Biden: no need for "assault weapons", people could just own shotguns

  • 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

Biden was asked about what people would do for self-defense in the event of widespread looting following a natural disaster (or a race-riot like what happened in L.A. over the Rodney King incident) if "assault weapons" (does that mean semi-automatic weapons, I think fully automatics are already banned). Biden responded that they should get a shotgun. According to Biden "A shotgun will keep you a lot safer, a double-barreled shotgun, than the assault weapon in somebodys hands [who] doesnt know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it. Its harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.

So what do you make of these remarks, also would Obama's proposed gun control measures (which won't pass Congress anyway) also ban combat shotguns, the type that the military uses (often when they are engaging in house-to-house fighting, particularly when they first enter a house)?

Also if people own assault weapons, wouldn't they train to make sure they know how to use them?

#2 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
Biden is pretty ignorant when it comes to guns and Anabolic steroids. I ignore his opinion on both.
#3 Posted by lamprey263 (22770 posts) -
that was horrible to watch period, they really should hire someone to teach them some gun literacy before they go out trying to persuade people on gun legislation
#4 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

#5 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34122 posts) -

Ugghhh, I can only own a shotgun? Laaaaaaaaame.

#6 Posted by thegerg (14650 posts) -

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Leejjohno

Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

#7 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Leejjohno

Your ignorance is scary.

#8 Posted by dave123321 (33604 posts) -
YIKES
#9 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

This is all politics. Assault weapons (automatic rifles) are already banned and no one wants them back. The AR-15 is a very popular rifle so it's bound to be used for a criminal purpose but even then, crimes involving semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are lower than crimes involving knives and other blunt weapons. Crimes involving handguns, however, overshadow everything else.

Handguns are more likely to be used for criminal purposes since they're easily accessible and concealable. Even then, I don't think it's simple just to ban guns and expect crime to automatically decrease. I believe the best course of action is to have major education reform in favor of the parents and students, less draconian laws and policies, and an end to the Drug War followed by the legalization and regulation of drugs.

According to the FBI, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban didn't have an immediate impact on crime and when the law expired, crime didn't increase. The patterns of these mass shootings and killings are random and it has always been the case since the founding of this nation. In fact, there have been shootings and massacres in other countries too even with stringent gun control policies.

I will put it bluntly: This is all politics and BS and anyone who actually supports the president, the VP, or Feinstein on this one has no idea what they're talking about.

#10 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

Further evidence why he shouldn't be President. Don't be ignorant if you can help it.

#11 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9206 posts) -

Of course Joe Biden doesn't see any need for people to own anything other than a shotgun. He has spends most of his time being guarded by secret service and private security....with assault weapons.

His comment about double barreled shotguns was just plain stupid. Those are meant for hunting birds and clay pigeons. What if there is more than one person?

#12 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

thegerg

Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

#13 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

hartsickdiscipl

Your ignorance is scary.

I would like to know why, seems pretty logical to me.

#14 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Homemade shot shells are probably way worse than a M16 lookalike.
#15 Posted by Wasdie (49544 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Leejjohno

Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

You won't magically make nearlly all the semi-automatic rifles and handguns in this country go away ever. Why would you limit yourself to just a shotgun when somebody could be packing a semi-automatic pistol?

Lots of ignorance there if you think that some gun control laws are going to stop people from getting ahold of semi-automatic firearms of any type.

#16 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I would like to know why, seems pretty logical to me.Leejjohno
There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.
#17 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Leejjohno

Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

First off, the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an automatic gun, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun and it's not more dangerous and/or deadlier than any other semi-automatic gun.. Read my post.

#18 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

Biden is pretty ignorant when it comes to guns and Anabolic steroids. I ignore his opinion on both. Fightingfan
I hear he thinks putting steroids in guns makes the guns stronger.

#19 Posted by Wasdie (49544 posts) -

First off, the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an automatic gun, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun and it's not dangerous and/or deadly. Read my post.

leviathan91

This is just as ignorant. If you're going to argue pro-second amendment and against any AWB at least recognize the fact that guns are dangerous when not handled properly or used to harm. They are very dangerous.

