Are armed citizens overrated?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then, JustinJ, could I paraphrase your point as being: Tyranny is inevitable, regardless of an armed population?

No, you can't. Where on earth from my comments did you get "tyranny is inevitable"?
 
I apologize, this following statement confused me:

Just because a tyrant would prefer his opposition not be armed does mean they are anything more than a minor annoyance.

So if tyranny is NOT in fact inevitable, what actually DOES prevent it?
 
So if tyranny is NOT in fact inevitable, what actually DOES prevent it?

What does that really have to do with whether or not fighters with just privately owned guns can defeat a modern military? There is no one single silver bullet against tyranny and why countries follow any one course over another is always a complex subject. Not to mention tyranny would first have to be defined.

Regardless, you aren't going to walk me into some trap with leading questions so if you are trying to make a point please just do so.

Also, regarding the above statement, my only point is that a tyrant, no matter how powerful and easily able to crush the opposition, would prefer there be none.
 
I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. I made my point* before this debate on guerrilla warfare even began on this thread. What I am trying to do, is to understand YOUR point.

(*to summarize: The 2nd Amendment doesn't provide for an armed overthrow of the government, but stands as a deterrence through armed and, if necessary, violent resistance to unconstitutional deprivations of Life, Liberty, and/or the Ownership of Property)
 
Okay, for the very last time. The resistance fighters are or did receive substantial military aid from defecting military and/or external governments. They did not just grab the rifles out of their closets, since very few had any to begin with, and take down a modern military force.
Just like in every similar conflict. Past, present or future. It would be absurd to assume that any military would not have defectors in a civil war, or that both sides would not receive outside help. We are better armed than most.
You seem to forget that we were driven out of Vietnam, and the Russians were driven out of Afghanistan, by lightly armed peasants. The Syrians rebels have had little outside support against tanks, planes and a large modern military. Much of their gear was taken from the government, with small arms. They certainly did not start with "substantial" outside support.
No one should assume that either side would have an easy or quick victory in such an internal struggle. The only certainty would be that both sides would suffer heavy losses.
 
You know, all things consider, amongst "us", probably so. I think few of us would, for example, step up and stop that mass shooting, use our CCW to apprehend the armed suspect, etc. Much discussion here, prior, has been offered on this. So I think the realities vs the ideal don't sync up in that sense.

OTH I think more Americans than not, even after the media and political blitz, want the abilitity to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and maybe to a lesser extent their property (especially like protecting livestock from feral dogs, coyotes, etc). I think in this sense, the thing is valued and valuable to many people...I think even to a fair number of people who don't own a gun...and thus is not overrated.

I think a lot of people understand, to one degree or another, that an armed society at least can be a polite society.

On balance, armed citizens are valuable in our society, regardless of the complexity of the subject.
 
A major purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for the effective defense of a free state. From what I understand, the backbone of this defense was to be based off a system similar to what the Swiss have today.

While we don't have hostile nations who could even reach us, in the span of a few generations time, the world could look very different.

Yet, our most recent real life examples don't inspire confidence in me that our right to bear arms would do much of anything to protect us. Granted, most of these cases are against us, but they provide a case study. We lost Vietnam politically, and the Soviets lost Afganistan. Today, we've pretty much won in Iraq, and Afganistan, while not entirely free, is going better than when the Soviets tried.

These examples don't seem to inspire confidence in the 2nd amendment being a safeguard against much except criminals.

So realistically, does our right to keep and bear arms still hold relevance as far as defending ourselves from an outside force, or is that more of a "Red Dawn" fantasy some cling to?

The Founders considered RTKBA from many angles including, but not limited to, personal defense, community defense and defense of the state. All of those are currently, and in my opinion always will be, valid and relevant arguments in favor of RTKBA.

The examples you cite of Vietnam and Afghanistan actually prove the value of RTKBA for national defense. It was citizen soldiers in both cases, backed by regulars and allies, that did the bulk of the fighting. The farmer with his old SKS and his hit-and-run tactics did a lot of damage to the invading forces, both physically and mentally. Slowly bleeding an enemy one shot at a time has proven to be a military and politically valuable strategy many times over many centuries. Sun Tzu got it right in Art of War. Virtually every "Arab Spring" revolt of the past couple years was successful because of armed citizens. TIme and time again, just the opposite has also proven true... disarm the citizens and they can't fight their own government (nor any other).

