Advice Weapons are uglier than trumps a-hole

After trudging around Portland, OR for a couple days, I really like that city.

Although the homes were a little haggard and every other yard had a BLM sign in it... Other than that it seemed pretty rad.
My sister lived there for a year in a fairly well-to-do neighborhood. She hated the dirty hippy nature of the city. Although she did like the beer aspect of the town
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: nukes
My sister lived there for a year in a fairly well-to-do neighborhood. She hated the dirty hippy nature of the city. Although she did like the beer aspect of the town
I have a buddy from highschool who moved up there about 10 years ago. He's loved every second of it and is pretty much not a dirty hippie. Although, I have to admit he doesn't live IN Portland, he lives in one of the surrounding suburbs.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
..."supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state."

Why America needs guns. We're just a different culture of people compared to England. If Trump turns out to be a Hitler type, you're going to be damn glad guns are legal in the country because your'e going to fucking die without one.
Americans will never use their guns to overthrow the government. They are far too divided and apathetic to ever do such a thing.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: pacojas
Which is exactly why the "bigger" guns are not on sale for civilians. Also an ak47 is no match for a mig, or a nuclear bomb. It's just increasing local violence in the name of rights.
The military would not slaughter their brother, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, friends, etc. They would rather turn against the government.
 
Americans will never use their guns to overthrow the government. They are far too divided and apathetic to ever do such a thing.
If it ever got to the point that we did that, I'm pretty sure most people would be on board with it. It would have to be a major flub in our government in order to create that kind of resistance, but the people will realize that the government is VASTLY outnumbered by the citizens in terms of armaments and sheer manpower. It could be done very easily.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: APRIL and plot
If it ever got to the point that we did that, I'm pretty sure most people would be on board with it. It would have to be a major flub in our government in order to create that kind of resistance, but the people will realize that the government is VASTLY outnumbered by the citizens in terms of armaments and sheer manpower. It could be done very easily.
Most people would have to be on board for you to get to that point. That's my whole point of why it won't happen.
 
The military would not slaughter their brother, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, friends, etc. They would rather turn against the government.
This is an interesting topic. Soldiers will fire on whomever their commanding officer orders them to. Vietnam was a classic example of this, Nazi Germany as well.
The real issue is, if there's gonna be a revolution, what generates a rebel fighting force?
We've had several revolutions here. Sadly, and also gratefully,there was no problem getting people whom had recently been countrymen to fire on one another.
 
This is an interesting topic. Soldiers will fire on whomever their commanding officer orders them to. Vietnam was a classic example of this, Nazi Germany as well.
The real issue is, if there's gonna be a revolution, what generates a rebel fighting force?
We've had several revolutions here. Sadly, and also gratefully,there was no problem getting people whom had recently been countrymen to fire on one another.
None of that pertains to the point I'm making. In Vietnam (and many other wars), soldiers were not killing their own people. Nor were they doing that during the civil war, nor the war of independence.
 
None of that pertains to the point I'm making. In Vietnam (and many other wars), soldiers were not killing their own people. Nor were they doing that during the civil war, nor the war of independence.
Of course they were killing "their own people" in the civil war. A week before, they were all Americans. Just because you change the writing on the sign to CSA doesn't make it any less tragic.
Same to a lesser degree during the revolution. On July 3, 1776 we were all British subjects.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Frau Blugher
None of that pertains to the point I'm making. In Vietnam (and many other wars), soldiers were not killing their own people. Nor were they doing that during the civil war, nor the war of independence.

Brother vs brother is part of the history of the American Civil war.
Though I'm sure it wasn't common.
 
Of course they were killing "their own people" in the civil war. A week before, they were all Americans. Just because you change the writing on the sign to CSA doesn't make it any less tragic.
Same to a lesser degree during the revolution. On July 3, 1776 we were all British subjects.
The civil war, yes. The revolutionary war... meh... that's kind of a stretch. Sure they were turning their weapons to their own countrymen, but as far as their own families... probably not. Especially since a LOT of immigrants came from various other countries such as Scotland, Ireland and Germany.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: nukes