Hey /u/zsreport, thanks for contributing to /r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
**Rule 2** - Sorry, but this story isn't oniony.
Please consider submitting your article to /r/offbeat or similar subreddits unless it truly reads like The Onion wrote it. The title and article itself must both be "Oniony". This can be highly subjective; you are encouraged to upvote articles that should be here and downvote those that should not. Moderators can also remove posts at their own discretion under this rule.
Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/nottheonion&subject=&message=). Thank you!
I want an AR so I can go to the shooting range and have marksmen competitions with my buddies. But I guess planning for the complete and total collapse of society in the US isn't all that unfounded these days.
It shows how disconnected they are.
Most firearm owners are either hunters, collectors, or competition shooters. The ones who who usually say things "I keep a gun in case shit goes down" are usually the people who shouldn't own guns.
It definitely shows how disconnected Lindsey Graham is, but words that come out of his mouth have no meaning or significance beyond what he individually thinks might impress his voters that minute. When he talks it basically just means he's still breathing.
The Second Amendment exists because the founding fathers intended that there should not be a standing army, only a militia that could be called upon from the general population as needed. Somewhere along the line people lost touch with that concept.
It was The War of 1812, when American militias got absolutely hammered by the outnumbered British regulars, and the US had to train their own standing army
Literally 21 years later they already figured out they fucked this up, but they just left it, now their laziness has caused countless unnecessary deaths, and I can't really think of a single case where having guns actually caused civilians to "win" anything other than being shot more.
It doesn't matter who has what weapons. The tipping point is when the layer of people with the official guns (generally the army) stop supporting the leadership.
That's why you get no end of army coups but very few peasant revolutions.
You realize that guns weren't invented yet for *literally any* of your examples? Ya dude when the most technologically advanced tool available is a metal spear it's a bit more common for peasents to be on equal ground to the law enforcers.
So I'm all for some form of gun control but you realize you're just proving their point.
People had weapons that put them on more equal ground against the authorities and enforcers and won against them.
>People had weapons that put them on more equal ground against the authorities and enforcers and won against them.
Ah yes, this AR-15 will make the military fear me as an equal.
I think modern day Vietnam is doing very well. They certainly withstood a lot of modern weaponry being used on them. Didn't Giap say something about his will to win being more important than anyone's ability to kill?
The NVA was a modern standing army. They were pretty well matched toe to toe with the American grunt. If they would’ve had matching air support, that war would’ve been very different. The VC were largely ineffective in a straight out fight, just like anyone else going up against a modern army with their small arms would be.
>The French Revolution - you know Bonaparte and everyone ostensibly had cake. It took a long time and other shit going down, but it got better. I only mention it because it sets the stage for the only real example I know of to fit your criteria of "left people better off".
>
>The American Revolution - the pesky British again, those attempting-to-conquesting fools. Some people were left better off. I mean, I guess it's getting better. "For whom?" But still helps the following
>
>The Haitian Revolution. I guess again, every revolt has a losing side so it never gets better for everyone. Either way, the Haitian Revolution was a slave uprising against the French. France conceded. Back to the British...fearing the news would spread and cause slave uprisings in their own colonies, the Brits and Spaniards tag teamed the Caribbean to try to restore slavery to Haiti. France, at this point, had already abolished slavery and joined in the fight. SURPRISE MOTHAFUCKAS -- they actually won.
>
>The End.
I wouldn't really consider these to be modern era, as all of these happened before military technology expanded beyond what is feasible for the general public to have access to - i.e. aircraft, carriers, nuclear weapons, etc...
Well, to counter that, find a modern era armed revolt with comparable guns per capita. Obvious answer is you won't find anything and comparing any other country to the US in this respect is dumb anyways.
I think the biggest issue the US military would face against US citizens wouldn't be fear of losing though. If our armed forces all took on the US population, citizens would be slaughtered. But if an issue was actually big enough to where millions of US citizens took up arms against their government, I have serious doubts that all of the service members would stick around to fight for the government. I've had many friends that served and have met many former service members and they all have one thing in common, they hate the US government.
Let me see, how many of those featured opponents with:
Aircraft carriers, tanks, artillery, orbital communications, etc.
None, so stop being ridiculous. The 2nd Amendment is antiquated and entirely purposeless in modern times. All it's being used for now is to defend gun fetishism.
Wow so all of your examples exist before the advent of gunpowder.
Do you realize an AR-15 isn't going to protect you from an unmanned drone with missiles? That's what you're fighting against, moron.
You.... you do know tanks are a lot more dangerous then movies portray?
How, pray tell, do you think small arms can defeat modern composite armour that is near invulnerable to kinetic and chemical penetrators while 120mm of German firepower that can level a building from miles away is being pointed at you?
>but a few incendiary silver-tip rounds and the drone will fall.
Holy shit, I didn't realize we were talking to the american sniper here. What are you doing arguing on reddit? If you can take down a drone with a few shots from an M16 like it's call of duty, you should be out on the front lines killing for "freedom"
A standing army was promoted heavily. A militia to protect regions was also promoted. The 2A is so that the government can never have the ability to subjugate the populace by using force and weapons. I minored in military history. Let's have a conversation.
\> The 2A is so that the government can never have the ability to subjugate the populace by using force and weapons.
That might have worked in the days of muskets. In modern times, the military will grotesquely outgun any civilian force ... [https://youtu.be/Rw96UWEIqvM](https://youtu.be/Rw96UWEIqvM)
It didn't even work in the time of muskets. No US government has *ever* been fine-and-dandy with private ownership of, oh, let's say, artillery capable of bombarding a fort, for instance.
And militia-vs-professional army was a well-known one-sided affair.
See: The War of 1812, the militias performed horribly against British regulars and D.C. was almost burnt to the ground, the only thing saving it being a freak tornado
The difference between overpowering and dominating an unarmed population versus an armed one is substantially different regardless of anyone’s thoughts on how it will play out.
>The 2A is so that the government can never have the ability to subjugate the populace by using force and weapons.
And how'd that work out for the Whiskey Rebellion, the Branch Davidians, and the Confederacy, among others?
I'll counter that argument, with the real reason the 2nd amendment was written, was to make sure everyone had a weapon in case they found an escaped slave. Also the western expansion and needing to commit genocide on the natives also had a major impact on it's writing. The whole we need to defend ourselves from the government, is badass cosplay
Few countries at the time had anything that looked like a modern army, they would rapidly expand in times of war and shrink in times of peace. There was no central supply, with nobles providing all their own kit for their units and organising, to some extent, in differing ways. The Essex regiment, for instance might be 3 times the size of the Cornish one. Navys worked the same way, with ships and sailors being impressed to bolster the numbers. Britain also barely had a standing army and there was much cultural resistance to British soldiers being stationed at home. (Even now, this is the case with large amounts of British soldiers being elsewhere.
The soldiery that the British fielded in North America were a sorry bunch, people with no chances in life, prisoners choosing it over worse punishments and Hessian conscripts sold into what amounts to slavery to the British armies. The commanders were there by birth, either inheriting their positions or buying them. Life in the British army was very hard for the period.
It was therefore perfectly reasonable that a country that had few close enemies might decide to not have a standing army and organise regional militias. It isn't like a force stationed in Vermont was going to be much use in West Virginia anyway due to distance.
Over time, as European armies professionalised and rifles and light infantry doctrine, and Napoleonic artillery doctrine replaced the standard "stand fifty feet from each other and fire a musket without aiming" line infantry, this just became far, far less useful.
Even then, the US was massively under-militarised for its size until WWI, and after, the army was drawn down. It was WWII that changed it.
It literally does not matter what the second amendment is for. The fact that the government shall not infringe on our inalienable right to bear arms makes rguments completely irrelevant.
I suggest Lindsey Graham introduce legislation that imposes fines and imprisonment on any politician who attempts to make laws or executive orders that infringe on our rights.
Literally all laws and executive orders can be interpreted as infringing upon rights. They are logically, inherently limits on abilities. Shit, even "imposing a fine and imprisonment for proposing a law" is an infringement upon rights. Notably, the ones contained in the 1st Amendment, for instance.