The "Red Dawn" fantasy aside, don't be so complacent to believe that no other nation can reach us. Russia and China both still have missiles pointed at us with contingency plans of war against us (as we also have). Our borders are porous, technology is advancing, and there will always be nations and individuals that hate our society. With the liberty of arms comes the responsibility of vigilance.
 
...i do believe it possible for society to collapse due to natural disasters and what not. In such a case having an AR or AK would be highly valuable.
Are you speaking of local collapse such as Katrina or federal collapse?
Not sure how you would have made out with a rifle in New Orleans.
 
On the flip side, is being UNarmed overrated? Ask the peasants in Mexico; with more than 10 times our murder rate, institutional corruption, near slave conditions forced by government and gangsters alike (frequently the same uniform).

Almost no legal civilian ownership in Mexico.
 
Just like in every similar conflict. Past, present or future. It would be absurd to assume that any military would not have defectors in a civil war, or that both sides would not receive outside help. We are better armed than most.
You seem to forget that we were driven out of Vietnam, and the Russians were driven out of Afghanistan, by lightly armed peasants. The Syrians rebels have had little outside support against tanks, planes and a large modern military. Much of their gear was taken from the government, with small arms. They certainly did not start with "substantial" outside support.
No one should assume that either side would have an easy or quick victory in such an internal struggle. The only certainty would be that both sides would suffer heavy losses.

I'd suggest a little homework as to just how many and kinds of weapons were in civilians hands before the conflicts started. Their successes had nothing to do with privately owned weapons. Would already having a good number of weapons be an advantage if they also received the necessary external support. Yeah, probably, but good luck finding an outside country to provide such support to rebellion within the US.
 
I'd suggest a little homework as to just how many and kinds of weapons were in civilians hands before the conflicts started. Their successes had nothing to do with privately owned weapons. Would already having a good number of weapons be an advantage if they also received the necessary external support. Yeah, probably, but good luck finding an outside country to provide such support to rebellion within the US.

I think lots of countries would jump at the chance to support an insurgency in the US. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy. We know Russia had such plans in place. Certainly China, Al-queda, N.korea, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Our enemies would benefit from any internal conflict. They would gladly support it. It would be illogical to assume that 100% of our military personnel would blindly follow orders to kill Americans. Especially the state guard units. Texas?
I did not claim the Syrian's success had to do with privately owned weapons. Straw-man argument, but they certainly would have been better off if they had our level of private ownership. The point is civilians rebelling against a large modern military with tanks and planes are not easy to defeat. Both the American and Russian modern Military's have failed to defeat guerrilla insurgencies. Victory over insurgents is not certain.
 
Wars have not been won by rifles for a looong time. Fantasies about regular Joe and his personal AR defeating a modern military, foreign or domestic, are just that..fantasies. People who believe otherwise simply do so because they want to and refuse to maintain any degree of objectivity on the subject. AR15 vs Apache Helicopter with thermal imaging; hmm, who would win? Worst of all this talk makes gun owners look paranoid and delusional.


LOL. When I read utter nonsense like the above, I am reminded of the movie "Zulu Dawn"

Do you REALLY think 80 MILLION "regular Joe's" armed with semi automatic rifles, and the ability to arm another 220 million, would be impotent against the U.S. government? Do you really think ALL of the Helicopter pilots, tank drivers, bomber pilots, etc, will side with the Government against their families? Seriously?

It is YOU who are delusional. 80 to 300 million armed citizens is a force to be reckoned with... by ANY Army. Nothing less than full scale chemical warfare would put down that many U.S. citizens.
 
Last edited:
It is YOU who are delusional. 80 to 300 million armed citizens is a force to be reckoned with... by ANY Army. Nothing less than full scale chemical warfare would put down that many U.S. citizens.

Right, you think it plausible that infants, toddlers and the elderly will be grabbing their AR's to battle the evil dictator and i'm the delusional one. Yes, it will be the entire population(infants and all) vs one evil tyrant sitting on his throne in his ivory tower because in civil wars it's not like there are supporters and opposition of the government or anything.

I suppose you also think Russia one day just decided to role into Afghanistan and it was the entire Afghan population fighting against Ivan.
 
Right, you think it plausible that infants, toddlers and the elderly will be grabbing their AR's to battle the evil dictator and i'm the delusional one. Yes, it will be the entire population(infants and all) vs one evil tyrant sitting on his throne in his ivory tower because in civil wars it's not like there are supporters and opposition of the government or anything.

I suppose you also think Russia one day just decided to role into Afghanistan and it was the entire Afghan population fighting against Ivan.

