NRA

[mraynrand]

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

Interesting question. Theoretically, let's say Obama and his liberal counterparts in Congress circumvented the Constitution and made guns illegal. A major uprising in this country ensued. Obama authorized use of military force against this large group of civilian dissenters. I'm guessing there would be a great deal of discord in the ranks of our professional, well-trained military. Many would break ranks. Our military is disproportionately rural and conservative. I'm guessing many would have a hard time squashing a movement that many of them would support.

The French Navy would also come to their/our aid.

[bobblehead]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Quite the contrary, I made that very argument. The framers gave us the right to weaponry for a purpose. That very purpose was to fight an oppressive gov't if need be. You can not tell me that having registered handguns protects that right. (gee, they know where to go, and they have you seriously outgunned). For this right to be useful we must have weaponry that allows us to confront an oppressive police force. ie...damn near anything we can afford. And we have the right to anything we can procure until we break a law and forfeit that right.

Furthermore the gov't does NOT have the right to use the military against citizens ever for any purpose.

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

You do a nice job of 2 things...calling names and making pointless arguments. First it IS possible to arm the populace enough to overthrow our military or police force. Do you think 300 Million people with assault weapons couldn't' conquer 1 million with tanks?? I bet a couple years ago you were preaching that our military couldn't compete with the battle hardened Taliban.

As far as not answering to any law...what a straw man. I answer to every law on the books as is required for me to own my weapons. And the LAW of the constitution gives me that right.

Finally as I said, the military isn't allowed to be ordered to take action against civilians (unless a democrat is commander in chief). If it were to happen we would have a true revolutionary situation that would leave 10's of millions dead. And yes, I firmly believe that if any CIC ordered martial law even the most apathetic Americans would revolt.

[hoosier]

What was the original point or debate that got this thread going again?

Assault weapons are EVIL and should be banned immediately. Rights be damned.

Yeah. That's it.

I think this is the crux of the problem: the discussion keeps circling around banning weapons that are already banned. The core of this thread is a non-issue. Nobody here, as far as I know, is arguing that currently legal handguns or rifles should be banned, nor is anyone arguing that fully automatic rifles should be legalized. At least nobody has made any of those arguments as far as I can see. So what exactly is the point of contention? I'm not asking this to be snippy, I'm seriously confused about what is being debated. So somebody please make a clear and controversial statement that can be argued ("all guns should be banned," "legalize howitzers now," "free Charlie Manson now") so we can know what we're shooting at.

Quite the contrary, I made that very argument. The framers gave us the right to weaponry for a purpose. That very purpose was to fight an oppressive gov't if need be. You can not tell me that having registered handguns protects that right. (gee, they know where to go, and they have you seriously outgunned). For this right to be useful we must have weaponry that allows us to confront an oppressive police force. ie...damn near anything we can afford. And we have the right to anything we can procure until we break a law and forfeit that right.

Furthermore the gov't does NOT have the right to use the military against citizens ever for any purpose.

Ok, I was wrong. And you are a wing nut if you think (a) that any civilian group is going to stand a chance against a trained, well-equiped military force in this country, and (b) supposing it WERE possible to arm a civilian group sufficiently so that it could take on a professional police or military force in the US, that that would be a good thing--putting that much destructive capability in the hands of a group that doesn't answer to any law other than its own. Thanks but no thanks.

You do a nice job of 2 things...calling names and making pointless arguments. First it IS possible to arm the populace enough to overthrow our military or police force. Do you think 300 Million people with assault weapons couldn't' conquer 1 million with tanks?? I bet a couple years ago you were preaching that our military couldn't compete with the battle hardened Taliban.
As far as not answering to any law...what a straw man. I answer to every law on the books as is required for me to own my weapons. And the LAW of the constitution gives me that right.

Finally as I said, the military isn't allowed to be ordered to take action against civilians (unless a democrat is commander in chief). If it were to happen we would have a true revolutionary situation that would leave 10's of millions dead. And yes, I firmly believe that if any CIC ordered martial law even the most apathetic Americans would revolt.

Your analogies and hypothetical scenarios are baffling to me, and I can't believe that you take them seriously. 300 million Americans arming themselves and rising up against the US army? When and how do you envision this happening? A popularly elected US president suspending the Constitution and imposing a reign of terror? I think you're trying to base an argument about realities (restrictions on guns) on a wild fantasy. Given that, I also don't think we have anything to talk about.

[mraynrand]

I think you have it backwards. The presence of an armed populace is the ultimate deterrent against an oppressive government. Absent the guns, it's much easier to impose more and more restrictions and then quickly stifle any uprising. It's much easier to load you into railcars when you aren't firing your weapons.

[hoosier]

I think you have it backwards. The presence of an armed populace is the ultimate deterrent against an oppressive government. Absent the guns, it's much easier to impose more and more restrictions and then quickly stifle any uprising. It's much easier to load you into railcars when you aren't firing your weapons.

I don't think I have it backwards at all. The problem with your armed civilians=deterrant against oppression argument is that it's ahistorical. You're treating every society as if it were late 18th century America.

The technological difference is one thing: in order to create a civilian militia that could pose a threat against a professional army or police force you would need to start distributing heavy artillery and depleted uranium munitions to every household in the country, and hope you don't see a sudden spike in armored car robberies. In all seriousness, how do you see arming civilians on that level working?

The other thing is that US today has a long standing tradition of respect for rule of law that, at the present moment, far outweighs the possibility of government using force against its own civilian population. Governmental agencies tends to respect the checks and balances that prevent any one office or faction from gaining too much power for too long. The people, meanwhile, tend to be apathetic, and when they're not they usually prefer relatively peaceful avenues for change. The fact that those avenues exist and are relatively stable in the US today makes the kind of scenario Bobblehead is envisioning quite unlikely, to put it mildly.

