrection.
Half those gun owners would happily Texas Book Depository Greg Abbott if he was ever in their line of fire.
Hmm
By that logic, they must think every single gun owner lives in Texas.
In case there is anyone in here who thinks Texas has a chance of winning a civil war against the rest of the US. Watch this.
If Texas decided tomorrow they were seceding, Abbott and everyone else involved in that decision would be hogtied and presented to the feds within the week after
In a smart system, they'd try everyone involved and lock them all up for life and the incident would serve as a reminder that if you fuck around you will find out. Of course with our luck we'd get some dipshit president to fuck up that bit just like after the civil war
This worked so well in Afghanistan am I right?
Because the US military would totally treat a war on their own soil the same as bombing the shit out people half way across the world, not at all like one would involve every ounce of force available,
I don't think the military would even end up having to much anyway. Kind of just sit there and wait a couple weeks, then head on in with the aid Texas pretty please asked for.
Yeah, it's way harder on US soil. It's going to drone strike neighborhoods? Yeah right
Mexico wouldn't let Talibangicals hide out like Pakistan did.
What is winning? Subduing Texas?
Absolutely ridiculous that you think carpet bombing would be
A. Effective Or B. Politically possible.
There wouldn’t be a fight. It would be half suicidal for federal troops for a long time, and to think brother would blindly fight brother is crazy talk. Our military, through every end of our ranks, is filled with Texans and their family.
It would never happen, but the idea that Texas would just be overrun like Iraq is absolutely stupid.
Totally unrelated question: are you from Texas?
Nope. Born in CO and raised in GA. Please understand that I think secessionists are dumb, just that the idea that the federal government would just roll them is stupid.
Do you really think Texas is the entirety of America?
No. I’m just saying that if Texas seceded, it wouldn’t be a quick, low casualty fight.
Lol, yes. Yes, it would.
Sorry mate. You honestly sound like a child.
Everyone likes playing cowboys and Indians but when push comes to shove anyone with a partner or kids or a mortgage is gonna stand down.
Only an idiot would get into a shooting war over a piss weak political ideology.
I agree! I don’t think secession will ever actually happen, I’m just saying that, in a clown world where it did, the idea that federal forces would just roll over Texas is laughable.
It's amazing the people that deliberately avoid "CRT" topics and push defunding schools do not know the events ov Blair mountain, the bombing of MOVE in Philadelphia, and/or black wall street. Absolutely shocked!
I am confused about what cathode-ray tubes have to do with schools, Blair mountain, a bombing and black wall street....
Critical Race Theory
I think he knows.
72 million gun owners seems low to me...
Here's a stat that pegs the total number of guns at around 434 million and just under 20 million AR-15s.
https://www.guns.com/news/2020/11/17/data-us-has-434-million-guns-20m-ars-150m-mags
At only 72 million gun owning homes, that would mean, on average, 6 guns per gun owner?
https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
22% of gun owners have only a single firearm. So if the 72 million number is correct, that means 15,840,000 single gun owners, and the remaining 418,160,000 guns are owned by 56,160,000, or 7.45 guns per owner.
Sounds about right. I grew up in central Missouri, and while relatively few of my friends had guns, the one that did had a goddamn arsenal in his bedroom. Two shotguns, three rifles, and a "big" handgun that all stayed in a gun safe, and a .22 pistol he kept under the bed "for safety." And that was just his room, as a high schooler... His brother and his mother both had other weapons of their own.
Even people who are just hobby shooters or hunters rather than 2A "mah guns" weirdos like said friend was tend to accumulate weapons over time. It's like any other hobby in that regard.
Yeah, there are a lot of shades of gray for multiple gun owners.
Add in the fact that some people sort of end up collecting guns the way some people collect guitars...I wouldn't be so quick to turn away from the original statistic.
It would be interesting to compare gun ownership to guitar ownership, because the analogy tracks pretty well.
Some people just wanted a guitar. They might play it often, or it might sit in a closet.
Some people have specialty guitars for different reasons. An acoustic for impromptu jam sessions, an electric for band practice, a fancy guitar to play on stage, different bodies for different sounds, etc.
And some people just like collecting guitars. They have a bunch that they have acquired over the years, some favorites, some are investments, some are projects.
I would bet the distribution curve of guns per owner tracks pretty closely with the curve of guitars per owner.
