Can someone explain something to me.

[Bonhomme Richard]

I am trying to understand this notion that if the citizens are armed then they can take back the government if it turns into something they do not like. It's as if this were the 18th century and there would be something resembling a fair fight.
What brought this up was an email from a relative that states..I Quote "You forget that liberals don't believe in the 2nd amendment so they don't consider it as the final option, conservatives do. You don't need a lot of guns and ammo if you know how to shoot to make your point."
Help me understand this kind of thinking.
Just to clarify, I do own a couple of rifles and pistols and have applied for my CCW

[MineralMan]

1. It's primarily a talking point from the 101st Keyboard Brigade.

This liberal believes in the 2nd Amendment and is armed. I'll gladly join in the defense against the likes of the Teabaggers.

[oneshooter]

6. Yes, but would you

willingly join together against a common enemy? One that threatened the very fabric of the constitution?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[MineralMan]

7. Name that enemy and I'll answer you.

Otherwise, I can't say. To some teabagger folks, I'm the enemy. So, what enemy are you describing.

When I was 19, I joined the USAF, if that helps you any.

[MineralMan]

11. You mean the Fundie Dominionists? Sure. If they take up arms,

I'll certainly oppose them with equal force.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. The military has weapons that would make quick work of these militia-men

And we don't have terrain like Afghanistan for the rebels to hide in.

We're going to have to hope that the armed forces aren't willing to turn on Americans.

We're going to have to hope...

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. Are you talking about the same military that swiftly won

in Iraq?

I keep wondering if the same people who think a citizen uprising could be easily put down bother to look at how well that worked out in Viet Nam or Iraq or how well it's working out in Afganistan. A bunch of poor farmers with enough will seem to be doing a pretty good job of keeping our troops busy despite the billions we spend.

Of course, this whole thing could have been easily avoided by offering the populace a small fraction of the money we have spent to do things our way but The Corporate States of Amerika wouldn't be able to steal as much that way.

The same tactic could be used in our country. Give the population decent jobs and protection from the Corpo-terrorists in the form of real regulation and we become, by and large, pretty easy to get along with.

The march to serfdom started by Ronnie then pumped up on steroids by five evil men and their appointment of Bush the dumber and now being fed pure Meth with yesterday's SC ruling, if not stopped soon, very soon, is about to get very, very ugly, IMHO.

[Callisto32]

12. Been to central PA?

Rolling hills and lots of little limestone caves, some very difficult to access and only known by the locals.

[MineralMan]

17. And who are they going to attack from those limestone caves

and rolling hills. Local rabbits? I'll just wait for them to come into town, and so would the military if necessary.

[Callisto32]

26. What was said...

indicated that there is not rough terrain in the U.S. such as would cause problems for a modern military. PA has small mounts and limestone caves, not to mention woods as thick as pea-soup. I presume it is the same for the surrounding states, given the old seabed and the current cycle of geological upheaval. The southeast has a lot of mud-flats and swamps. The rockies?

[MineralMan]

37. So, go to your cave. Enjoy your life. Come into town and try to

take over, and you'll deal with whatever is in town. Expose yourself and you'll deal with a UAV.

You can hide. I don't care if you do. But, if you want to overthrow the government, you'll have to come out of your cave, or out of the woods, or down from the mountains. You'll be exposed. You have not thought this through, have you?

I can't believe I'm even discussing the violent overthrow of our government here on DU. FR is over there on the right.

[Tejas]

113. I'll accept your backpedal as agknowledment that

you have better sense than to go trotting across the Pennsylvania countryside like you own the place.

No sweat, you're exercising common sense much as Hitler did when he contemplated invading Switzerland (Pennsylvania). Keep in mind that Hitler did wind up doing stupid things anyway such as attacking Russia (Texas).

[Bonhomme Richard]

31. And you would have to stay in those caves. n/t

[MineralMan]

38. Oh, they haven't really thought this out very well.

That's what happens with the 101st Keyboard Brigade. Too much basement living.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Completely wrong on all points.

Even the terrain.

Keep in mind, the last time Americans started shooting each other, it cost us half a million people. Americans are remarkably destructive, go ahead, deduct firearm related deaths from our normal murder rate, and prepare to be astounded. Even without guns we are more murderous than most developed nations.

In any case, we live in and around our military's supply lines and bases. Not to mention, the highly undesirable and hypothetical scenario of another civil war, appears to assume the entire military would side against the American people. (which you sort of referred to, actually)

[tburnsten]

80. I think you need to get to know some more service members

It's a rare duck who joins the service willing to fire on US citizens. I've got a friend, a former Marine who spent 18 months in Fallujah around 2003-2005, he is truly demented. I think he would be willing to follow illegal orders to engage US citizens. I can't think of a single other person I've met since joining the service three and a half years ago who I think would be willing to commit an atrocity like that. US service members tend towards being very community-oriented and socially responsible people, and a broad order to engage US citizens would be a totally illegal order. Part of our oath of enlistment is to refuse to follow illegal orders.


Not sure how many service members you know personally, but my experience does not jive with your claim that the military would wipe out civilians. We joined to protect something after all.

[Buzz cook]

101. Kent State and the Bounus Marchers

Are only two examples of US troops firing on US civilians.

