Gun Control Proposals Poll

[BabaYaga 15629]

Just now, Amobie said:

Not in disagreement with you but if the CHL isn't revoked after someone has been convicted of a felony, that's a pretty big deal.  I would classify that as an actual loophole.

If something happens to make it so someone would no longer pass a background check, somehow the retailer needs to know.  

Agreed - as that ties to the individual.  And that is how the current system is "supposed" to work (more or less).  And I'd imagine a start with something like that would garner support on both sides.

[Amobie 58]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So what will?  How are we going to regulate and legislate out "crazy"?  These are not crimes of passion.  They are premeditated and carefully crafted attacks.  We have seen some have been planned for months and even years.  Using different locations.  Different weapon platforms.  Different target demographics.  Know what isn't different?  They ALL occur in gun-free zones.  Are you going to even attempt to reconcile this if the end-game truly is protecting people?

I don't think you can legislate all violence away.  I completely agree with the gun free zone creating a soft target. 

[Anastasis 23723]

Is there a way to tweak the calculation of percentage in the poll.  The way the poll is structured the % should be calculated with 39 as the denominator.  It appears to be using the total number of items checked as denominator instead?  Ex 56.4% (22/39) of people who have voted in the poll support increasing the purchase age.  

[Amobie 58]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Agreed - as that ties to the individual.  And that is how the current system is "supposed" to work (more or less).  And I'd imagine a start with something like that would garner support on both sides.

It's more of an efficiency/incompetence issue than a legislative one.  

[BabaYaga 15629]

Just now, Amobie said:

I don't think you can legislate all violence away.  I completely agree with the gun free zone creating a soft target. 

Yep.  I always question the background crowd on what they'd have prevented to date with this?  It's an argument in semantics, but what would you find?  And then, is it actionable?  And do you think these premeditated planners are not simply going to go dark (social media)?  These are not repeat offenders.  They are not felons.  Most have been over-medicated, bullied kids.  So what is in their background that would preclude a purchase?

"I F-ing HATE everyone from OK!  Those cock-gargling twats!  Ahhhhh."

On Surly, that gets you a thumbs up.  And I then commit murder in OK, was what I posted a tip-off?  Was it actionable?  I'm not against these checks - but I want to know what everyone expects to find?

[BabaYaga 15629]

2 minutes ago, Amobie said:

It's more of an efficiency/incompetence issue than a legislative one.  

Which ties back to my original point about reconciling existing laws before rolling out new ones.  Do a complete audit of what we have on the books today.  If the laws are bad.  If they are not effective.  Then strike them and replace them.  But there is a process to this.  Not just "something" for the sake of it.

[bernorange 8385]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Is there a way to tweak the calculation of percentage in the poll.  The way the poll is structured the % should be calculated with 39 as the denominator.  It appears to be using the total number of items checked as denominator instead?  Ex 56.4% (22/39) of people who have voted in the poll support increasing the purchase age.  

I agree with you, but that's above my pay grade.  Probably need to make a request in the Board Discussion forum...

[DanTheHorn 5092]

Assault rifles = AK's and M16 and similar rifles and all automatic weapons.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

9 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Assault rifles = AK's and M16 and similar rifles and all automatic weapons.

Agreed, but you gonna need to define "similar rifles" to people who aren't familiar with guns. They think AR15 = M16 because they look similar.

It's pretty crazy that you can be drafted or join the military to go overseas and fight a war at 18 but you can't drink until 21, and people now want to prevent the right of self defense for these 18-21 year olds as well.

What about those vulnerable college girls? Wouldn't they have less of a chance of getting raped if allowed to concealed carry?

