When was the last time...

[tylerdolphin]

Taking away some of our free speech for safety of course and the children don't forget those props. A gun doesn't matter??? Try telling that to the many people who defeated far superior enemies. We've always had the right to semi-autos since their creation. Thinking that we could ban these weapons and it wouldn't be a big deal along with giving this untrustworthy government this power goes against everything the founders wanted and intended with the 2nd. It wasn't about shooting deers but shooting tyrants.

I never said it wouldnt be a big deal. It would be a massive deal. And damn near impossible to enforce.

My point isnt to say the founding fathers didnt say a militia was needed. My point is that times have changed and its not really a consideration anymore. It has happened historically, but there is no precedent set for going against a technologically advanced government and military with a bunch of overweight people, most of which have no stomach for the type of things theyd need to do, and accomplishing anything meaningful. Its just not gonna happen. You cant compare a revolution 100 years ago to one in America. The government in America has the capability to sever communication and hit vital targets of a resistance with ease. You may be able to last along time by just sporadically fighting, but you arent going to accomplish much.

[Locke]

So let's trample the 2nd because we could never do what the founders intended with the 2nd amendment????

Control, Alt, Delete the entire history of over-matched rebels defeating an empire.

Honestly answer it this time. Do you trust this government with this power???

I trust this government more than I trust most others. I'll say this, they haven't given me a reason not to trust them, yet. I don't put any faith in conspiracy theories, ideologues, or partisans. Our resident Fox News-bots are suddenly ready to revolt because Glenn Beck told them to, not for any reason they could actually identify. In an ideal world, yes things would run differently. But we don't live in an ideal world. Pragmatically, I understand why various things are being done, even if I don't agree with them. Once things that I can't understand start happening, then I'll start to distrust the government. Until then, I stay vigilant as always, but I live my life without fear. I live in the city with one of the highest per-capita crime rates in the country. I have never owned a gun. I've had my car broken into a few times, but nothing else outside of that. You guys talk about home invasions as if its this daily occurrence. I've never had it happen, no one in my family has had it happen, and no one I personally know has had it happen. I'm not worried about it. Until I start doing things to invite unsavory people into my life, I have absolutely nothing to fear...

[Locke]

I never said it wouldnt be a big deal. It would be a massive deal. And damn near impossible to enforce.

My point isnt to say the founding fathers didnt say a militia was needed. My point is that times have changed and its not really a consideration anymore. It has happened historically, but there is no precedent set for going against a technologically advanced government and military with a bunch of overweight people, most of which have no stomach for the type of things theyd need to do, and accomplishing anything meaningful. Its just not gonna happen. You cant compare a revolution 100 years ago to one in America. The government in America has the capability to sever communication and hit vital targets of a resistance with ease. You may be able to last along time by just sporadically fighting, but you arent going to accomplish much.

That's my point exactly. A rebellion sounds all well and good until a couple black hawk helicopters fly over and mow everyone down, and 20 AR-15s didn't so much as scratch the thing...

[Dolphins9954]

I'll say this, they haven't given me a reason not to trust them.

What country have you been living in????

---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

I never said it wouldnt be a big deal. It would be a massive deal. And damn near impossible to enforce.

My point isnt to say the founding fathers didnt say a militia was needed. My point is that times have changed and its not really a consideration anymore. It has happened historically, but there is no precedent set for going against a technologically advanced government and military with a bunch of overweight people, most of which have no stomach for the type of things theyd need to do, and accomplishing anything meaningful. Its just not gonna happen. You cant compare a revolution 100 years ago to one in America. The government in America has the capability to sever communication and hit vital targets of a resistance with ease. You may be able to last along time by just sporadically fighting, but you arent going to accomplish much.

Then ignore the history of countless people including our own who accomplished such a feat.

[Locke]

What country have you been living in????

You pulled one part of my entire post out. You need to read it in context. I explained why I said that...