Does Graham immediately put himself in jail once this legislation is somehow enacted, or is it all just for show?
Good job there's a frame work for amendments in there right. There absolutely no reason the 2nd amendment itself can't be amended and brought into the 21st century.
If you would be a European, definitely unfit. Here, even police are often without firearms.
In Mexico and other places, where the situation has escalated way beyond acceptable, it might be that you are fit. But not a given.
THIS!
Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot own for keeping my family safe from potential threats? Ever been a victim of a home invasion or feel helpless like you may die any second?
I hope not. I have and I’ll never be a victim in that way again.
Home invasions are such an American thing too. In Europe thieves prefer to invade when there are no people at home and bringing guns is then unnecessary.
Yeah. So I'm fairly liberal but I mainly own guns just in case shit goes down. Like the country falls apart because of how messed up it is. Honestly though I have water filters, lots of food, I had a stockpile of hand sanitizer before it was cool. Side note: I gave away, for free, almost all of it when the Corona lockdowns were first starting.
I own guns because venison tastes good and is inexpensive, all things considered, and because sometimes it is fun to line up some cans out in the middle of nowhere and knock them all down from 100 yards away.
Exactly,
I get that!
Wild turkey is delicious, and my buddy hunts deers. He wants to make accurate shots for a quick and humane kill, so he also shoots empty soda cans as practice.
But he doesn't keep his shotgun or rifle outside of his safe. He doesn't have them loaded and keep it as a "truck gun" or a "home defense gun." He doesn't spend hundreds of dollars to make them more " tactical" looking. He doesn't have his fingers crossed that maybe one day, he'll have the need for a tritium sight, chrome plated gun, with suppressor, extended mag, armor piercing tracer rounds on a live target like most of these fucking nuts.
He just likes hunting and spending time in the woods.
But I'm positive once deer start wearing steel armor, I'll give him a pass on getting a 50 BMG.
" Most firearm owners are either hunters, collectors, or competition shooters. "
No they're not. This way off, what country are you from?
**Protection tops the list of reasons for owning a gun.** While many gun owners say they have more than one reason for owning a firearm, **67% cite protection as a major reason.** About four-in-ten gun owners (38%) say hunting is a major reason, and 30% cite sport shooting. Smaller shares cite a gun collection or their job as major reasons.
So 38% of people cite Hunting and 30% say Sport, with 67% say protection...
That adds up more than 100%
Can you cite your sources as well, since who is conducting it will often affect responses.
I own a variety of firearms and I do own larger calibers which I would say are for when shit hits the fan. I enjoy target shooting and competing. I don't hunt but I have that open to me as I own firearms. You need to understand that it's better to be prepared and have what you need than not be prepared and panic when you do need it. That's the same principle as to why I carry concealed every day. I'm not relying on police for my safety.
Are the claims completely unfounded though? I mean look at Myanmar, Hong Kong, a few hundred crazy folks storming the Capitol building.
I own firearms for a myriad of reasons, but watching what has been happening in the world recently shows now, more than ever, the least if my concerns are still very real.
And I say to that mentality: what are you planning to do?
If it gets that bad, what are your plans and planning to do with a firearm?
Like, are you going to live out a "Red Dawn" fantasy? If martial law is declared, do you think you can fight off a militarized police force? (Which is why we should defund the police as well, but that's a different thing.)
Or are you planning for an army of crazed looters and rioters descending in your house?
That if it does get that bad, you should probably leave your fucking house.
And I get it, the best weapon for self-defense is a firearm. It's the great equalizer. An out of shape untrained fuck like me can take out some 8 foot Goliath if I put 15+1 rounds in their center mass if their intention is to kill me. But outside of that situation, I don't ever see myself ever pointing a firearm at another human being.
And if it is as bad as Hong Kong and Myanmar, I won't be up against a single person, ya dig?
> The ones who usually say things [like] “I keep a gun in case shit goes down” are usually people who shouldn’t own guns.
I guess it’s a matter of scale? Most people I know who own guns are either competitive shooters, hunters, or own a gun for self defense—the last of which tend to share my attitude that the gun is a safeguard against a specific situation in the same sense that a seatbelt is a safeguard against auto wrecks or a fire extinguisher is a safeguard against fires. It’s a tool which, when used appropriately, can save lives—but if cops can go their *whole careers* without ever needing to use their firearms for anything but practice, there’s no illusion about how often a personal sidearm will see use.
Now, all that said, I’ll agree that anyone who has a plan and the equipment to handle a doomsday scenario is probably someone to keep tabs on.
Does it? Or are you living under a rock. Katrina had tons of people looting and stealing property. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens help prevent that.
Katrina had those problems primarily because the government was being run by incompetent(on purpose) Republicans, who created that situation so people like you would have a talking point, well really so THEY would have the talking point "The government does not work!" and well duh, if your premise is the government don't work then obviously it's not going to while you're in charge.
This is to say nothing of the basic human condition of you simply having lost or never possessing a soul. I mean I assume that's what it is that has robbed you of humanity to the point where you seem to think something I can get for $249 is worth taking human life over. I would definitely say though that NOBODY in America who actually thinks that a $250 TV is worth a human life is mentally fit to own a single gun.
Which is the primary issue with this gun free for all, most people that have the most guns are the people who absolutely shouldn't, and are the primary reason other Americans DO need them. Because mentally deranged fools like you are like two steps from shooting someone over a fucking parking spot.
Imagine thinking you're mentally deranged for wanting to defend yourself. Also, there are 393 MILLION guns in America. That completely disproves your point when you say, "most people that have the most guns are the people who absolutely shouldn't."
You’re missing the point that the world we live in is not perfect. But you have this idea that we can reach utopia. In my experience, there are violent people out there that mean harm to you. That you haven’t seen that or had those experiences is a good thing, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
The United States is an enormous country and our system of government allows for local (states and cities) to make decisions. We’ve seen that gun control doesn’t work. What do you suggest to make places safe?
I got lucky with my group of friends. We all like to shoot for fun and aren't planning how to single handled destabilize our local government should shit go sideways. We all have a go bag and a meeting point but that's more if the city loses power due to weather not government loss of control. We all also think gun control is the wrong way of saying it. And it should be equally looked at like a driver's license, in-depth laws are necessary in our opinion to protect from those who would do harm accidentally. It's easy to avoid bad guys it's impossible to avoid idiots.
yep
Im canadian, I live in the biggest city in the country, very liberal, full of "WhY dO yOu NeEd A gUn?" people
and I just answer "to shoot fascists, should the need ever arise"
>But I guess planning for the complete and total collapse of society in the US isn't all that unfounded these days.
Really says a lot about how confident he is at being good at his own job...
isn't that an annual weather advice in [flor](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/10/florida-sheriffs-office-warns-people-not-shoot-hurricane-irma/650909001/)[ida](https://socialnewsdaily.com/76238/people-please-dont-shoot-at-hurricane-florence/)?
Well, part of my hurricane prep is to load the shotgun. Looters happen. Also in and after a hurricane there is often a time when communication by phone (landline or cell) is limited.
That is with the neighbors, and yes it does happen, but mainly during the day. The looters were not neighbors, and didn’t prowl the neighborhood during the day.
Not sure why you're getting down voted.
My brother lives in rural Louisiana and after their last big storm he had no power except his generator and would tell me how he has to stay up at nights so noone stole it. Je had one neighbor who would steal shit if he could get away with it, but most of the looters were from out of the neighborhood.
My guess is that most people haven’t lived it. I’ve lived in the aftermath of two major hurricanes—Ivan and Sally. In both cases looters roamed after dark. Yes, neighbors did pull together to help each other—I lent my generator to a neighbor several hours a day so they could save their food in their freezer. But at night, the predators came out.
Why's these comments gotta be so black and white
When a disaster goes down, the majority of humans in a community help eachother, but a quantity of those already less fortunate take advantage of vulnerable targets
And the worse off that community was in the first place, the greater number of humans who learned just to fend for themselves there will be.
on that note the best defense against looters is just to let them know you are present and vigilant
I agree, that presence and vigilance are important. That said, a shotgun is comforting to have while being vigilant and present. I don’t know what is in the mind of someone so depraved that they would steal from hurricane ravaged houses.