Edited April 5, 2018 by SmokeyBear1861

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

the issue with registration and licensing is the second amendment. that's the argument.

however, as a gun owner, i'm not against registration. i think transfer of ownership should be tracked, and that there should be some kind of penalty for owning an unregistered gun. ie, you inherit dad's single shot 410? fill in a card and mail it in, or something like that.

i don't fear a massive gun registry. i understand that those who do see it as a natural first step to the government coming and getting your guns. but here's the rub - gun advocates are going to have to give some inches here or the anti-gun people WILL eventually take the whole mile. this zero-sum game bullshit is going to come back and bite us responsible gun owners in the ass.

this way, when someone is convicted of a felony, we know they have three registered handguns, those are surrendered. this way, when someone is declared mentally "dangerous," the registered guns can be surrendered and held in escrow until such time they are deemed "stable." you can do what you want with the terms, but i think that is reasonable.

i know the privilege of driving is not enshrined in the constitution, but comparing the number of boxes we have to check to 1) have a DL, 2) maintain a street legal car to that of gun ownership is a complete incongruity for me. 

Give an inch, see what happens. First off, the second amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government. So giving them a list of who and how many guns isn't in the interest of the amendment.

Second, it isn't a stretch to see what they will do. They will chip away at the right of self defense until it's gone. They have demonized Christians to the point where I could easily see it eventually coming to - Do you believe in God? Wait you are hearing voices in your head? No guns for you.

[Amobie 58]

3 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Agreed, but you gonna need to define "similar rifles" to people who aren't familiar with guns. They think AR15 = M16 because they look similar.

It's pretty crazy that you can be drafted or join the military to go overseas and fight a war at 18 but you can't drink until 21, and people now want to prevent the right of self defense for these 18-21 year olds as well.

What about those vulnerable college girls? Wouldn't they have less of a chance of getting raped if allowed to concealed carry?

 

Ideally, we need to get data on a nation's rapes per capita before banning firearms and after. Then also get data from other nations and compare it. 

[Brian Fantana 6872]

Just now, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Give an inch, see what happens. First off, the second amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government. So giving them a list of who and how many guns isn't in the interest of the amendment.

Second, it isn't a stretch to see what they will do. They will chip away at the right of self defense until it's gone. They have demonized Christians to the point where I could easily see it eventually coming to - Do you believe in God? Wait you are hearing voices in your head? No guns for you.

Yeah, when everyone was carrying muskets and riding horses. Good luck going up against the modern US military.

[Amobie 58]

Just now, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Give an inch, see what happens. First off, the second amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government. So giving them a list of who and how many guns isn't in the interest of the amendment.

Second, it isn't a stretch to see what they will do. They will chip away at the right of self defense until it's gone. They have demonized Christians to the point where I could easily see it eventually coming to - Do you believe in God? Wait you are hearing voices in your head? No guns for you.

The only thing a list should provide is whether or not they can pass a background check or not. It shouldn't provide details of whether or not a gun was purchased and shouldn't be used for that.  Just should be basic checkbox criteria.  True/False.  If convicted of a felony, your name pops up on a list of convicted felons that can't legally own a weapon.  That should be it.  

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Just now, Amobie said:

The only thing a list should provide is whether or not they can pass a background check or not. It shouldn't provide details of whether or not a gun was purchased and shouldn't be used for that.  Just should be basic checkbox criteria.  True/False.  If convicted of a felony, your name pops up on a list of convicted felons that can't legally own a weapon.  That should be it.  

I am pretty sure that already exists. When you buy a gun, they run your background for felonies.

[Amobie 58]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah, when everyone was carrying muskets and riding horses. Good luck going up against the modern US military.

Guerrilla warfare and IEDs have caused out "modern military" plenty of casualties.  Our weapons aren't as good when we have to worry about collateral damage.

[Brian Fantana 6872]

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Amobie 58]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

I am pretty sure that already exists. When you buy a gun, they run your background for felonies.

Yep.  a new list shouldn't do anything different.

[BabaYaga 15629]

7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah, when everyone was carrying muskets and riding horses. Good luck going up against the modern US military.

This is so tired I'm embarrassed for you.  Shall we carry out correspondence on the 1st via written letter and quill pen then?

Ever heard of the Kentucky Rifle?  Did you know, that during the revolutionary war the rifle was so instrumental in terrorizing British officers who were targeted with a range far exceeding the British "Brown Bess" rifles they tried to lobby the international community to have it banned as an "unfair" instrument of war?  

