6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It's

No... most would be dead.

Being armed doesn't automatically mean a population can overthrow a regime. The key factor is usually whether the security forces remain loyal, not who has the most rifles.

Iran's regime has the IRGC, Basij, intelligence services, surveillance networks and decades of experience suppressing dissent. Even if civilians were widely armed, the state would still have major advantages in organisation, intelligence, communications and heavy weaponry.

On the other hand, an armed population can make repression more difficult and raise the cost of maintaining control. But history shows that revolutions tend to succeed when parts of the military and security apparatus refuse orders or defect, not simply because civilians have guns.

If every Iranian were armed tomorrow, the most likely outcome would be a bloodier conflict rather than a quick overthrow. The decisive question would still be whether the IRGC and other security forces stayed loyal to the regime.

It's a lot easier to stay loyal when the neck you have to step on are unarmed.

And they would not be Germans rounding up unarmed Jews.

57 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It's a lot easier to stay loyal when the neck you have to step on are unarmed.

And they would not be Germans rounding up unarmed Jews.

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison.

Nazi Germany rounding up Jews has almost nothing to do with the question of whether widespread civilian gun ownership would enable a successful uprising against the Iranian regime in 2026.

You're comparing a persecuted minority being systematically targeted by a wartime totalitarian state to a country of nearly 90 million people with an army, police, IRGC, Basij, intelligence services and complex political structures. They're not remotely analogous situations.

And nobody is arguing that armed people are easier to control than unarmed people. That's a straw man. The actual question is whether civilian firearms would be enough to overcome a modern security state.

If the answer were as simple as "give everyone guns and the regime falls", Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and countless other conflicts would have produced stable democracies by now. Instead, lots of armed people often just means a longer and bloodier conflict.

The decisive factor in almost every successful revolution is when the people with the tanks, intelligence networks and command structures stop obeying orders. Your Germany / Jews example completely sidesteps that reality and your dumbed down one-liners are an example of Brandollini's law - whereby the amount of energy needed to refute bo!!ox is an order of magnitude larger than that needed to produce it....

Its just time wasting as you've reduced a complex political and military question to a bumper-sticker analogy about Nazis and Jews.

Mean while Trump is trying to make it easier for people to buy guns,

one of his sons is on the board of a Texas Co. that sells suppressors

and other gun stuff , they call themselves the Amazon of Guns ,cannot

remember the name , but Google will tell you .

Anyway they are trying to do an executive order to post guns to people

without much checking . P.S. its called Grab a Gun....

regards worgeordie

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison.

Nazi Germany rounding up Jews has almost nothing to do with the question of whether widespread civilian gun ownership would enable a successful uprising against the Iranian regime in 2026.

You're comparing a persecuted minority being systematically targeted by a wartime totalitarian state to a country of nearly 90 million people with an army, police, IRGC, Basij, intelligence services and complex political structures. They're not remotely analogous situations.

And nobody is arguing that armed people are easier to control than unarmed people. That's a straw man. The actual question is whether civilian firearms would be enough to overcome a modern security state.

If the answer were as simple as "give everyone guns and the regime falls", Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and countless other conflicts would have produced stable democracies by now. Instead, lots of armed people often just means a longer and bloodier conflict.

The decisive factor in almost every successful revolution is when the people with the tanks, intelligence networks and command structures stop obeying orders. Your Germany / Jews example completely sidesteps that reality and your dumbed down one-liners are an example of Brandollini's law - whereby the amount of energy needed to refute bo!!ox is an order of magnitude larger than that needed to produce it....

Its just time wasting as you've reduced a complex political and military question to a bumper-sticker analogy about Nazis and Jews.

Would it have been easier of more difficult to round up Jews if they had been armed?

Do totalitarian governments not always collect the guns?

But yes, Jews were a much smaller minority than disgruntled Iranians. You can't use bombs, tanks and napalm against the citizenry.

If there is one amendment that needs a rewrite, it is this one. They intended for a public militia, not a free for all. That is how armies were formed back in the day. It even says that in the amendment, not that the MAGA morons can read it. They would be really horrified to learn that blacks can buy guns too, but many were slave owners.

38 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Would it have been easier of more difficult to round up Jews if they had been armed?

Do totalitarian governments not always collect the guns?

But yes, Jews were a much smaller minority than disgruntled Iranians. You can't use bombs, tanks and napalm against the citizenry.