[HowardRoark]

As stated earlier, many of the military would side with the freedom fighters. Others would walk away. All it would take would be for the person in charge of the nukes to keep them safe.

And anyway, look at what went on in Iraq. That turned out to be a little more difficult than we thought once we could not use heavy artillery anymore.

The technological difference is one thing: in order to create a civilian militia that could pose a threat against a professional army or police force you would need to start distributing heavy artillery and depleted uranium munitions to every household in the country, and hope you don't see a sudden spike in armored car robberies. In all seriousness, how do you see arming civilians on that level working?

Wist, are you out there? You seem to cover this one pretty well.

The other thing is that US today has a long standing tradition of respect for rule of law that, at the present moment, far outweighs the possibility of government using force against its own civilian population.

[hoosier]

As stated earlier, many of the military would side with the freedom fighters. Others would walk away. All it would take would be for the person in charge of the nukes to keep them safe.

That would depend on what the "freedom fighters" were perceived as fighting for. Your scenario of an elected US president turning into a ruthless, brutal dictator is not plausible in the US today.

[HowardRoark]

Your scenario of an elected US president turning into a ruthless, brutal dictator is not plausible in the US today.

When considering the human race, this is ahistorical.

I would rather hedge our bet and let us keep guns.

[SkinBasket]

I don't care about any of this shit. Guns are pretty fucking cool. Hell, even bullets are cool. Guns shooting bullets = 2x cool. If you can't take pleasure in the act of firing a mechanism so simple, yet so refined, a perfect balance of our hunter/warrior past with our modern technologies, instinctual nature and cerebral science, you probably aren't to be considered cultured. Or even human for that matter.

[mraynrand]

post being rewritten

[MJZiggy]

tp

Now that takes talent!

[mraynrand]

I think you have it backwards. The presence of an armed populace is the ultimate deterrent against an oppressive government. Absent the guns, it's much easier to impose more and more restrictions and then quickly stifle any uprising. It's much easier to load you into railcars when you aren't firing your weapons.

I don't think I have it backwards at all. The problem with your armed civilians=deterrant against oppression argument is that it's ahistorical. You're treating every society as if it were late 18th century America.

The technological difference is one thing: in order to create a civilian militia that could pose a threat against a professional army or police force you would need to start distributing heavy artillery and depleted uranium munitions to every household in the country, and hope you don't see a sudden spike in armored car robberies. In all seriousness, how do you see arming civilians on that level working?

The other thing is that US today has a long standing tradition of respect for rule of law that, at the present moment, far outweighs the possibility of government using force against its own civilian population. Governmental agencies tends to respect the checks and balances that prevent any one office or faction from gaining too much power for too long. The people, meanwhile, tend to be apathetic, and when they're not they usually prefer relatively peaceful avenues for change. The fact that those avenues exist and are relatively stable in the US today makes the kind of scenario Bobblehead is envisioning quite unlikely, to put it mildly.

Those are all interesting points you raise, most of which I think are beside the point. The point is this: If at some point our government became more oppressive and the only method of countering it were through rebellion, I think we'd have a hell of a lot better chance armed with rifles, automatic weapons, various small arms, etc. than armed with kitchen knives and slingshots. The likelihood of an oppressive government trying to impose further restrictions would be less with a better armed populace.

As to how our society could get there, well just read up on the rise of the Nazis (William Shirer). Or read Hayek. The weapons and technology may change but people haven't evolved much, if at all - and if we have evolved, perhaps it's in the 'wrong' direction - relative to ultimate extinction.

[bobblehead]

As stated earlier, many of the military would side with the freedom fighters. Others would walk away. All it would take would be for the person in charge of the nukes to keep them safe.

That would depend on what the "freedom fighters" were perceived as fighting for. Your scenario of an elected US president turning into a ruthless, brutal dictator is not plausible in the US today.

this one dude, once upon a time..Hitler was his name. He was elected and seemed like a hell of a leader, building infrastructure, putting the country to prominence and all. No way that guy would turn into a ruthless brutal dictator.

BTW, Dick Cheney the root of all evil was a step away from being president as I recall.

[swede]

I think you have it backwards. The presence of an armed populace is the ultimate deterrent against an oppressive government. Absent the guns, it's much easier to impose more and more restrictions and then quickly stifle any uprising. It's much easier to load you into railcars when you aren't firing your weapons.

I don't think I have it backwards at all. The problem with your armed civilians=deterrant against oppression argument is that it's ahistorical. You're treating every society as if it were late 18th century America...

This statement, in a rather amusing way, demonstrates your own unwillingness to consider the lessons of history. America need not continue ever as she has been for the last mere three human lifetimes. Why might Obama not be the beloved Lenin that will lead to the inevitable Stalin?

The other thing is that US today has a long standing tradition of respect for rule of law that, at the present moment, far outweighs the possibility of government using force against its own civilian population. Governmental agencies tends to respect the checks and balances that prevent any one office or faction from gaining too much power for too long. The people, meanwhile, tend to be apathetic, and when they're not they usually prefer relatively peaceful avenues for change. The fact that those avenues exist and are relatively stable in the US today makes the kind of scenario Bobblehead is envisioning quite unlikely, to put it mildly.

Government takeovers of private businesses are also unlikely, thank goodness.

[packinpatland]

BTW, Dick Cheney the root of all evil was a step away from being president as I recall.

Stuff that nightmares are whereby caused.