I'll say that while I do know a couple of people that seem to be prepping for an apocalypse scenario where guitars are the most valuable currency, gun owners have a much larger spike at that end of the bell curve.
Other than that I think it'd be a pretty similar distribution, though.
I lived with a guy who had a kayak collection. Different boats for different rivers or different things he wanted to do. You can only be in one boat at a time, so how many can you need?
He once explained to me how he didn't have too many kayaks, he actually had too few. He did not have the money for more boats.
LHaving met a good few gun fans. Yeah 7 to 8 guns seems like a low average.
Helped a friend move from a apartment to a new house. Over 15 guns. I say over as he also had a number of parts. I do not know enough to know if complete guns could be built. Looked like a few complete guns possible to my non gun fan eyes.
This was when I lived in GA. He was not considered unusual by most of the friends helping us.
What seems less likely to me. Is all 72m around the US siding with Texas.
They can't fathom this. They think they after all their threats and dehumanization, none of the people they're targeted have gone and gotten guns.
But hey, we always knew logic wasn't their strong suit.
Oh, the math in this is all kinds of fucked up. OPOP knows stats exists, they just haven't met it personally.
Not all 72M gun owners live in Texas, and not all of the ones that do support these turds. They mention an AR15 stat, and then completely ignore it in the conclusion.
Also, as someone else reponded, yeah: 6 guns per owner seems about right on average. I have 6: two rifles and 4 handguns. And there are a few more I'd like to collect; I wouldn't be surprised if I had 10 or 11, eventually. It's a hobby, and I like to shoot. And I don't even hunt; hunters are going to have different guns for differrent game, and might have even more than average.
It's a hobby, and like hobbies, the people who are into it are going to own predominantly more of the thing. The 2A and gun violence make it a political and socially sensitive topic, and changes the verbiage, but otherwise the same hobby trends apply.
The population of the US is ~330 million total.
By the pigeonhole principal, that means that some gun owners must own 2 guns, because there's more guns than people.
Anyways, multiple guns per owner makes intuitive sense, because different guns are for different things. You aren't going to hunt an elk with the same caliber rifle you'd hunt a rabbit with. Either you won't kill the elk, or you'll just have a fine mist that used to be a rabbit.
For another thing, ammunition costs are different for different calibers. You can buy .22 lr for under 10 cents per round. Meanwhile, 30-06 is over $1 per round. So you can do more target practice for the same money with a cheaper round.
Oh, definitely! A .22 and .45-70 both have VERY different applications. I still think 72 million owners on 435 million guns is a low estimate.
Looking it up, gun ownership is apparently very uneven.
In 2016, according to one study half of all the guns in the US were owned by the 3% of Americans with 8-140 guns. That group had an average of 17 guns each, while most gun owners had 3 or fewer guns.
As the War of 1812 showed "organized militias" kinda suck.
This idea that the US military is just gonna bomb Houston without the people in the Air Force saying, hey, wait a minute, I've got family there, is just stupid. If you think that US Civil War Part II is going to be over quickly and easily, without the same kind of grind that we had the first time, well, I've got some bad news for you.
There's not going to be a Civil War. Stop believing all the posturing that Texas is doing. They can't even survive a bit of cold weather (or a bit of hot weather!).
While I agree that the Texas bullshit is a big nothing burger, I can see scenarios where if Trump is President again and orders the military to do something unconstitutional some parts of the military refuse to carry out the order (as they're supposed to) and other parts of the military (possibly not understanding the constitution) feel duty bound to carry out an order from the commander in chief.
That's something that could get messy.
That's more or less what happened at Tiananmen Square.
Probably not. But you know what is going to happen? Abbot is going to stoke fears over undocumented migrants, and say that the feds refused to do anything --while he has been actively working to prevent them from doing anything--allowing Trump to say that he's the only one that has a strong anti-immigrant stance. That gets the MAGA shitheads riled up and excited to vote, despite Republicans accomplishing fuck-all in the last four years, while Biden has managed to deal with a lot of shit.
And if Trump doesn't win? Then all this shit goes to SCOTUS, which further weakens the ability of the federal gov't to do anything for public good.
While you do have a point that is also how every civil war starts. People don't want to fight until they do. Lincoln was in command of the troops in south until he wasn't. Even Ceaser had some mutiny because civil war is not fun. Scary part is it happens anyway.