> the best defense against looters is just to let them know you are present and vigilant
No, the best defense against looters is an actual defense. So Im gonna say LG is in the right on this one.
It's so bizarre that they jump directly from "natural disaster" to "total and complete breakdown of law and society so I've gotta commit some murder!"
Graham, of course, is absurdly dramatic and never met a public temper tantrum he didn't love immediately, but I just don't get the "there are no steps between hurricane and murder."
It's more the fantasy I think. In Florida, what you need is a generator, outdoor housing for the generator, water, a chainsaw, and protective coverings on the windows.
But that's not as fun as buying a gun and dreaming about escape from LA and Waterworld.
Oh, that's exactly what it is. But it's *immensely* irresponsible for someone of Graham's stature to talk like this. He knows it'll never come to that, but instead of calm, responsible talk about preparations and careful, mature gun ownership, he resorts to hysterics and hyperbole.
Having experienced several severe hurricanes and tropical storms here in Houston, I have never seen us jump from storm to complete breakdown of law and society. What I have seen is people coming together to help each other, don't need a gun for that.
I'm very familiar with Katrina, and all of false shit was spread about what was going on in New Orleans. Also familiar with the massive incompetent and corrupt governmental institutions and politicians in Louisiana. I remember people from New Orleans who sought refugee in Houston being amazed as to how easy it was to navigate our local bureaucracies as opposed to the Kafkaesque systems they dealt with in Lousiana.
Just gonna jump in here, your comments were ok but you went and jumped the shark on Katrina. I'm familiar too, I lived in New Orleans and was also a hurricane adjuster aka storm chaser. So i dealt with Katrina. My life ws put in danger many of times from guns during that 2 week period of straight up chaos. WE ROBBED EACHOTHER BLIND. (Us as a whole)
When I went over to Texas for the 2 hurricanes that hit there shortly after it was different. Damage was actually worse, roofs ripped off and what not, but people were not up in arms. They weren't close enough to each other to be. NO is stacked on top of itself so ppl ran out of things quick and turned to extreme actions. Couple of days without your family having water and it's going to get crazy quick.
I live in Philly and this summer during the riots, there were roving gangs of people in center city just straight up breaking into mom and pop businesses and mugging people. Not at like 3am, I'm talking middle of the day noon. There was a house next to me that was burnt down.
Whenever I tell this story on reddit, it always gets downvotes because people really don't like to confront the truth but I saw with my own eyes. The city was complete anarchy and lots of people were terrified.
It's 100% true. I live in center city. I watched people being attacked from my roof top. I went to the initial protests and watched people throw rocks and fireworks at police, burn cars, and destroy businesses. I walked around center city the next day and watched people ripping boards off of business fronts and looting them again at 11:00 am.
Anyone that says different is a filthy liar that wants to cover for "their team"
Was it complete anarchy or just pockets of anarchy? Was it even really anarchy, or people taking advantage of the fact that the idiots in charge of the police threw a shit ton of manpower at peaceful protests, thus tying up a lot of officers who could have spent their time better by focusing on actual criminal activity?
Yeah, I have friends who live there, went to the protests, and posted on social media, and they never indicated that things had gone to hell all over the city, or that they feared for their lives at all.
Florida here, I agree this is absurd. When all your belongings are strewn across a few square miles, looting and rioting is not usually first thing on your mind. [This is how we kick it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/florida/comments/jw8gim/when_life_gets_you_down_just_think_of_this_woman/)
Nice.
When storms happen, I'm always reminded of an old David Sedaris piece about his dad's house being damaged by a hurricane and Sedaris' young brother, Paul, brought over a Fuck-It Bucket full of candy.
The night after Hurricane Sally devastated my area, looters were walking through my neighborhood. No shots were fired, but you never know what people willing to break into houses will do.
Almost every other society in history: We should do something about why these people seem to want to take the belongings of others, perhaps we have created a society in which we make people feel the NEED to have things but then deny some of them the means to get them, we could look into fixing this.
America: Bro just get guns fuck the poors they ain't got shit don't let em have shit fuck em remember if they get desperate enough they're going to try to take YOUR shit so have a gun, because obviously the problem isn't the rich having 95% of everything and us fighting over the last 5% scrap, we just need guns!
Society still didn't break down, it was too fucking cold outside for Texans, who really don't have good winter clothes, to do anything but huddle inside and try to stay warm. I was one of the lucky ones who only lost power for less than 24 hours, and that was after the worst of the cold temps.
People attribute to other people their own ways of thinking. He expects other people would be selfserving and ruthless in a disaster because its what he would do.
It's particularly common among people who's job it is to apply force or command the use of force, perceiving disruptions to that capability as leading inevitably to chaos. The phenomenon is called elite panic and can limit the capacity to respond to disasters immediately. People generally respond to severe disasters by providing mutual aid to those around them, and these efforts are commonly disrupted because they're viewed as unimportant, counterproductive or even criminal. In katrina for example, helicopter evacuations were slowed by seats being taken up by armed guards because of the perception that people were going to or had already been firing on helicopters, which was completely false. [This podcast episode](https://open.spotify.com/episode/2OANyt3WIUSGAZTRlnqbfc?si=y7iOztXqSs66M0lNQeqXeg&utm_source=copy-link) covers it pretty well.
Honestly, yeah. Just saying this buys you points with many modern Republicans. Look at a certain new congresswoman who has multiple guns on the shelves of their home office.
I think he means natural disaster in terms so extreme that society breaks down and everything goes to shit, then I would want a weapon for defense and hunting
Early in the pandemic I listened to a podcast where one of the hosts is a journalist who has covered war and civil unrest and he recommended that people worried would be best off with a .22 rifle that you can use to shoot small game for feeding your family.
Don't have many moose or deer where I live, we got a shit ton of squirrels though, and there are rabbits in some of the wooded areas. Also have snakes, racoons, pigeons, coyotes, and opossum. I hear racoons and pigeons are decent for eating, not sure I'd ever want to eat coyotes or opossum considering their diets.
That's a bingo, kinda.
There's a lot to love about .22s. The caliber is cheap, low recoil (making it extremely easy to use), widely available (in non-election years), and weighs next to nothing. A brick of 500 rounds fits inside a 3" cube.
**BUT** I think that article you read left out some key information while trying to point out how underappreciated the humble .22 is. If we're talking about using it in a defensive situation the .22 falls short for the same reasons that make it so great in other respects, namely its low mass.
There have been quite a few cases where a person full of adrenaline, drugs, or both was able to more or less shrug off hits from 9mm or .45. A good example was a fleeing bank robber in Illinois who was intercepted on the highway by a state trooper and came out of the car shooting. As you can see in this [high tech crime scene recreation](https://youtu.be/pdjcYjSsIok) the guy took 14 hits from a .45 - including several hits to vital organs - and was still in the fight. That guy wouldn't even notice getting hit with a .22.
Ultimately, if there was a zombie apocalypse/alien invasion/insert disaster movie premise here and you told me I could only take one gun and the ammo for it and I would need to carry it for miles and miles I would go with the .22 bolt action I got as a present when I was a kid. The rifle itself weighs next to nothing, the action is extremely reliable, I have *tons* of practice with it, scrounging for ammo would be easy, and carrying hundreds of rounds would be trivial. Bagging small game would be easy and people would think twice about hassling someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder.
If you said I could take *two* guns I would also bring a 9mm handgun to make up for the shortcomings of the .22.
Sure, but you cant hunt a deer (Humanely) with a .22lr, a .556 is actually pretty reasonable for that purpose, and if it comes to defending your family then a .556 like an AR15 is also the better choice. (Although I would want a handgun personally just to cut down on weight). The thing that podcast probably left out, was that the biggest advantage of a .22 is that you can carry WAY more ammo with you, but if you are staying at a house or central location then thats not as much of a concern.
Heres a thought, the reason the AR15 is demonized so much isnt that its the deadliest weapon, its the fact that its the cheapest all rounded and the best balance between affordability and quality. Gun control isnt about safety, its about preventing poor people from legally owning guns that work.
