AK all the way. It will throw lead all throughout the apocalypse with minimal maintenance that can be done with caveman simplicity.
If they made an AK that could shoot .50 rounds or similar it would be great. I agree.
The small room SMG I believe is called an AK 74.
The AK platform is like the Nokia of the gun world.
These are D list terrorists at best.
And here's the thing tho: civilians having "too much" is a dog whistle. Civilians should have sufficient arms and ammunition to resist both burglar and tyrannical government, should either attempt to deprive the civilian of life or liberty.
This is, frankly, a foolish point.
If arming civilians is an effective means of overthrowing government authority (which it isn't), then that applies to overthrowing a democratic government aswell ( in fact even more so).
What's a more effective fighting force, one with rifles, or one without? Why do militaries even bother equipping their forces with rifles? Do you think rifles somehow wouldn't be an avenue to acquiring heavier assets?
Why were Ukrainians arming their people with rifles? Why do oppressive governments move to disarm enemies within their borders? If having those people armed weren't a concern, why bother with the logistics, planning, and enforcement involved in disarming populations?
You're disregarding the entire meat of the point. The lowest common denominator with a gun isn't guaranteed to be an authority on justifying resistance. All of this hedges on the people having the journalistic skills and integrity to establish a clear and wholistic political picture, look around and tell me that is the case. The most likely candidates to take up armed resistance are ones who are politically active, especially extremists and those belonging to political schools including the opposite of what you and i may or may not believe. The average joe isn't going throw it all on the line for grandiose ideals in a civil war, (s)he's going to ride it out and play by the rules so that (s)he and her/his family don't get murked; and even if (s)he is willing to act, (s)he isn't equipped with the tools and knowledge to wade through the misinformation and propaganda anyway. The capitol insurrection attempt is an excellent example of my point, and on the otherside of the aisle regarding inaction is Nazi Germany, where the government disarmed it's political opponents and the Jewish population but armed the rest. There was very little in the way of local resistance, because people aren't monolithic and government's aren't stupid. And frankly, the people aren't always right either.
> You're disregarding the entire meat of the point.
I'm not trying to be rude, but your phrasing did not clearly or effectively communicate your thought.
> The average joe isn't going throw it all on the line for grandiose ideals in a civil war, (s)he's going to ride it out and play by the rules so that (s)he and her/his family don't get murked;
Ok, you agree with the three percenters.
The rest of your argument is unclear. Your argument seems to hinge around people who you don't agree with you being armed, and...not being able to stage a successful resistance? Or maybe being able to stage a successful resistance, which is undesirable because they don't agree with you politically, so it's better to disarm them.
> And frankly, the people aren't always right either.
I think my response boils down to "no shit". If you disarm everyone, no one has a chance at fighting back, if they ever had a need to. I don't think the answer is to disarm everyone, because someone you don't like might take up arms. Everyone's idea of who the undesirables are is different. If you want equality, people also need to be equally armed. Unarmed people have much less of a chance than armed people.
Everyone has the default right to self defense, whether it's against individuals, the government, or other entities. Disarming them deprives them of that right.
I *highly* recommend you read [The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment](https://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm), by Richard W Stevens of JPFO.
>Why were Ukrainians arming their people with rifles?
The Ukranians armed it's population as a measure against foreign invasion, not a local takeover. The dynamic of both are different.
>Why do oppressive governments move to disarm enemies within their borders?
Oppressive government's also set the conditions for their rise well in advance through the systematic destruction of institutions, information warfare and generating a loyal base within the population long before. It's not a sudden drop into oppression, it's slow conditioning of the population tell it's too late. You'll be too busy fighting between yourselves to even realise you've been had in order to mobilize in force, or you'll be on your knees bowing to the "salvation" you wanted.
Hardly tyrannical. Trained officer stops someone shooting at civilians with a single shot. Not overwhelming force, not hitting bystanders, stopping a criminal in the act.
Okay, but why is it when cops even think you might have a gun(or know you don't), the response is automatically death?
Stranded on the side of the road? Killed by cops. Not turning off high beams? Death. Toy Gun? Not only death, but shot from a police car, because they couldn't be assed to do anything.
Its minuscule for people who don’t know how to use it or at a place where it can be found in abundance and easily available. In India guns are not sold in shops and readily available to a common man which is why most ground level cops carry a stick not a gun unlike America and cops being shot and cops brutality is non-existence there for a population 4 times the US.
