You're doing something here you shouldn't be: you're judging the likely outcome of something you have no experience with and likely don't understand.timmy4 said:What I don't buy is that private gun ownership deters tyranny in any way. I get that, in your opinion, that was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (this is certainly not a universal opinion by any means) but even if it was the original intent, it no longer applies on a practical basis.
You'll find a higher proportion of folks who've dedicated a few of their formative years to carry an M16 here than you will in normal life. We think...differently about the sorts of conflicts and their likely outcome than you do. For instance, you'd probably argue that firearms are useless against tanks. I've detailed in another thread recently how a couple of decades ago 4 tanks (the entire platoon) were "killed" on a training exercise with a single pistol.
Impossible? Nope. You just don't understand the issue the same way I do. Here's another example.
We've totally pacified those folks in Iraq and Afghanistan over most of the last decade, right? Totally safe place now, all our political goals were met, etc?
You'll argue that that's totally different because they have access to explosives they can rewire with cell phones, and civilians can't buy explosives. You'd be wrong, but even if you were right explosives are pretty well understood -- it's not hard to improvise. And on, and on, and on...
Firearms are still a guard against tyrrany. For you to argue otherwise is simply an admission that you don't have the requisite knowledge and haven't researched the topic enough. I know where you're coming from, but (and I'm not sure how to word this nicely) you're wrong on this one.
It may be inconceivable to you. That doesn't make it incorrect.