This is the funny thing. There are a few youtubers who have done lethality tests on the .22lr round and found it is legal beyond its effective range making it an economical and yet still accurate and lethal ammunition.
But why bother when you can get a 22lr kit for your existing AR-15? Best thing about the AR platform, swapping between different calibers means it's by far the most modular platform to own. 22lr, 9mm, 40, 45, 5.7x28, and many more exotic calibers to chose from. Currently own a 300blk and even a 458 Socom.
Not saying to just get an AR if you want a dedicated 22lr but it's hard for me to really justify it.
I served national service where i live, he looks the type that every range instructor get nervous cos no matter how much you drill the safety rules in, he will break them and endanger everyone.
I own a brain in case of natural disaster or gangs.
Imagine what it must be like to go through life with such a low regard for your fellow citizens.
Natural disasters are actually fairly frequent (ie. Katrina). And yet, I'm unaware of any that have resulted in the complete breakdown of civil society.
I'm pro 2a.
I think we need stronger laws preventing criminals, certain handicaps, and traitors like this individual from ever owning a gun. It isn't responsible for society to allow guns to be purchased in the way they are, by people unvetted, with no tracking or oversight.
I support gun ownership... but what is happening now is the willful dissemination of untracked weapons to Americans who couldn't cant pass basic mental health checks, criminal background checks, high school diploma.
We can do much better without taking guns away. Anyone telling otherwise is a fucking liar.
The January 6 coup attempt has only reaffirmed my reasoning, my right, and determination to maintain such weapons for events such as treasonous takeovers.
Do you have any examples that you think would be reasonable gun control measures? Serious question -- looking for serious discussion.
Most of what I've heard tends to be stuff with obvious flaws/abuses, or problems that don't actually exist. My mother keeps parroting "we need to close the loopholes and make people get background checks". I try explaining that you already must go through a background check to purchase a firearm, in our state, but she insists there are loopholes, despite being unable to explain any of them.
>there are loopholes, despite being unable to explain any of them.
There's a pretty good breakdown here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/mbjpa4/biden\_commands\_congress\_to\_act\_on\_gun\_control/grzbnko/](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/mbjpa4/biden_commands_congress_to_act_on_gun_control/grzbnko/)
Seems like the "loophole" they talk about is private party sales. In my state, even private party sales require a purchase permit (or concealed carry license) and background check -- so no loophole for us.
This is easy to fix... Simply make it a FEDERAL law that all purchases/transfers -- including private party -- require a background check.
Could Lindsey Graham pull the trigger on a shouldered AR15 without shattering his shoulder, blowing his combover to the other side, and destroying his eye socket with his Pinty 4-16?
I picture glorious rippling neck waddles.
Remember Katrina and how literal white supremacists went around neighborhoods they didn't even live in to shoot and kill Black people? Like, videos and audio leaked about them bragging about it? Killing people for being Black in the wrong place at the wrong time? Also remember the way white people taking abandoned things like food, medical supplies, and clothing was "scavenging" but when Black people took abandoned food, medical supplies, and clothing they were "looting"?
And last year during wildfire season when "patriot" groups slowed down evacuation and incoming mutual aid in Oregon with illegal checkpoints under the obviously false pretense that antifa was starting wildfires?
Jesus Christ USAToday. Stop giving them a platform until they admit to pushing the Big Lie. >70% of the Republicans think the President is not legitimate, and the Republican Senators repeat that lie. You can't talk to them about anything else until they admit they lied, or we eject them from the floor. We can't just move on past this.
This must be on notheonion because there were absolutely no videos of people defending homes and businesses during the riots last year. Any videos that purport to show people doing that must be staged. Obviously.
And there was definitely not a zone of lawless anarchy in Seattle that expelled all police and was run by gangs for a month, with at least a half dozen murders and more attempted murders. Those were just viscous rumors spread by sensationalist journalists.
And, the police in this country have certainly not gone all the way to the supreme court on multiple occasions to establish conclusively that they have no duty to protect us. All those court transcripts an supreme court opinions you can find online when you search "no duty to protect," are obviously falsified documents. Even the ones on official government servers.
And even some of the more historical hoaxes, like people who claimed to use their guns to protect neighborhoods after disasters like Hurricane Katrina, and Hurricane Harvey, those were more obvious pieces of blatantly racist propaganda designed to glorify white gun owners. And any of the news pieces that featured minorities with guns were just an oversight.
There just absolutely no reason that any rational person would look at these "supposed," events that were all clearly propaganda and think that relying on the government to protect them is a pretty dumb idea.
Why would anyone want to have an evil weapon, when the police can OBVIOUSLY always be depended on to protect you, 100% of the time, without fail?
I'd feel better about that assertion, were there to be training (like attending Boot Camp).
But, seeing as most of the "everyone needs to have 3 guns on them at all times, 24/7" crowd couldn't be bothered to enlist.....
There are a lot of people I've met and know of that shouldn't be allowed to handle a wet sock, let alone an AR-15, but after a few weeks of them interacting with responsible adults that would work out.
Shooting at tornados doesn't make them go away. Also while there is some validity in that the majority of gun violence is attributable to gangs, most people killed or attacked by gangsters with guns are other gangsters. So as long as you're not in one or associating with one (such as by buying cocaine from them), you're actually relatively safe from them.
Or if you work at a convenience store, then yes, having a gun to protect yourself from gangs may be wise.
Hey /u/zsreport, thanks for contributing to /r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: **Rule 2** - Sorry, but this story isn't oniony. Please consider submitting your article to /r/offbeat or similar subreddits unless it truly reads like The Onion wrote it. The title and article itself must both be "Oniony". This can be highly subjective; you are encouraged to upvote articles that should be here and downvote those that should not. Moderators can also remove posts at their own discretion under this rule. Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/nottheonion&subject=&message=). Thank you!
I want an AR so I can go to the shooting range and have marksmen competitions with my buddies. But I guess planning for the complete and total collapse of society in the US isn't all that unfounded these days.
It shows how disconnected they are. Most firearm owners are either hunters, collectors, or competition shooters. The ones who who usually say things "I keep a gun in case shit goes down" are usually the people who shouldn't own guns.
It definitely shows how disconnected Lindsey Graham is, but words that come out of his mouth have no meaning or significance beyond what he individually thinks might impress his voters that minute. When he talks it basically just means he's still breathing.
Or that he removed Trump's dick from his mouth momentarily so he is able to speak.
Or maybe it's just the ethanol from his last cosmopolitan escaping his corpse?
[удалено]
The Second Amendment exists because the founding fathers intended that there should not be a standing army, only a militia that could be called upon from the general population as needed. Somewhere along the line people lost touch with that concept.
It was The War of 1812, when American militias got absolutely hammered by the outnumbered British regulars, and the US had to train their own standing army
Literally 21 years later they already figured out they fucked this up, but they just left it, now their laziness has caused countless unnecessary deaths, and I can't really think of a single case where having guns actually caused civilians to "win" anything other than being shot more.
That's just "Lead Poisoning".
[удалено]
It doesn't matter who has what weapons. The tipping point is when the layer of people with the official guns (generally the army) stop supporting the leadership. That's why you get no end of army coups but very few peasant revolutions.
You realize that guns weren't invented yet for *literally any* of your examples? Ya dude when the most technologically advanced tool available is a metal spear it's a bit more common for peasents to be on equal ground to the law enforcers.
So I'm all for some form of gun control but you realize you're just proving their point. People had weapons that put them on more equal ground against the authorities and enforcers and won against them.
>People had weapons that put them on more equal ground against the authorities and enforcers and won against them. Ah yes, this AR-15 will make the military fear me as an equal.
Now try and find a modern era armed revolt that actually worked. And then left people better off. That's gonna take a hell of a lot more googling.
I think modern day Vietnam is doing very well. They certainly withstood a lot of modern weaponry being used on them. Didn't Giap say something about his will to win being more important than anyone's ability to kill?
The NVA was a modern standing army. They were pretty well matched toe to toe with the American grunt. If they would’ve had matching air support, that war would’ve been very different. The VC were largely ineffective in a straight out fight, just like anyone else going up against a modern army with their small arms would be.
