So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT
 

I believe in one very basic restriction that shouldn't ruffle to many feathers, though I've seen how bad some people can get. Nothing over minimum capacity magazines for any firearm (eg. 10 rounds for the AK-47 and AR-15 family, I can't specify pistols because their base ammo capacities are all over the place), other restrictions that exist already on firearms are just fine to me. What we really need to look at is are failing mental health system. Bring back the asylums so we can try to help people with mental illness that shouldn't be behind bars or in a normal hospital, we also need federal no sell lists available to gun dealers, and stricter regulations on who gets guns. for instance, I was thinking those with more than three assaults or other violent crime should be ineligible to serve in the country's militia and not allowed to own any firearm

the clockmaker:

It is not 'oh well it will probably fail' but that it will fail, any attempt bring it about will do immeasurably more harm than good and the people have neither the skills nor the will to attempt it in any case. It is not a fit justification for the possession of firearms as, in the real world, there are not possible positive outcomes to an armed uprising in the US. And again, constitutional rights means nothing to me as your constitution is just another piece of legislation.

I would argue that the fragility of the economy would force the government to capitulate on its tyrannical policies in an act of self-preservation.

lutefiskeater:
I believe in one very basic restriction that shouldn't ruffle to many feathers, though I've seen how bad some people can get. Nothing over minimum capacity magazines for any firearm (eg. 10 rounds for the AK-47 and AR-15 family, I can't specify pistols because their base ammo capacities are all over the place), other restrictions that exist already on firearms are just fine to me. What we really need to look at is are failing mental health system. Bring back the asylums so we can try to help people with mental illness that shouldn't be behind bars or in a normal hospital, we also need federal no sell lists available to gun dealers, and stricter regulations on who gets guns. for instance, I was thinking those with more than three assaults or other violent crime should be ineligible to serve in the country's militia and not allowed to own any firearm

Also no to this. Magazines take next to no time to switch out, and its not like time was really an issue in either the Aurora, or Newtown shootings (Those are the ones which I assume you are having knee-jerk reactions to,) and the "high-capacity" magazines are made solely for range convenience, and very often have issues with jamming. IIRC, in the case of the Aurora shooting, Holmes' AR15 jammed fairly early on, and he turned to his secondary weapon, a shotgun. In the case of Newtown, the shooter was changing his mags well before they were empty anyways, so your ban wouldn't have helped that either. But it's not my job to justify their legality to you, you have to tell me how banning magazines with more than 10 rounds would have any significant impact beyond inconveniencing law-abiding citizens.

Fooddude:

lutefiskeater:
I believe in one very basic restriction that shouldn't ruffle to many feathers, though I've seen how bad some people can get. Nothing over minimum capacity magazines for any firearm (eg. 10 rounds for the AK-47 and AR-15 family, I can't specify pistols because their base ammo capacities are all over the place), other restrictions that exist already on firearms are just fine to me. What we really need to look at is are failing mental health system. Bring back the asylums so we can try to help people with mental illness that shouldn't be behind bars or in a normal hospital, we also need federal no sell lists available to gun dealers, and stricter regulations on who gets guns. for instance, I was thinking those with more than three assaults or other violent crime should be ineligible to serve in the country's militia and not allowed to own any firearm

Also no to this. Magazines take next to no time to switch out, and its not like time was really an issue in either the Aurora, or Newtown shootings (Those are the ones which I assume you are having knee-jerk reactions to,) and the "high-capacity" magazines are made solely for range convenience, and very often have issues with jamming. IIRC, in the case of the Aurora shooting, Holmes' AR15 jammed fairly early on, and he turned to his secondary weapon, a shotgun. In the case of Newtown, the shooter was changing his mags well before they were empty anyways, so your ban wouldn't have helped that either. But it's not my job to justify their legality to you, you have to tell me how banning magazines with more than 10 rounds would have any significant impact beyond inconveniencing law-abiding citizens.

I don't see what the issue is with something as simple as that, and I'd like to know what the inconvenience of having to reload ten or twenty rounds earlier than usual but okay. So banning standard military capacity magazines is out of the question. What about banning high capacity magazines like 100 round drums and 50 round banana magazines? Or maybe special ammunition types such as hollow point rounds, which are manufactured specifically to kill a human target.
But again My main point is that we need a better mental health system than we do currently. Because now we have the mentally ill on the streets, behind bars, or undiagnosed. None of which are getting the help and treatment they need to be productive and law abiding members of society.

Fooddude:
But it's not my job to justify their legality to you, you have to tell me how banning magazines with more than 10 rounds would have any significant impact beyond inconveniencing law-abiding citizens.

How would that be an "inconvenience" if

Fooddude:

Magazines take next to no time to switch out...and the "high-capacity" magazines are made solely for range convenience, and very often have issues with jamming.

I mean, you basically said that the Aurora and Newton shooters wouldn't have been inconvenienced, and they actually had their mind set to unloading all those bullets, while I doubt many "law abiding citizens" would be inclined to do that, and would thus be even less inconvenienced...then again, those two guys were "law abiding citizens" right until they went and broke the law as well...

Fooddude:

the clockmaker:

It is not 'oh well it will probably fail' but that it will fail, any attempt bring it about will do immeasurably more harm than good and the people have neither the skills nor the will to attempt it in any case. It is not a fit justification for the possession of firearms as, in the real world, there are not possible positive outcomes to an armed uprising in the US. And again, constitutional rights means nothing to me as your constitution is just another piece of legislation.

I would argue that the fragility of the economy would force the government to capitulate on its tyrannical policies in an act of self-preservation.

lutefiskeater:
I believe in one very basic restriction that shouldn't ruffle to many feathers, though I've seen how bad some people can get. Nothing over minimum capacity magazines for any firearm (eg. 10 rounds for the AK-47 and AR-15 family, I can't specify pistols because their base ammo capacities are all over the place), other restrictions that exist already on firearms are just fine to me. What we really need to look at is are failing mental health system. Bring back the asylums so we can try to help people with mental illness that shouldn't be behind bars or in a normal hospital, we also need federal no sell lists available to gun dealers, and stricter regulations on who gets guns. for instance, I was thinking those with more than three assaults or other violent crime should be ineligible to serve in the country's militia and not allowed to own any firearm

Also no to this. Magazines take next to no time to switch out, and its not like time was really an issue in either the Aurora, or Newtown shootings (Those are the ones which I assume you are having knee-jerk reactions to,) and the "high-capacity" magazines are made solely for range convenience, and very often have issues with jamming. IIRC, in the case of the Aurora shooting, Holmes' AR15 jammed fairly early on, and he turned to his secondary weapon, a shotgun. In the case of Newtown, the shooter was changing his mags well before they were empty anyways, so your ban wouldn't have helped that either. But it's not my job to justify their legality to you, you have to tell me how banning magazines with more than 10 rounds would have any significant impact beyond inconveniencing law-abiding citizens.

If the government is moving into tyrannical policies, it is doing so for one of two reasons, ideological or pragmatic and in either case, if it has ceased to care about peaceful public opinion and the next election, it has already gone off the deep end.

If you are facing off against an ideologically motivated government they are likely to continue beyond what you would consider to be the reasonable point of self preservation as the spirit of the goal is more important than the methods or outcome. If, to use the most common example, the United states were to adopt Soviet style communism (not saying that they will or anything like that is going on, just an example) then any opposition will be seen to be 'evil' capitalists trying to make the rest of the nation suffer, and the government will carry on the fight anyway. This is a negative result to the outcome you wanted to achieve.

If you are facing off a government that is moving into tyrannical policies for pragmatic reasons, then they will, being people who get paid to chart the course of the nation, have removed any political opposition to achieve a goal (lets say, food rationing due to a wheat plague), in this instance, the goal that motivated the government to abandon its principles is going to be more important than the threat posed to the economy by any armed insurgents and so they will carry on the fight anyway. This is a negative result in the outcome you wanted to achieve.