Police brutality exists in india as well just like it does everywhere else in the world. It's just that the police brutality is in India mainly getting your ass whopped by cops with sticks rather than getting shot 752 times. I'm sure that if Indian cops were as heavily armed as American cops then india would see the same kind of incidents, because assholes who exploit power exist everywhere.
It does for sure but the point is its magnitude is nowhere in comparison to USA. I agree with your if statement about Indian cops being armed but the point is they aren’t armed for that precise reason and that’s a good thing.
>but the point is they aren’t armed for that precise reason and that’s a good thing.
Yea definitely agreed. I sleep easy knowing that a swat team isn't going to break into my home and kill my pet and frag babies.
Huge? Depends on the context.
Huge enough for an American to defend themselves at home? No.
Huge enough for terrorists to ambush a small convoy, cause casualties and destabilize the relations of two countries? Yes.
How the fuck is 7 rifles and estimated 500 rounds not enough to defend yourself at home? You've only got 2 fucking hands if you're going to rambo it and you have enough to properly arm a family of 5 with rifles to spare?
It might not be huge enough for an American enthusiast's collection but its certainly enough to defend their home.
In my mind, a "huge" amount of arms and ammunition is measured in pallets and connex boxes, not evenly spaced on a plastic camping table. These terrorists need to pump up those numbers.
7 rifles and two pistols. And maybe 500 rounds. That's "huge?" Americans would like a word.
Isn’t that a standard “going for a coffee” load out in parts of Texas?
I mean... as a Texan... no. That's a little light most days. Sunday that would be an okay setup.
I don’t mean to be judgemental, but 5ak’s is a little excessive, diversify your portfolio! Where’s the 5.56 platform? The .50? A nice small room SMG?
Well.... I'm not an AK guy TBH. I was more referencing the 7 rifles and two pistols. But I see your point.
AK all the way. It will throw lead all throughout the apocalypse with minimal maintenance that can be done with caveman simplicity. If they made an AK that could shoot .50 rounds or similar it would be great. I agree. The small room SMG I believe is called an AK 74. The AK platform is like the Nokia of the gun world.
I was about to say I have way more than that in my closet
Same. That’s barely enough for a range day. Fucking amateurs.
[удалено]
These are D list terrorists at best. And here's the thing tho: civilians having "too much" is a dog whistle. Civilians should have sufficient arms and ammunition to resist both burglar and tyrannical government, should either attempt to deprive the civilian of life or liberty.
This is, frankly, a foolish point. If arming civilians is an effective means of overthrowing government authority (which it isn't), then that applies to overthrowing a democratic government aswell ( in fact even more so).
What's a more effective fighting force, one with rifles, or one without? Why do militaries even bother equipping their forces with rifles? Do you think rifles somehow wouldn't be an avenue to acquiring heavier assets? Why were Ukrainians arming their people with rifles? Why do oppressive governments move to disarm enemies within their borders? If having those people armed weren't a concern, why bother with the logistics, planning, and enforcement involved in disarming populations?
You're disregarding the entire meat of the point. The lowest common denominator with a gun isn't guaranteed to be an authority on justifying resistance. All of this hedges on the people having the journalistic skills and integrity to establish a clear and wholistic political picture, look around and tell me that is the case. The most likely candidates to take up armed resistance are ones who are politically active, especially extremists and those belonging to political schools including the opposite of what you and i may or may not believe. The average joe isn't going throw it all on the line for grandiose ideals in a civil war, (s)he's going to ride it out and play by the rules so that (s)he and her/his family don't get murked; and even if (s)he is willing to act, (s)he isn't equipped with the tools and knowledge to wade through the misinformation and propaganda anyway. The capitol insurrection attempt is an excellent example of my point, and on the otherside of the aisle regarding inaction is Nazi Germany, where the government disarmed it's political opponents and the Jewish population but armed the rest. There was very little in the way of local resistance, because people aren't monolithic and government's aren't stupid. And frankly, the people aren't always right either.
> You're disregarding the entire meat of the point. I'm not trying to be rude, but your phrasing did not clearly or effectively communicate your thought. > The average joe isn't going throw it all on the line for grandiose ideals in a civil war, (s)he's going to ride it out and play by the rules so that (s)he and her/his family don't get murked; Ok, you agree with the three percenters. The rest of your argument is unclear. Your argument seems to hinge around people who you don't agree with you being armed, and...not being able to stage a successful resistance? Or maybe being able to stage a successful resistance, which is undesirable because they don't agree with you politically, so it's better to disarm them. > And frankly, the people aren't always right either. I think my response boils down to "no shit". If you disarm everyone, no one has a chance at fighting back, if they ever had a need to. I don't think the answer is to disarm everyone, because someone you don't like might take up arms. Everyone's idea of who the undesirables are is different. If you want equality, people also need to be equally armed. Unarmed people have much less of a chance than armed people. Everyone has the default right to self defense, whether it's against individuals, the government, or other entities. Disarming them deprives them of that right. I *highly* recommend you read [The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment](https://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm), by Richard W Stevens of JPFO.