And why don't you ask the millions of Vietnamese how a low-tech infantry does against a modern army?  Or the Afgani's?  How's that working out for us so far?  Hundreds of millions of weapons.  Trillions of rounds of ammunition.  Millions of retired, gun-owning and highly trained soldiers among those you condescend as "bible-clinging gun nuts".  This is beyond absurd.  

[Brothahorn 10097]

I'm in favor of a Red Flag law or a Gun Violence RO. That would have stopped at least two of these mass shootings and who knows how many murder-suicides.

We just need to be cautious in how easily we allow someone to be 'flagged' because we know humans can be vindictive/petty assholes. And also you're asking the government to do their job, which doesn't always work out so well.

[BabaYaga 15629]

10 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

I am pretty sure that already exists. When you buy a gun, they run your background for felonies.

True (when it works)

[BabaYaga 15629]

Just now, Brothahorn said:

I'm in favor of a Red Flag law or a Gun Violence RO. That would have stopped at least two of these mass shootings and who knows how many murder-suicides.

We just need to be cautious in how easily we allow someone to be 'flagged' because we know humans can be vindictive/petty assholes. And also you're asking the government to do their job, which doesn't always work out so well.

Yes - due process has never been strong in these cases.  Same with the opaque "no-fly" list.  

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

21 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah, when everyone was carrying muskets and riding horses. Good luck going up against the modern US military.

I love this argument.

First, what makes you think the modern US military would carry out orders on it's own fellow citizens?

Second, do you even Vietnam?

Third, how much resources does it take to stop one psycho? Do they have enough to stop a true disciplined militia of sane and well armed citizens?

[Brian Fantana 6872]

9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Ever heard of the Kentucky Rifle?  Did you know, that during the revolutionary war the rifle was so instrumental in terrorizing British officers who were targeted with a range far exceeding the British "Brown Bess" rifles they tried to lobby the international community to have it banned as an "unfair" instrument of war?  

This has zero bearing on the conversation, and I'm not even sure why you're bringing it up, unless you're such a simpleton that you believe this same situation could actually arise in today's America. If so, please elaborate and show your work.

9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And why don't you ask the millions of Vietnamese how a low-tech infantry does against a modern army?  Or the Afgani's?  How's that working out for us so far?  Hundreds of millions of weapons.  Trillions of rounds of ammunition.  Millions of retired, gun-owning and highly trained soldiers among those you condescend as "bible-clinging gun nuts".  This is beyond absurd.  

That's a staggeringly stupid and ridiculously simplistic analysis of why the Vietnam War turned out the way it did. Reading that drivel actually makes me sad for you. The Afghan (just reminding you of the proper spelling) War is completely unwinnable and will not end as a result of any military victory. If you think the situations we ran into in those countries are in any way applicable to the US mainland, I'm not sure what to say to you other than "good luck" because you'll need it if that day comes where you can pretend to be a badass and make mince meat out of the poor saps coming to "take yerr gerrrns".

[Brian Fantana 6872]

Also, while I'm thinking about it, I find it odd that all of the shit BabaYaga insisted all people that want stricter gun control are all about (i.e. repeal of the 2nd amendment) all seem to have the lowest number of votes in this poll. I highlighted them for your convenience.

I thought this place was run by a massive liberal cabal, why aren't there 20+ votes for "Repeal the 2nd Amendment" ?

[BabaYaga 15629]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

This has zero bearing on the conversation, and I'm not even sure why you're bringing it up, unless you're such a simpleton that you believe this same situation could actually arise in today's America. If so, please elaborate and show your work.

That's a staggeringly stupid and ridiculously simplistic analysis of why the Vietnam War turned out the way it did. Reading that drivel actually makes me sad for you. The Afghan (just reminding you of the proper spelling) War is completely unwinnable and will not end as a result of any military victory. If you think the situations we ran into in those countries are in any way applicable to the US mainland, I'm not sure what to say to you other than "good luck" because you'll need it if that day comes where you can pretend to be a badass and make mince meat out of the poor saps coming to "take yerr gerrrns".