I think it is funny when someone nit picks a detail in your post, you give them all kinds of grief about it. Yet you do the same thing. What he means, and I am sure you know this, is the armed US population of whatever number, would be a formidable foe against any army. Justin, and I mean this in the best way, you always seem to try to wind people up. I don't post much, but I find your position in a lot of threads "peculiar" for a pro "RTKBA" guy, that you say you are....

Doesn't your last sentence kinda prove his point?

LNK
 
Last edited:
Justin, and I mean this in the best way, you always seem to try to wind people up. I don't post much, but I find your position in a lot of threads "peculiar" for a pro "RTKBA" guy, that you say you are....

Do you mean to say that because i believe in a right to own guns and self defense i must automatically assume certain other positions regardless of validity? To me those are called distortions, have truths or lies and my refusal to adopt them blindly often draws fire.

And yeah, i do get accused of "winding people" up but i find it funny because those accusations are generally made by people who seem to have no problem with others attacking me in the same manner. It's the same hypocricy as those who constanlty complain about lies and ignorance by the gun control crowd but just grin and go along with piles of it from the pro gun side.
 
Justin,
Take the examples of Dorner, the Tsarnaev Brothers, and the Beltway Snipers. With no civilian support, they let thousands of active searchers on manhunts that lasted several days. Now consider how long the Altanta Olympic bomber remained hidden even as he continued to set bombs within Atlanta (several years with the aid of others), none of these people were high speed, low drag operators.

Would you agree that a few thousand similar assymetric operations would overwhelm a tyrannt's ability to find them all in any reasonable time (with or without citizen support)? Now consider that there are 80-100 million gun owners in the US. If 1 in 100 became guerillas that's 1,000x my estimate of an overwhelming number.
 
Justin,
Take the examples of Dorner, the Tsarnaev Brothers, and the Beltway Snipers. With no civilian support, they let thousands of active searchers on manhunts that lasted several days. Now consider how long the Altanta Olympic bomber remained hidden even as he continued to set bombs within Atlanta (several years with the aid of others), none of these people were high speed, low drag operators.

First, those people attacked innocent civilians so unless your position is that this thoeretical rebellion is going to do the same i fail to see the relevance. Finding and sniping or bombing high value government or military targets in time of war is quite different than civilians going about their normal lives in a time of peace.

Second, there ability to get away such acts would be quite different in a police state or under martial law.

Third, what did they really accomplish? Media stirred up a minor panick but the aside from the victims and their families there was no impact on the governments ability to function.

Would you agree that a few thousand similar assymetric operations would overwhelm a tyrannt's ability to find them all in any reasonable time (with or without citizen support)? Now consider that there are 80-100 million gun owners in the US. If 1 in 100 became guerillas that's 1,000x my estimate of an overwhelming number.

So what if they don't? Attacking civilians is hardly a good way for a rebellion to gain public support. That isn't going to even begin to topple a government.

Justin, I'm really curious what your military background is.

Ad hominem? Let me just say this. I know of a retired military officer who made it to one of the highest ranks there is, is pro 2nd amendment and laughed at the notion that american civilians with their personal weapons could defeat the military and overthrow the government.
 
There's a darker side to this, too. If push comes to shove the private arms give us the ability to leave the field for good, forever. Which ain't so easy when you're trying to use a kitchen knife on your wrist. Justin overstates the power of the high tech military, but if we are doomed to an Orwellian nightmare I at least want that one last option to exit. Maybe take some of them with me.
 
Right, you think it plausible that infants, toddlers and the elderly will be grabbing their AR's to battle the evil dictator and i'm the delusional one.

No. I think it is plausible that somewhere between 80 and 300 million people would resist a tyranny. That is what I wrote, and I stand by it. The rest of the words are yours alone, and yes, you are delusional.
 
Do you mean to say that because i believe in a right to own guns and self defense i must automatically assume certain other positions regardless of validity? To me those are called distortions, have truths or lies and my refusal to adopt them blindly often draws fire.

And yeah, i do get accused of "winding people" up but i find it funny because those accusations are generally made by people who seem to have no problem with others attacking me in the same manner. It's the same hypocricy as those who constanlty complain about lies and ignorance by the gun control crowd but just grin and go along with piles of it from the pro gun side.

First of all, I am not attacking you. Second, you are wrong. Name a tyrannical government that started with an armed population like the U.S. There isn't one. Never has there been one. If hypothetically they tried it here, it would be stopped in its tracks quickly.

You talk pf disparity of forces. Why do we issue our soldiers and Marines rifles? Why do we even have boots on the ground? Our disparity of force is so overwhelming....

LNK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top