@Veteran229. You and I have been here before Veteran. Its overexaggeration and overgeneralization. Lets not rehash old and tired arguments please.

@Veteran229. Don't speak of history when you continually choose to ignore historical context in your arguments.

These people that think they could fight back against the US military would be dead before they heard the drone coming.

Or not even the entire military.

Those peoples with gun arsenals that go up against even a local police force.

Has that ever worked out well for them?

And I am NOT against responsible gun ownership.

But the OP argument that they can stand off against the US government is ridiculous on its face.

@Elganned We have firearms out the wazoo and this is a backward ass authoritarian country with prisons for profit.

Of course, only "certain" people get sent there on bullshit charges.

If you don't like guns, that is your prerogative if course.

@RobertMartin. Who said I don't like guns. I grew up with them. I don't like overreaction, exaggeration, and obfuscation.

@Elganned. Whose assertion in particular. Again context. Fighting in a jungle we did not know. A style of warfare that didnt fit our military paradigm on how wars were fought(until Vietnam taught us). The British learned in Indonesia in WWII. We should have given Burma.

Afghanistan had impenetrable mountain passes and less than primative infrastructure to support a mechanized army. Yes small groups can do untold damage, but don't generalize across events without providing historical/ geographical context. Exceptions do not make the rule if I understand your argument correctly.

Agree. Nearly all the mass shootings are conducted by people with previous signs of instability and violence.

@Elganned one thing does not necessarily lead to another. The gun laws we're reasonable, most Germans lived in large urban areas. My example was "Hitler liked dogs". In no way was Hitler a good person, so, liking dogs does not equal being a good person. Gun laws do not lead to Facism, in fact, recent politics point to the opposite.

I'm not attempting to sell anything. It seems that there is a segment of the population that would want guns to be banned. We have a constitutional right to own firearms. The obvious exception must be felons and those who have been charged with domestic violence.

@RobertMartin Spongebob nailed it ~

@RobertMartin no one Ive ever heard of has said guns should or could be eliminated across the board. Even if they were it's so ludicrously impossible it would be an irrelevant suggestion. Also the idea that we're keeping our guns to protect our rights from the government is insane. We've already surrendered freedom of the press, unreasonable search n seizure, representative government, and given corporations the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness over citizens. Slavery in the prison industrial complex is alive and well. No one is allowed to alter their consciousness with anything other than state approved toxins. Growing your own food is illegal in food desert metros. Shall I continue?

How many rights do they have to take away before we remember why we're armed and mistrustful of the government and defend our rights if thats supposed to be possible? We're already detaining innocent people in prison camp pogrums. Guns won't help them or any of us out of the mess we're in as long as we allow corporate interest to rule our government.

The NRA used to teach people gun safety. Now they obstruct any research on the causes of gun violence, hamstring us to keep us from learning anything about how to quell our weekly mass shootings, and have been caught taking sexual favors from a literal russian spy. We're in no danger of any gun shortages any time soon and we absolutely have bigger problems to worry about.

Agreed. That makes it more important not to forget what people are capable of doing.

Not an argument, just a historical fact. This actually occurred in Nazi Germany.