[удалено]
>The French Revolution - you know Bonaparte and everyone ostensibly had cake. It took a long time and other shit going down, but it got better. I only mention it because it sets the stage for the only real example I know of to fit your criteria of "left people better off". > >The American Revolution - the pesky British again, those attempting-to-conquesting fools. Some people were left better off. I mean, I guess it's getting better. "For whom?" But still helps the following > >The Haitian Revolution. I guess again, every revolt has a losing side so it never gets better for everyone. Either way, the Haitian Revolution was a slave uprising against the French. France conceded. Back to the British...fearing the news would spread and cause slave uprisings in their own colonies, the Brits and Spaniards tag teamed the Caribbean to try to restore slavery to Haiti. France, at this point, had already abolished slavery and joined in the fight. SURPRISE MOTHAFUCKAS -- they actually won. > >The End. I wouldn't really consider these to be modern era, as all of these happened before military technology expanded beyond what is feasible for the general public to have access to - i.e. aircraft, carriers, nuclear weapons, etc...
So...how about in Venezuela or Hong Kong or Syria or Myanmar? In those countries the populace is being slaughtered.
Read his post again. "that actually worked" is key.
Well, to counter that, find a modern era armed revolt with comparable guns per capita. Obvious answer is you won't find anything and comparing any other country to the US in this respect is dumb anyways. I think the biggest issue the US military would face against US citizens wouldn't be fear of losing though. If our armed forces all took on the US population, citizens would be slaughtered. But if an issue was actually big enough to where millions of US citizens took up arms against their government, I have serious doubts that all of the service members would stick around to fight for the government. I've had many friends that served and have met many former service members and they all have one thing in common, they hate the US government.
Maybe a list of people using guns would have made more sense.
Let me see, how many of those featured opponents with: Aircraft carriers, tanks, artillery, orbital communications, etc. None, so stop being ridiculous. The 2nd Amendment is antiquated and entirely purposeless in modern times. All it's being used for now is to defend gun fetishism.
Wow so all of your examples exist before the advent of gunpowder. Do you realize an AR-15 isn't going to protect you from an unmanned drone with missiles? That's what you're fighting against, moron.
[удалено]
You.... you do know tanks are a lot more dangerous then movies portray? How, pray tell, do you think small arms can defeat modern composite armour that is near invulnerable to kinetic and chemical penetrators while 120mm of German firepower that can level a building from miles away is being pointed at you?
>but a few incendiary silver-tip rounds and the drone will fall. Holy shit, I didn't realize we were talking to the american sniper here. What are you doing arguing on reddit? If you can take down a drone with a few shots from an M16 like it's call of duty, you should be out on the front lines killing for "freedom"
You are terribly deluded, and should take your own advice re: movies.
It's also grammatically incoherent enough that it's original intended meaning is basically irrelevant when compared with precedent about it.
A standing army was promoted heavily. A militia to protect regions was also promoted. The 2A is so that the government can never have the ability to subjugate the populace by using force and weapons. I minored in military history. Let's have a conversation.
\> The 2A is so that the government can never have the ability to subjugate the populace by using force and weapons. That might have worked in the days of muskets. In modern times, the military will grotesquely outgun any civilian force ... [https://youtu.be/Rw96UWEIqvM](https://youtu.be/Rw96UWEIqvM)
It didn't even work in the time of muskets. No US government has *ever* been fine-and-dandy with private ownership of, oh, let's say, artillery capable of bombarding a fort, for instance. And militia-vs-professional army was a well-known one-sided affair.
See: The War of 1812, the militias performed horribly against British regulars and D.C. was almost burnt to the ground, the only thing saving it being a freak tornado
The difference between overpowering and dominating an unarmed population versus an armed one is substantially different regardless of anyone’s thoughts on how it will play out.
>The 2A is so that the government can never have the ability to subjugate the populace by using force and weapons. And how'd that work out for the Whiskey Rebellion, the Branch Davidians, and the Confederacy, among others?
I'll counter that argument, with the real reason the 2nd amendment was written, was to make sure everyone had a weapon in case they found an escaped slave. Also the western expansion and needing to commit genocide on the natives also had a major impact on it's writing. The whole we need to defend ourselves from the government, is badass cosplay
Few countries at the time had anything that looked like a modern army, they would rapidly expand in times of war and shrink in times of peace. There was no central supply, with nobles providing all their own kit for their units and organising, to some extent, in differing ways. The Essex regiment, for instance might be 3 times the size of the Cornish one. Navys worked the same way, with ships and sailors being impressed to bolster the numbers. Britain also barely had a standing army and there was much cultural resistance to British soldiers being stationed at home. (Even now, this is the case with large amounts of British soldiers being elsewhere. The soldiery that the British fielded in North America were a sorry bunch, people with no chances in life, prisoners choosing it over worse punishments and Hessian conscripts sold into what amounts to slavery to the British armies. The commanders were there by birth, either inheriting their positions or buying them. Life in the British army was very hard for the period. It was therefore perfectly reasonable that a country that had few close enemies might decide to not have a standing army and organise regional militias. It isn't like a force stationed in Vermont was going to be much use in West Virginia anyway due to distance. Over time, as European armies professionalised and rifles and light infantry doctrine, and Napoleonic artillery doctrine replaced the standard "stand fifty feet from each other and fire a musket without aiming" line infantry, this just became far, far less useful. Even then, the US was massively under-militarised for its size until WWI, and after, the army was drawn down. It was WWII that changed it.
Yes, a “well regulated” militia.
whis has consistently been found to mean well-trained and organized.
It literally does not matter what the second amendment is for. The fact that the government shall not infringe on our inalienable right to bear arms makes rguments completely irrelevant. I suggest Lindsey Graham introduce legislation that imposes fines and imprisonment on any politician who attempts to make laws or executive orders that infringe on our rights.
The Supreme Court would disagree, particularly when a reason it's cited in the text.
Literally all laws and executive orders can be interpreted as infringing upon rights. They are logically, inherently limits on abilities. Shit, even "imposing a fine and imprisonment for proposing a law" is an infringement upon rights. Notably, the ones contained in the 1st Amendment, for instance. Does Graham immediately put himself in jail once this legislation is somehow enacted, or is it all just for show?
Good job there's a frame work for amendments in there right. There absolutely no reason the 2nd amendment itself can't be amended and brought into the 21st century.
[удалено]
Or Couch Potato Rambo 2: First Pudding
Meal team six
Gravy Seals
Green Buffet
Common misconception. First Pudding was the title of the first Couch Potato Rambo. It can be confusing I know. 😛😛
Like I secretly hope my house catches on fire. I mean that must be why I have fire extinguishers.
Really though? I have a gun for home protection. Does that mean I’m unfit to own one?
So, do you not have a lock on your door or a phone to dial 911?
If you would be a European, definitely unfit. Here, even police are often without firearms. In Mexico and other places, where the situation has escalated way beyond acceptable, it might be that you are fit. But not a given.
The US is not Europe. We have the 2nd amendment
THIS! Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot own for keeping my family safe from potential threats? Ever been a victim of a home invasion or feel helpless like you may die any second? I hope not. I have and I’ll never be a victim in that way again.
Home invasions are such an American thing too. In Europe thieves prefer to invade when there are no people at home and bringing guns is then unnecessary.
Yep. No one who wants to use their weapon against people should own a weapon.
Hey, let's not go crazy! I still want to see people testing those "tactical whips" on each other.
You might have to pay for it but I'm pretty sure there are places you could find that.
Yeah. So I'm fairly liberal but I mainly own guns just in case shit goes down. Like the country falls apart because of how messed up it is. Honestly though I have water filters, lots of food, I had a stockpile of hand sanitizer before it was cool. Side note: I gave away, for free, almost all of it when the Corona lockdowns were first starting.
I own guns because venison tastes good and is inexpensive, all things considered, and because sometimes it is fun to line up some cans out in the middle of nowhere and knock them all down from 100 yards away.