[tburnsten]

104. Kent State was a misunderstanding and a rare one at that

during an extremely turbulent time, from my understanding of the incident, the Soldiers who were there were under the impression that someone was firing at them. Tragic incident, but not a clear-cut case of troops engaging in open warfare against US civilians.

I'm not familiar with the Bounus Marchers.

[oneshooter]

121. This is from Wiki

The self-named Bonus Expeditionary Force was an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers — 17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups, who protested in Washington, D.C., in spring and summer of 1932. Called the Bonus March by the news media, the Bonus Marchers were more popularly known as the Bonus Army. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant. The veterans were encouraged in their demand for immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates by retired U.S.M.C. Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time.

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans killed. President Hoover then ordered the army to clear out the veterans. Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks, commanded by Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur. Major, later President, Dwight D. Eisenhower was his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the cavalry. The Bonus Army, their wives and children were driven out with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, and their shelters and belongings burned. Two more of the veterans, and an unknown number of babies and children, died--accounts range from one to "a number."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Not a shining moment for the goverment of the United States.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Tejas]

115. I think they

watch too much TV (imagine that).

Thank you for your service.

[Witan00]

87. Only because they would fight by the rules

The rightists organize their militias just like the military, so in an actual civil war they WOULD be annihilated because they would attempt to play by the rules.

Of course we could do better, because we would use guerilla tactics, autonomous cells, and follow the "leaderless resistance" credo. Strike when they're weak, run away when they're strong. Blend into the background. Be just another face in the crowd......until an easy target shows up.

[PavePusher]

96. If you think the "rightists" (what an unweildy, inaccurate term)...

don't know the guerilla playbook, you haven't done your research.

[Witan00]

100. If they did, they wouldn't be so obsessed with their assault weapons.

AWs are great for wasting ammunition, which is the last thing a guerrilla needs.

Well, last thing besides posting pictures and videos of themselves dressed in camo all over the internet. Bringing attention to yourself is a very, very bad idea if you beat your chest and talk about fighting "the evil gubmint".

And gimme a break with the terminology, haven't been on here that long.

[PavePusher]

102. Explain please, how an "assault weapon" is different...

from any other civilian firearm, and how it "wastes ammunition".

[Witan00]

110. 5 rounds in a bolt action rifle versus 30 in an AR or AK

Who's gonna be more careful with their ammo?

Semi- and full auto weapons are fine if you're part of a regular military force with a decent logistics infrastructure. Their use is limited in guerrilla warfare, where you have no logistics infrastructure and have to travel light. Light = less ammunition. I guess you could make a case for an AR, but 223/5.56 isn't exactly an ideal sniper round.

/armchair general :-P

[PavePusher]

114. Sorry, I wasn't specific enough.

Please explain how an "assault weapon" is different from any other civilian semi-auto firearm.

And you might want to inform the geurillas of the world about your analysis. They don't seem to be listening, as they overwhelmingly prefer full-auto weapons and don't seem to be greatly hindered by any particular shortage of ammo. I'll leave their efficacy as a topic for another day, but that almost always correlates directly to training.

Edit: No significant modern military force prevailently issues semi-auto long-arms as the standard infantry weapon these days. Burst or full-auto are de-rigeur for the common soldier. Of course, semi's and bolt actions have their speciality roles as well... also shotguns...

[Witan00]

116. I think we have a breakdown of communication here

My entire point is that right wing wingnuts seem obsessed with their assault weapons, because they feel they *need* them to fight the "gubmint". What I'm saying is that they don't. If they want to wage a guerilla campaign, they could use ordinary bolt-action rifles in the beginning if they had to, and bolt-actions are far more economical with ammo. Weapons could be captured from the "enemy" later, as has happened in most guerrilla campaigns in countries with far less civilian gun ownership than ours. Yes, AWs are useful. I'm not disputing that. However, they are not *essential*, which the wingnuts seem to think.

That's what I'm saying.

[PavePusher]

118. O.K., I understand you better now.

I would agree on the "not essential" part, but in various circumstances they could certainly enable (not ensure) a better outcome. Firepower (quantity) has a quality of its own, to badly paraphrase the old saying. And "not essential" is certainly not a sufficient reason for restrictions.

[Tejas]

106. Assault weapons seem to

work very well in Baghdad, and I don't see the insurgents/guerrillas giving them up very soon.

[Witan00]

111. Most of the attacks in Iraq I hear about

are from bombs or snipers.

[Tejas]

112. My point stands.

Not here to insult you but if you think the common man (x1,000's) with an assault rifle or a scoped 243 can't ruin any conquest of this country, then you're fooling yourself.

[Witan00]

117. Of course

Read my "I think we have a breakdown in communication" response above. I feel like this dispute is due more to a breakdown in communication than anything else.

[Tejas]

119. Still, the argument for bolt-actions

might (and more than likely will) work in rural settings, but it sure seems the majority of friction would be urban. With most action taking place at 200yds and less, well you know where I'm going with this :)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Liberals hate the 2nd Amendment.

LA MEME

[sharesunited]

4. The 2A is obsolete for several reasons, and should be interpreted as restrictively as possible.

[oneshooter]

8. As should the first through tenth. Then you would be willing

To give up your home, without recompense, your right to free speech without a speaking trumpet or a manual print press, to surrender your right to visit the church of your choice, etc. etc..

