Sure, the full military might of the United States with the support and backing of the PEOPLE could easily wipe out a bunch of misfit hillbillies trying to overthrow the government. They could do that with one or two drone strikes with such precision it wouldn't even make the national news because it would just be sold to the media as a gas leak explosion. That's not what this (totally hypothetical) thought exercise is about though. That's also not what would happen in real life and what the 2nd amendment is for.
New 2a argument to use against elitist snobs
- Thread starter Jnitti1014
- Start date
- Status
Sure, the full military might of the United States with the support and backing of the PEOPLE could easily wipe out a bunch of misfit hillbillies trying to overthrow the government. They could do that with one or two drone strikes with such precision it wouldn't even make the national news because it would just be sold to the media as a gas leak explosion. That's not what this (totally hypothetical) thought exercise is about though. That's also not what would happen in real life and what the 2nd amendment is for.
Amb
Member
Well, have you ever seen a heavily armed, educated pheasant?
When pheasants start bearing arms, I'll be all for gun control.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The question is, what can tanks do against millions of free men willing to fight them with rifles?
JustinJ
Member
Blow them up, run them over, incinerate them, mow down with machine gun fire, call in air support, direct artillery fire...um, that's all i can think of at the moment.
DammitBoy
Member
People armed only with molotov cocktails have taken out tanks.
Fryerpower
Member
They are going to have to outlaw glass bottles, gasoline, and rags if they want to keep people from destroying tanks. And they are going to have to bring in the UN or some other mercenary force to fight US citizens since it is highly unlikely that you will be able to maintain a political narritive of American soldiers shooting American citizens.
More likely the government will just place anyone they don't like in indefinate detention and not bother to tell anyone where they are, since that is "legal" as of last year.
Jim
JustinJ
Member
Well, if the US military suddenly decides to start using WWII era tanks instead of the M1 Abrams that might work. Do you really believe a modern tank, which is capable of taking multiple RPG strikes, can be taken out by a molotov cocktail? No, no way, no how.
DammitBoy
Member
Tanks are driven and operated by people. people cannot stay in tanks forever, they have to eat, sleep, urinate, defecate, etc. at some point or another.
zxcvbob
Member
How many tanks do they have? How do they plan to move them around the country?
9MMare
Member
This is what I believe too, as well as believing many soldiers will not fight against us. Altho I did read, in fact-based fiction considering such a situation, that the govt realized that and would bring in NATO or other foreign troops.
9MMare
Member
Sorry, but I'm not delusional. And I dont necessarily think we'd win. But the US govt hasnt 'won' anything in quite awhile so that's not saying much. "Victory in Iraq" got us exactly what? We could make it so that it wasnt worth the fight. The US govt doesnt do carpet bombing, village bombing, etc action against civilians, even armed civilians because the American people dont have the stomach for it. They wont tolerate it against their own, rebellious or not.
And guerrilla warfare consists of alot more than firearms. I think the problem is people think it would be loud and fast and glorious when instead it would be starvation, hiding, refugee camps, and economic hardship....with long-term resistance and an American army (what did remain) with little or no heart to continue a battle. And a govt with no $$ and way less taxes coming in.
I like that "wands don't kill people"...although the difference is in the Harry Potter universe, wands actually had temperments and choices, so it is entirely possible that a wand could do something all on its own. That is not true of guns.
It would have taken time travel for the Jews in WW2 to use AK-47s
It would have taken time travel for the Jews in WW2 to use AK-47s
JustinJ
Member
First off, when invading foreign countries there is always the option to return home. What we did or did not get in Iraq has nothing to do with it. A tyrant looking to retain power is a completely different thing. For a tyrant facing opposition it is always worth the fight to retain control or he wouldn't be a tyrant. Because he a tyrannical government facing opposition at home has no place to retreat to they historically have been willing to do just about anything they can to win.
Governments backed by a modern military are only defeated when the opposition has outside military support or a sufficient part of the military defects. In either case the necessary weapons are then provided. Necessary weapons are far more than just rifles.
If the US government were abiding by the will of the people why would we fighting against them in the first place?
Of course a government can not exist if the entire population refuses to abide by their rule. If nobody is following them they're not in power to begin with. But in a civil war, even when a tyrant leads one side, there are still some followers to provide the infrastructure to wage ware. If not then they aren't in power and there is no need to fight in the first place.
9MMare
Member
You have your perspective, I have mine. Both are valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
The sad part is that the Jews took the Nazi's explanation at face value, and when things became desperately clear, the Polish Resistance was less than forthcoming with assistance.
We've already suffered thru one AWB, and the better argument with those who would like to see it imposed again is to ask what good it did. Back there desire with documented instances and figures to show it did any good.
Tell them that since less than 1% of crime is committed with socalled assault rifles, how will banning them or putting them on the NFA list do any more than reduce crime 1%? You can get more results installing a breathalyzer in every car. Then, drunken driving would be essentially eliminated, saving thousands of lifes.
Let's also point out that school age children are actually more likely to drown in their own swimming pool, while "supervised" by their mother, rather than be shot in a school. Or killed in an accident while she's driving the car.
Plus, under the old AWB, these guns didn't go away, and neither did the magazines. They are still here to this day. Banning them did NOTHING. It's part and parcel of Constitutional law. Despite what some propose, confiscation isn't going to happen. That's already been stopped once before, in New Orleans during Katrina.
If you need to use arguments, there's plenty of stuff out there, what's needed is the willingness to do some research, and then get your opinion expressed where others can read it. Comment on editorials or opinion pieces in the paper. The LITERATE read them, and those are more likely to be decision makers in your life.