That said, I see no reason to punish millions of law abiding citizens so that we can remove the gun that has accounted for less than .1% of all gun fatalities in the past decade.

The AWB is nothing more than fear and ignorance by people who don't understand the guns or the facts behind them. They just are afraid because they look like the gun they see on the news and in movies. By enacting a AWB and somehow magically removing every semi-automatic rifle in the country, you would still be left with about 100k fatalities from gun violence in the past 10 years (in the US), removing about 350 deaths. It's ignorance to think that assault "weapons" are the problem.

Did you know that the shooter at Sandy Hook used both 10mm and 9mm handgun after the AR-15 jammed after about 10 rounds? The Colorado shooter used primarily a shotgun and a pistol to do the majority of the damage as well.

#20 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

leviathan91

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

First off, the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an automatic gun, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun and it's not dangerous and/or deadly. Read my post.

True. But an AR-15 is an assault weapon.
#21 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

First off, the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an automatic gun, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun and it's not dangerous and/or deadly. Read my post.

Wasdie

This is just as ignorant. If you're going to argue pro-second amendment and against any AWB at least recognize the fact that guns are dangerous when not handled properly or used to harm. They are very dangerous.

That said, I see no reason to punish millions of law abiding citizens so that we can remove the gun that has accounted for less than .1% of all gun fatalities in the past decade.

The AWB is nothing more than fear and ignorance. By enacting a AWB and somehow magcially removing every semi-automatic rifle in the country, you would still be left with about 100k fatalities from gun violence in the past 10 years, removing about 350 deaths. It's ignorance to think that assault "weapons" are the problem.

Sorry I fixed that. I meant to say it's not as deadly than any other gun on the market. Sloppy typing on my part.

#22 Posted by thegerg (14650 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Leejjohno

Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

"an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by" We're not talking about assault rifles here. I agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but to draw that line according tho what people don't need (assault weapons, Ford Mustangs, Pepsi, iPads) is honestly kind of silly.
#23 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

Wasdie

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

You won't magically make nearlly all the semi-automatic rifles and handguns in this country go away ever. Why would you limit yourself to just a shotgun when somebody could be packing a semi-automatic pistol?

Lots of ignorance there if you think that some gun control laws are going to stop people from getting ahold of semi-automatic firearms of any type.

True, that definitely is a problem. It is too little too late really but still don't see where the necessity for any weapon designed for assault purposes which is for sale to the general public. Maybe if they make it illegal to sell them :?.

I think it's just plain dumb to leave things the way they are tbh.

#24 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

thegerg

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

"an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by" We're not talking about assault rifles here. I agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but to draw that line according tho what people don't need (assault weapons, Ford Mustangs, Pepsi, iPads) is honestly kind of silly.

Silly is comparing a gun to those other items.

#25 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]I would like to know why, seems pretty logical to me.Zeviander
There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

#26 Posted by alexside1 (4405 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]I would like to know why, seems pretty logical to me.Leejjohno

There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

A car can used to kill quite number of people, if it used with killing intent. Should we ban cars now?
#27 Posted by thegerg (14650 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

Leejjohno

"an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by" We're not talking about assault rifles here. I agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but to draw that line according tho what people don't need (assault weapons, Ford Mustangs, Pepsi, iPads) is honestly kind of silly.

Silly is comparing a gun to those other items.

I am only comparing them by the standard which you yourself introduced as a standard. If you think such a standard is silly don't bring it up in the first place.
#28 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

Of course Joe Biden doesn't see any need for people to own anything other than a shotgun. He has spends most of his time being guarded by secret service and private security....with assault weapons.

His comment about double barreled shotguns was just plain stupid. Those are meant for hunting birds and clay pigeons. What if there is more than one person?