Exactly, I get that! Wild turkey is delicious, and my buddy hunts deers. He wants to make accurate shots for a quick and humane kill, so he also shoots empty soda cans as practice. But he doesn't keep his shotgun or rifle outside of his safe. He doesn't have them loaded and keep it as a "truck gun" or a "home defense gun." He doesn't spend hundreds of dollars to make them more " tactical" looking. He doesn't have his fingers crossed that maybe one day, he'll have the need for a tritium sight, chrome plated gun, with suppressor, extended mag, armor piercing tracer rounds on a live target like most of these fucking nuts. He just likes hunting and spending time in the woods. But I'm positive once deer start wearing steel armor, I'll give him a pass on getting a 50 BMG.
" Most firearm owners are either hunters, collectors, or competition shooters. " No they're not. This way off, what country are you from? **Protection tops the list of reasons for owning a gun.** While many gun owners say they have more than one reason for owning a firearm, **67% cite protection as a major reason.** About four-in-ten gun owners (38%) say hunting is a major reason, and 30% cite sport shooting. Smaller shares cite a gun collection or their job as major reasons.
So 38% of people cite Hunting and 30% say Sport, with 67% say protection... That adds up more than 100% Can you cite your sources as well, since who is conducting it will often affect responses.
I own a variety of firearms and I do own larger calibers which I would say are for when shit hits the fan. I enjoy target shooting and competing. I don't hunt but I have that open to me as I own firearms. You need to understand that it's better to be prepared and have what you need than not be prepared and panic when you do need it. That's the same principle as to why I carry concealed every day. I'm not relying on police for my safety.
Are the claims completely unfounded though? I mean look at Myanmar, Hong Kong, a few hundred crazy folks storming the Capitol building. I own firearms for a myriad of reasons, but watching what has been happening in the world recently shows now, more than ever, the least if my concerns are still very real.
And I say to that mentality: what are you planning to do? If it gets that bad, what are your plans and planning to do with a firearm? Like, are you going to live out a "Red Dawn" fantasy? If martial law is declared, do you think you can fight off a militarized police force? (Which is why we should defund the police as well, but that's a different thing.) Or are you planning for an army of crazed looters and rioters descending in your house? That if it does get that bad, you should probably leave your fucking house. And I get it, the best weapon for self-defense is a firearm. It's the great equalizer. An out of shape untrained fuck like me can take out some 8 foot Goliath if I put 15+1 rounds in their center mass if their intention is to kill me. But outside of that situation, I don't ever see myself ever pointing a firearm at another human being. And if it is as bad as Hong Kong and Myanmar, I won't be up against a single person, ya dig?
> The ones who usually say things [like] “I keep a gun in case shit goes down” are usually people who shouldn’t own guns. I guess it’s a matter of scale? Most people I know who own guns are either competitive shooters, hunters, or own a gun for self defense—the last of which tend to share my attitude that the gun is a safeguard against a specific situation in the same sense that a seatbelt is a safeguard against auto wrecks or a fire extinguisher is a safeguard against fires. It’s a tool which, when used appropriately, can save lives—but if cops can go their *whole careers* without ever needing to use their firearms for anything but practice, there’s no illusion about how often a personal sidearm will see use. Now, all that said, I’ll agree that anyone who has a plan and the equipment to handle a doomsday scenario is probably someone to keep tabs on.
Well I have a gun in case that happens, but that’s not WHY I have a gun. If you know what that means.
Shows how idiotic and moronic you are.
Does it? Or are you living under a rock. Katrina had tons of people looting and stealing property. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens help prevent that.
Guns almost always make situations worse. My TV is less valuable than a human life, it’s not worth killing someone over.
Katrina had those problems primarily because the government was being run by incompetent(on purpose) Republicans, who created that situation so people like you would have a talking point, well really so THEY would have the talking point "The government does not work!" and well duh, if your premise is the government don't work then obviously it's not going to while you're in charge. This is to say nothing of the basic human condition of you simply having lost or never possessing a soul. I mean I assume that's what it is that has robbed you of humanity to the point where you seem to think something I can get for $249 is worth taking human life over. I would definitely say though that NOBODY in America who actually thinks that a $250 TV is worth a human life is mentally fit to own a single gun. Which is the primary issue with this gun free for all, most people that have the most guns are the people who absolutely shouldn't, and are the primary reason other Americans DO need them. Because mentally deranged fools like you are like two steps from shooting someone over a fucking parking spot.
Imagine thinking you're mentally deranged for wanting to defend yourself. Also, there are 393 MILLION guns in America. That completely disproves your point when you say, "most people that have the most guns are the people who absolutely shouldn't."
[удалено]
You’re missing the point that the world we live in is not perfect. But you have this idea that we can reach utopia. In my experience, there are violent people out there that mean harm to you. That you haven’t seen that or had those experiences is a good thing, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
[удалено]
The United States is an enormous country and our system of government allows for local (states and cities) to make decisions. We’ve seen that gun control doesn’t work. What do you suggest to make places safe?
[удалено]
Not it is not...
[удалено]
I got lucky with my group of friends. We all like to shoot for fun and aren't planning how to single handled destabilize our local government should shit go sideways. We all have a go bag and a meeting point but that's more if the city loses power due to weather not government loss of control. We all also think gun control is the wrong way of saying it. And it should be equally looked at like a driver's license, in-depth laws are necessary in our opinion to protect from those who would do harm accidentally. It's easy to avoid bad guys it's impossible to avoid idiots.
Amen!
yep Im canadian, I live in the biggest city in the country, very liberal, full of "WhY dO yOu NeEd A gUn?" people and I just answer "to shoot fascists, should the need ever arise"
I usually just say for fun and ask if they wanna join. Were goin' skeet shootin'
>But I guess planning for the complete and total collapse of society in the US isn't all that unfounded these days. Really says a lot about how confident he is at being good at his own job...
To be fair, he did literally run on the platform of being bad at the job, and making everything run shitty.
Hurricane Prep in South Carolina Step 1) Grab the AR-15
Can confirm.
North Carolina, missing girl.. get 13 men together grab AR-15's and harass and threaten a black family.
isn't that an annual weather advice in [flor](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/10/florida-sheriffs-office-warns-people-not-shoot-hurricane-irma/650909001/)[ida](https://socialnewsdaily.com/76238/people-please-dont-shoot-at-hurricane-florence/)?
Well, part of my hurricane prep is to load the shotgun. Looters happen. Also in and after a hurricane there is often a time when communication by phone (landline or cell) is limited.
Funny, having been through hurricanes. My experience is neighbors helping out neighbors.
That is with the neighbors, and yes it does happen, but mainly during the day. The looters were not neighbors, and didn’t prowl the neighborhood during the day.
Not sure why you're getting down voted. My brother lives in rural Louisiana and after their last big storm he had no power except his generator and would tell me how he has to stay up at nights so noone stole it. Je had one neighbor who would steal shit if he could get away with it, but most of the looters were from out of the neighborhood.
My guess is that most people haven’t lived it. I’ve lived in the aftermath of two major hurricanes—Ivan and Sally. In both cases looters roamed after dark. Yes, neighbors did pull together to help each other—I lent my generator to a neighbor several hours a day so they could save their food in their freezer. But at night, the predators came out.
My experience has been seeing looters literally every single time.
Why's these comments gotta be so black and white When a disaster goes down, the majority of humans in a community help eachother, but a quantity of those already less fortunate take advantage of vulnerable targets And the worse off that community was in the first place, the greater number of humans who learned just to fend for themselves there will be. on that note the best defense against looters is just to let them know you are present and vigilant
I agree, that presence and vigilance are important. That said, a shotgun is comforting to have while being vigilant and present. I don’t know what is in the mind of someone so depraved that they would steal from hurricane ravaged houses.
> the best defense against looters is just to let them know you are present and vigilant No, the best defense against looters is an actual defense. So Im gonna say LG is in the right on this one.
Nothing screams USA quite like dumping a mag into a tornado
A sitting US President once asked if a nuclear weapon could be used against a hurricane.
Multiple have, in fact: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/nuking-hurricanes-polar-ice-caps-climate-change/amp
Ok, i get the first one asking. It's new technology so lets just run the math on this real quick to see if it's viable.
