JustinJ
Member
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"?
Then, JustinJ, could I paraphrase your point as being: Tyranny is inevitable, regardless of an armed population?
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?
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.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.
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?
Are you speaking of local collapse such as Katrina or federal collapse?...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.
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.
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.
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.
They can post government reactions to the internet.
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....
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, I'm really curious what your military background is.
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.
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.