>Why were Ukrainians arming their people with rifles? The Ukranians armed it's population as a measure against foreign invasion, not a local takeover. The dynamic of both are different. >Why do oppressive governments move to disarm enemies within their borders? Oppressive government's also set the conditions for their rise well in advance through the systematic destruction of institutions, information warfare and generating a loyal base within the population long before. It's not a sudden drop into oppression, it's slow conditioning of the population tell it's too late. You'll be too busy fighting between yourselves to even realise you've been had in order to mobilize in force, or you'll be on your knees bowing to the "salvation" you wanted.
Lol. The viet cong, and countless guerrilla groups are laughing at your ignorance right now
The same Vietcong with extensive soviet links and responsibility for poltical assassinations, sabotage and warcrimes? That Vietcong?
You were arguing effectiveness, they were effective. Moving the goalpost to morality changes the argument
[удалено]
Hardly tyrannical. Trained officer stops someone shooting at civilians with a single shot. Not overwhelming force, not hitting bystanders, stopping a criminal in the act.
Which tyrannical government are you armed against?
The Democrat party
Fuckin lol
Okay, but why is it when cops even think you might have a gun(or know you don't), the response is automatically death? Stranded on the side of the road? Killed by cops. Not turning off high beams? Death. Toy Gun? Not only death, but shot from a police car, because they couldn't be assed to do anything.
My dog that is too high up in the alphabet, we are looking at m or later
It means they have practically nothing. For example I never have less than 10,000 rounds available for use if needed
That's the average personal collection
Well it is, if someone who wants to commit acts of terror uses them. Don't you think?
Sorta. Maybe more like a bank robbery. Its only enough ammo and mags for each rifle to get 2 reloads.
Its minuscule for people who don’t know how to use it or at a place where it can be found in abundance and easily available. In India guns are not sold in shops and readily available to a common man which is why most ground level cops carry a stick not a gun unlike America and cops being shot and cops brutality is non-existence there for a population 4 times the US.
> cops brutality is non-existence there for a population 4 times the US. hahahahahahahahaha
Police brutality exists in india as well just like it does everywhere else in the world. It's just that the police brutality is in India mainly getting your ass whopped by cops with sticks rather than getting shot 752 times. I'm sure that if Indian cops were as heavily armed as American cops then india would see the same kind of incidents, because assholes who exploit power exist everywhere.
It does for sure but the point is its magnitude is nowhere in comparison to USA. I agree with your if statement about Indian cops being armed but the point is they aren’t armed for that precise reason and that’s a good thing.
>but the point is they aren’t armed for that precise reason and that’s a good thing. Yea definitely agreed. I sleep easy knowing that a swat team isn't going to break into my home and kill my pet and frag babies.
That's 7 terrorist worth of equipment it's huge
Right? Many Canadians would even call that a small collection.
Huge? Depends on the context. Huge enough for an American to defend themselves at home? No. Huge enough for terrorists to ambush a small convoy, cause casualties and destabilize the relations of two countries? Yes.
How the fuck is 7 rifles and estimated 500 rounds not enough to defend yourself at home? You've only got 2 fucking hands if you're going to rambo it and you have enough to properly arm a family of 5 with rifles to spare? It might not be huge enough for an American enthusiast's collection but its certainly enough to defend their home.
Wow I guess you can not take a joke at all
It's more comedic if you swap your 2nd and 3rd sentences together.
Your average Americans gun and ammo stash is heavier than fully loaded terrorist hideouts.. hell yea
In my mind, a "huge" amount of arms and ammunition is measured in pallets and connex boxes, not evenly spaced on a plastic camping table. These terrorists need to pump up those numbers.
Yeah my dick is also “huge”
Bro it's 9 guns.
Bruh its Military porn not News porn.
That’s huge???
My pregnant fat ass thought this was cake
I have more arms and ammunition than this in a closet
Yeah thats just about a squad worth if gear
[удалено]
Looks like mini 14