When was the last time...

[Locke]

No but they could drag us into a 10 year plus war . While totally draining many of our resources and funds fighting a war that will result with us leaving and them staying. In other words....DEFEAT. Empires have been defeated countless times throughout history by determined and outmatched people.

I'm going to have to disagree. 100% disagree. The reason the Taliban are doing OK is because it's their turf we're fighting on. They know where everything is. They are everywhere. The terrain doesn't lend well to the style of war the U.S. is willing to fight over there. It would be a different story completely if the full strength of our forces were sent into Afghanistan.

If there was a rebellion here, there are bases EVERYWHERE. The government knows this terrain well. In fact, they've already taken advantage of it with silos, bases, etc. Plus, your plan acts like they wouldn't be doing the same thing to the rebels. The difference being the government has it's hands in everything. You are thinking of examples of less technologically advanced societies being overthrown. Where could anyone possible hide here? It's a pipedream. Personally, I think it's a horrible excuse to keep guns that the average person has no reason to have. If it came down to it, all the AK-47s in the world won't do much against a few air strikes...

[GoFins!]

Peaceful protests are very powerful indeed, but looking at history they are the exception rather than the rule.

Some (much?) of the power of a peaceful protest lies in the civility of those being protested.

The Brits could not stomach killing millions of unarmed protestors. That has not always been the case in history.

[Dolphins9954]

I'm going to have to disagree. 100% disagree. The reason the Taliban are doing OK is because it's their turf we're fighting on. They know where everything is. They are everywhere. The terrain doesn't lend well to the style of war the U.S. is willing to fight over there. It would be a different story completely if the full strength of our forces were sent into Afghanistan.

If there was a rebellion here, there are bases EVERYWHERE. The government knows this terrain well. In fact, they've already taken advantage of it with silos, bases, etc. Plus, your plan acts like they wouldn't be doing the same thing to the rebels. The difference being the government has it's hands in everything. You are thinking of examples of less technologically advanced societies being overthrown. Where could anyone possible hide here? It's a pipedream. Personally, I think it's a horrible excuse to keep guns that the average person has no reason to have. If it came down to it, all the AK-47s in the world won't do much against a few air strikes...

First off the one thing you're ignoring are our own military personal that many would have plenty of problems with killing their own countrymen and in many cases families and friends. All the AK's in the world has resulted in our own superior military being dragged down into a 10 year plus war against people who still use horses. The Taliban is doing OK "because it's their turf we're fighting on". What turf will we be fighting on????

Do you trust this government with this power???

A government that feels our 4th and fifth amendment rights mean nothing with things like the Patriot Act, NDAA and the Drug War. A government that feels it can kill Americans without charges, even 16 year old children. A government that drops bombs on people who had nothing to do with 9-11 even women and children. A government that tortures and assassinates. A government controlled by banks, special interests and the military industrial complex. You really trust this gang????

Fact is Locke the biggest and the baddest empires have been defeated by simple people determined to win their freedom no matter the odds. Thinking this government won't abuse an un-armed populace is the true pipe dream.

[tylerdolphin]

Walk outside and look at your average American if you really want to kill your hope of there being an armed resistance in America.

[Locke]

First off the one thing you're ignoring are our own military personal that many would have plenty of problems with killing their own countrymen and in many cases families and friends. All the AK's in the world has resulted in our own superior military being dragged down into a 10 year plus war against people who still use horses. The Taliban is doing OK "because it's their turf we're fighting on". What turf will we be fighting on????

Do you trust this government with this power???

A government that feels our 4th and fifth amendment rights mean nothing with things like the Patriot Act, NDAA and the Drug War. A government that feels it can kill Americans without charges, even 16 year old children. A government that drops bombs on people who had nothing to do with 9-11 even women and children. A government that tortures and assassinates. A government controlled by banks, special interests and the military industrial complex. You really trust this gang????

Fact is Locke the biggest and the baddest empires have been defeated by simple people determined to win their freedom no matter the odds. Thinking this government won't abuse an un-armed populace is the true pipe dream.

There are no relevant examples to the U.S. The closest would be the Russian Revolution that Rob pointed out. Even then, Russia of the early 19th century is nowhere near as powerful as the U.S. is now. None of the examples you're thinking of would apply. Honestly, it's what you THINK would happen. And no soldier is going to let themselves be in harm's way without fighting back. So it some rebellion happened, it would be assumed that violence has already occurred. You think these soldiers aren't going to protect themselves simply because it's their countrymen? I didn't see any issues with that during the Civil War. If that's what you're hoping for, you'll be waiting for a while.

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...

[Dolphins9954]

There are no relevant examples to the U.S. The closest would be the Russian Revolution that Rob pointed out. Even then, Russia of the early 19th century is nowhere near as powerful as the U.S. is now. None of the examples you're thinking of would apply. Honestly, it's what you THINK would happen. And no soldier is going to let themselves be in harm's way without fighting back. So it some rebellion happened, it would be assumed that violence has already occurred. You think these soldiers aren't going to protect themselves simply because it's their countrymen? I didn't see any issues with that during the Civil War. If that's what you're hoping for, you'll be waiting for a while.

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...

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???

---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

Walk outside and look at your average American if you really want to kill your hope of there being an armed resistance in America.

Not a good enough excuse to trample the 2nd. The founders were totally in the minority when they accomplished their feat.

[tylerdolphin]

Not a good enough excuse to trample the 2nd. The founders were totally in the minority when they accomplished their feat.

I dont want to trample the 2nd. I think guns should be legal in some capacity for various reasons other than staging an armed rebellion.

[Dolphins9954]

I dont want to trample the 2nd. I think guns should be legal in some capacity for various reasons other than staging an armed rebellion.

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

What do you think that means???

Banning semi-autos (a right we've always had) is no different than banning things like anti-government speech or warrants for drug or terror suspects. It's a total infringement on rights we've always had.

Tell me do you trust this government???

[tylerdolphin]

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

What do you think that means???

Banning semi-autos (a right we've always had) is no different than banning things like anti-government speech or warrants for drug or terror suspects. It's a total infringement on rights we've always had.

Tell me do you trust this government???

How would banning semi-autos be constitutionally different than banning autos? Not saying they should be banned, but arguing that its the same as taking away free speech is a mighty bold statement considering the plethora of guns you arent allowed to own even today. Everything is legal until its not. Racial segregation and slavery used to be legal. Arguing that something has always been legal isnt a very strong point, IMO.

As far as the free state quote goes, nobody is denying that thats in the constitution. The argument in this thread isnt constitutional. 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.

[Dolphins9954]

How would banning semi-autos be constitutionally different than banning autos? Not saying they should be banned, but arguing that its the same as taking away free speech is a mighty bold statement considering the plethora of guns you arent allowed to own even today. Everything is legal until its not. Racial segregation and slavery used to be legal. Arguing that something has always been legal isnt a very strong point, IMO.

As far as the free state quote goes, nobody is denying that thats in the constitution. The argument in this thread isnt constitutional. 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.

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.