The right to bear arms as some sort of citizen check on government power may have been relevant when the government's guns were muskets. Today, if you stand up to the Feds with your cute little handguns, they will roflstomp your ass into the mud.
Look at Ukraine, they're taking out tanks with molotovs, and the insurgents in the Middle East successfully drove us out with only a fraction of the power we have. Simply the fact that we will be fighting on our homeland will be an advantage, and-
-we will have more reason to fight than the politicians.
I only disagree because it wasn't even very relevant when we had muskets. Without the French, our little rebellion likely would have failed.
But! But! It just be been the militia!!!! Damn those frog eating surrender monkeys!
Negative. As I have stated a half a dozen times, the military of this country wouldn't fire on our own people.
May 4, 1970 begs to differ...
So a few dozen national guardsmen shoot college students 45 years ago and the entire military would turn against our own people? God, you are naive and out of touch with reality.
O never said the entire military would turn against the population, but Kent State proves that being in the military doesn't necessarily make you a saint and savior of the American people any more than being a cop proves you're a "good guy."
(I, not O)
Any other instances of the military firing on civilians? You have to more to back up your claim that one isolated incident.
Really? An incident of the military purposefully firing upon citizens isn't proof enough for you that the claim they would never do that is false?
Ok, well according to your logic, the civil war also disproves my theory. You clearly have spent zero time with anyone in the military and that shows. It's ok to not know something, but acting like you do is not ok. We would not do that.
I've spent plenty of time with military folks: my father's father was retired navy, 3 cousins in the marines, and all of my sister's friends through HS and college were guardsmen and reservists. I'd be surprised if any of them (except one psychotic
cousin who would shoot anything he was told to; it's why he decided on a military career - he likes the idea of killing) would willingly open fire on American citizens. But that doesn't mean that none of the military would. How about the Irish draft
riots? The Whiskey Rebellion? The Bonus Army - WWI vets charged by the frikkin' cavalry right in DC?
At Kent, only 29 of the 77 guardsmen fired. But they still fired.
The whiskey rebellion was justified military action against lawbreakers. The armed men were using violence against tax collectors. In that case, military action against armed combatants is not the same as military firing on civilians.
Wait, wait, wait... um, isn't that exactly the sort of scenario posited by this poll question, to which you reply that "the military of this country wouldn't fire on our own people?"
Now you're saying that it's okay if it seems justified?
Self defense is totally different. I'd shoot anyone if they had a gun and were threatening me.
I understood this poll question to refer to the idea of the Second Amendment being a mechanism to guarantee the citizenry the right to be armed against their own gov't so they can mount an insurrection if they consider the gov't tyrannical.
Which is very much what the Whiskey Rebellion (and, yes, the Civil War) were. In precisely those circumstances, the government has dispatched the military to suppress the "rebels" by force. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the poll question.
I understood it as people trying to overthrow the government for legitimate reasons, ie the government stops all voting and has a dictatorship. If people are just being assholes and fighting the government for no reason, the military can and should
Step in to stop them. I swore to protect the constitution of the United States of America, from all enemies foreign and domestic. If citizens are trying to destroy what so many died for, I will step in to stop them.
This is probably true, but an armed society can sure put up a lot more of a fight than an unarmed one.
Eric Frein sure proved that wrong, not that I am condoning what he did in the least. Imagine that times several thousand, or more!
Although I carry to protect myself and my family. I live in an apartment complex a short walk through the woods to government housing projects. A junky looking for money for a fix is a real danger, and breakins and rapes have happened there before.
Oh man, I haven't seen "roflstomp" in years.
As for the question, I think an armed populace is harder and more expensive to oppress than an unarmed populace.
Your assuming that the military/fed would obey orders to kill fellow Americans, which is up for debate.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the right to bear arms. If anything, having a gun is MORE likely to make a soldier shoot at you.
It was made relevant by your question, lol. I'm not talking about a individual dispute with gov, I'm talking about massive state coercion across space and time where all semblance of democracy is gone.
That's why we are allowed to own rifles American hunters are the largest stand army in the world.
Yeah, let's compare, what, 30 million American hunters with rifles versus the US military with bombers, drones, full-auto machine guns, rocket launchers, snipers, and of course a huge number of very bulletproof vehicles. Largest < Most Advanced.
I'm more concerned about the loser drug addict that God only knows what he wants as he breaks into a house or your business.
Which is a totally valid concern that I'm completely in support of.
And assuming that he's going to risk it while you (or anybody) is around.
That didn't happen in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.
A) Tell that to the millions of Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Afghans that we killed, and
2) That wasn't the Federal government's full power -- it was overseas, and it was just the military. An insurrection here would be quashed with extreme prejudice.
You forget how our leaders micro manage their wars from Washington. A gorilla type war would ware them out and that's where it would go. Yeah they would kill a lot of us but I don't think a majority of soldiers would turn heavy weapons on Their own.
If the government would ever try to confiscate guns, I could very well imagine the military siding with citizens against the government. But, a revolt with racial or religious overtones would be put down by our military and government very harshly.
Exactly you can't assume our military would simply follow orders.
I don't think that very many soldiers would choose the government over their own people.
It wouldn't happen that way. The government would never openly ask them to "choose them over their own people". They'd make it seem as thought what they're asking for is for the good of their own people. They'd make it seem necessary.
Comments: Add Comment