Yes, lets interpret as restrictively as possible ALL of the Bill of Rights.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[MineralMan]

10. I'm still waiting to hear who you think is the enemy.

You seem to have ignored my question.

[Callisto32]

13. That is because your question was about...

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The potential for such an entity exists, why does there need to be a extant example?

[MineralMan]

16. OK. If a group attempts to violently overthrow the government of the

United States of America, then you will find me joining in the defense of the Constitution. I don't care who that group is. Since you don't have any particular enemy in mind, I guess I won't be able to identify any, either.

I'll also take up arms if someone comes to attack any of my neighbors, some of whom are Muslims and some who are not in this country with the proper documents.

I will take up arms if any of the idiot Teabaggers manages to heave itself out of its mother's basement and attempts to violate the Constitution with arms.

How's that for specificity.

[armueller2001]

That's really great that you

ignore the fact that some of your neighbors are here in the country illegally.

I'd be calling ICE as soon as possible, but it's your right to do nothing and let the country rot from the inside out.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. If they are law abiding, hard worknig, and cause no disturbance

There is no issue.
If they are involved with crime or perpetuate other negativity then I'd report them.

[Callisto32]

27. I'd like you to consider the following proposition:

A human being cannot be illegal.

[ManiacJoe]

35. Fortunately, no one made that claim.

However, a human being can be in a country illegally as defined by the immigration laws of that country.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. I don't agree with that fellows ideals

but I would like to point out, a human being can trespass.

Every nation has the right to control who enters it's borders. Violate that at your peril.


As an advocate for increasing immigration quotas, and cutting down the fees and waiting times, I must say, my green-card holding co-workers take a dim view of what was referred to as illegal immigrants. They did everything right, waited, paid, submitted to all forms of screening, etc. And at the same time, the influx of undocumented immigrants are used as a justification for lowering immigration quotas, causing my friends and co-workers to wait longer, and have to fight harder.

I understand the plight of the undocumented worker, but I am not happy about what they are doing either. I'm a fan of the strong walls, wide gates theory of immigration control. Some things should not be passing through our borders unchecked, and the same is true of some people. On the other hand, we desperately NEED immigrants in this country, and will need more and more as time goes on. Fixing the undocumented immigrant issue will ultimately allow a raise in the cap on legal immigrants.

[Euromutt]

53. Speaking as a legal (and naturalized) immigrant

Illegal immigrants don't bother me very much. Getting into the US was pain in the butt for me, and cost a serious amount of money, and I know I had it easy (I married a US citizen). Also, I wasn't exactly prepared to work construction, landscaping, busing tables, etc. at less than minimum wage. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are in the country illegally not because they can't be bothered to go through the legal process, but because they don't have the time and/or the money to go through the legal rigmarole, becaquse they need to get out of whatever hell-hole they were originally living in post-haste.

Still, we're pretty much on the same page; I think the most obvious solution to illegal immigration is to make it easier to immigrate legally, and I don't hold with nativism (which is a bit of a misnomer in a continent where almost everybody is an immigrant if you go back 400 years). I sure as hell don't hold with the immigrants who want to see the door slammed shut behind them.

[Callisto32]

55. People can trespass,

but only on private property. Why should I, who was simply born within the imaginary lines we call borders, be allowed to stay and someone who walked/drove/flew/jumped/whatever over that line be considered here "illegally?" I realize that there are statutes against it, and in that way it is "illegal" and I supposed it is my fault for not being more clear about my point. From a moral perspective, I find it abhorrent that someone would want to prosecute and remove someone for simply being from "over there." IF someone is causing harm, they ought to be dealt with for that harm, not for something that doesn't harm anyone, like crossing a border. This is what I mean by "a human being cannot be illegal." It is a statement based upon what I see as the "natural law" to not harm others or the property of others.

[PavePusher]

59. But they can commit illegal acts.

Which is the entire point you are trying to tap-dance past...

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. I think, at the end of the day

you and I are pretty much the same. As are most of the posters in this forum.

Something the pro-militia teabaggers where I come from don't seem to realize, in claiming militia status, or even just being able-bodied males, the Governor (Christine Gregiore), a democrat, has the legal power to call up the militia for all sorts of purposes. Even filling sand bags for flood control.

She makes the lawful call, and I go. A scenario the 'baggers' haven't even considered.

[Euromutt]

9. I thnk the Bush administration said that about the 4th and 5th Amendments

Well, they didn't say it, but they sure as hell behaved that way.

[Callisto32]

14. Please expalin your conclusions.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/basic.php

That should help.

[spin]

15. There are as many as 80 million gun owners in the United States...

the majority of whom would disagree with your statement.

Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Over 250 million, including upwards of 90 million handguns. The number rises by approximately 4 million annually. (BATFE)
• Gun owners in the U.S.: 70-80 million; 40-45 million own handguns
• American households that have firearms: Approx. 40-45%
• Hunters nationwide: 14.5 million (National Shooting Sports Foundation)
• NRA State Associations and Local Clubs: 10,000
• NRA Target Shooting Tournaments annually: 10,000
• NRA Certified Instructors and Law Enforcement Instructors: 62,000
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=83

Interestingly, there are more gun owners than registered members of any single major political party.

An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered.

Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats.

About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a "No Party" designation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm

Another interesting poll show that a higher percentage of Democrats owned a firearm for self protection than Republicans or Independents.