You really are losing it.  Called out twice on the same stupid "musket" garbage.  Dodged entirely using a quill pen (or does that not apply to the 1st amendment, while musket do apply to the second? )

This is getting embarrassing for you.  Doesn't surprise me the point about the technologically advanced Kentucky Rifle that helped shape modern combat went completely over your head...

And the other point you also missed were to recent examples of a coordinated, but technologically inferior foe able to battle and defeat a "modern" army.  Let alone an army tasked with attacking it's own citizenry. 

Vietnam is roughly half the size of California and a fraction of the population and our military was powerless to implement their plans.  There are dozens of other examples of the success of guerrilla warfare and how effective it can be.

You mentioned the US mainland.  Good.  Do you have any idea how utterly ineffective the US military would be in implementing any effective operations on a scale tenfold larger than either Vietnam or Afghanistan?  Doubling down on a stupid premise doesn't change things.  

[BabaYaga 15629]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Also, while I'm thinking about it, I find it odd that all of the shit BabaYaga insisted all people that want stricter gun control are all about (i.e. repeal of the 2nd amendment) all seem to have the lowest number of votes in this poll. I highlighted them for your convenience.

I thought this place was run by a massive liberal cabal, why aren't there 20+ votes for "Repeal the 2nd Amendment" ?

Just when you think nothing more idiotic can be typed out....then there's this....

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Can you provide some links or additional details on this.  My understanding is that 4473 forms are stored locally at the FFL and only under very rare situations are they transferred to BATF.

4473 forms are stored locally unless the FFL goes out of business at which point they are transferred to the ATF.  Shop closings aren't actually rare events.  The ATF itself now has 285 million records because of this.  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wdbd9y/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392

Also, there is a separate NICS database.  Its truly foolish of y'all to believe that a future gov't couldn't illegally (or legally) put all this info together and use it against you.  They already have what they need to round up guns if they really want to.  They don't want to though.  All y'all have done is make it difficult to identify would-be school shooters.  You've done nothing to minimize the gun-grab if the gov't ever wants to do it.  And if they really wanted to be clever, they could also crawl social media and public forums like this one to identify gun owners.  Posting on the shaggy gun porn thread is worse than a 4473 as far as your privacy goes.  Posting gun porn on facebook is even worse than that.

There's really not much additional harm in having real registration.  If the gun grab ever comes, you can fight it then.  You'll have as much success as David Koresh did in any case.  Right now, though, Parkland blood is on your hands because you refuse to meet in the middle. The middle is registration.

Edited April 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[FondrenRoad 4378]

41 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

I love this argument.

First, what makes you think the modern US military would carry out orders on it's own fellow citizens?

Second, do you even Vietnam?

Third, how much resources does it take to stop one psycho? Do they have enough to stop a true disciplined militia of sane and well armed citizens?

Lol.  Show me a disciplined militia of sane and well armed citizens?  Militias in the USA are populated by complete nutjobs.  Non-nutjob gunowners are more about defending the homestead.  But too much so.  They'll watch with the lights off while the gov't kills you and do nothing.  Then there will be nobody to help them when the gov't decides to come steamroll their homestead.  If the apocalypse hits, you can just head over to armybrat's house, wait for him to fall asleep at 5 pm, and then stock up.

Edited April 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Anastasis 23723]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

Right now, though, Parkland blood is on your hands because you refuse to meet in the middle. The middle is registration.

Shame to undermine what is otherwise an informative post with this nonsense. 

[BabaYaga 15629]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Lol.  Show me a disciplined militia of sane and well armed citizens?  Militias in the USA are populated by complete nutjobs.  Non-nutjob gunowners are more about defending the homestead.  But too much so.  They'll watch with the lights off while the gov't kills you and do nothing.  Then there will be nobody to help them when the gov't decides to come steamroll their homestead.  If the apocalypse hits, you can just head over to armybrat's house, wait for him to fall asleep at 5 pm, and then stock up.

