Show of Hands

-we will have more reason to fight than the politicians.

But! But! It just be been the militia!!!! Damn those frog eating surrender monkeys!

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.

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.

Youre*

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.

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.

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.

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.