There were people prior to the US Civil War that actively committed terrorist acts for the political purpose of ending slavery. Some of those actions arguably galvanized public support for a war. Such as John Brown; his raid on the arms depot in Harper's Ferry was used as propaganda in the south to say that the north would never accept slavery, and therefore the "rational" thing to do was to secede.
We've already seen small far-right groups milling around the edges of terrorism; the Proud Boys, Threepers, Patriot Front, etc. They're pushing the needle.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Expect to see right-wing militias committing acts of terrorism in an effort to push the Overton window. Abbott is pushing it now, with the idea that states have the right to overrule the federal gov't.
going by Ukraine, which is the only footage I've seen of real modern warfare: I saw a video of a drone detecting a soldier from high up. The soldier is lying prone aiming their rifle..The drone drops an object. There is a small pop and the soldier dies. It wasn't a big explosion, you couldn't even see blood or a wound, probably just enough to be fatal without causing a horrible mess.
That's what I imagine it'll be. A bunch of people sitting around bored and they don't even know they're dead until one second they are looking at the horizon, the next second their intestines in confusion as their consciousness fades.
...Except that's going to be happening on both sides. Because Texas is one of the biggest tech hubs in the US.
Why would they bomb cities? You'd drone strike the leadership and it would have minimal (if any) extra casualties.
This goes both ways though, doesn't it? Texas is one of the largest tech hubs in the US, just after California. And a number of companies have been relocating to Texas because it has cheaper corporate taxes. (Screw them workers, gotta earn that dolla.)
No point. Haven't you learned from two other gulf invasions? Building on the standard operating procedure, it'd be like:
As we've seen, the loss of electricity in texas means everything else shuts off and the people start attacking each other. Outside the schools, even.
The military doesn't even have to shut off the power, they can just wait until winter lmao
You are so cruel, yet so right!
Oh it'll be simple. Any state in rebellion no longer has federal say. You'll easily pass a law that punishes any company headquartered in a rebellious state, and you're done by the afternoon. The oil and gas companies will personally coup Abbott if the federal government refuses them infrastructure otherwise.
...Why would you think that gas companies would side with a president that's highly in favor of electric vehicles and renewable energy?
Hahahahahaha
Democrats don't give a shit about the issues you care about, they just want your vote. Remember when Biden was gonna end student debt and raise the minimum wage?
Remember when Biden tried to cancel student debt, and Republicans sued to stop him, and won with Trump-appointed judges?
A president isn't supposed to be a king, or a god-emperor.
You're assuming that the cities would be on the side of the traitors for some reason.
There is zero chance of secession and zero chance of texas being bombed by the us air force
The only shooting will be gun crime and in schools, which is business as usual for the USA and apparently not really even that noteworthy given the level of media coverage.
Most people I know who own guns do so because they are afraid of black people. Not because they are itching to join a rebellion.
You like to hang out with white supremacists?
I know probably a hundred gun owners since I have my own range, none of them own firearms because they're afraid of black people... considering about half of them including myself are POCs...
You're statement which is false as fuck just makes you sound like a racist.
Yikes.
You should learn more about liberal and poc gun groups
Effing us army is woke - all those “other” guys are allowed in and they’re taking our rights (to die horribly in third world countries where no one wants us and we don’t even know why we’re there)
What's funny is that the people who are most into this ideology are also the "Screw you, got mine"s that will snitch on coworkers and rat on neighbors to the HOA. But claim the government is always evil.
Later they drive like they own the road and bully other drivers on (sub)urban streets, while poofing coal-black exhaust from their double-wide trucks and oversized SUVs decorated with skeletal middle fingers and American flag punisher skull window stickers. Let's add truck nuts into this picture too, it's statistically not-unlikely.
They have some fantasy that a bunch of self-absorbed hyper-individualist misanthropes just like them are going to somehow cohesively band together to fight...the federal government...over... petty stupid things like manufactured culture wars...so that they can achieve a miserable little hate-driven utopia...? Do I got that right?
Meanwhile, neighborly, responsible, quiet, trained, community-minded gun owners will gladly organize amongst themselves to aid inevitable victims of all this nonsense, and would fare a heckuva lot better as a group.
