Solution to the gun problem


So after Trump’s victory, gun sales in the US kinda stopped after a boom during the election season. Compare this to 2008 after Obama won and gun sales went through the roof.

So the solution to keeping guns out of the hands of American citizens, vote Republican.


“Obama has been the best sales man for guns ever!” - gun industry

Don’t threaten peoples rights suddenly they arent so axious about them, clearly americans still view them (and rightfully so) an important right to have (only country in the world were revolution against a tyranny is precedent thats legally backed).


I have actually written an article on this topic. I hope this will further your understanding and interest:


Dude honestly, you view our government in too good a light.

To believe that the government will not turn tyrannical is short sighted.

Also, the purpose of the second amendment is not to face our military in outright war, it is to face our military in small groups, so that the firepower of an individual soldier is near equal to that of an armed civilian (training aside).


Exactly. Militias and guerilla warfare won’t defeat our military in open combat, but they can cause attrition, draining public and international support for the war, eventually forcing the govt. to compromise, just like what happened in the American Revolution

Or as my main main TJ would say:



I’ve always seen the idea that the military would be complicit in the scenario of the people not wanting the government to steal their guns. Whoever thought up that lie must not know that the US military is generally made up of people who support every single right written in the Bill of Rights within the Constitution; this is the document these men and women take their oath of service upon.


Do not underestimate the capacity of militaries to become tools of authoritarian regimes.


Often those militaries aren’t really pledged to the nation’s laws, they are usually pledged to the ruler, ruling party, or to a leading general.


That’s actually a very interesting point, but still, I don’t believe that the idea and purpose of a well regulated militia is as prevalent today as in the Founding era.


So just because you think that failure is what is to become of yourself, then we all must choose failure. That is just exactly what tyrants want you to think; they need your support against the rice farmers in Asian, the sheep herders in the Middle East, but when you think that you, a well educated man from a first world nation think that maybe the men in power are taking advantage of me and my countrymen, maybe they want to harm us for self gain, maybe they want to use the system to enslave me, then that is when they punish you. You have fallen into the mindset they need you to be in. If anything is to happen, which I doubt, however if on the off chance something does happen do you want to tell your children you gave your gun to them, or do you want your child to know your fought for liberty and freedom. I’ll leave off with a quote I find relates to the topic.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin


Sorry, but I am a bit confused. I was actually replying to a previous comment by another user. It appears that you feel attacked or insulted, judging by your reaction. I wasn’t trying to be provocative in anyway. The interpretation I’m assuming you agree with is that a “well regulated militia”, in today’s sense, gives a citizen the ability to at least resist a form of oppression by a governing body or force. But even so, you have to acknowledge that there is at least some level of difference between what it means for us today and what it would have met in the Founding era. That was the point I was getting at, not the legitimacy of self-defense or tyranny.


By well regulated militia, the founding Fathers did not actually mean “a militia that is regulated” in the modern sense of the word “regulated”. By regulated, they meant it like the word “regular”, with members of the militia having access to the same kinds of weapons as the military. Feel free to watch John Green’s video on the Bill of Rights and Constitution and stuff which explains it.


I looked it up and you are absolutely correct, I am embarrassed at how uneducated I was. Thank you!


Dude no need to be apologetic, language can get confusing with connotation and stuff at times.

Where are you from, if I may ask?


It wouldn’t; unilateral combat is extremely effective against conventional forces such as the Army and Marines. The tactics remain the same as the Founding ear. War doesn’t change, sure tech changes, but war will remain the same.


It’s ok, he gets very emotional at times


I’m an American citizen that was born in Michigan. My parents were immigrants from China, so the first language I learned was actually Mandarin. I lived in a Chinese community until I was about 6, when my family moved and I began going to a nearby public school. My English has improved immensely, but I can still get confused sometimes, especially with older forms of the language.


The idea is basically that if the govt goes against the people, the militias will essentially act as the Viet Cong did in Vietnam, draining public support from the war and drawing in foreign powers who would force the govt to the negotiating table.


I know why we have the Second Amendment. However one has to think of things not in absolutes, the United States Army, as it is, will never, from a squad leader to battalion commanders, fully be cohesive in any strikes against Americans. They swore an oath to the Constitution and the people, not the government. Many soldiers I know, myself included, would never follow a command that requires the attack on American Citizens who are just trying to protect their Constitutional Rights.


Wouldn’t be the first time if they did Take the article with a grain of salt, mind you, but the point still stands