Alright Yanik, lets be realistic.

The average amount of Firearms owned by a family in the state of Montana is 27.

Here is some expanded data on these statistics.

the estimated population of each state for 2013 from the U.S. Census, and came up with the following list:

Wyoming: 195.7 firearms per 1,000 people.
District of Columbia: 66.4 firearms per 1,000 people.
Arkansas: 41.6 firearms per 1,000 people.
New Mexico: 40.5 firearms per 1,000 people.
Virginia: 30.1 firearms per 1,000 people.
Idaho: 24.2 firearms per 1,000 people.
Alabama: 20 firearms per 1,000 people.
Nevada: 19.5 firearms per 1,000 people.
Alaska: 15.2 firearms per 1,000 people.
Louisiana: 15.1 firearms per 1,000 people.

In the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, almost 60% of the citizens own guns.

There is a direct correlation between very conservative states, Arkansas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Alaska which boast very high gun ownership numbers.

These states (Idaho, Wyoming, Montana) also boast lower African American populations than most others, and are home to KKK groups (Cour De Lane), and anti government militias (The Montana Miltia).

Just some facts for you to ponder. have you considered maybe guns are like alcohol, all the drunks are buying up the majority of all the booze. All the same gun crazed hillbillies are buying up all the guns...

@JMO hes referring to the new .22 that shoots down AC130 gunships.

If you need a source check out this diagram.

http://reverbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/gun-ownership-study-state-map-1024x828.png

A new study shows the percent of people owning guns may have stronger correlations to gun deaths than the firearms per capita numbers. Image: Business Insider.
The map below has a lot more in common with the map above. Created in 2012 by Zara Matheson at the Martin Prosperity Institute with data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), her map shows the rate of gun deaths by state. As you can see, the shadings, (darker for higher rates of gun deaths), look similar to the shadings above, (which are darker for higher rates of gun ownership). In other words, there appears to be a strong correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun deaths.

http://reverbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/GunDeaths.jpg

Heres a shocker, gun deaths per 100 people is actually VERY high in Alaska. Very high in Montana, Wyoming, and many of the southern states.

@Lethologica That's completely off topic. I'm talking about armed resistance to a tyrannical government. There was no armed resistance at Ferguson.

"Wounded Knee"

You're right. 120 people are not going to defeat a nation of 63 million no matter what the circumstances. That wasn't really a rebellion. Native Americans were seen as hostile entities in the 19th century.

"I find it interesting that you are comparing BLM, and Ferguson to the civil war, and to guerilla uprisings."

I'm not trying to compare BLM to guerilla uprisings. I'm trying to get across that armed resistance works, and BLM is not armed resistance, so bo_sox's comparison is pointless.

"The Whiskey Rebellion, the Fries Rebellion, Nat Turner's revolt, the Dorr Rebellion, all of the Cincinnati Riots, John Brown, and on and on."

All of these were localized rebellions that didn't gain enough traction. A nation must reach a breaking point before national armed rebellion can occur. I do not know what that breaking point is, but it does exist.

"www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-missouri-response-shows-police-use-of-military-equipment/"

I found this video https://youtu.be/25fwQIvj354

I can't find a single tank in it. I think CBS is exaggerating as usual, or maybe they think all armored vehicles are tanks.

Iraq had a heavily armed populace and Saddam took a great big continuous steaming dump on them for decades. Ditto Syria. The US is a little different because it's so goddamn big, but its biggest differences have nothing to do with the feasibility of armed rebellion, and everything to do with keeping armed rebellion from being necessary in the first place (after learning from the bitter experience of several armed rebellions, including a particularly nasty one that ended about 150 years ago.)

"@Lethologica That's completely off topic. I'm talking about armed resistance to a tyrannical government. There was no armed resistance at Ferguson."

Perhaps. These discussions do tend to go far afield. But you characterized Ferguson in a particular way, and I don't think it was accurate, and I think Ferguson deserves accurate characterization whether or not the difference is relevant to the strictest interpretation of what's being discussed.