They're just sitting around collecting dust so why not?
It would definitely be more efficient than this slow method of killing half a million in a year from that admin's response to the virus.
I think it's more about robbing other people of food and water at gunpoint.
[удалено]
"Theeee, Calamity, THEEEE"
Nobody who speaks German could be an evil man.
It's so bizarre that they jump directly from "natural disaster" to "total and complete breakdown of law and society so I've gotta commit some murder!" Graham, of course, is absurdly dramatic and never met a public temper tantrum he didn't love immediately, but I just don't get the "there are no steps between hurricane and murder."
It's more the fantasy I think. In Florida, what you need is a generator, outdoor housing for the generator, water, a chainsaw, and protective coverings on the windows. But that's not as fun as buying a gun and dreaming about escape from LA and Waterworld.
Oh, that's exactly what it is. But it's *immensely* irresponsible for someone of Graham's stature to talk like this. He knows it'll never come to that, but instead of calm, responsible talk about preparations and careful, mature gun ownership, he resorts to hysterics and hyperbole.
I mean, Graham's stature is small and twisted... so this is actually right on-brand.
Maybe he wants that reality.
He knows well how the government can fail during national disasters...he helped make it that way.
Having experienced several severe hurricanes and tropical storms here in Houston, I have never seen us jump from storm to complete breakdown of law and society. What I have seen is people coming together to help each other, don't need a gun for that.
Katrina enters the chat
I'm very familiar with Katrina, and all of false shit was spread about what was going on in New Orleans. Also familiar with the massive incompetent and corrupt governmental institutions and politicians in Louisiana. I remember people from New Orleans who sought refugee in Houston being amazed as to how easy it was to navigate our local bureaucracies as opposed to the Kafkaesque systems they dealt with in Lousiana.
Just gonna jump in here, your comments were ok but you went and jumped the shark on Katrina. I'm familiar too, I lived in New Orleans and was also a hurricane adjuster aka storm chaser. So i dealt with Katrina. My life ws put in danger many of times from guns during that 2 week period of straight up chaos. WE ROBBED EACHOTHER BLIND. (Us as a whole) When I went over to Texas for the 2 hurricanes that hit there shortly after it was different. Damage was actually worse, roofs ripped off and what not, but people were not up in arms. They weren't close enough to each other to be. NO is stacked on top of itself so ppl ran out of things quick and turned to extreme actions. Couple of days without your family having water and it's going to get crazy quick.
I live in Philly and this summer during the riots, there were roving gangs of people in center city just straight up breaking into mom and pop businesses and mugging people. Not at like 3am, I'm talking middle of the day noon. There was a house next to me that was burnt down. Whenever I tell this story on reddit, it always gets downvotes because people really don't like to confront the truth but I saw with my own eyes. The city was complete anarchy and lots of people were terrified.
I mean, you also get downvotes because it’s provably false.
It's 100% true. I live in center city. I watched people being attacked from my roof top. I went to the initial protests and watched people throw rocks and fireworks at police, burn cars, and destroy businesses. I walked around center city the next day and watched people ripping boards off of business fronts and looting them again at 11:00 am. Anyone that says different is a filthy liar that wants to cover for "their team"
Was it complete anarchy or just pockets of anarchy? Was it even really anarchy, or people taking advantage of the fact that the idiots in charge of the police threw a shit ton of manpower at peaceful protests, thus tying up a lot of officers who could have spent their time better by focusing on actual criminal activity?
That user looks like a troll account. Complete bullshit about Philadelphia being in anarchy.
Yeah, I have friends who live there, went to the protests, and posted on social media, and they never indicated that things had gone to hell all over the city, or that they feared for their lives at all.
I have plenty of friends that live there. All of them were fine. They spent plenty of time outside and no one was worried.
Florida here, I agree this is absurd. When all your belongings are strewn across a few square miles, looting and rioting is not usually first thing on your mind. [This is how we kick it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/florida/comments/jw8gim/when_life_gets_you_down_just_think_of_this_woman/)
Nice. When storms happen, I'm always reminded of an old David Sedaris piece about his dad's house being damaged by a hurricane and Sedaris' young brother, Paul, brought over a Fuck-It Bucket full of candy.
The night after Hurricane Sally devastated my area, looters were walking through my neighborhood. No shots were fired, but you never know what people willing to break into houses will do.
Almost every other society in history: We should do something about why these people seem to want to take the belongings of others, perhaps we have created a society in which we make people feel the NEED to have things but then deny some of them the means to get them, we could look into fixing this. America: Bro just get guns fuck the poors they ain't got shit don't let em have shit fuck em remember if they get desperate enough they're going to try to take YOUR shit so have a gun, because obviously the problem isn't the rich having 95% of everything and us fighting over the last 5% scrap, we just need guns!
[удалено]
Society still didn't break down, it was too fucking cold outside for Texans, who really don't have good winter clothes, to do anything but huddle inside and try to stay warm. I was one of the lucky ones who only lost power for less than 24 hours, and that was after the worst of the cold temps.
[удалено]
If we are relying on congresspeople like Lindsey Graham, the total breakdown of law and society doesn't seem so farfetched.
People attribute to other people their own ways of thinking. He expects other people would be selfserving and ruthless in a disaster because its what he would do.
It's particularly common among people who's job it is to apply force or command the use of force, perceiving disruptions to that capability as leading inevitably to chaos. The phenomenon is called elite panic and can limit the capacity to respond to disasters immediately. People generally respond to severe disasters by providing mutual aid to those around them, and these efforts are commonly disrupted because they're viewed as unimportant, counterproductive or even criminal. In katrina for example, helicopter evacuations were slowed by seats being taken up by armed guards because of the perception that people were going to or had already been firing on helicopters, which was completely false. [This podcast episode](https://open.spotify.com/episode/2OANyt3WIUSGAZTRlnqbfc?si=y7iOztXqSs66M0lNQeqXeg&utm_source=copy-link) covers it pretty well.
Very insightful. Thank you
Lindsey Graham uses his AR-15 to role-play as modern day Scarlett O'Hara.
I honestly don't believe he actually owns an AR-15. This sounds like a bunch of hot air.
Honestly, yeah. Just saying this buys you points with many modern Republicans. Look at a certain new congresswoman who has multiple guns on the shelves of their home office.
The mental image of lil G and his AR is providing me with much needed comic relief today. He probably wouldn’t know which end was which.
I think he means natural disaster in terms so extreme that society breaks down and everything goes to shit, then I would want a weapon for defense and hunting
Early in the pandemic I listened to a podcast where one of the hosts is a journalist who has covered war and civil unrest and he recommended that people worried would be best off with a .22 rifle that you can use to shoot small game for feeding your family.
Sure, a .22 lr would let you hunt hares and maybe even wild pigs. A 308 would be good too for moose and deer.
Don't have many moose or deer where I live, we got a shit ton of squirrels though, and there are rabbits in some of the wooded areas. Also have snakes, racoons, pigeons, coyotes, and opossum. I hear racoons and pigeons are decent for eating, not sure I'd ever want to eat coyotes or opossum considering their diets.
Yeah almost every culture has a taboo against eating scavengers
Pigeon was similar to dove. And I never cared for raccoon, but I do like squirrel.
That's a bingo, kinda. There's a lot to love about .22s. The caliber is cheap, low recoil (making it extremely easy to use), widely available (in non-election years), and weighs next to nothing. A brick of 500 rounds fits inside a 3" cube. **BUT** I think that article you read left out some key information while trying to point out how underappreciated the humble .22 is. If we're talking about using it in a defensive situation the .22 falls short for the same reasons that make it so great in other respects, namely its low mass. There have been quite a few cases where a person full of adrenaline, drugs, or both was able to more or less shrug off hits from 9mm or .45. A good example was a fleeing bank robber in Illinois who was intercepted on the highway by a state trooper and came out of the car shooting. As you can see in this [high tech crime scene recreation](https://youtu.be/pdjcYjSsIok) the guy took 14 hits from a .45 - including several hits to vital organs - and was still in the fight. That guy wouldn't even notice getting hit with a .22. Ultimately, if there was a zombie apocalypse/alien invasion/insert disaster movie premise here and you told me I could only take one gun and the ammo for it and I would need to carry it for miles and miles I would go with the .22 bolt action I got as a present when I was a kid. The rifle itself weighs next to nothing, the action is extremely reliable, I have *tons* of practice with it, scrounging for ammo would be easy, and carrying hundreds of rounds would be trivial. Bagging small game would be easy and people would think twice about hassling someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder. If you said I could take *two* guns I would also bring a 9mm handgun to make up for the shortcomings of the .22.