This is complete and utter nonsense

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Shame to undermine what is otherwise an informative post with this nonsense. 

It isn't nonsense.  Its true that you have traditionally fought registration which could prevent Parkland type events.  The question is "How many more Parklands have to happen before you come around to it?"

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Lol.  Show me a disciplined militia of sane and well armed citizens?  Militias in the USA are populated by complete nutjobs.  Non-nutjob gunowners are more about defending the homestead.  But too much so.  They'll watch with the lights off while the gov't kills you and do nothing.  Then there will be nobody to help them when the gov't decides to come steamroll their homestead.  If the apocalypse hits, you can just head over to armybrat's house, wait for him to fall asleep at 5 pm, and then stock up.

[BabaYaga 15629]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Right now, though, Parkland blood is on your hands because you refuse to meet in the middle. The middle is registration.

This is complete and utter bullshit and you know it.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

This is complete and utter nonsense

It really isn't.  You aren't going to protect anyone from tyranny by sitting at home.  And militas are actually populated by nutjobs, most of them so out of shape that they couldn't do much at all in a war.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

It isn't nonsense.  Its true that you have traditionally fought registration which could prevent Parkland type events.  The question is "How many more Parklands have to happen before you come around to it?"

Fuck you. Blood isn't on law abiding gun owners hands, IT'S ON THE INEPT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO FUCKED UP AND THE KID WHO SHOT PEOPLE.

How many more government fuck ups have to happen before I give up my right to self defense and rely on a police state? 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

This is complete and utter bullshit and you know it.  

If you fought registration before, it sure is.  If you continue to fight registration, its even more true.

[BabaYaga 15629]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

could prevent Parkland type events.

You have absolutely no way to even remotely prove this asinine statement.  The only thing we could state that would have 100% prevented the Parkland shooting was Cruz never being born.  Stop with the histrionics.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

It really isn't.  You aren't going to protect anyone from tyranny by sitting at home.  And militas are actually populated by nutjobs, most of them so out of shape that they couldn't do much at all in a war.

Militias won't be populated with nutjobs if the government threatens a gun grab. 

It will be literally populated with ex-military. You must live in a fucking bubble.

[BabaYaga 15629]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

It really isn't.  You aren't going to protect anyone from tyranny by sitting at home.  And militas are actually populated by nutjobs, most of them so out of shape that they couldn't do much at all in a war.

Don't pick up many history books do you....

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

They won't even have to.  They'll just "island hop" you while your food runs out in your bunker.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

You have absolutely no way to even remotely prove this asinine statement.  The only thing we could state that would have 100% prevented the Parkland shooting was Cruz never being born.  Stop with the histrionics.

Or the FBI acting on the 39 reports that the kid was nucking futs.

[Anastasis 23723]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

4473 forms are stored locally unless the FFL goes out of business at which point they are transferred to the ATF.  Shop closings aren't actually rare events.  The ATF itself now has 285 million records because of this.  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wdbd9y/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392

This is a potentially misleading statistic.  To be clear, the ATF does not have 285MM records of gun transfers or 4473 forms.  They have 285MM records that consist of a wide range of materials that are transmitted to the BATF when an FFL gives up their license. This includes "all bound log books/acquisition & disposition books and computer printouts, ATF Form 4473’s, Theft/Loss Reports, Multiple Sales Reports, and Brady forms."  It would be interesting to see exactly how many of the records reflect 4473s, and what the distribution of those forms are across calendar years. 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

They won't even have to.  They'll just "island hop" you while your food runs out in your bunker.

Who is the "they"?

[BabaYaga 15629]

1 minute ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

while your food runs out in your bunker.

Know how I know you don't know a damn thing about historical guerrilla conflicts? 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Don't pick up many history books do you....