@bb ... those states are also the home of ranchers who have grown up and lived their entire lives on the frontier, use guns each and every day, and use them very well. Sure, some of them are crazy, but if you try to understand how much of an impediment to small-time ranchers that the government has become since Johnson and even more since Reagan and Clinton, you would probably at least empathize. They are often asked to pay more than they make and more than their land is worth and then can only use their fields once per five years. Moreover, their irrigation is getting more expensive, big Monsanto-type companies are coming in and removing all sources of innovation and small-business mentality from agriculture and effectively ruining them. The government subsidizes the corporate farms and not the independent ones.

Likewise, those states have swaths of open land where these guys go out and shoot for fun and can blow the doors off of long-rusted out cars with barrels of thermite. It's fun. Could light up a dark forest for miles.

Anyway, the plains states are radically different than the others. Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska take that to a new level.

"the days of an armed milita [sic] being able to check the governments forces are long past."

Tell that to the Taliban.

Also, I always think that the greatest flaw in underestimating a rebellion is neglecting to consider the people. We aren't split in north and south lines anymore. I mean, there are ideological and geographical correlations, but they aren't nearly as strong as they were 150 years ago. If the government were to become tyrannical and a revolution began, it wouldn't be South vs. North or East vs. West. It wouldn't even be Federals vs. States. Half the people in the government, including the military, would likely swing one way or another. And if you think Senators, Congressmen, admirals or generals are going to stand by and watch citizens obliterated by weapons of mass destruction, you are terribly pessimistic. No, if we have another civil war, it will be much bloodier and brutal than the last, with friends and neighbors turning on each other.

"Oh come on man. You don't actually believe that do you? The legal weapons for purchase couldn't even come close to helping against the governments military. All the government would have to do is institute some jet based bombardments or drop a nuke on a city to decimate any resistance. They have the ability to shut down all forms of communication to formulate a resistance, such as the internet and cellular transmissions. Not to mention the accuracy of drone strikes that could be used to target anybody who rose up against them. No, the days of an armed milita being able to check the governments forces are long past."

You're the Big Brother's best friend. Lots of resistance groups have fought with inferior weapons. Bombardment worked so well in Vietnam. Nukes certainly won't be used if even Assad hasn't seriously used chemical weapons. There would be an international coalition against the United States. Other guerrilla forces did just fine without the internet or cell phones to assist them. So, no, the power of the militia is still potent. You are the type that just discredits resistance as futile and simply gives in.

@brainbomb Do you know that open carry states have 23% lower violent crime rates?

Lol, if they're an armed guerrilla resistance that thinks using cell phones to communicate will help them, they deserve to be put down.

One of ISIS' great strengths is its ability to leverage social media. They aren't shy about cell phones, though it has come back to bite them on occasion.

Thing about Vietnam, about Afghanistan, about Iraq (us, not Saddam)--these are campaigns conducted by a (a) foreign, (b) not particularly invested, (c) not particularly tyrannical power, (d) without reliable local support. Domestic tyranny is a whole other ballgame.

(With respect to (c) and Vietnam in particular, I don't mean to suggest that we were *nice guys* who didn't do things like My Lai and the Christmas bombings, or that we weren't ultimately fighting for the legacy of French colonialism. But there is still a gulf between what we were doing in Vietnam and what the tyrants of the time were doing, often right next door. Plus, Vietnam, like Syria, like the Soviet-Afghan war, was a proxy war, and the dynamics are significantly different there.)

*French colonialism and bullshit domino theory

@brainbomb
actually the majority of alcohol is consumed by large metropolitan areas which are statistically most likely to be controlled by DEMOCRATS. JSYK


BUT HERE IS MY MAIN STATEMENT ON THE MATTER:

IF a tyrannical government immerses in the USA, an armed populous will be more likely to repel it than a non-armed one. Calling all gunowners "drunken hillbillies" is discrimination, and OVER HALF THE COUNTRY believes in gun rights

http://ijr.com/2015/04/301406-new-poll-shows-major-shift-in-how-americans-view-the-2nd-amendment-and-gun-control/

(See how I'm sourcing???)