Of course it would have been harder. Harder is not the same thing as successful. You've quietly substituted one question for the other.... and in doing so, provided yet another example of Brandollini's law.

And... you're still arguing against a position nobody has taken.

Of course it would have been harder to round up Jews if they had been armed. That's not the question. The question is whether widespread civilian gun ownership is sufficient to overthrow or deter a modern state. Those are completely different propositions.

This is exactly why the Nazi analogy is so poor. You've taken a very specific historical case involving a persecuted minority and are trying to use it as a universal rule for state power.

And "you can't use bombs, tanks and napalm against your own citizens" is simply contradicted by history.

Governments have repeatedly used heavy weapons against their own populations when they believed their survival was at stake. Syria is the most obvious recent example. The idea that states won't use overwhelming force against citizens is wishful thinking, not a serious argument.

More importantly, modern governments don't stay in power because they have tanks. They stay in power because they have intelligence networks, command structures, communications control, logistics and security forces willing to follow orders.

You're reducing an enormously complex political question to "guns good, government scared", which is not even close to analysis, its just a dumbed down and over simplified slogan.

Nobody disputes that an armed population raises the cost of repression. The leap you're making is assuming that therefore an armed population can successfully overthrow a determined regime.

History provides no shortage of examples where heavily armed populations still failed to overthrow determined governments. What history does show is that civilian firearms are far more likely to be used against neighbours, rivals and family members than against some hypothetical future tyrant.

It's not 1791 anymore. The idea that a collection of privately owned rifles represents a meaningful check on a modern state with satellites, drones, cyber capabilities, intelligence networks and professional armed forces is increasingly difficult to take seriously - its comical.

As cjinchiangrai wrote, "If there is one amendment that needs a rewrite, it is this one".

And let's remember, it's called an amendment for a reason. The Founders didn't carve it into stone tablets and carry it down a mountain. They explicitly created a mechanism for future generations to amend, revise or repeal constitutional provisions as circumstances changed. The clue is literally in the name.

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Of course it would have been harder. Harder is not the same thing as successful. You've quietly substituted one question for the other.... and in doing so, provided yet another example of Brandollini's law.

And... you're still arguing against a position nobody has taken.

Of course it would have been harder to round up Jews if they had been armed. That's not the question. The question is whether widespread civilian gun ownership is sufficient to overthrow or deter a modern state. Those are completely different propositions.

This is exactly why the Nazi analogy is so poor. You've taken a very specific historical case involving a persecuted minority and are trying to use it as a universal rule for state power.

And "you can't use bombs, tanks and napalm against your own citizens" is simply contradicted by history.

Governments have repeatedly used heavy weapons against their own populations when they believed their survival was at stake. Syria is the most obvious recent example. The idea that states won't use overwhelming force against citizens is wishful thinking, not a serious argument.

More importantly, modern governments don't stay in power because they have tanks. They stay in power because they have intelligence networks, command structures, communications control, logistics and security forces willing to follow orders.

You're reducing an enormously complex political question to "guns good, government scared", which is not even close to analysis, its just a dumbed down and over simplified slogan.

Nobody disputes that an armed population raises the cost of repression. The leap you're making is assuming that therefore an armed population can successfully overthrow a determined regime.

History provides no shortage of examples where heavily armed populations still failed to overthrow determined governments. What history does show is that civilian firearms are far more likely to be used against neighbours, rivals and family members than against some hypothetical future tyrant.

It's not 1791 anymore. The idea that a collection of privately owned rifles represents a meaningful check on a modern state with satellites, drones, cyber capabilities, intelligence networks and professional armed forces is increasingly difficult to take seriously - its comical.

As cjinchiangrai wrote, "If there is one amendment that needs a rewrite, it is this one".

And let's remember, it's called an amendment for a reason. The Founders didn't carve it into stone tablets and carry it down a mountain. They explicitly created a mechanism for future generations to amend, revise or repeal constitutional provisions as circumstances changed. The clue is literally in the name.

Syria is a modern government?

If you were Iranian, would you rather you had a gun or not?

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

• The Second Amendment was written in 1791 for a world of muskets, not modern semi-automatic firearms.

• The claim that "more guns make us safer" is not supported by international evidence.

• The United States has one of the highest levels of civilian gun ownership in the world and also suffers far higher rates of gun deaths than most developed nations.