If, however, probably through some deal with the devil, you manage to force the government into concessions of things that they were not going to grant anyway, the illusion of the national command authority fades away and they lose the ability to control the nation and to keep it coherent. This leads loss of faith in the economy and the collapse of the US. This is a negative outcome to what you wanted to achieve.

If your group, probably though the console commands of god himself, manages to topple the government of the US, the nation is left without a unifying national command authority and will fall to infighting over who gets to be in charge. this leads to the aforementioned 'Afghanistan' scenario and is a negative outcome to what you wanted to achieve.

If your group, probably through the console commands of god himself and a deal with the devil and a drunken one night stand with lady luck, you manage to topple the government of the US and supplant it with one that is suitable to your ideology, then the real fun begins. First off you will immediately have counter revolutionary elements attacking you and anyone they think supports you, probably covertly backed by whatever nation agrees with their particular brand of governance. Think Timor at its worst. Then, once that settles down, if you have not brutally and ironically managed to suppress any organised opposition, you get to have a nice discussion with the rest of the world over who the 'legitimate' government of the US is. Chances are this leads to some pretty harsh compromises with foreign powers as you will have to hand over quite a bit so they back you and not the other guy so, in at least the field of trade concessions, the US will have to become the collective bitch of half the planet to keep one solid government. Of course, during this time, the infrastructure of the nation has pretty much ceased to exist due to prolonged fighting and lack of organised maintenance. And of course, during this time the economy of the US and much of the world has ceased to exist leading to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths. And for the cherry on top, the US will probably have foreign peacekeepers on her soil for years, if not decades to come. This is a negative result to the outcome you wanted to achieve.

There is no situation in the real world where domestic armed resistance to the US government leads to a better endstate than inaction.

lutefiskeater:

fooddude:

lutefiskeater:
I believe in one very basic restriction that shouldn't ruffle to many feathers, though I've seen how bad some people can get. Nothing over minimum capacity magazines for any firearm (eg. 10 rounds for the AK-47 and AR-15 family, I can't specify pistols because their base ammo capacities are all over the place), other restrictions that exist already on firearms are just fine to me. What we really need to look at is are failing mental health system. Bring back the asylums so we can try to help people with mental illness that shouldn't be behind bars or in a normal hospital, we also need federal no sell lists available to gun dealers, and stricter regulations on who gets guns. for instance, I was thinking those with more than three assaults or other violent crime should be ineligible to serve in the country's militia and not allowed to own any firearm

Also no to this. Magazines take next to no time to switch out, and its not like time was really an issue in either the Aurora, or Newtown shootings (Those are the ones which I assume you are having knee-jerk reactions to,) and the "high-capacity" magazines are made solely for range convenience, and very often have issues with jamming. IIRC, in the case of the Aurora shooting, Holmes' AR15 jammed fairly early on, and he turned to his secondary weapon, a shotgun. In the case of Newtown, the shooter was changing his mags well before they were empty anyways, so your ban wouldn't have helped that either. But it's not my job to justify their legality to you, you have to tell me how banning magazines with more than 10 rounds would have any significant impact beyond inconveniencing law-abiding citizens.

I don't see what the issue is with something as simple as that, and I'd like to know what the inconvenience of having to reload ten or twenty rounds earlier than usual but okay. So banning standard military capacity magazines is out of the question. What about banning high capacity magazines like 100 round drums and 50 round banana magazines? Or maybe special ammunition types such as hollow point rounds, which are manufactured specifically to kill a human target.
But again My main point is that we need a better mental health system than we do currently. Because now we have the mentally ill on the streets, behind bars, or undiagnosed. None of which are getting the help and treatment they need to be productive and law abiding members of society.

Handguns in general are designed to kill human targets. If anything, I think hollow point rounds should be encouraged, because they do maximum damage to the target, and rarely overpenetrate, making them the ideal defensive round. And I don't think banning comically large magazines will help either. The only time I can recall them actually being used in a fairly large crime was the Hollywood Shootout. If you don't recall, the shootout ended because the excessively large magazines caused the guns to jam. Additionally, there are millions of those devices in circulation today, and since it's illegal to pass a law confiscating them, all you would do is disallow their usage by law-abiding citizens.

the clockmaker:

Snip

There is something to be said of preventionism, I believe.

Fooddude:

Handguns in general are designed to kill human targets. If anything, I think hollow point rounds should be encouraged, because they do maximum damage to the target, and rarely overpenetrate, making them the ideal defensive round. And I don't think banning comically large magazines will help either. The only time I can recall them actually being used in a fairly large crime was the Hollywood Shootout. If you don't recall, the shootout ended because the excessively large magazines caused the guns to jam. Additionally, there are millions of those devices in circulation today, and since it's illegal to pass a law confiscating them, all you would do is disallow their usage by law-abiding citizens.

Come on bro work with me here! What about the no buy lists I mentioned earlier, and violent criminal records or a history of severe mental illness affecting placement on said list. It shouldn't be too hard and should make it much easier.

Vegosiux:

I mean, you basically said that the Aurora and Newton shooters wouldn't have been inconvenienced, and they actually had their mind set to unloading all those bullets, while I doubt many "law abiding citizens" would be inclined to do that, and would thus be even less inconvenienced...then again, those two guys were "law abiding citizens" right until they went and broke the law as well...

BTW seconded.

Fooddude:

There is something to be said of preventionism, I believe.

Sorry, please define what you mean by preventionism because from what I can see, under any circumstances where your weapons are not needed, they are harmful, and under any circumstances where they are, they will do more harm than good.

You have not shown in any way how your possession of firearm prevents any tyranny from the government and from what i can see you simply seem to be in love with the idea of heroic resistance against the faceless other.

the clockmaker:

Sorry, please define what you mean by preventionism because from what I can see, under any circumstances where your weapons are not needed, they are harmful, and under any circumstances where they are, they will do more harm than good.

You have not shown in any way how your possession of firearm prevents any tyranny from the government and from what i can see you simply seem to be in love with the idea of heroic resistance against the faceless other.

Fooddude:
snip

To be frank the second amendment is for a well maintained militia to defend from foreign invasion, not from the United States government. But your words do hold a lot of truth. I too believe in greater firearm restriction, mainly because I don't think civilians should own rifles originally created for [b]warfare.[b] Yeah they're awesome, but lets only have them available at ranges and have only bolt action hunting rifles ready for public consumption. Of course this would never fly because America is a democracy and there needs to be compromise. Whether it be through restrictions on ammunition or magazine size or just to make firearms a bit less sexy in the media, we have to follow other well established countries and follow their weapons laws. Because unless there is a ludicrous amount of psychopaths in the US compared to Europe, the stats show gun laws and a good mental health system work, yet many of us still believe otherwise.

the clockmaker:

Fooddude:

There is something to be said of preventionism, I believe.

Sorry, please define what you mean by preventionism because from what I can see, under any circumstances where your weapons are not needed, they are harmful, and under any circumstances where they are, they will do more harm than good.

You have not shown in any way how your possession of firearm prevents any tyranny from the government and from what i can see you simply seem to be in love with the idea of heroic resistance against the faceless other.

The point is, weapons might come in handy later down the road, and in the mean time they are really fun, and the vast majority are never used in any crimes at all. Not to go astray, but I've seen what's happened in the U.K. after firearms were largely prohibited. Violent crime exploded. You're five times as likely to get mugged in the U.K. as you are in America. That's really not something I want. Not to mention, in both your country, and the U.K., you're isolated for the most part from other landmasses. We have an enormous southern border that we can't even keep people from crossing illegally, there's no way we could prevent the illegal transit of guns short of just building a huge wall.

lutefiskeater:

the clockmaker:

Sorry, please define what you mean by preventionism because from what I can see, under any circumstances where your weapons are not needed, they are harmful, and under any circumstances where they are, they will do more harm than good.

You have not shown in any way how your possession of firearm prevents any tyranny from the government and from what i can see you simply seem to be in love with the idea of heroic resistance against the faceless other.

