patrick.net

SiO2 says

It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient.

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

thomaswong.1986 says

SiO2 says
It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient.

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

OK, let me amend my statement.

when facing an 18th-century army, muskets are sufficient. But when facing a 21st-century army, they would not be sufficient.

If handguns are sufficient in military actions, then why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars on airplanes and tanks, if we just need to go to the gun show and pick up some Glocks and AR15s?

thomaswong.1986 says

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

Read up on denial.

SiO2 says

thomaswong.1986 says

SiO2 says

It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient.

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

OK, let me amend my statement.

when facing an 18th-century army, muskets are sufficient. But when facing a 21st-century army, they would not be sufficient.

If handguns are sufficient in military actions, then why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars on airplanes and tanks, if we just need to go to the gun show and pick up some Glocks and AR15s?

If there was a full blown revolution or uprising:

1.) A huge number of the gun owners in the US are ex military. We are talking battle hardened dudes from enlisted to officer who understand military tactics and are experienced in combat.

2.) Every one of those dudes maintains contact with guys they used to work with. I know one dude who between him and the guys he knows and maintains active contact with, could assemble a 200 man guerilla force and be deep in the north eastern Nevada wilderness within a few hours. I'd bet it would not be long before that force would be around 500 people deep due to training wives and boys over 10 years old(and no I'm not joking).

3.) A very large number of US military divisions would turn on their government in quick order. Planes, tanks, artilery, guns.

4.) Have you not seen that Afghanistan armed resistence continues against the most powerful modern military on earth, 30 years after commencing combat with(at the time) the most powerful military on earth?

5.) Your deflection and straw man arguing against military spending is ridiculous.

Yeah, don't mess with dodgerfan - he knows a dude...

So, a lot of responses as to the feasibility of overthrowing the government with handguns. But again, if this is the point, and the 2nd amendment is to be read literally, then why not legalize ownership of every possible weapon?

also, I am interested in thoughts about my second question:
When does something cross the line from regular crime to fighting the tyrannical state? I think we can all agree that shooting schoolchildren is never warranted. But, if one really hates the IRS' "tyrannical confiscation" of wages, why not bomb the office? I read about a guy who bombed a school in the 1920s because he was unhappy about a property tax increase. Why wouldn't that be ok? When does such anti-government action become ok under the 2nd amendment?

maybe the decision point is based on who wins. USA won the Revolutionary War in 1776, therefore it was warranted. The South didn't win the Civil War, therefore it was not warranted. Timothy McVeigh didn't win his revolution, therefore it was not warranted.

Any other way to look at this?

By the way, I don't intend to draw moral equivalence between Timothy McVeigh and the revolutionary war.

SiO2 said: "When does something cross the line from regular crime to fighting the tyrannical state? I think we can all agree that shooting schoolchildren is never warranted. But, if one really hates the IRS' "tyrannical confiscation" of wages, why not bomb the office? I read about a guy who bombed a school in the 1920s because he was unhappy about a property tax increase. Why wouldn't that be ok? When does such anti-government action become ok under the 2nd amendment?"

The day a Declaration of Independence is signed. There's nothing ok about it. It simply happens. For better or worse. And it always happens. It's only a matter of time.

As suspected before the thread began, the new proposed gun control legislation asks law abiding gun owners to sign up with the national registry "or else". Now we need to to know what "or else" means, because many thousands of people will refuse to register or will under-register their arms because they do not accept the action of the federal government. This would mean that they do not find their elected officials are representing their interests any longer. They will rightly ask where in this law are you protecting my second amendment rights? How will the registry not be abused? And what will be done with the registry preemptively? If someone owns "too many" guns and has a son on antidepressants, where is the guarrantee that their 2nd amendment rights will be protected.

They will also argue that they could form "militias" for the purposes of defending their personal liberties.

It is foolish to have faith in the most powerful governmental entity in human history.

Ill tell you what comes next. Ma and Pa won't have to stare down a line of heavily armed marines in the street at high noon. The STATES will grow some balls and finally draw a line, because local governments answer directly to the people when the federal does not.

There is too much federal power. There is too much faith in Federal power. There is not enough fear of federal fiscal meddling. And too little language coming from the federal government that even pays lip-service to individual liberty over "the common good".