• Countries with strict gun laws such as Japan, the UK, Australia and Singapore have dramatically lower rates of gun homicide and mass shootings.

• Australia tightened gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. Mass shootings virtually disappeared for decades and gun deaths fell significantly.

• If "only criminals would have guns" were true, countries with strict gun laws should be drowning in armed crime. They are not.

• Criminals obtain guns more easily when guns are widespread throughout society. Reducing supply makes illegal access harder.

• The existence of a luxury Colt pistol celebrating Jesús Malverde, a figure closely linked to narco culture, undermines the idea that the firearms industry is purely about self-defence and public safety (which is implied in your comments).

• Gun manufacturers profit from selling more guns. Public safety is not their primary business model.

• The United States has more civilian-owned guns than people. If widespread gun ownership created safety, America should be one of the safest countries on Earth. It isn't.

• The evidence from other developed countries is simple: fewer guns generally means fewer gun deaths.

Dude - You must have never watched Red Dawn :)

Agree with your post and I come from a family of hunters. I like fishing but never got the the thrill of killing an animal. I usually would just disappear in the woods and come back at supper while everybody tried to find the animal with biggest rack and kill it. Then mount it on the wall. Nice people but strange behavior in my estimation :) During dove hunting I would just shoot in the general direction and didn't kill a dove for years. My dad probably thought I was a queer :)

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Syria is a modern government?

If you were Iranian, would you rather you had a gun or not?

And this is exactly where Brandolini's Law kicks in again. Instead of engaging with the actual argument, you've reduced a complex discussion about regime stability, military cohesion and political power to a couple of simplistic one-liners.

That's the problem. It takes 10 seconds to ask a rhetorical question and 10 minutes to explain why it's irrelevant to the point being debated.

If you want to contribute to the discussion, address the argument that was made. If not, we're just wasting time unpacking slogans and false equivalences - you are currently lacking any nuance of an intelligent debate.

You respond to a detailed argument about military cohesion, intelligence networks, regime stability, insurgencies and historical precedent with two one-line questions:

• "Syria is a modern government?"

• "If you were Iranian, would you rather you had a gun or not?"

The first is just a diversion. Syria was specifically mentioned to refute the claim that governments won't use overwhelming force against their own citizens. Whether you consider Assad's Syria sufficiently "modern" is irrelevant to that point.

The second substitutes a different question for the one being discussed. Would I personally rather have a gun if I feared for my safety? Possibly. But that's not the debate.

The debate is whether widespread civilian gun ownership would materially alter the balance of power between Iranian civilians and the regime. Those are not the same question.

This is why these one-liners are frustrating. They contribute nothing to the analysis while requiring paragraphs to explain why they're irrelevant. That's Brandolini's Law in action: it takes seconds to produce an oversimplified slogan and minutes to unpack why it doesn't address the argument.

If you want to discuss the issue seriously, explain how civilian firearms overcome the advantages of intelligence, logistics, command structures, surveillance and military cohesion. That's the actual question.

"Would you rather have a gun?" is just a rhetorical shortcut masquerading as an argument.

So, from now on, if we're matching effort for effort, I'll stick to simplistic one-liners too.

Starting with: You're bringing confidence to a fight that requires competence. Do better.

3 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Is it OK if he has a guitar nearby?

Selfie?

4 minutes ago, atpeace said:

Dude - You must have never watched Red Dawn :)

A fictional movie. How do you think your AR is going to do against an attack helicopter with infra-red sighting?

1 minute ago, cjinchiangrai said:

A fictional movie. How do you think your AR is going to do against an attack helicopter with infra-red sighting?

read the rest of the post. It was in jest. Then again, your post could be in jest also. Now I'm thourally confused :)

5 minutes ago, atpeace said:

Dude - You must have never watched Red Dawn :)

Agree with your post and I come from a family of hunters. I like fishing but never got the the thrill of killing an animal. I usually would just disappear in the woods and come back at supper while everybody tried to find the animal with biggest rack and kill it. Then mount it on the wall. Nice people but strange behavior in my estimation :) During dove hunting I would just shoot in the general direction and didn't kill a dove for years. My dad probably thought I was a queer :)

Red Dawn was an awesome documentary (/s). It has a lot to answer for. For some doomsday preppers and gun enthusiasts, the film clearly evolved into an entire political philosophy.