They're the ones that would make foreign invaders or overstepping republics think twice.
These arterial-grease-ridden LARPers are being used so hard and they think it's all their idea.
As their disgraced and treasonous Great Leader(TM) might tweet:
"SAD."
The US did famously well against groups with just guns and IEDs.
That stint in the Middle East was a quick 20 min adventure.
Vietnam turned out to just be a tropical vacation.
There's no Viet Cong in Texas. I don't see Meal Team 6 dig tunnels in the thick Texan jungle.
Yes and no. We played that game by rules only we abided by.
Had we gone in and stayed without those rules, it would've been over within a year. But then we'd have committed a genocide and would be ruthless savages.
I feel that's some hubris chief. Similar to Vietnam the military objective was met, but the reason for war, and so the victory conditions, are the political objective. We failed those. And breaking our rules does not de-motivate the insurgency or move us to the political objective. Let's remember that one of those is a democracy and US ally in government in those countries.
We did not exhaust all options in Vietnam either, we tried to achieve a near impossible victory while restraining the level of violence we could achieve.
The Soviets didn't exactly hold back in Afghanistan...
Apples and oranges
It's always funny to see those secessionist traitors act like we're all going to be on their side. A lot of us gun toting Texans have no problem fighting for our nation against the traitors in our state.
There are only ~30 million people living in Texas, do they think gun owners from other States are going to come support Texas?
American gun owners don't challenge the government. They take their anger out on women and children and themselves at the very end. The government will be fine.
nuke texas
yes because clearly I was serious
Waaah but you didn't write /s, how am I supposed to understand sarcasm? (╥﹏╥)
Oh man, you would have loved ShermanPosting.
Can't wait for the gathering of domestic terrorists to gather and get hit with a drine strike
Would like to see what that rifle would do against a tank or an IFV.
Yeah that's the only reason they're allowed those guns, because any ACTUAL civil war would be decided by air superiority and armor. Honestly let's do it, it would be hilarious.
https://youtu.be/WOSqCjMRXWA?si=adkwS4UIfzlBVazm
This is exactly the hilarity I was talking about.
Such a facetious argument to act like guns wouldn't in some way limit the military.
Because even if you bomb territory that doesn't mean you can occupy it, see Afghanistan and Vietnam. Infantry is needed for occupation when the enemy is mixed in with civilians.
And furthermore, don't you think in the event of a civil war a fair bit of the military would be a bit unwilling to bomb urban areas?
I disagree with the sentiment of the OOP, but this is and always had been a bad argument. Take a look at the Middle East if you want to see what aircraft does to guerilla militia forces. An AC130 can't patrol streets or breach doors. You need boots on the ground for that, boots that are 100% susceptible to gunfire.
Not to mention the fact that the federal government has lost command of the CBP, who are openly defying Biden's orders.
The enemy in the middle east is ready to live in a cave and use kids as suicide bombers to further their cause. I don't think folks accustomed to Costco and buffalo wild wings and healthcare are ready for that life.
I love a little bit of racism mixed with social inaccuracy. You're right that people wouldn't want to go without Costco or modern luxuries. That's why they'd fight even harder when the people in power told them that it was the evil federal government that had taken it from them and that if they just fight a little bit, things will be better than ever before. You're forgetting how dangerous of a combo that authoritarian govt. + uneducated population (which describes Texas perfectly) is.
Also,
What Texans are accustomed to healthcare already lol?
I'm not being racist at all. One of the strengths of the middle east insurgent model is their readiness to live in primitive conditions. And, due to fanatical religious ideals, use tactics line suicide bombing. There's no evidence prospective texan secessionists are anywhere near ready for such conditions or tactics.
Many Texans have insurance. Many Afghan rural folks do not. Census.Gov states over 90% of Americans had some for of health insurance at least at some point in the last year. (It should be 100, all year, but that's not my point.) https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-281.html#:~:text=Highlights,91.7%20percent%20or%20300.9%20million).
The rest of your comment is comically unfounded. Are you really saying yallqueda is more prepared for combat than alqueda?
How did bombing vietnam work for you?
Also you really think the mikitary is going to bomb citizens who they could know or family member in texas?
Try it, actually try it. Dont talk about bombing us, actually do it and see what happens.
All of you upvoting this garbage aren't thinking about what it's saying or how it will negatively affect you.
