I'm somewhat new here. I don't think that should be relevant, but I'm just giving a heads up. The second amendment was made to protect against a tyrannical government. This government was armed with things that everday citizens could acquire, and therefore an uprising could occur if the people called for it. Now, our government has tanks, aircraft out the wazoo, technology out of citizens' reach (that never will be within our reach) and very large bombs. And much more. Is having your own assault rifle really gonna help?
The Afghans would differ with those views. With assault rifles and improvised explosives they kicked two superpowers out.
I have to agree with Perd, Just cause you dont have "The Best" Dosnt mean you wont do any harm to them.
First off, assault rifles have been heavily regulated scince the 30's. What you are refering to is the made up by the government driven media term "assault weapon". Which is an ordinary semi automatic everyday rifle that is dressed up to appear as a military grade weapon. This term is meant to confuse and frighten the people, ultimately having them willingly hand over there birth right as an american for an illusion of safety. The media right now is reaching as far as it can to report every single firearm related death to help persuade the masses to agree with bans and regulations. When gun control was not the hot topic for them, there wasn't nearly as much reported on as far as gun related deaths. As far as being as strong as the military, that part has been infringed for quite some time now. The higher technology, one could procure most of it with a large enough wallet. The second amendment is what stands between what we are now and a tyrannicle gov. The better armed the people, the less likely a gov. will trample there rights.
So tell me how well all those things worked out for the U.S. in Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Give me a break. If it came down to an armed revolution, the government would not start dropping bombs and using drone strikes in populated areas. It would create new enemies faster than it killed old ones. Which is exactly what is happening in the Middle East. You don't pay much attention to history, do you?
Wouldn't that be contradictory to shootings and gun violence in general? Having a gun certainly can hurt.
That's a very good point. If the government were bad enough to warrant a citizens' armed revolution, don't you think that organized resistance would, in fact, not stand a chance against trained soldiers though, regardless? (assuming of course that the soldiers side with the government and not the people) And are you suggesting that if you had a big enough problem with the government to fight it (physically), you would protect yourself by hiding in populated areas, much as terrorists are known for doing (at least part of the time)?
The 2nd Amendment is not a provision that either demands or is contingent upon full tactical equivalency (e.g., missile launchers, fighter jets and the like). All the 2nd Amendment was intended to do was to preserve the ratio endorsed by the framers that any standing army that could ever be maintained (stated to be 1% of the total population) would be outnumbered (opposed was the word Madison used) by armed citizens by 17-20 armed citizens to 1 soldier. Today, if the higher estimates of the number of Civilian gun owners is to be accepted (75 million) that ratio has widened to 25 armed citizens to 1 member of the "standing army" (active and reserve military 2.9 million). Taking that "object" of the Amendment into consideration and the criteria used by SCOTUS to decide if a type of arm has 2nd Amendment protetion . . . Those arms commonly refered to as "assault weapons" enjoy near absolute protection under the 2nd Amendment. Any law (if enacted) banning them should and will fail constitutional scrutiny.
big question is will the officers, and soldiers of our volunteer citizen army, turn there weapons against there family's, and countrymen merely because some politician orders them to. if the citizen has guns, and the will to make an armed stand. a soldier knows he will be killing those he has sworn to protect, in violation of what he swore to protect. i doubt any government could get a significant amount of officers to go along with such a thing, unlike politicians. most generals take the oath of office seriously. everyone in the military is instructed as to what illegal orders are, and what they are to do in respect to them. last i herd, a survey of military personnel of all grades, indicated about half would fire on civilians if ordered to. that means half, might be inclined to resist the orders as illegal. so, a tyrant has a significant danger, of all those tanks and bombs, being either silent. or being directed at him.
I do think citizens would stand a very good chance. How many retired military are there in our society? Their numbers far outweigh the number of active duty. How many military members would desert rather than be ordered to fight their own fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends, etc? Many gun owners shoot their guns on a regular basis (guns are very fun and addicting to shoot, believe it or not, it really is enjoyable!). I wouldn't put it past your average Joe to out-shoot an Army grunt. Just look at what the untrained Vietcong, Taliban, and Al-Qaeda have managed to do to our military. Sure, we "won" the war in Iraq and are "winning" in Afghanistan, but look at the cost: trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. Only 3% of the population fought in the revolutionary war. If a comparable percentage fought in a revolutionary war today, that would be an army of 9.3 million. As far as hiding among civilians, that is a guerrilla tactic tried and true which has stood the test of time. However, it is the government that decides to pull the trigger when they very well know civilians will be killed. Any government that knowingly kills its own innocent civilians is one that SHOULD be disposed of.