And I know exactly what you mean about hunting. Hunting for food, conservation or tradition - all perfectly reasonable pursuits. What hunting doesn't explain, however, is the obsession with automatic weapons and handguns.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

And I know exactly what you mean about hunting. Hunting for food, conservation or tradition - all perfectly reasonable pursuits. What hunting doesn't explain, however, is the obsession with automatic weapons and handguns.

Do you mean Simi automatic?

4 minutes ago, atpeace said:

read the rest of the post. It was in jest. Then again, your post could be in jest also. Now I'm thourally confused :)

Sorry, many of the MAGAts think they can win against the Marines.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Red Dawn was an awesome documentary (/s). It has a lot to answer for. For some doomsday preppers and gun enthusiasts, the film clearly evolved into an entire political philosophy.

And I know exactly what you mean about hunting. Hunting for food, conservation or tradition - all perfectly reasonable pursuits. What hunting doesn't explain, however, is the obsession with automatic weapons and handguns.

It does though in that the NRA is supported in large part by hunters. Without the NRA we would have much stricter gun laws and wouldn't have automatic weapons.

1 minute ago, atpeace said:

4 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

A fictional movie. How do you think your AR is going to do against an attack helicopter with infra-red sighting?

read the rest of the post. It was in jest. Then again, your post could be in jest also. Now I'm thourally confused :)

To be fair, perhaps the Second Amendment should be updated to give our pot-bellied patriots access to Apache attack helicopters, grenade launchers, suicide drones and a couple of tanks parked next to the barbecue.

After all, if the argument is that private firearms are needed to resist a modern military, why stop at AR-15s? Let's go all in and let Billy-Bob from Mud-Creek order an airstrike from his ham-radio between shifts at the feed store !!

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

And this is exactly where Brandolini's Law kicks in again. Instead of engaging with the actual argument, you've reduced a complex discussion about regime stability, military cohesion and political power to a couple of simplistic one-liners.

That's the problem. It takes 10 seconds to ask a rhetorical question and 10 minutes to explain why it's irrelevant to the point being debated.

If you want to contribute to the discussion, address the argument that was made. If not, we're just wasting time unpacking slogans and false equivalences - you are currently lacking any nuance of an intelligent debate.

You respond to a detailed argument about military cohesion, intelligence networks, regime stability, insurgencies and historical precedent with two one-line questions:

• "Syria is a modern government?"

• "If you were Iranian, would you rather you had a gun or not?"

The first is just a diversion. Syria was specifically mentioned to refute the claim that governments won't use overwhelming force against their own citizens. Whether you consider Assad's Syria sufficiently "modern" is irrelevant to that point.

The second substitutes a different question for the one being discussed. Would I personally rather have a gun if I feared for my safety? Possibly. But that's not the debate.

The debate is whether widespread civilian gun ownership would materially alter the balance of power between Iranian civilians and the regime. Those are not the same question.

This is why these one-liners are frustrating. They contribute nothing to the analysis while requiring paragraphs to explain why they're irrelevant. That's Brandolini's Law in action: it takes seconds to produce an oversimplified slogan and minutes to unpack why it doesn't address the argument.

If you want to discuss the issue seriously, explain how civilian firearms overcome the advantages of intelligence, logistics, command structures, surveillance and military cohesion. That's the actual question.

"Would you rather have a gun?" is just a rhetorical shortcut masquerading as an argument.

So, from now on, if we're matching effort for effort, I'll stick to simplistic one-liners too.

Starting with: You're bringing confidence to a fight that requires competence. Do better.

I asked you two yes or no questions.

7 minutes ago, TedG said:

Do you mean Simi automatic?

Well - Semi-Auto... or bump-stock....

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I asked you two yes or no questions.

Which lacked both nuance and intelligence of the discussion.

4 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Sorry, many of the MAGAts think they can win against the Marines.

The left is going to put the Marines against MAGAs when they get back in office?

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Well - Semi-Auto... or bump-stock....

I never used a bump stock. Ammo is too expensive for that sort of thing.

6 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Sorry, many of the MAGAts think they can win against the Marines.

If the MAGA person were a Marine at one point?

Edited June 3Jun 3 by TedG

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

Which lacked both nuance and intelligence of the discussion.

And which you refused to answer, because your position falls apart the moment you answer honestly.

20 minutes ago, TedG said:

Selfie?