Guerilla Warfare is the MOST viable way to fight against governments, as demonstrate day the as to date still active IRA splinter cells,Taliban, ISIS, and victorious Vietnamese. Disarming the population has NOT been proven to directly decrease, or even accelerate already decreasing crime rates.

Although I personally DO support MANY gun control regulations, the idea that guns are unnecessary, and that anyone who supports guns is some kind of drunk, is Bigotry. Asking people "you don't really believe that" is condescending, and adds no real substance to an argument.


Any argument you have against this statement, please address what you specifically disagree with, and try to do it with some manner of respect please.

If you want to add something to debate, please source all material, and try not to stereotype me as a Republican. It'll be a cold day in hell when I support some of the slanderous shit the Republican party has tried to pull: anti-atheism rallies in southern schools, insisting on alternative creationism as a viable scientific theory, anti-vaccines, ETC.

"You are the type that just discredits resistance as futile and simply gives in."

Actually I'm the type who is more inclined to use my brain and my voice to solve a problem instead of thinking that shooting people is the right solution to any problem.

For me the fundamental flaw in pro gun debaters citing the 2nd amendment as the reason they should be allowed guns is the simple and incorrect assumption that the founding fathers were always right. That their reasons were sound and applicable to today. The same problem occurs when saying "more then 50% of people agree with them". At some point in history more then 50% of people agreed that owning slaves was acceptable. Our founding fathers certainly did. At some point more then 50% of people agreed women shouldn't have a vote, our Founding Fathers certainly did. Being in the majority does not make you inherently right.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for wanting guns, I'm not arguing against that. All I'm arguing against is people using poor arguments like James here instead of making cases that are applicable and not based on trusting the thought process of long dead men.

I have yet to see an argument that makes me go, oh wow, okay, that's a good enough reason to ignore all the people who have died from guns. At the very least I find it hard to believe that people value their right to guns enough that they are unwilling to entertain the idea of more stringent gun regulations, or at the very least, the study of gun violence. Which is currently not allowed in the government because studying gun violence would somehow mean the government is going to take all your guns.

FYI, I heard the government on Obama's orders is going to raid every gun owners house November 8th. If you're a gun owner please stay locked inside that day and be ready to defend yourself!

It's sad that the Republican party got hijacked by the religious nutties. It would have been a respectable party had that not happened.

It's sad our choices this election are 2 criminals/the most hated candidates in history. They are quite literally both running against the only other person they could possibly win against.

"For me the fundamental flaw in pro gun debaters citing the 2nd amendment as the reason they should be allowed guns is the simple and incorrect assumption that the founding fathers were always right"

Actually, we as humans are allowed to have our own opinions. I personally believe that maintaining some level of armed citizenry is necessary to stop governments that have turned tyrannical: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, they all took the guns away before they stepped into ames murders. Is that going to happen in America? maybe not to the same extent. But centuries in the future? maybe. NOBODY can be sure. But if we give up our right to bare arms, then we're not going to have it given back.

THAT argument: does not need the founding fathers to be justified as a valid opinion.

"The same problem occurs when saying "more then 50% of people agree with them". At some point in history more then 50% of people agreed that owning slaves was acceptable."

When I said 50% (it is actually 52 % but i'm not that petty lol) of people supported gun rights, I was NOT saying "oh the majority says it's true so it must be morally right"

no: i was informing brain bomb that when he referred to gun owners as such:

"have you considered maybe guns are like alcohol, all the drunks are buying up the majority of all the booze. All the same gun crazed hillbillies are buying up all the guns..."

he is discriminating and stereotyping against the majority of this country

I apologize if you thought that was a part of my argument, but I CLEARLY SAID:

"Calling all gunowners "drunken hillbillies" is discrimination, and OVER HALF THE COUNTRY believes in gun rights"

That might of been a tad unclear so i apologize, but i'm only saying that calling gun supporters drunken hillbillies is leftist bullying


so when you say "All I'm arguing against is people using poor arguments like James here instead of making cases that are applicable and not based on trusting the thought process of long dead men."