UnknownSniper65

The way I see it, if we ban ordinary citizens from owning semi-automatic rifles, we should ban Cabinet level and above federal officials from owning shotguns since they are heavily guarded and won't need them. After all shouldn't the leadership of this country lead by example and go above and beyond the regulations they set for the people? For that matter if politicians vote to set the tax rate at 40% of income above a certain level, they should raise their own taxes to 45% if they are above that level.

#29 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?Leejjohno
What does that have to do with anything? Pistols kill way more people than any rifle or shotgun.
#30 Posted by thegerg (14650 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]I would like to know why, seems pretty logical to me.Leejjohno

There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

18 or more school kids are killed by cars every day.
#31 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

Further evidence why he shouldn't be President. Don't be ignorant if you can help it.

jimkabrhel

are you saying Biden shouldn't be President? but if he shouldn't be president than he shouldn't be vice president and if a president picks a vice president that shouldn't be vice president then that president shouldn't be president. So really you are saying Obama shouldn't be President.

#32 Posted by alexside1 (4405 posts) -
[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Zeviander"] There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.thegerg

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

18 or more school kids are killed by cars every day.

Everyday? Source?
#33 Posted by Ingenemployee (2307 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

Leejjohno

You won't magically make nearlly all the semi-automatic rifles and handguns in this country go away ever. Why would you limit yourself to just a shotgun when somebody could be packing a semi-automatic pistol?

Lots of ignorance there if you think that some gun control laws are going to stop people from getting ahold of semi-automatic firearms of any type.

True, that definitely is a problem. It is too little too late really but still don't see where the necessity for any weapon designed for assault purposes which is for sale to the general public. Maybe if they make it illegal to sell them :?.

I think it's just plain dumb to leave things the way they are tbh.

Actually these firearms are for sporting purposes, Hence the reason they are categorized as modern sporting rifles. "Assault weapons" is a bullsh*t term made up for the original AWB to make it more sell able to the public.

#34 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

Hey it's the emperor.

#35 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
I wonder if Obama only chose Biden for vp to make himself seem less incompetent.
#36 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Maybe not, but that's not to say that they wouldn't come in useful or be the preferred weapon for the given situation. It's just like there will literally never be a situation where a civilian needs a shotgun, or a car, or a ladder, but all of these things are very useful tools that can be used in order to achieve a much more desirable outcome.

Wasdie

The line does need drawing somewhere and I would say assault weapons are a good start. You can defend yourself with a shotgun, an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by.

You won't magically make nearlly all the semi-automatic rifles and handguns in this country go away ever. Why would you limit yourself to just a shotgun when somebody could be packing a semi-automatic pistol?

Lots of ignorance there if you think that some gun control laws are going to stop people from getting ahold of semi-automatic firearms of any type.

gun control, hell the feds can't even control their own guns, look at all those Mexican cartels that got guns thanks to the ATF's operation that they named after a Vin Diesel movie.

#37 Posted by Wasdie (49544 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]I would like to know why, seems pretty logical to me.Leejjohno

There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

I don't know but Lanza killed thoes kids with a handgun as his AR-15 was jammed. So... banning "assault weapons" wouldn't have saved those kids.

#38 Posted by thegerg (14650 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

alexside1
18 or more school kids are killed by cars every day.

Everyday? Source?

The WHO. On average over 712 children are killed everyday by car accidents.
#39 Posted by Serraph105 (27735 posts) -

Considering that statistics say handguns are by far the most used weapons in gun crime I have to wonder why Republicans are so worried about not being able to buy assault rifles. Seems like you guys aren't using them anyways.

#40 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]"an assault rifle is a sledgehammer to a walnut if tools are the analogy to go by" We're not talking about assault rifles here. I agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but to draw that line according tho what people don't need (assault weapons, Ford Mustangs, Pepsi, iPads) is honestly kind of silly. thegerg

Silly is comparing a gun to those other items.

I am only comparing them by the standard which you yourself introduced as a standard. If you think such a standard is silly don't bring it up in the first place.