When you turn the tables and insist that others need to do things like install breathalyzers - because if one life is saved, your inconvenience means nothing - then it brings home the point that a lot of the outrage lacks balance and perspective. That's exactly why certain politicians want immediate action, to take advantage of the swell in public opinion, and why the press is keeping the story on the front burner. It suits their agenda.
Match it comment for comment in a reasoned and impartial way, and those who lack the information will see there's more to it than "Let's pass a law." It's called American Government, the rule of the peoples will, not our overseers, and there are three branches to the Government to have checks and balances.
It's worked before, don't give up now.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
If you honestly believe all that crap then we do not need the 2nd Amendment anyway. For I guess it would be too hard for us to defend our liberty. We'll all just give up right now and let them have what they want. Sorry but you're seriously deluded and if you truly believe that, you need to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson in your signature.
JustinJ
Member
So what you're saying is i need to just pretend something is true so that i can justify my belief in gun rights? And i have to delude myself into believing something in order to quote Jefferson when i like his perspective on a different topic? That's utterly ridiculous. Regardless of what i think about Jefferson's reasoning for the second amendment and it's application today, how does that mean i can or can't appreciate his views on other topics? That's like saying unless you believe in slavery you can't quote a founding father. Jefferson also strongly opposed a standing army. So i guess you believe its impossible to serve in time of peace and still believe in the second amendment, right?
Jefferson lived in Jefferson's time, not ours. Preserving gun rights, in addition to a number of other things, was a good way in his day to help protect liberty. Does that mean i don't believe the second amendment is still valid? Of course not, only that one reason for it does not currently stand. The founders created a method for the constitution to be amended so unless that happens the second amendment is still law, regardless of it's initial purpose.
What i find disturbing is that you seem to essentially be saying we should just accept arguments just because they lend support to preserving the second amendment regardless of their validity. Sorry but i've never thought intellectual laziness is a good way to win a fight.
9MMare
Member
I'm only aware of one reason for the 2A, well 2 if you count foreign and domestic separately. If anything is outdated, it's the necessity for private citizens to be prepared to defend the country against foreign enemies.
How is it still valid in your perspective?
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Intellectual laziness??? And yet you seem to think those people fought and died for freedom because it was easy??? In turn, you think we should NOT fight for ours because it's too hard??? Sorry but no, I don't think anyone should be quoting Jefferson if they think we shouldn't fight for our liberty because it's too hard or because we might not win. Please. If he had thought that way, defeated before the first shot was fired, we wouldn't be having this discussion but would be living under a UK gun ban as "subjects".
Do you have any concept of a million men? Do you understand that our combined armed forces number less than 1.5million? Do you understand that many of those will not fight against their own people? Do you understand that there are 80million gunowners in the country? Do you understand that tanks and planes do not fuel, fly and fix themselves? Do you understand that they are operated by people who have to eat and sleep? Do you understand that they require fuel and maintenance? Do you understand that WE actually have the advantage, as "We the people..." are supposed to???
Do you have any concept of a million men? Do you understand that our combined armed forces number less than 1.5million? Do you understand that many of those will not fight against their own people? Do you understand that there are 80million gunowners in the country? Do you understand that tanks and planes do not fuel, fly and fix themselves? Do you understand that they are operated by people who have to eat and sleep? Do you understand that they require fuel and maintenance? Do you understand that WE actually have the advantage, as "We the people..." are supposed to???
zxcvbob
Member
ETA: we had an armed uprising right here in the US of A in 1946 to oust a corrupt sheriff who tried to suspend free elections.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens
Last edited:
JustinJ
Member
My primary belief in gun rights is stemmed in the right of self defense and defense of one's family. I believe that is a natural right that we all posses. While I do believe guns other than the AR15 are sufficient for that purpose in every day america there is always the potential for a temporary or even long term collapse of society.
In the absurdly unlikely event of a foreign invasion those who fight would be issued weapons by the government military.
In addition i am troubled by the notion that my right to guns should be infringed because of the actions of another. However, i can understand the opposition's position that the right of people to not be murdered is already being infringed upon at an alarming rate with firearms. Obviously murder will never be stopped completely but attempts to reduce it are certainly understandable, if often misguided.
I'd rather have mine, thanks.
JustinJ
Member
Um, it wasn't the fighters of the revolution that i accused of intellectual laziness. Intellectual laziness is one accepts what is only convenient to believe rather than assessing things objectively.
What? You talk as if there is some civil war going on right now that i'm saying not to fight. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.
Regarding the American revolution, you seem to believe that a bunch of colonialists just grabbed their muskets and managed to defeat the British army. Sorry, but no. The Americans received huge financial and military support from France. Both direct and indirect support was also received from a number of other nations.
I've already addressed just about everything above. I'm not going to just keep rebuffing the same arguments.
JustinJ
Member
In the event that this Red Dawn fantasy comes true good luck convincing your CO to let you use your own person weapons.
Fryerpower
Member
@zxcvbob Post #45
I don't think anyone is going to take time and read your link without some context. I toured the area a couple of years ago when I was working at Watts Bar nuclear plant. The short of it is that there was a justified armed uprising here in the US in the last 75 years, right here in Tennessee.
-Jim
I don't think anyone is going to take time and read your link without some context. I toured the area a couple of years ago when I was working at Watts Bar nuclear plant. The short of it is that there was a justified armed uprising here in the US in the last 75 years, right here in Tennessee.
-Jim
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