[Dolphins9954]

You pulled one part of my entire post out. You need to read it in context. I explained why I said that...

A government that has totally trampled on our first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights constantly over the lase 12 years and then some. This is a government that dropped a bomb on a 16 year old american child and defends DEA agents holding guns to childrens heads. But never has this governemnt given you a reason not to trust them right??? Come on Locke I think even you know this government sucks with our liberties.

[rob19]

I'll say this for clarification because it annoys me. For example, the NDAA's ability to detain American citizens without trail, & the NSA spying on & copying every single last bit of your online activities & storing them on bottomless databases in Utah, are not conspiracies. They're fact. Just because something is unsavory & you don't like to think about it or believe it doesn't make it a conspiracy.

[Breed]

...a country successfully fought a tyrannical government with violence? Does anyone know? It came up in conversation recently, and the only example we could even think of was the American Revolution. And even that started non-violently (The Boston Massacre) which outraged the colonies, and led to us getting a lot of international support due to the brutality of it. International supports that we needed, otherwise we may still be British to this day.

But seriously, think about it. What have been the most successful protests in recent memory? The civil rights movement? We still see Martin Luther King and his fellow protestors referenced to this day. They had dogs unleashed on them, they were beaten with billy clubs, and they were sprayed with fire hoses. They didn't fight back. They took it, stood their ground, and the police came out being the villains. No one argues won that MLK ultimately won that conflict. There are dozens of examples of the peaceful approach historically being successful.

I agree. The best way to oppose the rise of tyranny is through peaceful means. I haven't done any research on the matter, but I do recall hearing something like 60% of the tyrannical governments implemented over the last century were the result of bloody revolutions. Violence should always be the last resort.

Or how about more recently? We have probably the best example of the 2 ways to protest going on as we speak: Egypt and Syria. Anyone remember those police officers firing into the crowd of protestors in Egypt? They gunned down hundreds of unarmed civilians. What happened? The person who gave the orders to fire was arrested, tried, and is now in prison. The protestors have international support due to the outrage from the world who heard about it. Most importantly, there has not been civil war, yet we are seeing significant progress.

I'm going to do something I don't think I've ever done before, and that's agree with you twice in one post. As a matter of fact, I think there will come a point in time (hopefully when I'm long gone) when such a result will be necessary. We live in a society that is very uninformed of any of the important political matters in this country, so it's only natural to believe there will still be a considerable portion of the country that is unaware of the warning signs of tyranny. We see this throughout history. If a substantial number of unarmed U.S. citizens were to be killed, that would only raise public awareness [That's assuming, that among other things, nothing like SOPA is passed into law]. That would do a few things: 1. Instead of a small percentage (say 15-30% of the population) that are actively pursuing to prevent tyranny, that number would multiply at least twice over. 2. legitimize any possible aggression against those in power, 3. This would give the citizens leverage for a peaceful means of resolution

Tens of millions of citizens in protest, especially if there is a threat of armed resistance, would force the government to listen. I think it's also important to remember, the military also has family and friends that are civilian. I'm sure there are plenty of military that would be willing to bomb civilian targets, but there are also those that would potentially fight against tyranny. States like Texas would also almost assuredly join any possible fight.

Now look at Syria. The protestors shot back. Now we have something like 50,000 civilians dead, the "rebels" are scattered, and the government now has reason to be ruthlessly brutal with their population.

I'm unaware of anyone outside of maybe Alex Jones advocating violence. Even in that case, the violence would be a reaction to the government's attempt to disarm its citizens. That absolute worst thing that can happen is an act of aggression in the form of a mass shooting, bombing, or an assassination attempt by a gun rights enthusiast. Who needs to plan a false flag operation when your opposition initiates its own downfall?

So, with the primary argument being that we need the exact same weapons the military has to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannical government, is that really pragmatic? Even if we went to war with a dictator in 20 years, history shows that by shooting back, not only does the uprising almost always get put down . . .