I would state emphatically that the Second Amendment is far from obsolete and considering the spread of shall issue concealed carry licenses across the country and the recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, is very contemporary and up-to-date.

[MineralMan]

18. Yup. Democrats and liberals also own firearms.

A fact that the Teabagger morons don't seem to realize.

[spin]

32. We sure do. (n/t)

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Something they will find out the hard way if they attempt an insurrection.

I know who's side I'll be on.

(Hint, it requires a legal signature from my Governor)

[spin]

91. To be successful a revolution would require the overwhelming nationwide support ...

of liberals, conservatives and independents.

It would have to be viewed as the absolute last choice of action against a tyrannical government which was totally deaf to the voice of the voters and unconcerned with citizens' rights.

[proteus_lives]

20. When is self-defense ever obsolete?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. When you can employ "natural-fighting skills"... duh.

[sharesunited]

23. With a single-shot front-loading flintlock.

[proteus_lives]

24. As usual, no point.

Why do you want to prevent people from defending themselves?

[sharesunited]

25. What changed between 1789 and 2010 to expand the 2A beyond the 1789 pistol?

If it could stop an attacker then, it can stop an attacker now.

[proteus_lives]

29. Wow, more illogical then usual.

I guess then free speech doesn't apply to the internet, I mean, they have printing presses! What else do they need?

Oh wait, the 2A doesn't mention types of firearms.

How does that Fail Sandwich taste? You must like them, I see you eating one all the time.

[spin]

30. By your logic, we should ban cars ...

after all horses got people from point A to point B in 1789.

Cars kill and injure more people than firearms.

[cowman]

46. Nothing changed

in that the Constitution is a living document and the Founding Fathers forsaw that circumstances would change in the future so i fully believe that they knew that weapons would change and thats why the 2nd amend. is more relevant today but you are so anti that you can't see that because it would ruin your preconceifed notion of guns

[AtheistCrusader]

51. So, you'd allow a 20 shot pistol then?

Pepperbox pistols, and the Girandoni Repeating Rifle, and Girandoni Repeating Pistol existed prior to 1791.

I've pointed that out before, but you seem resistant to retaining this information. I wonder why.

[sharesunited]

61. It's not about what should be "allowed." It's about what should be constitutionally protected.

The Girandoni technology looks like something society could tolerate without too much regret.

But classifying it as so sacrosanct as to be exempt from strict regulation to discourage its widespread proliferation? No, does not merit constitutional protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

[rrneck]

62. How much regret

for people who can't defend themselves from blunt force trauma?

[sharesunited]

63. If I concede on self defense generally, I would hope to prompt better compromise on firepower.

The blunt force honor roll which Digger put up the other day is not a reason to go nuts on the death dealing capability. That's what bites society in the ass.

[Glassunion]

64. Yes yes... I get it... Okay... Fine... Understood...

Yes yes, we get your point of view. Did I forget anything?

In a NUTshell:
Sacrosanct Proliferation…
Samurai Swords…
Obsolete 2A…
Single Shot Flintlocks…
Nothing in society has advanced past 1789…
America’s over abiding love of guns…
Guns = Kiddie Porn…
Stop the manufacture…
All people have a potential for future harm…
There are 50 gun-worshiping states…
You can personally increase the value of my guns…
It’s OK for the police to violate the constitution…
Obsolete 10th and 14th Amendments…
Turning off the spigot = Suddenly the Lions will lay with the Lambs
Guns settle grievances…
People killed by guns = Manifestly Good People
People saved by guns = don’t count
Guns = Embolden criminals
2A, 10A, 14A do not deserve to be protected in the constitution… But my car does…
Non Gun Deaths = Again those dead don’t count
Sadistic Point Systems…
The Federal Government can solve ALL of the problems facing the nation…
Society knowingly arms criminals with guns so that they may kill…

My personal favorite…
Rape is the woman’s fault…

Did I just about cover your point of view or are you going to enlighten us with something new?

[sharesunited]

65. You're mixing accurate with inaccurate on your list. Some of which is my fault.

I may not have properly communicated my thoughts.

And some of which is your fault.

Where you disagree, you belittle.

New? Is there anything really new to say on either side of this?

The updates are either (1) here's another example of why one side is right or wrong, and (2) more people either agree or ought to agree with one side or the other.

[Glassunion]

67. That would be a "No", You have nothing to add...

Thanks for playing though.

[sharesunited]

70. Nor do you. But that doesn't stop us! That's what's different about the 1st Amendment.

Nobody needs to die.

[Glassunion]

71. No I have plenty to add, however you ignore what you cannot answer.

As if it does not exist, therefore in your eyes nothing new has been added.

In the past you have made several statements, to which I posted replies or questions that contained a well thought out, polite responses and questions that you choose to ignore. Many others on this board have asked you direct questions in response to one of your posts. Yet you ignore them presumably because you cannot answer them, yet you continue to spout out the same drivel time and time again.

I don't recall anywhere in the Bill of Rights namely the 1st Amendment giving anyone specific rights to post on the Internet. How can you possibly justify doing just that?

[sharesunited]

73. I agree with you. There is no constitutionally protected right to internet service.

Or to have one's comments accepted for posting on any board.

[Glassunion]

75. I am laughing so hard right now...

I stand by one of my earlier responses to you...

I do enjoy your posts. They are funny. Like a sophomoric fart joke... Funny yet inappropriate.