Fooddude:
snip

To be frank the second amendment is for a well maintained militia to defend from foreign invasion, not from the United States government. But your words do hold a lot of truth. I too believe in greater firearm restriction, mainly because I don't think civilians should own rifles originally created for [b]warfare.[b] Yeah they're awesome, but lets only have them available at ranges and have only bolt action hunting rifles ready for public consumption. Of course this would never fly because America is a democracy and there needs to be compromise. Whether it be through restrictions on ammunition or magazine size or just to make firearms a bit less sexy in the media, we have to follow other well established countries and follow their weapons laws. Because unless there is a ludicrous amount of psychopaths in the US compared to Europe, the stats show gun laws and a good mental health system work, yet many of us still believe otherwise.

No one's doubting a mental health overhaul is long-overdue. I don't see why we have to couple that with vastly restricting the firearms available for civilians. And don't call it compromise, because compromise implies gun owners benefit from it in some way. Think of it more like this:
I have a cake, it's delicious, and it says "Gun Rights" on it in pretty red frosting.
Suddenly, someone comes up and says "Give me half that cake." I say "What do I get in return?" To which the man says "You get to keep the other half of the cake."
Call this the National Firearms Act.
Later, as I'm basking in my cake's brilliance, the same man comes up, and once again demands half of my cake. "What do I get in return?" I ask again. "You get to keep half your cake." So I hand it over.
Call this the Gun Control Act.
Fast forward through the Clinton Executive Orders, and now I'm left with just a couple pieces of my once glorious cake, and now the person is back, and he wants almost all of the rest of my cake.

The point is this: Me, and probably most other gun owners would be open to compromise, if that's what it was. But no matter what concessions we make, someone will still come back twenty years later and ask for more, saying things like "Why can't you just meet us half way?" and "Think of the children!"

lutefiskeater:

Come on bro work with me here! What about the no buy lists I mentioned earlier, and violent criminal records or a history of severe mental illness affecting placement on said list. It shouldn't be too hard and should make it much easier.

Once again, the Sandy Hook gunman was denied purchase of a firearm and stole the weapons he used in the murder of his mother which he then brought to massacre a school.

The capacity regulation is also nonsense. What's the aim? To regulate mass murderers? Lowering the kill-per-minute ratio? What a great idea. Give the victims a little bit of a breather to think about their loved ones, let the gunman take a moment to enjoy what he's doing for the ten seconds he needs to reload.

Hmm, well, any more than 10 murders at a time, yeah that's too much. That's a bastard argument. Give the maniac 100-round drums, if just ONE person in the vicinity has a gun it won't matter.

lutefiskeater:

To be frank the second amendment is for a well maintained militia to defend from foreign invasion, not from the United States government.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"Security of a free State" does not discriminate where the threat is coming from. The second half defines the rights of the people to retain arms, which is also indiscriminately stated, and one can imply how the two may be related, but are not explicitly linked.

Any time someone talks about the "intent" of the second amendment, it's very easy to tell who is interpreting their own understanding and who is actually reading the Constitution. Yes, it can mean protection against a tyrannical central power, but the teeth of the amendment is to preserve freedom and ensure people can be armed and impose a general limit on the central power to do exactly what it is doing right now.

There's absolutely nothing saying that a citizen and a soldier cannot have the same arms, we've just gone down a slippery slope of what is a "reasonable restriction". Citizens don't need tanks, ICBMs, JDAM or fragmentation grenades. These are reasonable restrictions. Other small arms, such as a rifle, are basic.

lutefiskeater:
I don't see what the issue is with something as simple as that, and I'd like to know what the inconvenience of having to reload ten or twenty rounds earlier than usual but okay.

That is not the main issue. Most people never load their magazines to full capacity because it is bad for the spring. Also, remember physics 101, it is easier to compress a spring over the first half of its travel than over the second half. Most competitions are centered around 10 fired rounds. I use a 20-30 round magazine and I can easily load 10 rounds. 10 rounds in a 10 round magazine and I usually need a mag loader for the last few.

What about banning high capacity magazines like 100 round drums and 50 round banana magazines?

Why? They are never used in crime. If anything, you should WANT criminals to use those magazines. Why? Because they do not work very well. Almost universally those kinds of magazines have feeding problems that cause the firearm to jam.

Or maybe special ammunition types such as hollow point rounds, which are manufactured specifically to kill a human target.

They are not manufactured specifically to kill a target. They are manufactured specifically to not overpenetrate. In other words it is for safety reasons that people use them.

But again My main point is that we need a better mental health system than we do currently. Because now we have the mentally ill on the streets, behind bars, or undiagnosed. None of which are getting the help and treatment they need to be productive and law abiding members of society.

Agreed.

Fooddude:
Snip

Do not dodge the point, do you admit that you were wrong in thinking that personal firearms would be useful in preventing government oppression or not?

Blablahb:

farson135:
It is not murder, it is self defense.

That's just your dogmatic idea, and not fact. If you take the life of someone who is not a mortal threat to you (no, nicking your telly won't kill you) is murder, plain and simple.

So you show how you're an excellent argument of why guns need to be banned: You pretend you need it for the farm, but in the meantime you're planning to kill whomever you don't like. People like you are the ones who cause a lot of gun violence. Not just the purposely planned murders that you claim are 'self-defense', but what if you're ever in an emotionally distressing situation while sitting on that big arsenal?

Statistics tell us what will happen: Your wife ends up shot dead, or your kids, or both, or that neighbour who kept looking at you funny, or all the kids at the local highschool. That's what gun ownership enables.

So stop gun ownership, stop those crimes, and everybody is a lot safer.

Gergar12:
Do you have any proof. Maybe some serial killers says darn I can't belive I had 20 less bullets per clip that I was too lazy to to run after, and gun down eople who an after I reloaded for half a second would be good enough proof.

This has been mentioned at least five times in various firearms related topics recently, so there's no way you missed all of that. But I'll repeat it anyway. Two examples of instance are Rudolf Käsebier and Kim de Gelder. Both were completely deranged spree wannabe-killers.

Rudolf K. went on a crazy stabbing spree in a town centre. Stabbing spree, because the Netherlands has a firearms ban. Three people were lightly injured, one of whom only sustained minor cuts to his hands because he happened to wear a leather jacket.

Kim de Gelder is a vengeance-on-society killer who trained for months for his killing spree, practising knife techniques. Again, knives, because Belgium has strict gun laws. He targeted a kindergarten, but had to forego his original target because there were three men chatting outside it, and three men would easily overpower a spree killer with a knife. At his secondary target he attacked babies and small children as well as staff. Despite his training, the death toll remained at three and twelve injuries.

If either of the two had had firearms, it would've been a massacre of unheard of proportions.

Gergar12:
Hey while we are at it let ban ropes since that would mean less sucides

Actually I slapped you around the head earlier with Belgian statistics which proved that a ban gun leads to much fewer suicides. The Belgian rate was cut in half in just 6 years.

Even if you're being purposely obtuse, we just keep running into good arguments for a gun ban...

Actions tell more than words. You said people like me EVERYONE that has a big gun COLLECTION wants to kill someone with a gun when they are mad, and would do it. Bull-crap. If what you said is true almost every gun owner would have murder someone. And I guess you forgot end gun ownership you still have guns. Not legal guns but nevertheless dangerous guns. People who have guns could have them for a great many reasons. If some place feels unsafe they get a gun(Home Robberies etc), If some wants to hunt dear they get a gun because bears also hunt dears, and no we can't make animals extinct nor can we pull people away from being able to live there just so we can't have guns, people in wildlife areas can live there. People collect guns too just like people who collect baseball cards, or vintage cars, or 1st edition books, and making them useless, and unable to shoot will be like taking out the pages of first edition books people collect or the motors of vintage cars people collect.

farson135:

lutefiskeater:
I don't see what the issue is with something as simple as that, and I'd like to know what the inconvenience of having to reload ten or twenty rounds earlier than usual but okay.