PM me with some more pics a few on all fours with your sagging sack would be appreciated.

edit: just notice the question mark after selfie. Missed that in my excitement.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by atpeace

5 minutes ago, atpeace said:

It does though in that the NRA is supported in large part by hunters. Without the NRA we would have much stricter gun laws and wouldn't have automatic weapons.

I think that's partly true, but it also highlights the contradiction.

Hunters have historically formed a significant part of the NRA's support base, and it's fair to say the NRA has been hugely influential in preventing stricter gun laws.

What I don't understand is why hunting is constantly used to justify opposition to almost every form of gun regulation. Hunting explains bolt-action rifles and shotguns. It doesn't explain the broader political fight over every category of weapon and accessory.

And as for automatic weapons, civilians already have very limited access to those (as TedG correctly implied). The real debate has been about semi-automatic firearms for decades.

The bigger question is: if the primary argument is hunting, why does the political agenda extend so far beyond hunting?

And if we're seriously arguing that a bolt-action rifle is needed so citizens can stand up to a modern government, then people making that argument are the very people who should be kept as far away from guns as possible. Then we're also right back to the absurd discussion about rocket launchers and Apache helicopters.

Now.... Let's face it, outside of hunting, farming, pest control, collecting and shooting sports, the only truly honest argument for gun ownership is often simply: "I like guns"

And that's fine. It's a far more honest position than many of the tortured justifications that get wheeled out.

People enjoy cars that are faster than any legal speed limit, watches that are more expensive than necessary, boats they don't need and guitars they can barely play. Humans like things.

What I find comical are the increasingly strained attempts to justify gun ownership through arguments that don't stand up to even basic scrutiny. If your reason is "I enjoy owning and shooting firearms", fair enough. At least that's honest.

It's the pseudo-historical, pseudo-military and often logically inconsistent excuses that tend to fall apart the moment they are examined.

3 minutes ago, atpeace said:

PM me with some more pics a few on all fours with your sagging sack would be appreciated.

Why don't you go drink some bleach.

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And which you refused to answer, because your position falls apart the moment you answer honestly.

I provided an answer - you just don't understand it - maybe it was too much to read in one sitting.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by richard_smith237

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

To be fair, perhaps the Second Amendment should be updated to give our pot-bellied patriots access to Apache attack helicopters, grenade launchers, suicide drones and a couple of tanks parked next to the barbecue.

After all, if the argument is that private firearms are needed to resist a modern military, why stop at AR-15s? Let's go all in and let Billy-Bob from Mud-Creek order an airstrike from his ham-radio between shifts at the feed store !!

Those goobers would not be able to turn them on.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

I think that's partly true, but it also highlights the contradiction.

Hunters have historically formed a significant part of the NRA's support base, and it's fair to say the NRA has been hugely influential in preventing stricter gun laws.

What I don't understand is why hunting is constantly used to justify opposition to almost every form of gun regulation. Hunting explains bolt-action rifles and shotguns. It doesn't explain the broader political fight over every category of weapon and accessory.

And as for automatic weapons, civilians already have very limited access to those (as TedG correctly implied). The real debate has been about semi-automatic firearms for decades.

The bigger question is: if the primary argument is hunting, why does the political agenda extend so far beyond hunting?

And if we're seriously arguing that a bolt-action rifle is needed so citizens can stand up to a modern government, then people making that argument are the very people who should be kept as far away from guns as possible. Then we're also right back to the absurd discussion about rocket launchers and Apache helicopters.

Now.... Let's face it, outside of hunting, farming, pest control, collecting and shooting sports, the only truly honest argument for gun ownership is often simply: "I like guns"

And that's fine. It's a far more honest position than many of the tortured justifications that get wheeled out.

People enjoy cars that are faster than any legal speed limit, watches that are more expensive than necessary, boats they don't need and guitars they can barely play. Humans like things.

What I find comical are the increasingly strained attempts to justify gun ownership through arguments that don't stand up to even basic scrutiny. If your reason is "I enjoy owning and shooting firearms", fair enough. At least that's honest.

It's the pseudo-historical, pseudo-military and often logically inconsistent excuses that tend to fall apart the moment they are examined.

You must not have any friends that are NRA supporters. If you did, you would know how they would respond to why they are opposed to "all" gun regulation. I've been at a couple meetings and remember nothing about them but I do remember members constantly preaching outside of the meeting they will fight all restrictions and if they give in to any restriction, then the game is over. This attitude has worked for them.