[sharesunited]

76. A joke is odorless. The reality of the gun fart problem stinks something awful.

[rd_kent]

77. It stinks only because your olfactory is damaged due your snorting of the gun grabber coke.

The only think that stinks around here is your authoritarian attitude and willful ignorance.

[Glassunion]

78. Do me a favor...

Until you have the opportunity in school to actually study the constitution. Don't quote what you don't understand.

Remember 1984 was a work of fiction. Not an instruction manual.

[rrneck]

66. Are you able to determine

exactly how much force and/or equipment will be required in any specific self defense situation?

If so, please explain how you make that determination.

[sharesunited]

68. The article by Officer McGruff in the Cardozo Law Review posted the other day

assures us that mere brandishing or firing once in the air can be enough.

If you're implying that anyone on the blunt force honor roll, supra, needed the capability to repel a team of ninjas, then you are not exhibiting the necessary spirit of compromise.

[rrneck]

81. The question was

Are YOU able to determine exactly how much force and/or equipment will be required in any specific self defense situation?

If so, please explain how you make that determination.

[rrneck]

89. How 'bout a link slick.

And there is a question pending.

[rrneck]

92. Run away for good

or did you get your persecution fix for today?

[Glassunion]

69. Allow me to answer for him..

A wet noodle should be all you need to defend yourself against whatever a criminal throws at you. You should not leave the noodle too al dente as it will be far too deadly. It should also be heavily regulated on a federal level. Just the mere display of the noodle is that that should be allowed. You should never actually allow the noodle to make contact with the victim. Also at all cost make every attempt not to embolden the criminal with the wet noodle.

[rrneck]

82. Lets not go overboard

.50 caliber Lasagna noodles would be excessive. Nobody needs those.

[Glassunion]

83. Sorry, I did not specify...

Highly regulated noodles, spaghetti style noodles no larger than "12.". Hollow point pasta such as penne or ziti will be banned, they are far too deadly and the general public cannot be trusted with their possession.

[rrneck]

84. Watch out for that

armor piercing ravioli too. That Chef Boyardee is some heavy shit. :bounce:

[Glassunion]

85. Yes

Definitely.. Chef Boyardee is the Sam Colt of the New World Order...

[rd_kent]

86. Hold on now, that canned ravioli can be classified as a chemical weapon!

[rrneck]

88. Holy shit, you're right! nt

[Euromutt]

40. Do you have government permission to post that?

After all, by your reasoning, it the technology didn't exist in 1789, it's not covered by the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, or of the press, therefore, doesn't apply to the internet. And please hand in any inkjet or laser printers you may own.

The NSA would also like to inspect the any information stored on your computer(s), PDAs, cell phones, etc. They'll also be tapping your phone. Warrant? They don't need a warrant! Where does it say "electronic device" in the 4th Amendment?

How many times has this been pointed out to you now?

[rrneck]

43. How well would that work

against multiple attackers wielding knives and clubs? Do you have a solution?

[PavePusher]

44. Just to play Devil's Advocate for Shares here...

That is what a brace of pistols is for. Several braces, in fact... :evilgrin:

http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_originals.html

http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/pirates/pistolW.html

http://www.peterfiner.com/Gallery.asp?Page=Item&ItemID=600

A few pairs of those tucked about you, and Bob's yer mum's brother-in-law...

[rrneck]

45. Is that

sort of an eighteenth century New York reload?



Yarrrrrr!

I doubt Shares will answer. I think I pissed him off.

[Euromutt]

54. Okay, fine, but that requires some quid pro quo

Namely, prohibitions on open carry need to go, as do any "one handgun a month" laws.

Man, with that kind of armament, you wouldn't even need to hit your assailant; you could make your escape behind the smokescreen the black powder throws out.

[PavePusher]

58. Not to mention we'd all be in much better fitness condition....

lugging all that weight around... Unintended consequences indeed...

[rd_kent]

34. Fortunately for America, YOU are not in charge.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. An armed revolt is possible, but the people could never outright defeat the gov't.

Likewise the govn't could never defeat the people. It would be a stalemate and the first to quit loses.
The government has technical superiority and the people have way more... well, people (with guns).

America has 300,000,000 guns and 80,000,000 gun owners. That's A LOT of potential combatants.
For the record, the largest standing army in the world is China with a hair over 7,000,000.

Our government could control the sky and sea... but at some point, if the government wants to end a rebellion, their boots have to hit the dirt and they need to take it to the streets. Town-to-town, city-to-city, house-to-house... the "war" would need physically won. The US government could never logistically achieve this if the entire nation decided to revolt - citizens outnumber US forces about 100:1 and gun owners outnumber them 25:1. Those are some tall odds, even with a severe technological advantage. Hell, look at the iraq/afghanistan. We beat the piss out of them in the first few weeks but the logistics of our forces quieting the insurgents has been a much tougher challenge. Remember, the US would pretty much ditch the use of nuclear weapons and be very restrined when resorting to destroying US infrastructure... it is after all their own property.

On the other hand, The People could never defeat the military. That's hardly worth expanding on.
So it would be a very long stalemated civil war.
My guess is the Govn't wins out because they could basically blockade any and all food/medical supplies around the nation.

[Glassunion]

33. Good points, another one...

Who would feed the government's army, the people? Also in such a situation, would the entire armed services side with the government?