No, the whole point of any assault weapon is to be easy to use/reload and be generally ergonomic in an assault/combat situation. I don't think it scales up to just being a luxury item.

Besides, when has a can of coke and an ipad been used to kill dozens?

#41 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]I would like to know why, seems pretty logical to me.Leejjohno

There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

More people die by cars more than guns, lets ban cars.
#42 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Zeviander"] There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.Wasdie

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

I don't know but Lanza killed thoes kids with a handgun as his AR-15 was jammed. So... banning "assault weapons" wouldn't have saved those kids.

That's true again, and I don't agree with the sale of concealable weapons either but thats never going to change. I just don't see the point in owning assault weapons at this point. Maybe it is just political BS but something needs to be done and I don't see it as a negative.

#43 Posted by thegerg (14650 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Silly is comparing a gun to those other items.

Leejjohno

I am only comparing them by the standard which you yourself introduced as a standard. If you think such a standard is silly don't bring it up in the first place.

No, the whole point of any assault weapon is to be easy to use/reload and be generally ergonomic in an assault/combat situation. I don't think it scales up to just being a luxury item.

Besides, when has a can of coke and an ipad been used to kill dozens?

That has nothing to do with your previous statement in which you outlined necessity as the standard on which they should be outlawed
#44 Posted by thegerg (14650 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

Leejjohno

I don't know but Lanza killed thoes kids with a handgun as his AR-15 was jammed. So... banning "assault weapons" wouldn't have saved those kids.

That's true again, and I don't agree with the sale of concealable weapons either but thats never going to change. I just don't see the point in owning assault weapons at this point. Maybe it is just political BS but something needs to be done and I don't see it as a negative.

The point of owning them varies from person to person. It can be for sport, recreation, hunting, personal defense, or collecting.
#45 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Zeviander"] There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.Fightingfan

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

More people die by cars more than guns, lets ban cars.

Clearly my point has gone over your head.

#46 Posted by thegerg (14650 posts) -
[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Zeviander"] There is no logical "need" for a Koenigsegg Agera either.Fightingfan

When was the last time one was used to kill 18 school kids?

More people die by cars more than guns, lets ban cars.

Not only do cars kill more people than do guns, but they kill at a greater rate than do guns. Every year the average car kills far more people than the average gun.
#47 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4092 posts) -

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Leejjohno

Hopefully there never will be a situation where one is required, but the amendment was made so we could protect ourselves from the government. If the people ever decide the government has stopped representing them and decide to fight, we're going to need a hell of a lot more than handguns and shotguns.

#48 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Toxic-Seahorse

Hopefully there never will be a situation where one is required, but the amendment was made so we could protect ourselves from the government. If the people ever decide the government has stopped representing them and decide to fight, we're going to need a hell of a lot more than handguns and shotguns.

The one problem with that is that I think you may need more than just guns to take down an entire government dude.

#49 Posted by Leejjohno (14088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I don't know but Lanza killed thoes kids with a handgun as his AR-15 was jammed. So... banning "assault weapons" wouldn't have saved those kids.

thegerg

That's true again, and I don't agree with the sale of concealable weapons either but thats never going to change. I just don't see the point in owning assault weapons at this point. Maybe it is just political BS but something needs to be done and I don't see it as a negative.

The point of owning them varies from person to person. It can be for sport, recreation, hunting, personal defense, or collecting.

True, and all those things would probably change to suit the laws affected.

In the UK we can own guns for all those reasons except for personal defence and collecting (though exceptions are made) and we manage just fine.

#50 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4092 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

Common sense by the sounds of it. There will quite literally never be a situation where a civillian needs an assault weapon of any discription.

Leejjohno

Hopefully there never will be a situation where one is required, but the amendment was made so we could protect ourselves from the government. If the people ever decide the government has stopped representing them and decide to fight, we're going to need a hell of a lot more than handguns and shotguns.

The one problem with that is that I think you may need more than just guns to take down an entire government dude.

How is that a problem with what I said? Of course it's going to take more than just guns, but they sure as hell help.