More than you, apparently.  I also understand how to differentiate between gun fetishists living in a modern state and people who were living in 3rd world poverty.  Gun fetishists simply don't have organization.  Its laughable that you think you are gonna be the Viet Cong.  You do realize that the Viet Cong were funded and armed externally, right?  You realize that the Northern Alliance was funded and armed externally, right?  You realize the Texians were funded and armed externally, right?  If the US gov't wants to oppress you (and really you're far more likely to be out there doing the oppressing with them), the only way you're going to be saved from it is for a foreign gov't to aid you with armaments that are actually capable of defending against a military assault.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is a potentially misleading statistic.  To be clear, the ATF does not have 285MM records of gun transfers or 4473 forms.  They have 285MM records that consist of a wide range of materials that are transmitted to the BATF when an FFL gives up their license. This includes "all bound log books/acquisition & disposition books and computer printouts, ATF Form 4473’s, Theft/Loss Reports, Multiple Sales Reports, and Brady forms."  It would be interesting to see exactly how many of the records reflect 4473s, and what the distribution of those forms are across calendar years. 

I agree.  It would be interesting to see what's what.  And even though they could do it in a month or two if they wanted to, they don't/can't do it because of the gun lobby.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Know how I know you don't know a damn thing about historical guerrilla conflicts? 

I know they have friends and comrades.  Something you lack.  I also know they have external funding and armament.

[Brian Fantana 6872]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

You really are losing it.  Called out twice on the same stupid "musket" garbage.  Dodged entirely using a quill pen (or does that not apply to the 1st amendment, while musket do apply to the second? )

I didn't dodge it. I didn't respond to it because it's a pathetic and stupid analogy.

Just now, BabaYaga said:

This is getting embarrassing for you.  Doesn't surprise me the point about the technologically advanced Kentucky Rifle that helped shape modern combat went completely over your head...

It didn't go over my head. It's a bad, stupid point that doesn't merit discussion.

Just now, BabaYaga said:

And the other point you also missed were to recent examples of a coordinated, but technologically inferior foe able to battle and defeat a "modern" army.  Let alone an army tasked with attacking it's own citizenry. 

Vietnam is roughly half the size of California and a fraction of the population and our military was powerless to implement their plans.  There are dozens of other examples of the success of guerrilla warfare and how effective it can be.

You mentioned the US mainland.  Good.  Do you have any idea how utterly ineffective the US military would be in implementing any effective operations on a scale tenfold larger than either Vietnam or Afghanistan?  Doubling down on a stupid premise doesn't change things.  

Your understanding of the Vietnam War is borderline non-existent. My dad would roll over in his fucking grave if he heard that stupid shit coming out of your mouth.

With regard to the US mainland, the only argument I would buy is the military being unwilling to fire on it's populace. Unfortunately, there are no well disciplined militias in the US, so the first shots would inevitably come from the resisting forces, and we all know what the result of that would be.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Who is the "they"?

The gov't you fear. Its funny though because your actual gov't over there in Russia is oppressive as fuck and you don't seem to care much.

Edited April 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[BabaYaga 15629]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

More than you, apparently.  I also understand how to differentiate between gun fetishists living in a modern state and people who were living in 3rd world poverty.  Gun fetishists simply don't have organization.  Its laughable that you think you are gonna be the Viet Cong.  You do realize that the Viet Cong were funded and armed externally, right?  You realize that the Northern Alliance was funded and armed externally, right?  You realize the Texians were funded and armed externally, right?  If the US gov't wants to oppress you (and really you're far more likely to be out there doing the oppressing with them), the only way you're going to be saved from it is for a foreign gov't to aid you with armaments that are actually capable of defending against a military assault.

You do realize you are antagonizing a citizenry covering an expanse the likes of which previous guerrilla conflicts could  never hope to cover effectively.  Almost 4 million square miles.  With millions of previously served combat veterans armed with what is estimated to be 400 Millions weapons.  Hundreds of millions of magazines.  Close to FIVE trillions rounds of ammunition.  And that is right now.  Today.  Nevermind two borders, north and south that are laughably monitored.  Just stop.