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

My CURRENT OPINION, regardless of whether or not the founding father's supported gun control or not, draws back to ancient civilizations where the pinnacle of power was a blade of steel, and tyrannical government COULD NOT LAST, whereas today, North Korea is an all too real example of a modern surviving dictatorship


jmo I was not saying "most people support it so it must be right" i was saying "most people support it so calling them drunken hillbillies is wrong" THAT was directed at brainbomb, i understand YOU have never said such a thing.


Next time read what i said more clear, or if you have questions: ask, don't crucify.

In the mean time, it is past my nappy nap time to I guess DM me with a response or else it might get lost in the thread, but I will try my best to keep track:

One more time for clarity:

I DON'T NEED THE FOUNDING FATHERS TO JUSTIFY MY POINT OF VIEW, THE ONLY REASON WHY I MENTIONED THE FOUNDING FATHERS WAS TO PROVE IN AN EARLIER ARGUMENT THAT THEY COULD FATHOM WEAPONS MROE POWERFUL THAN A MUSKET

I DON'T BELIEVE IN MOB RULE, BUT CALLING A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DRUNKEN HILLBILLIES I FIND DISRESPECTFUL, AND UNPRODUCTIVE

i hope that is clear enough. goodnight i expect a hearty response in the morning

*mass* murders for the first paragraph

Your first paragraph is worse than mass murder.

Bare arms? You mean like wearing tank tops?

Well first off, let me re-post the part of my post that seems to have been missed.

I have yet to see an argument that makes me go, oh wow, okay, that's a good enough reason to ignore all the people who have died from guns. At the very least I find it hard to believe that people value their right to guns enough that they are unwilling to entertain the idea of more stringent gun regulations, or at the very least, the study of gun violence. Which is currently not allowed in the government because studying gun violence would somehow mean the government is going to take all your guns.

So let me sum that up more simply for everyone. Do you think even studying gun violence should continue to be banned James?

But here is the big problem for me with your argument about the idea of revolution. In the past revolution in this country happened when a large geographical group of people were being treated unfairly, or felt oppressed. Oppression happens when there is a failure to understand one another and a failure to respect/view each other as human. These days though, that isn't the shape oppression would take, there wouldn't be a geographical breakdown so as someone else said, neighbors would fight neighbors and the country would be ripped apart. In fact people are oppressed and the government makes tyrannical decisions on a fairly regular basis.

So let me ask you, at what point in this hypothetical situation that seems to be the entire basis for your gun defense would you deem it acceptable to go outside and start mowing down everyone in the government who doesn't agree with you? Because that is what your revolution would be, in case you hadn't thought it through. How do you know at a specific point that the government is wrong, and that you are now morally justified in going out and killing people because they don't agree with you?

Do you need to wait until a "majority" of people agree with you, in that case would it be okay to revolt against Congress now since a majority of people dislike them? Or do we need the government to infringe on our rights before we take action?

And by "our" I mean your, because clearly black people being mowed down by cops who then get off without legal penalty isn't enough. Because you don't seem to think that violating our treaty with Native Americans to make a buck on oil is enough. Invading a country because of "weapons of mass destruction" which didn't exist wasn't enough. Allowing politicians to be bought off by lobbyists, encouraging them to ignore what is right for a payday doesn't seem to be enough. So please tell me, at what point do *you* suddenly know it's okay to ignore the law and go kill people? Isn't that what some terrorists do, decide they know better then the law, that the government is evil and so they are justified in horrible acts to preserve their beliefs on an evil system, are they revolutionists in your mind?

Please, if you can answer that for me, I would be thrilled, because so far nobody's been able to give me a good answer to that question. If you can't then please stop talking about how you need guns in case the government goes rouge.