[MineralMan]

39. You assume that the "people" are a single entity.

They most definitely are not. You assume that all the people with firearms are likely to fight against the government. You are very wrong. More wrong than you know.

[benEzra]

74. If it were ever to come to turning on U.S. citizens, "the military" is not a single entity either.

The Twentynine Palms "Combat Arms Survey" administered to U.S. Marines in the mid-1990's indicated only about 1 in 4 would obey an order to fire on armed groups of U.S. citizens for failing to turn in their "nonsporting" firearms, for example.

If some government official(s) ordered the men and women of the U.S. military to wage war on their own country, don't believe for a minute that there wouldn't be a substantial portion of the military, perhaps even a majority, that would either refuse to fight, or would fight on the side of U.S. citizens, just as the Soviet military did when the Iron Curtain fell. This is not China, and even a Tienanmen Square would be very unlikely here.

[Glassunion]

79. Ditto

I swore to "Uphold and Defend" the constitution. It is no longer in my duties, however that oath is forever.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Side point

The people of Iraq nearly did defeat our military, in asymmetrical resistance style warfare.

On the other hand, that was mostly done with explosives, not firearms. But you get the idea.

[Euromutt]

57. In 1992, it took some 22,000 police and troops to pacify Los Angeles

Under current organization, those kind of numbers represent two full US infantry divisions, even assuming every soldier who could be pressed into action as a rifleman were.

The regular army is currently composed of two armored divisions and eight infantry divisions. Mobilizing the entire National Guard would field another eight infantry divisions. The USMC has another three divisions. Note that this assumes that units currently stationed outside the CONUS (such as the 2nd and 25th InfDivs and the 3rd MarDiv, stationed in South Korea, Hawaii and Okinawa, resp.) would be pulled back.

Call it 21 divisions, and that's (unrealistically) assuming they could all be kept in the field and in the CONUS indefinitely. How much of the country could they really control? Higher-population areas would require more troops, leaving large tracts of the Midwest and West to be subject at most to periodic patrols. Sure, there's also police forces, but bear in mind that a large number of cops are also military reservists, which means that police numbers would be reduced if the Guard and other reserve units were kept mobilized.

[PavePusher]

60. Also note that...

depending on the conditions of the rebellion, significant parts of the military would likely be on the rebelling side...

We take an oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic...".

We also receive training in recognising and refusing illegal orders.

[rd_kent]

72. +10000. Thats why I retired in 2007. I could no longer keep my oath while bush was Prez.....

[rrneck]

97. Gee,

you make it sound like Afghanistan.

[PavePusher]

103. Afghanistan probably has a better economy... 8>P n/t

[rrneck]

105. LOL! Yeah, but who are they gonna brag to about that? nt

[spin]

28. First, we are nowhere near the point where our government ...

needs to be overthrown.

We can still express our voice loudly at the polls and we just saw in Massachusetts. That election appeared to get the attention of Obama and the Congress.

But to address your point:

July 7, 2009

Resistance is futile we are told by the government. They would like us to believe that, they really would. They hope that they can convince the People that there is no way to win against the government and all of their forces. But is what they would like us to believe really true? Lets us talk about numbers for a moment.

***snip***

According to various reports there are between 57 million and 80 million gun owners in America out of a total population of 286 million. I have seen reports of up to 295 million, but we will stick with the 286 million and we'll allow that difference to account for any increase in military, police and security guards, which we will call US government forces during this article.

So let us play the numbers game for a bit. If all the US government forces where to square off against just 57 million gun owners the ratio would be 8 to 1 (People vs US government forces). If all of the US government forces where to square off against 80 million gun owners the ratio would be 11 to 1 (People vs US government forces). In either case the US government forces would be vastly outnumbered in a conventional military battle situation. Let us be a bit more realistic here and say that only half of the US government forces would be willing to attack the people, that would leave US government forces at 3.4 million. Against 57 million gun owners the ratio would be 16 to 1 (People vs US government forces). Against 80 million gun owners that would be 23 to 1 (People vs US government forces). WOW! Those are suicide numbers in any conventional military battle situation.

Of course there are those who will say that the government will just bring in foreign troops. That same wikipedia article used above gives a total world military strength of 52,052,769 (including the US military). If we add the police and security guards we get 55,518,585. So with 57 million gun owners it is about even, with 80 million gun owners it is about 1.5 to 1 (People vs US govt forces + world military). Here is the problem for the government, if they were to bring in foreign troops the entire US population would oppose them, this changes the odds to 5 to 1 People vs US government forces + world military). A ratio of 5 to 1 is still considered an overwhelmingly superior force in military circles. But let us be more realistic, at best they will get half those numbers which changes the ratio of People vs US government forces + world military to 10 to 1, and that assumes that the People don't have anyone joining them at home and abroad. The best the government could hope for is one quarter of all the other militaries in the world or 13 million, this added to the 6.4 million US government forces for a total of 19.8 million or a ratio of 14.4 to 1 (People vs US government forces + 25% world military). Again another overwhelming superiority for the People.

