Do you think guns are still useful for protection against tyrants or invaders when the former have access to sonar and microwave weapons that can disable protestors without even the uproar that comes from a mass slaughter, and the latter can bomb cities from planes? Is the second amendment, even if it were not hindered by nanny-state coddling, enough to accomplish the stated goals of its strongest adherents?
No, its not enough. It is silly to think that civilians with sporting rifles can take on a military. I actually started a thread on my distain for the position, appears i had actually received a reply I forgot about. http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/202773-why-all-chest-beating.html
Are guns enough? No. Would they be one of the things necessary to fight a tyrannical government? Yes.
are they enough to stop an invading force? no. Would they do allot to weaken and stall the army and make it hard for them to occupy they area yes.
No way. There is no way an insurgent force could ever hope to contend with the might of the US military...unless they're Afghans and Iraqis with AK-47s and RPG-7s. Then they can hold us off for years.
The Second Amendment is primarily designed for defense--of self, of community, of state and of country.
Don't forget about the IED's that were made from explosive ordnance that US civies do not have access to.
Do you know what most of the IED's in Iraq and Afghanistan are made from? Old explosive ordnance. Artillery shells, tanks shells, bombs, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, I do. If you have enough men with guns, you can take control of an armory or a small military base and upgrade your weaponry.
That sounds a little idealistic. Good luck dealing with the predator drones that bomb the armory, after you surmount the instant torture of microwave weaponry defending against "riots." The life of an Afghani does not seem the sort I want to live. They can never win, they can just not lose for a long time. Tyranny, if it takes root, will be insurmountable.
^Exactly. The Afghani rebels can fight and disrupt every day life however they die by the dozens or even hundreds to every US military causality. They can hold out, but they will never defeat a superiority armed fighting force. The chest beaters can go on and on about how well a group armed with sporting rifles can combat an advanced military. However, reality is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Your sporting rifle doesn't mean (*)(*)(*)(*). [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hchBmg-Vo7k&feature=related"]Apache Lights Up Truck Full of Insurgents - YouTube[/ame]
I never said it would be easy. However, this sort of operation stands a far better chance of success with firearms, than without.
Granted. I'm still confused, however, about whether there is any way to even out the playing field without giving everyone the right to a predator drone.
A cheap effective bomb can be made out of fertilizer and other materials easily avalible to the public. Ask Timothy McVeigh.
This is a silly argument for the US. Everyone seems to forget that it still is "We the people..." that make up not only the populace , but the government and the military too.
You can't level this particular playing field - the military will always have better weaponry than a rebel force. But without basic firearms, you have almost zero chance of success. You start with the basics - slingshots, bow and arrow, etc., then work up to small arms. Once you have small arms, you go to the next level - heavier arms (mortar, bazooka, cannon), and so on, and so on, until your rebel force has an odds-on chance of conquering the opponent.
This sounds like a very good way to diminish the actual threat that liberty faces every time We The People endorce statist policies (that don't even work). The banner of The People says nothing about a movement's validity in a free society.
But in that case it is not the government that is the threat but the people bring the failure on themselves. Keep in mind that he issue is the people vs. the government. I was merely pointing out that in the US they are one and the same. Of course it does if it is true, because in said free society it is the people's movement not the government's.
That's only because they are primitives that live in the middle of nowhere. If they were in the West their options would be much more varied and customizable. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6PGKcVr-8s&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6PGKcVr-8s&feature=related[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSbvJXnJYX8&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSbvJXnJYX8&feature=related[/ame] ...and of course, Not to mention the fact that there are thousands of private companies who do nothing but blow (*)(*)(*)(*) up. They manage to do that without any old Soviet ordinance.
I think citizens should be allowed to own anti-helicopter rocket launchers, with rockets especially designed to penetrate armor, but that would be mostly ineffective against people on the ground, to avoid the weapon being used to kill innocent crowds of people.
interesting that the libs always have to remind the conservatives that the government wields more firepower then the common citizenry. Just saying!