That is not the main issue. Most people never load their magazines to full capacity because it is bad for the spring. Also, remember physics 101, it is easier to compress a spring over the first half of its travel than over the second half. Most competitions are centered around 10 fired rounds. I use a 20-30 round magazine and I can easily load 10 rounds. 10 rounds in a 10 round magazine and I usually need a mag loader for the last few.

What about banning high capacity magazines like 100 round drums and 50 round banana magazines?

Why? They are never used in crime. If anything, you should WANT criminals to use those magazines. Why? Because they do not work very well. Almost universally those kinds of magazines have feeding problems that cause the firearm to jam.

Or maybe special ammunition types such as hollow point rounds, which are manufactured specifically to kill a human target.

They are not manufactured specifically to kill a target. They are manufactured specifically to not overpenetrate. In other words it is for safety reasons that people use them.

But again My main point is that we need a better mental health system than we do currently. Because now we have the mentally ill on the streets, behind bars, or undiagnosed. None of which are getting the help and treatment they need to be productive and law abiding members of society.

Agreed.

They were used in the 1997 shootout along with a hk rifle, but no one got killed. Beta C mag ar-15, and no one got killed. Automatic fire, and no one got killed. 5.56 rounds used by the militarty, and automatic Ak 47, and no one got killed. Ironic right. Heck people may even aim more using 10 rounds, and it's easier to control in semti fire vs auto.

the clockmaker:

Fooddude:
Snip

Do not dodge the point, do you admit that you were wrong in thinking that personal firearms would be useful in preventing government oppression or not?

I do think they'd be useful. Would I recommend shooting up a government building because your guy didn't get into office? No. But if the country has completely abandoned the principles it was established upon, and if the government has utterly failed its people, then I would advocate revolution.
Could an armed revolution work today? I don't know, but I certainly don't think it's as hopeless as you make it out to be, and its certainly better than the alternative, which would presumably be to roll over and take it.

Fooddude:
I do think they'd be useful. Would I recommend shooting up a government building because your guy didn't get into office? No. But if the country has completely abandoned the principles it was established upon, and if the government has utterly failed its people, then I would advocate revolution.
Could an armed revolution work today? I don't know, but I certainly don't think it's as hopeless as you make it out to be, and its certainly better than the alternative, which would presumably be to roll over and take it.

I have shown repeatedly how an armed revolution would be worse than peaceful opposition and advocacy in a first world nation whereas you have done nothing but repeat yourself that there is hope that it would work. If you believe that, then fucking back it up please, show something other than you just saying that it could work.

My contention is that there is no way on god's green earth that an armed rebellion against the US government could work, if you want to know why, read the fuck over the half dozen times I have explained it, I am open to the idea that I am wrong, but just show something to back yourself up.

Furthermore, who gets to decide when it is time for a revolution, because all that differentiates you from the mad bastards who camp out in the hill and claim to be the sovereign republic of Anytown USA is timing.

the clockmaker:

Fooddude:
I do think they'd be useful. Would I recommend shooting up a government building because your guy didn't get into office? No. But if the country has completely abandoned the principles it was established upon, and if the government has utterly failed its people, then I would advocate revolution.
Could an armed revolution work today? I don't know, but I certainly don't think it's as hopeless as you make it out to be, and its certainly better than the alternative, which would presumably be to roll over and take it.

I have shown repeatedly how an armed revolution would be worse than peaceful opposition and advocacy in a first world nation whereas you have done nothing but repeat yourself that there is hope that it would work. If you believe that, then fucking back it up please, show something other than you just saying that it could work.

My contention is that there is no way on god's green earth that an armed rebellion against the US government could work, if you want to know why, read the fuck over the half dozen times I have explained it, I am open to the idea that I am wrong, but just show something to back yourself up.

Furthermore, who gets to decide when it is time for a revolution, because all that differentiates you from the mad bastards who camp out in the hill and claim to be the sovereign republic of Anytown USA is timing.

The Iraq War.

When faced with a clear enemy who went out in the open to fight, we wiped the enemies army clean in mere weeks. However, the war dragged on because of various insurgents, tribes, and other groups all went down and opposed the new Iraq government and the US military that supported it.

Most military doctrines and equipment were designed during the Cold War. We were preparing to be able to wipe out an army that can before us. People using extremely low tech equipment, in places where any corner a person with a gun is ready to shoot you, blowing up trucks and building weapons in caves, that is what caused the war to drag on and on, becoming more unpopular and costing billions upon billions of dollars. The point of such a rebellion or a revolution would realistically not be to win, but to make it SO unpopular and SO expensive that the larger side is forced to withdraw because of political pressure. Is their anyway an armed rebellion could win in a straight, fair fight against the US government? No, of course not. But people could fight, fight long and hard, making the US government looking more like the oppressive totalitarian state that the rebellion says it is, bringing in international pressure to cut the crap.

the clockmaker:

Fooddude:
I do think they'd be useful. Would I recommend shooting up a government building because your guy didn't get into office? No. But if the country has completely abandoned the principles it was established upon, and if the government has utterly failed its people, then I would advocate revolution.
Could an armed revolution work today? I don't know, but I certainly don't think it's as hopeless as you make it out to be, and its certainly better than the alternative, which would presumably be to roll over and take it.

I have shown repeatedly how an armed revolution would be worse than peaceful opposition and advocacy in a first world nation whereas you have done nothing but repeat yourself that there is hope that it would work. If you believe that, then fucking back it up please, show something other than you just saying that it could work.

My contention is that there is no way on god's green earth that an armed rebellion against the US government could work, if you want to know why, read the fuck over the half dozen times I have explained it, I am open to the idea that I am wrong, but just show something to back yourself up.

Furthermore, who gets to decide when it is time for a revolution, because all that differentiates you from the mad bastards who camp out in the hill and claim to be the sovereign republic of Anytown USA is timing.

Well its clear you are not an American as you dont have any understanding of the country. If it was an armed populace vs :
federal government
state governments
army
navy
air foce
national guard
and Federal agencies

yea it would be pretty one sided, but that is a very MAJOR assumption. In all likelyhood the two sides will not be so clear and cut. Not to mention if the federal government starts tearing up rights, especially in an extremely unpopular way, our own military might step in and kick the government's ass (the upper echelon of the military might not, but they will have a very hard time keeping control over their own rank and file forces. A general is not very powerful without an army). There is also the possibility of a civil war.

In all likelyhood, if there was an uprising, it will be very VERY confusing on which side is which.

an armed populace probably can not stop a tyranical government by itself, however it is still a potentially useful tool against it.

Oh, and our military has more respect as an establishment from the populace than the federal government/politicians do from the populace, so if the people had to decide between the two of them it would be bad news for the government.

the clockmaker:

Fooddude:
I do think they'd be useful. Would I recommend shooting up a government building because your guy didn't get into office? No. But if the country has completely abandoned the principles it was established upon, and if the government has utterly failed its people, then I would advocate revolution.
Could an armed revolution work today? I don't know, but I certainly don't think it's as hopeless as you make it out to be, and its certainly better than the alternative, which would presumably be to roll over and take it.

I have shown repeatedly how an armed revolution would be worse than peaceful opposition and advocacy in a first world nation whereas you have done nothing but repeat yourself that there is hope that it would work. If you believe that, then fucking back it up please, show something other than you just saying that it could work.

My contention is that there is no way on god's green earth that an armed rebellion against the US government could work, if you want to know why, read the fuck over the half dozen times I have explained it, I am open to the idea that I am wrong, but just show something to back yourself up.

Furthermore, who gets to decide when it is time for a revolution, because all that differentiates you from the mad bastards who camp out in the hill and claim to be the sovereign republic of Anytown USA is timing.