Because lets be real about it, if that happened to the US the world political and military field would be a mess. A US revolution would unbalance the world. North Korea would suddenly have reign to invade the south, the middle east would further destabilize. National security would be demolished and terrorists would have free reign in the country. Our allies would have to be in a similar state of unrest for them to have allowed the situation in our country to get bad enough, so we can assume that democracy is essentially failing globally at that point. The global economy would be failing with the shutdown or dropped production rates of US goods/services. And foreign powers would be standing by to nuke us to high hell if any "rebels" got control of any of our countries nukes. So apologies, but in this hypothetical tyrannical future you foresee as a real danger, I am hard pressed to understand how people having guns would help fix things.

Now a political revolution seems far more likely, in fact we are seeing one in action on the republican side, and almost saw one on the democratic side. With the established politicians losing out to "outsiders" because the people are sick of what the current government is doing. Hell, even the NRA knows the political route is the correct one to take. They regularly buy off politicians and focus on politics because they know it's people's vote and voices that have the power to stop government abuse, not firearms.

@kingCyrus,

A far more realistic look at a rebellion would be Turkey if you want an understanding of how a revolt in a country with a strong military would go.

You mean the one perpetrated solely by a small part of the Turkish military?

How in your mind, would a large revolution gain a decent percentage of the military's support without anyone noticing in the tyrannical side? The larger the group the more likely it is discovered by the wrong people before it's ready to act.

*points at Egypt*

*walks off whistling*

You underestimate the number of remote locations in the US, jmo.

@jmo

May I just say, I am in favor of multiple restrictions on the purchasing of weapons.

Also, I do not want to ban research or the studying of gun violence. I think it's very important to understand crime reports in our country, and I don't want to turn a blind eye.

onto your main argument.

You have proposed that a democracy turning into a tyrannical government is unfeasible in our modern existence, because the awareness of the world is too much for such a thing to ever take full mass.

Now when I say "future tyranny" I'm referring to centuries in the future. And here is one hypothetical on how that may arise:

-- massive resource depletion has led to an economic crash that has cascaded through most of the world, countries with oil are hoarding it for domestic consumption. Some of the world to turn to alternative energy, which is not as effectively implemented, but that's only the more modernized states. Europe has either
A. not reconciled the European Union, and countries are starting to fall back on their own cultural lines.
B. reconciled and expanded the European Union, and countries are now controlled by a non-democratic entity that works in tandem with the press.

Meanwhile the USA as usual has a major social reaction to the crash. Further blaming the right, and after years of the media being controlled by liberal sources, many are willing to give the government powers beyond the constitution "for the good of our country." These powers may include increased regulation of everyday activities, and a drastically increase Nominal (I said nominal, look up the difference before you spit Reagan or Eisenhower at me) tax rate. The economy does not recover well as the information required to properly run net-socialist societies is in such massive quantities, the government can't efficiently process it. As civil unrest grows, these power bloated government agencies continue with much of Europe to use media to keep their ideologies un fractured as they try to control the public. Soon the government is not working for the people, it's working for ITSELF. Civil liberties go out the door, and the masses either
A. buy into the jingoism of the time
or
B. Realize it is time to rebel.

and if it is time to rebel - they'll need guns --


That is one specific instance. The chances of it happening aren't great, but when you have POTUS stand in front of the nation and tote liberal propaganda like the 1 in 5 rape statistic: it makes ME wonder where some politicians will stop when it comes to controlling the population's thoughts

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-doj-data-on-sexual-assaults-college-students-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/



The truth is, we don't know what kind of developments the future has, but the only way to ensure the citizenry has the ability to defend themselves against tyrannical government, is too NOT blanket ban all guns.

I know jmo that you do not want to ban ALL guns. I actually respect your view in quite a number of ways, it's just you drastically misquoted me back there, and now the only real arguing point i have against you is that I believe our government could turn tyrannical one day.

@TrPrado also true. And the hollywood NSA/CIA/FBI/GPS massive internal surveillance crap: most terrorist activities they discover in-country, come from sources out of country that are funding these terrorist exploits.

That said, those GPS guys are frickin everywhere