***snip***

So ask yourself - is it really futile to resist given these numbers? Factor in the simple fact that the People will be waging a guerrilla war for the most part - think Vietnam, Irag Afghanistan and how badly the world's most powerful military has done and is doing. Not to mention that the People are far better armed and trained than the Viet Cong or the "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan and there will be no "green areas" for the forces of evil to fall back to. The numbers do not lie, there is no way for the government to win against the People. Do not believe the lie. Even the Pentagon's own war games tell them that the US military vs the militia (People) ends up with the militia (People) winning every time.
http://www.politicitis.com/thoughts007.html

Note: I don't totally agree with this article but it does bring up some interesting points. Our government has spent enormous amounts of money training the best military in the world. Many of the people who benefited (if that's the proper term) form this training are now armed civilians. A high percentage of the ex military are very patriotic and if they seriously felt that our form of government was threatened, would take up arms.

As the writer of the article pointed out, the war would be a guerrilla war and would be extremely difficult for our military to win. Many of the police officers that I know would not support the government and in fact might be part of the insurgency. Some states would secede from the union. In fact some are considering that right now.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!"

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall -- one of three tea parties he was attending across the state -- that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.

***snip***

Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html

So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

***snip***

In addition, the various state resolutions include discussion of a wide range of policy areas, including the regulation of firearms sales (Montana) and the demand to issue drivers licenses with technology to embed personal information under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the Real ID Act (Michigan).
http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/2009/02/08/lawmakers-in-20-states-move-to-reclaim-sovereignty/

I feel that our government and both the Republicans and the Democrats who are currently in office have clearly heard that the American people are dissatisfied with their performance. The threat of voter turnout at the ballot box will cause them to change their policies and listen more to the voters. The Republicans got their asses kicked in the last election and the Democrats have clearly heard a warning.

Our system of government is working. The idea of a imminent armed rebellion is a pipe dream pushed by certain ultra right fools. Still, American citizens have the ability to fight back if our government suddenly turns into an oppressive dictatorship.

In such a dire situation, it's hard to predict the outcome. I can safely say that if it did happen, it would be bloody and disruptive. I have confidence that the citizens and those who are in power are smart enough to realize this and will work together to find solutions to the problems our county currently faces and will face in the future.

[Katya Mullethov]

41. I would inform my relation

To shut their big mouth before it got'm in trouble .

[rrneck]

42. It would be a gigantic

shithole mess any way you slice it.

If anybody had to do battle with the military, they would have already done battle with contrary partisans, gangs, thugs, corporate goons and other desperate citizens.

Also, insurgents don't have to win. They just havd to not lose.

[SteveM]

56. Your relative's views of liberals is rather typical and wrong...

Anyone who has perused these threads knows full-well that a very large number of liberals "believe in the 2nd amendment" and do in fact see it as "the final option." He/she is quite suffused in the RW meme that has been promulgated by the GOP, its most extreme allies, and by center-liberal POLITICIANS within the Democratic Party, along with their "allies" in the gun-prohibitionist lobby and MSM. He/she has taken the cues and will refuse to see the truth about rank-'n'-file gun-ownership and support of the Second.

As far as the rest of the statement, I can't say whether or not "You don't need a lot of guns and ammo if you know how to shoot to make your point." If he is saying that some of his RW buddies are going to take up arms and pot-shot others (presumably liberals, if his/her hate-on is in full blood), then I think this kind of action may indeed make a point -- just one which he wasn't counting on.

When anyone -- left or right -- persists in harboring rather arrogant delusions and stereotypes about their "enemies," they run the risk of making a lot of beer talk, sprinkled with some random acts of nut-hustling violence, only to discover their enemies are fully prepared to retaliate.

Your relative seems to imply that his/her outlook is not as widely-shared as he would believe, with these words: "You don't need a lot of guns and ammo." Evidently, because there may not be "a lot" of people (on his side) willing to use them.

The danger in all this is the chance our country could descend into a kind of "La Violencia" as was experienced by Colombia since the late 1940s, where "liberals" and "conservative" parties went well past the rather minor political ideologies and engaged in protracted, grinding, violent cultural warfare, lasting generations. Such an event would try even a viable and powerful government.

Hate your enemies enough, you will not be able to recognize them.

[Bonhomme Richard]

90. I never meant for this post to digress into the realities of...

armed conflict. All of us with a grasp of reality know it wouldn't be pretty and would in fact turn into some that wasn't intentioned. There was that quote about all battle plans change with the first shot.
My relative is quite a way out there, though at times he seems as if he is being reasonable. I just try to wrap my head around his thinking. He isn't a bad guy but he carry's a lot of racist, blame others, paranoid baggage.

[rrneck]

98. He is doing what

Americans do. We have an unhealthy affection for simple answers to complex questions. A firearm is a ready symbol for closure if you ignore the complexities of human relations. He takes that symbol to it's furthest extreme not by alluding to a firearm as a solution, but to a "one bullet" solution.

Chewing on the possibility of armed insurrection is always an exercise in circuitous speculation because nobody ever does anything for just one reason, and their reasons for doing what they do depend on those around them. That's what makes chess so complicated.

His head's in a mighty small box. Good luck.

Oops. Forgot to spell check.

[spin]

93. Your relative's biggest mistake is to assume that liberals don't believe in the Second Amendment...

To me, for example, the most liberal and progressive words ever written on paper were the First and Second Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Republicans and Democrats have grabbed certain wedge issues and claimed them as their own. For example, the Republican Party is anti-abortion while the Democratic Party supports abortion. In general, the Republican Party has promoted itself as being pro-gun and in the past the Democratic Party has favored gun control.