If I might suggest, there is another possibility to your little make-believe 'scenarios' that does lead to an ultimate positive for the revolutionaries: Political assassination as a tool of countering oppression. Consider Afghanistan. Can they send armed gunmen to wander around Virginia shooting U.S. Senators or leading politicians? I think not. Yet a U.S.-based insurgency would be quite able to intimidate local political forces.

A better metaphor for your situation in the Afghanistan situation is between Hamid Karzai (who, it should be noted, is basically having his battles fought for by the best conventional army in the world) and the local guerilla fighters, who have nearly toppled his regime multiple times over. Why? Because they have both the aid of the locals, and the ability to affect local political leaders.

In addition, it depends on what you term an end benefit. Most likely, if there was to be a large-scale rebellion in the United States, it would be against government interventionism on a federal level. What you say, with the federal government basically becoming utterly vanquished and weakened, is the -best case scenario- for situations like that. And to be honest? The United States has weathered that particular storm, and done so quite handily in the form of the original Articles of Confederation. Ultimately, it would be a shift from federalism to a confederacy, in a presumed hypothetical scenario.

Oh, and you're drastically underestimating the fact that the entire military swears an oath, not to the political officeholders, but to the Constitution of the United States. So don't expect the military to be signing on with this. To be generous, I'd say a 50/50 split (and that's being generous to the pro-government side; the military is a notoriously pro-Republican, anti-government organization, believe it or not).

Just some clarification, and my own particular opinions.

Edit: And, to go with this, private ownership of firearms would allow the first stages of resistance. After all, the Afghan militias are using weapons that go back to World War 1, and have been fighting us effectively for -over a decade-. The average American arsenal evens that up even moreso, adding in to the fact that a lot of Americans have firearms, hunting, survival, or military training. You have one ex-military guy, most likely you're not dealing with just him, but you've got his wife, his son, his daughter, his sister in law, etc, etc to contend with. All most likely familiar with firearms and how to fight in the local terrain.

Again. Just saying, you're underestimating the average American civilian.

Not G. Ivingname:

The Iraq War.

When faced with a clear enemy who went out in the open to fight, we wiped the enemies army clean in mere weeks. However, the war dragged on because of various insurgents, tribes, and other groups all went down and opposed the new Iraq government and the US military that supported it.

Most military doctrines and equipment were designed during the Cold War. We were preparing to be able to wipe out an army that can before us. People using extremely low tech equipment, in places where any corner a person with a gun is ready to shoot you, blowing up trucks and building weapons in caves, that is what caused the war to drag on and on, becoming more unpopular and costing billions upon billions of dollars. The point of such a rebellion or a revolution would realistically not be to win, but to make it SO unpopular and SO expensive that the larger side is forced to withdraw because of political pressure. Is their anyway an armed rebellion could win in a straight, fair fight against the US government? No, of course not. But people could fight, fight long and hard, making the US government looking more like the oppressive totalitarian state that the rebellion says it is, bringing in international pressure to cut the crap.

Reasons that effects observed during the Iraq war are not useful in determining the outcome of armed rebellion in the US
1- Iraqi culture is substantially different from American, it must be remembered that these are people who were used to defeat, used to deprivation and used to absorbing casualties (iran/iraq war, first gulf war). This led to people more willing to absorb high level's of casualties in order to achieve their goal.

2- The insurgents failed in Iraq, their version of government never arose, the US installed version is as firm as any in the region and the government is still along more secular lines than Iran (one of the backers of and models for the insurgency)

3- The insurgency lead to a prolonging of the conflict and thousands of deaths, not to mention massive damage to infrastructure. It does not matter where the blame lies with this, only that had the insurgents not conducted their operations, it would have been a net positive for their country.

4- The Insurgents were attempting to achieve a different goal than an armed US rebellion would be, in that the Insurgents were seeking a 'strong man' type government headed by the leader of the particular organisation that they belonged to. Such a model has a reasonable chance of success in the wake of an armed insurrection due to the fact that has a clear chain of command ready to take the reins. In the US, an insurrection that sought to 'restore democracy' in the US would be less likely to succeed due to a collapse of the political system, doubts over the legitimacy of the new ruling power and a lack of clear leadership.

5-The Coalition forces were seen as a positive element by some iraqis and a negative by others, but they were uniformly seen as 'outsiders' in that they were a foreign element imposing itself upon the nation. In the US, roughly half of the nation is going to be at least vaguely in favor of the government's action and as such, the 'populist element' is likely to have just as many pro-government militias as anti-government militias. (think timor just after the referendum)

6- One of the key factors coalition issues in the middle east is a lack of understanding and a clash of cultures. If the US military is operating in its own turf, it will not have those issues.

7- When the Coalition arrived in Iraq, they did not know the territory all that well and had to construct their own facilities on site, an issue that will not occur in a domestic rebellion scenario

8- The US government is the world's largest debtor, and that fact is something that keep's the entire world's economy going, in the event of armed rebellion the nations of the world will quite happily look the other way to ensure their economic security (see china's human rights record, and Saudi arabia's and India's heavy handed response to insurgents and any one of the dozens of other nations that get a free pass due to it not being convenient to oppose them at this time)

9- The initial insurgency was focused around Baathist loyalists, who wished to see a restoration of Sadam's government, however, they faded quite quickly and that was due to the fact that it really lacked a key unifying factor. This is why the Islamic insurgencies have more staying power, they provide an easily understood motivation and enemy.

10- First off, the doctrine of 'shock and awe' does not actually come from the cold war and secondly, western doctrine has been constantly developing over the past decade or so to improve counter insurgency methodology and technology. The current gearing of the military is not to fight soviets, but to fight insurgents.

11- A successful insurgency is dependent on making holding onto territory more trouble than it is worth, if the goal of an insurgency is to remove their own government, than the government has just as much to lose as the insurgents do and one of the key advantages of an insurgency is lost.

12- As alluded to earlier, the people of the US are not ready to absorb the hundreds of thousands of domestic casualties that a rebellion like this would cause. Quite frankly, I find the idea that the people of any first world nation are able to switch over to 'fight long and hard' after living their lives in comfort for generations laughable and likely the result of watching too much red dawn.

So no, the Iraq war is relevant only as a contrast in the differing natures of these potential insurgencies, not as a positive example of how your 'revolution' could turn out. In addition, I would like to direct you to previous posts that I have made in this thread regarding the state of the US after the rebellion, and why they would be better off not taking up arms.

the clockmaker:

Not G. Ivingname:

The Iraq War.

When faced with a clear enemy who went out in the open to fight, we wiped the enemies army clean in mere weeks. However, the war dragged on because of various insurgents, tribes, and other groups all went down and opposed the new Iraq government and the US military that supported it.

Most military doctrines and equipment were designed during the Cold War. We were preparing to be able to wipe out an army that can before us. People using extremely low tech equipment, in places where any corner a person with a gun is ready to shoot you, blowing up trucks and building weapons in caves, that is what caused the war to drag on and on, becoming more unpopular and costing billions upon billions of dollars. The point of such a rebellion or a revolution would realistically not be to win, but to make it SO unpopular and SO expensive that the larger side is forced to withdraw because of political pressure. Is their anyway an armed rebellion could win in a straight, fair fight against the US government? No, of course not. But people could fight, fight long and hard, making the US government looking more like the oppressive totalitarian state that the rebellion says it is, bringing in international pressure to cut the crap.

Reasons that effects observed during the Iraq war are not useful in determining the outcome of armed rebellion in the US
1- Iraqi culture is substantially different from American, it must be remembered that these are people who were used to defeat, used to deprivation and used to absorbing casualties (iran/iraq war, first gulf war). This led to people more willing to absorb high level's of casualties in order to achieve their goal.

2- The insurgents failed in Iraq, their version of government never arose, the US installed version is as firm as any in the region and the government is still along more secular lines than Iran (one of the backers of and models for the insurgency)

3- The insurgency lead to a prolonging of the conflict and thousands of deaths, not to mention massive damage to infrastructure. It does not matter where the blame lies with this, only that had the insurgents not conducted their operations, it would have been a net positive for their country.