At one point I said this, "even with the many guns that are currently in circulation, resistance (consisting mainly of ordinary citizens) would be an almost insurmountable challenge without a significant intervening force (a U.S. Military faction, local law enforcement, foreign troops, hackers). The difficulty in mounting resistance would vary proportionally according to the disparity in weapons technology (quantity and quality). Not that I'm suggesting every citizen should have the right to own a rocket-launcher".

But I also think if the **** ever did ever hit the fan, we would have some intervening force to help even the odds.

As a side note, I think that if the American people ever did fight back, it would be far different than any war ever fought. This is our home turf, but we certainly wouldn't have the advantage. From security cameras to security checkpoints, the technology is heavily in the government's favor. That's not even mentioning drones and other militarized technology. I think skilled hackers may be one of our better assets. Of course, the government also has their own programmers/hackers. Is it any wonder that the DOJ is focusing so much of its attention on "hacktivists"? Many of these hacktivists are getting significant prison time. Much more than what is deserved.

Fun little fact(s): Local law enforcement was going to let him off the hook since he returned everything he stole. The Feds then stepped in and took over the case, threatening Aaron Swartz with over 30 years prison time and over $4 million in fines. Helping a terrorist create a nuclear bomb only gets you 20 years in prison.

but history shows them as the wrong party in the conflict.

How can the oppressed be in the wrong?

This thread isn't about trusting the government. It's about realistically assessing the ability for a bunch of civilians to defeat the strongest military in the world. My point is if it came to that, the more effective route would be emulating MLK. The full force of the U.S. military would smash a rebellion. Which makes the most-oft used talking point for letting civilians have military grade weapons moot...

There are some things worth fighting, no matter the odds. The issue goes far beyond gun control.

Let me play a hypothetical situation: There is no 9/11, and as a result, the intrusive measures that are currently in place never happened. In other words, the Constitution is intact. In this scenario, I'd be a lot more receptive to some of the "common sense" gun laws.

However, since 9/11 did happen, and we are becoming an Orwellian/Huxley society, the government doesn't deserve our trust.

Its a discussion on the modern day practicality of an armed militia. The times have changed. There are much better arguments for gun ownership than taking on a tyrannical government.

And no, I dont place all my trust in the government, but I also dont believe that Im ever going to need to mount an armed rebellion against them either. If the American government truly decides to become a tyrannical state, its presumable that they have the military on their side. Once that happens, the gun I have dont matter.

If you had a knowledge of history, you would know that it is very relevant. If anything, it is more relevant today than it was back when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Guess who the most notorious mass murderers are throughout history? Government. Thousands of deaths pale in comparison to the quarter of a billion deaths over the last century.

[Breed]

I trust this government more than I trust most others. I'll say this, they haven't given me a reason not to trust them, yet.

What would it take for you to lose your trust?

I don't put any faith in conspiracy theories, ideologues, or partisans. Our resident Fox News-bots are suddenly ready to revolt because Glenn Beck told them to, not for any reason they could actually identify. In an ideal world, yes things would run differently. But we don't live in an ideal world. Pragmatically, I understand why various things are being done, even if I don't agree with them. Once things that I can't understand start happening, then I'll start to distrust the government. Until then, I stay vigilant as always, but I live my life without fear. I live in the city with one of the highest per-capita crime rates in the country. I have never owned a gun. I've had my car broken into a few times, but nothing else outside of that. You guys talk about home invasions as if its this daily occurrence. I've never had it happen, no one in my family has had it happen, and no one I personally know has had it happen. I'm not worried about it. Until I start doing things to invite unsavory people into my life, I have absolutely nothing to fear...

I don't watch Fox News, nor do I listen to Glenn Beck.

[tylerdolphin]

Then ignore the history of countless people including our own who accomplished such a feat.

A relatively small group of Spartans and assorted allies once blocked a path and successfully delayed a massive Persian army for a while. I doubt theyd have slowed down the 1st Armored Division.