Right, I was thinking that same thing actually. But I always look at "what if"s, and the possibility is there, however slim. Plus, if citizens wouldn't even have to fight the standing army (on account of soldier's unwillingness to shoot civilians), why even arm yourself so heavily?
Hmm I didn't know that about the Revolutionary War, thanks. And as to whether we win or lose a war, we could come out broke and technically still win. That just depends on your definition. I absolutely think that this scenario is about as likely as a T-rex devouring New York, but I've just been curious about what pro-gun, anti-government (I'm not saying the two go together, I'm just referring to the people who happen to be both) are thinking about the effectiveness of their rifles.
because then it would not be a choice of convincing the military to combat fellow citizens, it would be the easier job (though unlikely), of convincing them to intimidate unarmed citizens.and oppress ones fellow citizens (usually someone without a gun, will do what someone with a gun asks with little question) .likely were this to take place, it would be under the guise of some riot, or out of control crime pretext. and in america. it is likely if a gun ban were instituted, gun crime would spike, because there are to many guns in existence here to find, and melt them all down.
WARNING! Fantasy scenario coming up: I will put this really simply. If the military were to go around shooting people, and a kid was caught in the cross fire, the parents would be very pissed. They see what life is now vs what is happening while the government is trying to do whatever and shooting people. Who's side do you think the parents are going to be on? What about the brothers and sisters of the murdered kid? How about the grandparents/aunts/uncles/et al? Multiply that by every family member that was killed just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now, only about 5% of those that resist the government have to be trigger pullers. Sympathizers, non-combatants, and safe harbors could be implemented and sheltered by anti-government groups and the trigger pullers. How would the government find out who is "good" and "bad" if the community that they are in doesn't help? In short, it would be very hard. That is set, so lets move onto a more openly aggressive community. How many federal agents, military personal, and police would risk going to work in the morning if their neighbors were going to shoot at them as they walked to their cars, or patrolled their sector, or slept at night? How many of them wouldn't risk going out if they could be ambushed at any point during their daily lives, even if they are "just doing their job?" The harder the government comes down on an area, the higher the chances of making a mistake and shooting the wrong people. Do you remember Chris Dorner and the terror he caused with the south/central California police departments? Imagine if that was happening everywhere, all the time if a common insurrection started. Cops would not go to work. Oh yeah, remember the two different cars that were shot up by the cops because their trucks looked like Dorners? In my fantasy scenario, those people, and the families of those people, would at least be more sympathetic to any insurrection or insurgents in the area due to the government over stepping their bounds, authority, and force contract with the citizens of the area. So no, on an open battlefield, the citizenry would lose. In a insurgent type war, the standing army would not prevail as anti-gun people say they would. It would be just like Afghanistan, but the standing forces wouldn't be shooting "********s", "camel humpers", or any other derogatory. It will be next door neighbors, your co-workers, family, the stock tip guy, and the store clerk from 7-11. If something like this happened, it would not be pretty, and would ultimately destroy what we now know as modern day life.
For an example of using guns against a tyrannical gov't you should Google "battle of Athens 1946" and read. To help you out here's one of the links. http://constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen_press.htm
Nick Simonson, While it may be true that the citizenry is "hoplessly outgunned" it is also true that the govenrment is "hopelessly outmanned". I don't know what the size of our current military, but it pales in comparison to the size of our armed citizens!
As I noted up thread (post 13) the concept correlates with the establishment of the Constitution. Here is the quote from James Madison, writing in the Federalist #46 (July, 16, 178: ."The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands . . . " . As I said, I posted of those ratios in context of today, I find it quite interesting that the ratios remain so close after 225 years: . I understand the anti-gun rights arguments that regular citizens with their 'widdle pea-shooters' are no match to the government's cruise missiles and Apache attack choppers and tanks and A-10's . . . But that doesn't really speak to the underlying principle and I challenge them on this . . . My question is, (that none ever return to answer), what type of future government will government's forces be fighting for? Will that government be a government based in popular consent (after the government has killed off all those willing to oppose it)? Will the government, after bulldozing into mass graves tens or even hundreds of thousands of "treasonous", Don't Tread On Me "gun nuts", hold regular elections the following November and abide by the results? Why would it bother with such foolishness?