4- The Insurgents were attempting to achieve a different goal than an armed US rebellion would be, in that the Insurgents were seeking a 'strong man' type government headed by the leader of the particular organisation that they belonged to. Such a model has a reasonable chance of success in the wake of an armed insurrection due to the fact that has a clear chain of command ready to take the reins. In the US, an insurrection that sought to 'restore democracy' in the US would be less likely to succeed due to a collapse of the political system, doubts over the legitimacy of the new ruling power and a lack of clear leadership.

5-The Coalition forces were seen as a positive element by some iraqis and a negative by others, but they were uniformly seen as 'outsiders' in that they were a foreign element imposing itself upon the nation. In the US, roughly half of the nation is going to be at least vaguely in favor of the government's action and as such, the 'populist element' is likely to have just as many pro-government militias as anti-government militias. (think timor just after the referendum)

6- One of the key factors coalition issues in the middle east is a lack of understanding and a clash of cultures. If the US military is operating in its own turf, it will not have those issues.

7- When the Coalition arrived in Iraq, they did not know the territory all that well and had to construct their own facilities on site, an issue that will not occur in a domestic rebellion scenario

8- The US government is the world's largest debtor, and that fact is something that keep's the entire world's economy going, in the event of armed rebellion the nations of the world will quite happily look the other way to ensure their economic security (see china's human rights record, and Saudi arabia's and India's heavy handed response to insurgents and any one of the dozens of other nations that get a free pass due to it not being convenient to oppose them at this time)

9- The initial insurgency was focused around Baathist loyalists, who wished to see a restoration of Sadam's government, however, they faded quite quickly and that was due to the fact that it really lacked a key unifying factor. This is why the Islamic insurgencies have more staying power, they provide an easily understood motivation and enemy.

10- First off, the doctrine of 'shock and awe' does not actually come from the cold war and secondly, western doctrine has been constantly developing over the past decade or so to improve counter insurgency methodology and technology. The current gearing of the military is not to fight soviets, but to fight insurgents.

11- A successful insurgency is dependent on making holding onto territory more trouble than it is worth, if the goal of an insurgency is to remove their own government, than the government has just as much to lose as the insurgents do and one of the key advantages of an insurgency is lost.

12- As alluded to earlier, the people of the US are not ready to absorb the hundreds of thousands of domestic casualties that a rebellion like this would cause. Quite frankly, I find the idea that the people of any first world nation are able to switch over to 'fight long and hard' after living their lives in comfort for generations laughable and likely the result of watching too much red dawn.

So no, the Iraq war is relevant only as a contrast in the differing natures of these potential insurgencies, not as a positive example of how your 'revolution' could turn out. In addition, I would like to direct you to previous posts that I have made in this thread regarding the state of the US after the rebellion, and why they would be better off not taking up arms.

Things to consider:
-Rebels would likely have at least partial military support.
-The government would lose most, if not all public support if it racked up numbers of civilian casualties approaching those in Iraq.
-The threat of economic collapse would work in favor of the rebels. Earlier, you said the government would either be motivated by idealistic, or pragmatic views. I'm not expecting the government to immediately become comprised of fanatically dedicated tyrants. If I had to predict how such a scenario might come to be, I'd guess it would be more along the lines of creeping Fascism, wherein the government slowly erodes the peoples' freedom until a breaking point is reached. Again, I'm not advocating joining la Revolucion at the first sign of trouble. I actively encourage people to contact their congressmen, sit in on chamber meetings, organize peaceful protests, but having the ability to forcibly defend your freedoms is an option which I feel should still be on the table.
Back on the topic of a successful revolution, don't think about Iraq. That was a subpar example. Think more along the lines of The Troubles (Except, ideally, without all the car bombs and civilian deaths.) An armed and trained coalition with a vested interest in not just bombing the shit out of the civilian population found it nearly impossible to placate the rebellious elements. I'm not in any way condoning the IRA, I think they were, for the most part, assholes. However, they did show that a fairly small group of armed insurgents can prove more than a match for a much larger, much better equipped foe.

Ryotknife:
snip

Actually, I don't think much of what I have said is based on strength of arms, most of what I have said is based on a few key factors,
1- That due to the divisive nature of US politics, a truly popular uprising is far less likely than scattered 'bushfire' uprisings and as such pro-government militias are just as likely as anti-government militias.
2- Due to the likely scattered and disorganised nature of the insurgency, it will be very easy to paint them as just another group of domestic terrorists or mountain man-militia nutbags. Indeed many of the extremist militia groups in country today are acting on the same assumptions you are, they just have a more sensitive idea of tyrannical.
3- Any large scale conflict, be it between elements of the military or differing groups in country will lead to a larger negative than positive result due to mass-casualties and infrastructure damage.
4- The US as a democratic nation will not be able to survive it.

Elements of the military defecting does not change that fact.

Hukari:

If I might suggest, there is another possibility to your little make-believe 'scenarios' that does lead to an ultimate positive for the revolutionaries: Political assassination as a tool of countering oppression. Consider Afghanistan. Can they send armed gunmen to wander around Virginia shooting U.S. Senators or leading politicians? I think not. Yet a U.S.-based insurgency would be quite able to intimidate local political forces.

A better metaphor for your situation in the Afghanistan situation is between Hamid Karzai (who, it should be noted, is basically having his battles fought for by the best conventional army in the world) and the local guerilla fighters, who have nearly toppled his regime multiple times over. Why? Because they have both the aid of the locals, and the ability to affect local political leaders.

In addition, it depends on what you term an end benefit. Most likely, if there was to be a large-scale rebellion in the United States, it would be against government interventionism on a federal level. What you say, with the federal government basically becoming utterly vanquished and weakened, is the -best case scenario- for situations like that. And to be honest? The United States has weathered that particular storm, and done so quite handily in the form of the original Articles of Confederation. Ultimately, it would be a shift from federalism to a confederacy, in a presumed hypothetical scenario.

Oh, and you're drastically underestimating the fact that the entire military swears an oath, not to the political officeholders, but to the Constitution of the United States. So don't expect the military to be signing on with this. To be generous, I'd say a 50/50 split (and that's being generous to the pro-government side; the military is a notoriously pro-Republican, anti-government organization, believe it or not).

Just some clarification, and my own particular opinions.

Edit: And, to go with this, private ownership of firearms would allow the first stages of resistance. After all, the Afghan militias are using weapons that go back to World War 1, and have been fighting us effectively for -over a decade-. The average American arsenal evens that up even moreso, adding in to the fact that a lot of Americans have firearms, hunting, survival, or military training. You have one ex-military guy, most likely you're not dealing with just him, but you've got his wife, his son, his daughter, his sister in law, etc, etc to contend with. All most likely familiar with firearms and how to fight in the local terrain.

Again. Just saying, you're underestimating the average American civilian.

Okay, key mis-characterizations here
1- Harmid Karzai is not close to being toppled, the issue springs from whether or not his authority extends beyond the areas directly controlled by those loyal to him

2- The reason that political intimidation is effective in Afghanistan is that the people are incredibly isolated. The local representative of the government is literally the only government official for hundreds of ks, the people do not think outside of their own village and as such, it is hard for them to take solace in the authority vested in them. It is, to put it in simple terms, the difference between a NYPD cop today and a marshal out in the old west. One has a support network, the other does not.

3- The aid of the locals changes from the Taliban to ISAF every few ks and sometimes every few meters. It is not as clear cut as you seem to think.

4- The vast majority of 'local' fighters are not hardcore insurgents, they get paid to fire one mag of rounds at the white people, drop their rifle and go home. Most of the actual fighters are Pakistani, have been for years and this fact is key to their ability to absorb casualties. The Majority of the 'old taliban' is dead and I question where the US insurgency is going to get this second or third wave of fighters from. In addition a lot of the other Anti-coalition forces belong to local warlords, leading to further loss of national cohesion.