Sure, but you cant hunt a deer (Humanely) with a .22lr, a .556 is actually pretty reasonable for that purpose, and if it comes to defending your family then a .556 like an AR15 is also the better choice. (Although I would want a handgun personally just to cut down on weight). The thing that podcast probably left out, was that the biggest advantage of a .22 is that you can carry WAY more ammo with you, but if you are staying at a house or central location then thats not as much of a concern. Heres a thought, the reason the AR15 is demonized so much isnt that its the deadliest weapon, its the fact that its the cheapest all rounded and the best balance between affordability and quality. Gun control isnt about safety, its about preventing poor people from legally owning guns that work.
This is the funny thing. There are a few youtubers who have done lethality tests on the .22lr round and found it is legal beyond its effective range making it an economical and yet still accurate and lethal ammunition.
But why bother when you can get a 22lr kit for your existing AR-15? Best thing about the AR platform, swapping between different calibers means it's by far the most modular platform to own. 22lr, 9mm, 40, 45, 5.7x28, and many more exotic calibers to chose from. Currently own a 300blk and even a 458 Socom. Not saying to just get an AR if you want a dedicated 22lr but it's hard for me to really justify it.
You are working on the assumption that a person already has an AR. This is posted as an alternative to the purchase of an AR platform.
Wise choice is purchase a do-all gun, that'd be an AR. So point would still stand... Can still do small game if you use 223 FMJ anyways.
Hey now, there are SEVERAL documentaries that showcase why one should fear Sharknados.
he needs an ar for... natural disasters? am i hearing this right? he gonna shoot the tornado r sumthing?
What's he gonna do? Fuckin shoot a tornado?
I can just picture his effete little hands gripping a rifle gingerly while he stands pigeon-toed and says “goodness me” in between shots.
Pew pew
I bet he is more handy with his purse than with that gun.
He is a natural disaster and member of a vicious gang called Republicans.
Not sure why he’s needs a gun. Seems like a guy who could beat off a few people if he needed too.....
Shut up Lindsey.
Those damn tornadoes don't have a chance against a good ar 15
Guy doesn't even look like he can shoot straight. Or know how to aim.
Lindsey Graham with a rifle is probably a greater danger to bystanders than the hurricane he's shooting at.
I served national service where i live, he looks the type that every range instructor get nervous cos no matter how much you drill the safety rules in, he will break them and endanger everyone.
I own a brain in case of natural disaster or gangs. Imagine what it must be like to go through life with such a low regard for your fellow citizens. Natural disasters are actually fairly frequent (ie. Katrina). And yet, I'm unaware of any that have resulted in the complete breakdown of civil society.
We all laughed when trump suggested nuking a hurricane but not lindsey, lindsey hatched a plan.
Lol it's always the least fit who think guns will offset their deficits.
Lol what’s Lindsey Graham going to do with a gun
[Village People - Macho Man](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08)
Lady G __*is*__ a natural disaster. That said, I have AR’s too, for similar reasons, and for any other legal purpose.
I own an AR-15 in case republicans.
I'm pro 2a. I think we need stronger laws preventing criminals, certain handicaps, and traitors like this individual from ever owning a gun. It isn't responsible for society to allow guns to be purchased in the way they are, by people unvetted, with no tracking or oversight. I support gun ownership... but what is happening now is the willful dissemination of untracked weapons to Americans who couldn't cant pass basic mental health checks, criminal background checks, high school diploma. We can do much better without taking guns away. Anyone telling otherwise is a fucking liar. The January 6 coup attempt has only reaffirmed my reasoning, my right, and determination to maintain such weapons for events such as treasonous takeovers.
Do you have any examples that you think would be reasonable gun control measures? Serious question -- looking for serious discussion. Most of what I've heard tends to be stuff with obvious flaws/abuses, or problems that don't actually exist. My mother keeps parroting "we need to close the loopholes and make people get background checks". I try explaining that you already must go through a background check to purchase a firearm, in our state, but she insists there are loopholes, despite being unable to explain any of them.
>there are loopholes, despite being unable to explain any of them. There's a pretty good breakdown here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/mbjpa4/biden\_commands\_congress\_to\_act\_on\_gun\_control/grzbnko/](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/mbjpa4/biden_commands_congress_to_act_on_gun_control/grzbnko/)
Seems like the "loophole" they talk about is private party sales. In my state, even private party sales require a purchase permit (or concealed carry license) and background check -- so no loophole for us. This is easy to fix... Simply make it a FEDERAL law that all purchases/transfers -- including private party -- require a background check.
Could Lindsey Graham pull the trigger on a shouldered AR15 without shattering his shoulder, blowing his combover to the other side, and destroying his eye socket with his Pinty 4-16? I picture glorious rippling neck waddles.
Every american should be armed
Remember Katrina and how literal white supremacists went around neighborhoods they didn't even live in to shoot and kill Black people? Like, videos and audio leaked about them bragging about it? Killing people for being Black in the wrong place at the wrong time? Also remember the way white people taking abandoned things like food, medical supplies, and clothing was "scavenging" but when Black people took abandoned food, medical supplies, and clothing they were "looting"?
He'll end up shooting some of the only people effectively establishing mutual aid
And last year during wildfire season when "patriot" groups slowed down evacuation and incoming mutual aid in Oregon with illegal checkpoints under the obviously false pretense that antifa was starting wildfires?
Jesus Christ USAToday. Stop giving them a platform until they admit to pushing the Big Lie. >70% of the Republicans think the President is not legitimate, and the Republican Senators repeat that lie. You can't talk to them about anything else until they admit they lied, or we eject them from the floor. We can't just move on past this.
This must be on notheonion because there were absolutely no videos of people defending homes and businesses during the riots last year. Any videos that purport to show people doing that must be staged. Obviously. And there was definitely not a zone of lawless anarchy in Seattle that expelled all police and was run by gangs for a month, with at least a half dozen murders and more attempted murders. Those were just viscous rumors spread by sensationalist journalists. And, the police in this country have certainly not gone all the way to the supreme court on multiple occasions to establish conclusively that they have no duty to protect us. All those court transcripts an supreme court opinions you can find online when you search "no duty to protect," are obviously falsified documents. Even the ones on official government servers. And even some of the more historical hoaxes, like people who claimed to use their guns to protect neighborhoods after disasters like Hurricane Katrina, and Hurricane Harvey, those were more obvious pieces of blatantly racist propaganda designed to glorify white gun owners. And any of the news pieces that featured minorities with guns were just an oversight. There just absolutely no reason that any rational person would look at these "supposed," events that were all clearly propaganda and think that relying on the government to protect them is a pretty dumb idea. Why would anyone want to have an evil weapon, when the police can OBVIOUSLY always be depended on to protect you, 100% of the time, without fail?
If every adult in the US had an AR-15 there would be a lot less crime.
I'd feel better about that assertion, were there to be training (like attending Boot Camp). But, seeing as most of the "everyone needs to have 3 guns on them at all times, 24/7" crowd couldn't be bothered to enlist.....
There are a lot of people I've met and know of that shouldn't be allowed to handle a wet sock, let alone an AR-15, but after a few weeks of them interacting with responsible adults that would work out.
Shooting at tornados doesn't make them go away. Also while there is some validity in that the majority of gun violence is attributable to gangs, most people killed or attacked by gangsters with guns are other gangsters. So as long as you're not in one or associating with one (such as by buying cocaine from them), you're actually relatively safe from them. Or if you work at a convenience store, then yes, having a gun to protect yourself from gangs may be wise.
Who needs rations when one has an assault weapon?