But Republicans will sell out gun owners in a heartbeat if they sense a political advantage.

The modern generation of gun control laws began with the Reagan Administration, in 1986. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act was passed in that year, expanding on the Gun Control Act of 1968. One provision of this law was to freeze the number of fully-automatic machineguns in circulation; machineguns manufactured since 1986 cannot be legally owned by civilians. (Machineguns manufactured before that date are legal to own, as they have been since 1934, with a special tax stamp and BATF approval of each transfer of ownership.) Since 1934 only one crime as been committed with a legally owned machinegun. (A Dayton, Ohio police officer used a submachine gun to kill an informant.) The primary effect of this law was to raise the price of existing machineguns to astronomical levels.

Several models of 'assault' shotgun were also banned from import in that year. (Do not assume, by the way, that domestic gun manufacturers are your friends. Yes, they want you to be able to buy guns. . . but their guns. Restrictions on imported firearms usually have at least the quiet support of domestic gun manufacturers, and sometimes more than that. They were very vocal in the 1960s, when cheap foreign imports were seriously undercutting their business.)

Three years later, the Administration of Bush the Elder banned from import 43 models of military-style semi-automatic rifles. The value of those rifles already in the country rose dramatically. This was not legislation, subject to Congressional debate and compromise; it was an Executive Order, straight from George H.W. Bush's pen.

The Reagan and Bush legislation and Executive Orders laid the groundwork for 1994, the big year for modern gun control legislation. That was the year of the Brady Act, with mandatory background checks for handgun buyers, an expansion of Bush's Executive Order import ban, and the Federal Violent Crime Control Act, better known as 'The Assault Rifle Ban.' This is the one that scared a lot of people.
http://www.mrbadexample.com/kerry.html

Democrats are far more liberal than Republicans but many Democrats own firearms.



Since many Democrats come from gun unfriendly areas such as New York City or Illinois (especially Chicago) where obtaining a firearm requires jumping through a large number of hurdles, it's not surprising that more Republicans than Democrats own firearms.

edited for spelling

[paulsby]

94. but why ARE those places that "many democrats come from" gun unfriendly?

the answer is because... they are democratic strongholds, and thus they can pass laws that ARE gun unfriendly.

sadly, that's the truth.

[spin]

99. True, and because many of the voters from gun unfriendly areas have little understanding ...

of firearms because they are rarely exposed to them (except for firearms owned by criminals) they fear and hate them.

[EvilMonk]

95. Well Richard...

...it's like this:

Some people are just stupid, ignorant, scared little people who can't seem to understand the power and prowess of the coherent thought.

I am a gun toting (CCDW) Conservative, and I loathe those who threaten violence on others. I have seen true violence (in Iraq), and I can almost guarantee that the ones who like to "play tough" are nothing more than "Timid Tyrants". Were you to see these people on the street, they would most likely keep to themselves, and shuffle on without a peep. It is only through the blessings of the Interwebz that they can release their Ego-Puppet on the unsuspecting public.

Yes, they may have guns, but they are indubitably attached to their couch, with permanently orange stained hands, and a general ambiance of "Unwashed Mass".

I wouldn't worry about them.

[gorfle]

107. On armed resistance.

I am trying to understand this notion that if the citizens are armed then they can take back the government if it turns into something they do not like. It's as if this were the 18th century and there would be something resembling a fair fight.
What brought this up was an email from a relative that states..I Quote "You forget that liberals don't believe in the 2nd amendment so they don't consider it as the final option, conservatives do. You don't need a lot of guns and ammo if you know how to shoot to make your point."
Help me understand this kind of thinking.
Just to clarify, I do own a couple of rifles and pistols and have applied for my CCW

I don't know what to make of what your relative said. I assume he is alluding to assassination?

In any case, the idea that armed rebellion is not possible is incorrect. There have been a few examples in recent history of technologically inferior forces winning against technologically superior forces. The United States vs. Vietnam. The Soviet Union vs. Afghanistan. The United States vs. Mogadishu. The United States vs. Iraq. The United States vs. Afghanistan.

The last two conflicts are still underway, but I am confident that we will be forced to leave before any "victory" occurs.

An armed insurrection on home turf is doubly damaging because of the economic chaos it causes. War devastates an economy. The DC Snipers caused millions of dollars in economic damage because people were afraid to go out and shop and buy gasoline, and they were just two people. Civil War would have dire economic consequences which directly affects tax revenue.

[PavePusher]

108. If I may point out...

None of those wars were ever lost on the battlefield.

Every one of them was lost in the political field, usually before the first hostile shots were exchanged.

And each of those wars could have been won... but only by creating such physical devastation that they would (edit: insert "likely")have lost morally.

Something to ponder.

[gorfle]

109. I know. Lost just the same.

None of those wars were ever lost on the battlefield.

Yup, they were won in the hearts and minds - the most important battlefield. You don't have to annihilate your enemy to win a war, you just have to break his will to fight.

[texastoast]

120. We will KICK the government's ASS, do you hear me

When I get my F-16 and my drones.

I ordered on ebay.

:sarcasm:

But until I get those, a boatload of AK-47s and many, many tons of fertilizer will not help anyone trying to take down the U.S. government, but it will likely get their attention. Your RW emailer is only fooling himself, no matter how good a shot he is.