5- Please see my post regarding the Iraq war for why it is incorrect to compare middle and near eastern insurgencies to a potential american one as a lot of the points cross over.

6- The fall of the federal government in the US cannot be seen as a positive result in light of the increasing interconnectedness of supplies in the US and internationally and the dependence of the world economy on a stable US.

7- I have not played make believe here, I have simply taken the situation as it stands and as it is likely to stand and actually thought about how a rebellion would affect that.

Fooddude:

Things to consider:
-Rebels would likely have at least partial military support.

As I said in a post above yours, partial military support will not really alter the negative effect of the conflict.

-The government would lose most, if not all public support if it racked up numbers of civilian casualties approaching those in Iraq.

Those sort of casualties would be inevitable though, and all of the pro-government side would blame them on 'domestic terrorists.

-The threat of economic collapse would work in favor of the rebels.

not really, as the international community cannot allow the US government to fail the illusion that it will pay its debts. Everybody has a vested interest in keeping the oval office stable.

Earlier, you said the government would either be motivated by idealistic, or pragmatic views. I'm not expecting the government to immediately become comprised of fanatically dedicated tyrants. If I had to predict how such a scenario might come to be, I'd guess it would be more along the lines of creeping Fascism, wherein the government slowly erodes the peoples' freedom until a breaking point is reached. Again, I'm not advocating joining la Revolucion at the first sign of trouble. I actively encourage people to contact their congressmen, sit in on chamber meetings, organize peaceful protests, but having the ability to forcibly defend your freedoms is an option which I feel should still be on the table.

my issue is that force is inherently counter to the democratic process, as one side is saying 'obey the government or else' you (they hypothetical version that is engaging in this in 20xx) are saying 'disobey the government or else'. And due to the subjective nature of when a rebellion is called for, you will inevitably have various groups sparking at various times (indeed there are groups advocating it today)

Back on the topic of a successful revolution, don't think about Iraq. That was a subpar example. Think more along the lines of The Troubles (Except, ideally, without all the car bombs and civilian deaths.) An armed and trained coalition with a vested interest in not just bombing the shit out of the civilian population found it nearly impossible to placate the rebellious elements. I'm not in any way condoning the IRA, I think they were, for the most part, assholes. However, they did show that a fairly small group of armed insurgents can prove more than a match for a much larger, much better equipped foe.

It is important to remember that the IRA did not achieve its long term goal either, that in a region that now has just under two million people the troubles resulted in four thousand deaths and that the PIRA saw the British as a foreign element. This is, of course in contrast the US, where the combatants would see themselves as americans fighting americans

the clockmaker:

Okay, key mis-characterizations here
1- Harmid Karzai is not close to being toppled, the issue springs from whether or not his authority extends beyond the areas directly controlled by those loyal to him

2- The reason that political intimidation is effective in Afghanistan is that the people are incredibly isolated. The local representative of the government is literally the only government official for hundreds of ks, the people do not think outside of their own village and as such, it is hard for them to take solace in the authority vested in them. It is, to put it in simple terms, the difference between a NYPD cop today and a marshal out in the old west. One has a support network, the other does not.

3- The aid of the locals changes from the Taliban to ISAF every few ks and sometimes every few meters. It is not as clear cut as you seem to think.

4- The vast majority of 'local' fighters are not hardcore insurgents, they get paid to fire one mag of rounds at the white people, drop their rifle and go home. Most of the actual fighters are Pakistani, have been for years and this fact is key to their ability to absorb casualties. The Majority of the 'old taliban' is dead and I question where the US insurgency is going to get this second or third wave of fighters from. In addition a lot of the other Anti-coalition forces belong to local warlords, leading to further loss of national cohesion.

5- Please see my post regarding the Iraq war for why it is incorrect to compare middle and near eastern insurgencies to a potential american one as a lot of the points cross over.

6- The fall of the federal government in the US cannot be seen as a positive result in light of the increasing interconnectedness of supplies in the US and internationally and the dependence of the world economy on a stable US.

7- I have not played make believe here, I have simply taken the situation as it stands and as it is likely to stand and actually thought about how a rebellion would affect that.

Since you've broken your posts down into independent little pieces, I'll be so kind as to do the same for ease of clarification:

1. Hamid Karzai not close to being toppled? Then the United States could clearly have pulled out much sooner, no? The argument doesn't really hold water. If his regime was not threatened by the Taliban (whether new or old, which is what I shall address below), then the U.S. Military serves no purpose in being there, as the Taliban has no capabilities to strike outside of Afghanistan.

2. Well, that's the thing. I'm not suggesting someone going out and killing your local sheriff. In terms of a federal or national sort of situation, it's more a case of going out and killing your local congressman or putting a bullet in the head of the more outspoken pro-government politicians. Of which, it should be noted, there is that same isolation and rarification. Tell me, how many people personally know their United States Senators? Hell, how many people even know the state senator that represents them on a local level? The key in any sort of pro-minarchist rebellion would be in crushing the federal, whilst preserving the state, after all. And you can bet your ass, once the bullets start flying, a lot of people that would've been all for government expansionism are going to start backing down, especially when fired not just at them but at their families and friends.

3. I wasn't saying it was clear cut. I'm saying that the nation is going to have pro-rebellion sympathizers in pretty much every town and city, and all the intel, aid, and fighting power that implies.

4. Again, you keep stating that 'national cohesion' is a negative outcome, which is something I'll address in section six. But more to the point, those 'local' fighters you suggest are paid to fire one mag of rounds and go home... well, aren't they going to be much more effective having familiarity with firearms, much less bring their own? It seems to me such fighters would be a key arguing point for the benefits of having an armed and firearms-familiar populace, as it can produce such fighters quickly and with a minimum of cost and fuss. Plus, consider how military service in the United States (and, as mentioned above, the nature of the U.S. military to prefer minarchist governments to strong federal ones as a matter of political philosophy) is often a generational affair, and you have not just Bob getting in on it, but Bob Jr. defecting from the army, and Bob Sr. breaking out his old Vietnam piece to go join in the fight for freedom.

5. Will address this in a later post, once I can comb over your posts to get into specifics.

6. Financially? Perhaps it would be a negative. Politically, ideologically, and individually? Most likely an extreme boon. Rather the question of if one would wish to be a rich slave, or a poor freeman. Any answer is going to inherently depend on your subjective definition of which is 'better'.

7. As have I. It's entirely possible to look at two situations, with the information presented, and come to two completely different conclusions based on our idea of what constitutes a victory, and what we can presume will happen. Which is what appears to be the case here.

Edit: And, one other thing to consider, how do you address when elements of the government inevitably side with the rebels? Because I can almost guarantee that certain states will declare secession (Texas, of course, being the prime example), and other senators or congressmen will sign on with them.

To add to the depth of our considerations, let's also question whether the government will be so willing to engage in combat should these armed or seceding states get their hands on one of the many, many, -many- stores of nuclear weapons in the United States. Because that changes it into something that has not ever happened: A nuclear-armed rebellion.

the clockmaker:
1- That due to the divisive nature of US politics, a truly popular uprising is far less likely than scattered 'bushfire' uprisings and as such pro-government militias are just as likely as anti-government militias.

And won't that be fun when they start terrorising civilians and murdering local "enemies" instead of getting involved in actual combat?

the clockmaker:

As I said in a post above yours, partial military support will not really alter the negative effect of the conflict.

It would force the government to negotiate.

Those sort of casualties would be inevitable though, and all of the pro-government side would blame them on 'domestic terrorists.

And all of the anti-government side would blame it on the government.