If a government would be willing to annihilate 72 million of its own people, just for trying to leave no matter how stupid or cruel the reason is... what makes you think it won't do that to you when you try to organize a general strike, or fight it off when it turns fascist?
Do you people think critically about anything you see at all?
No one thinks the US Government is going to use bombs on 72 million of the 30 million people in Texas. Especially as a first resort.
I would hope not, shit. The way the meme sounds, it implies the U.S. government would kill every single gun owner throughout the country.
Maybe you're missing the context. The last time a group of states tried to leave we had a war about it. The confederates lost, are generally considered to have been in the wrong, and basically cemented the precedent that if any state tries it again they'll get the same result. Everyone pretty much assumes that if Texas really did try to leave it would result in armed conflict, with the scale likely determining if we call it a civil war or not. This is more making fun of the laughable claim that Texas could win in such a scenario, since the US military is better funded than the next 4 or 5 best funded militaries combines. It is generally assumed that the federal government wouldn't fight for Texas for the aforementioned historical reasons. Also there's not 72 million people in Texas, there's around 30 million, and many of those 72 million gun owners wouldn't fight for Texas. I'd hazard to say most.
Well, obviously. But people are upvoting it because "hurr, kill all right-wingers" without actually thinking about what it's saying, and that bothers me.
Cool, so you’re in support of the federal government bombing its own citizens because of a disagreement over some barbed wire?
Just good to know which side you’re on.
Every b52 is stationed in a red state. A lot of ignoring the details in here.
On land that the states don't own, controlled by military staff that work for the feds. What is your point?
That you cannot assume what will happen ?
Read a few of these comments.
Seems like the folks I usually am amused by and agree with on a lot of things have chosen to ignore that the use of American bombs on Americans sounds fun to them.
Remember: just because someone disagrees with us does not give us the right to blow them up.
Ever.
Except this isn't a disagreement on something that can be ignored. This isn't a "let bygones be bygones" situation.
This is Texas killing/trafficking immigrants while actively calling for secession.
This is Texas reminding the rest of the country that they're still the traitorous cowards they've always been
Guy wishes he had been born earlier so he could have stopped Hitler with a strongly worded open letter on his WordPress
I’m inclined to agree with you here.
I obviously can’t be invested, good sir, in any argument here.
Y’all have convinced I am surrounded by heady progressives and some practical liberals who — it’s not the best system, but if we dream of eating the rich one day, we can all get along.
Now comes this discussion of Texas secession and the image of bombing citizens.
Yes — these are despicable times and many Texans are behaving despicably.
But liberal values at their heart are humanist— we must honor these Texans as living humans first — and sadly, allow them the privilege of being wrong.
They are wrong.
And they are our countrymen— forgive the archaic language.
Imagining the bombing of our countrymen over decisions thrust upon them by the RECKLESS actions of others goes against who we are and what we all share in common.
It is my hope that when you see violent propaganda if this kind, you remember that United we stand. And that includes our despicable removed cousins the Texans. [pardon use of R word]
I'm not saying I'm okay with just blowing the whole state off the map but the people in charge need put down and the people who support them need severely reprimanded if not join them in the dirt.
Just because their Texan doesn't mean I want them hurt or dead, but if their Texan the likelihood that I wouldn't piss on them if they were in fire goes up a lot
Guess that’s on you.
I’m a human being and I’m going to behave toward my countrymen with respect as regards their health at the very least.
Brand new account at Lemmy? Hmm… Agent Provacatuer— useless here, brother.
Go work your X account
Well, look at afghanistan. B52 hardly made a difference against an army of farmers with AKs defending their homeland. Or the Viet Cong for that matter.
The situations are very different. I'm not saying it would end any better, but it would be a wildly different conflict.
Of course it would a different conflict, but the basic premise applies all the same.
Afghanistan is thousands of miles away, our military has very little local, international, nor domestic support, and the Afghan people are battle hardened people that has been in constant warfare since the industrial revolution and had been trained by the very force they were fighting. Jim Bob and the boys, have no advantage. There would be some support from locals and some from the military but none from high up in leadership and not enough from the people. Comparing the Afghans to how things would go here is laughable at best.
You seem so absolutely certain, yet I have no idea what you base that certainty on?
Historical facts
What part of history supposedly reflects your scenario?