-The threat of economic collapse would work in favor of the rebels.

not really, as the international community cannot allow the US government to fail the illusion that it will pay its debts. Everybody has a vested interest in keeping the oval office stable. [/quote] No government wants to see another Afghanistan. I'd have to imagine any coalition force would at the very least try and help the two sides reach a compromise, and I'm sure the government would be willing to shut down its prison camps, and the sitting president would step down, if it meant they still got their paychecks next mont.

my issue is that force is inherently counter to the democratic process, as one side is saying 'obey the government or else' you (they hypothetical version that is engaging in this in 20xx) are saying 'disobey the government or else'. And due to the subjective nature of when a rebellion is called for, you will inevitably have various groups sparking at various times (indeed there are groups advocating it today)

You're right, it doesn't have a place in the democratic process. It's meant as a fallback if our government (Not a Democracy, a Democratic Republic,) fails to uphold the desires of those who put them in power. Think of force as the boundaries of Democracy. If one tries to outstep the bounds, they are met with it.

It is important to remember that the IRA did not achieve its long term goal either, that in a region that now has just under two million people the troubles resulted in four thousand deaths and that the PIRA saw the British as a foreign element. This is, of course in contrast the US, where the combatants would see themselves as americans fighting americans

It's also important to remember that, well the IRA didn't necessarily got what it wanted, the people of Northern Ireland got what they wanted. And, if it got to the point of Civil War, I don't think your country of origin would be your most distinguishing attribute.

RhombusHatesYou:

the clockmaker:
1- That due to the divisive nature of US politics, a truly popular uprising is far less likely than scattered 'bushfire' uprisings and as such pro-government militias are just as likely as anti-government militias.

And won't that be fun when they start terrorising civilians and murdering local "enemies" instead of getting involved in actual combat?

Not in any way supporting the notion of pro-government militias, in fact I have used the Timorese militias as a useful contrast as to why pro-government militias can be a very bad thing. Just for illustration sake mind, I am not trying to transplant the situation wholesale.

In clarification, any militia walking the street in a vacuum after the loss of order, be they pro or anti government are going to lead to Bad Things.

Fooddude and Hukari, I'll reply to you lads tomorrow, I'm kind of drunk for this right now and only replied to rhombus as it only needed a clarification on your part and to respond to your longer and more complex posts eight beers deep would be kind of dickish on my part.

the clockmaker:

RhombusHatesYou:

the clockmaker:
1- That due to the divisive nature of US politics, a truly popular uprising is far less likely than scattered 'bushfire' uprisings and as such pro-government militias are just as likely as anti-government militias.

And won't that be fun when they start terrorising civilians and murdering local "enemies" instead of getting involved in actual combat?

Not in any way supporting the notion of pro-government militias, in fact I have used the Timorese militias as a useful contrast as to why pro-government militias can be a very bad thing. Just for illustration sake mind, I am not trying to transplant the situation wholesale.

In clarification, any militia walking the street in a vacuum after the loss of order, be they pro or anti government are going to lead to Bad Things.

That's actually what I meant. Doesn't matter what flavour the militia is, if social order has broken down to the point where they're taking control of villages and towns, it's always bad news for the local civvies. The best illustration of that would be the Bosnian War but pick any modern conflict and you'll find examples (especially if we include non-governmental paramilitaries).

Then you get the other militias that would form up, as well... ones with different agendas taking advantage of the loss of social order. Groups like the KKK, Aryan Nations, Nation of Islam, The New Black Panther Party, La Raza, the ADL and so on would arm up (on the basis of 'self-defence') and wait for opportunities to enact/further their agendas. That'll be REALLY fun for people living nearby.

Hmm. Doesn't seem like too many people understand the second amendment and its ramifications for individual gun ownership rights. I believe that every weapon should be legal to own as long as the government or police uses them, and provided they aren't nukes.

Guns aren't the problem. The problem is the people. We need to focus on the people using the tool, not the tool in and of itself.

Bashfluff:
We need to focus on the people using the tool, not the tool in and of itself.

Yes, and the first thing we have to realize is that some people just aren't qualified to use this particular tool. Just because something's a tool doesn't mean everyone should have free lease on it, Amendment II or no Amendment II.

Sure if someone fucks up with a mining drill and traps 20 miners underground you're not going to blame the drill, but you will most likely say "Who the hell let that idiot near that drill!?"

Vegosiux:

Bashfluff:
We need to focus on the people using the tool, not the tool in and of itself.

Yes, and the first thing we have to realize is that some people just aren't qualified to use this particular tool. Just because something's a tool doesn't mean everyone should have free lease on it, Amendment II or no Amendment II.

Sure if someone fucks up with a mining drill and traps 20 miners underground you're not going to blame the drill, but you will most likely say "Who the hell let that idiot near that drill!?"

I will tentatively agree here. I'm nervous as to how we decide who to deny guns to and why.

Vegosiux:

Bashfluff:
We need to focus on the people using the tool, not the tool in and of itself.

Yes, and the first thing we have to realize is that some people just aren't qualified to use this particular tool. Just because something's a tool doesn't mean everyone should have free lease on it, Amendment II or no Amendment II.

Sure if someone fucks up with a mining drill and traps 20 miners underground you're not going to blame the drill, but you will most likely say "Who the hell let that idiot near that drill!?"

That's why felons aren't allowed to own guns, and schizophrenic peoples' gun ownership rights are probably coming to an end as well. Who else would you deny gun ownership to?

Not G. Ivingname:

the clockmaker:

Fooddude:
I do think they'd be useful. Would I recommend shooting up a government building because your guy didn't get into office? No. But if the country has completely abandoned the principles it was established upon, and if the government has utterly failed its people, then I would advocate revolution.
Could an armed revolution work today? I don't know, but I certainly don't think it's as hopeless as you make it out to be, and its certainly better than the alternative, which would presumably be to roll over and take it.

I have shown repeatedly how an armed revolution would be worse than peaceful opposition and advocacy in a first world nation whereas you have done nothing but repeat yourself that there is hope that it would work. If you believe that, then fucking back it up please, show something other than you just saying that it could work.

My contention is that there is no way on god's green earth that an armed rebellion against the US government could work, if you want to know why, read the fuck over the half dozen times I have explained it, I am open to the idea that I am wrong, but just show something to back yourself up.

Furthermore, who gets to decide when it is time for a revolution, because all that differentiates you from the mad bastards who camp out in the hill and claim to be the sovereign republic of Anytown USA is timing.

The Iraq War.

When faced with a clear enemy who went out in the open to fight, we wiped the enemies army clean in mere weeks. However, the war dragged on because of various insurgents, tribes, and other groups all went down and opposed the new Iraq government and the US military that supported it.

Most military doctrines and equipment were designed during the Cold War. We were preparing to be able to wipe out an army that can before us. People using extremely low tech equipment, in places where any corner a person with a gun is ready to shoot you, blowing up trucks and building weapons in caves, that is what caused the war to drag on and on, becoming more unpopular and costing billions upon billions of dollars. The point of such a rebellion or a revolution would realistically not be to win, but to make it SO unpopular and SO expensive that the larger side is forced to withdraw because of political pressure. Is their anyway an armed rebellion could win in a straight, fair fight against the US government? No, of course not. But people could fight, fight long and hard, making the US government looking more like the oppressive totalitarian state that the rebellion says it is, bringing in international pressure to cut the crap.

You have this.
image

The government has this.
image

Perhaps we should make this clear.
image

Jayemsal:
Perhaps we should make this clear.
image

So you are going to use a multi-million dollar aircraft to drop several million dollars of ordinance onto every rat hole in the US.

Then you are going to send out multi-million dollar helicopters that use up thousands of dollars in fuel for a few hours so that you can then have over 100 hours of maintenance.

Then you are going to send in a multi-million dollar tank armed with a giant cannon to take on infantry (because that has worked out so well in the past). Plus, tank treads destroy paved roads. So you have just pissed off every civilian in the area.

Are you insane? In order for that equipment to even function you need a massive supply of soldiers to keep and maintain it (all aircraft spend way more time with a mechanic than with a pilot). In addition you need clear and open supply lines (something that becomes difficult when your home base is in rebellion). And you need a clear target. Sure you can carpet bomb an entire area to try and kill a couple of people but with your supply lines stretched that is probably not a good idea. You also need a military force that will keep following you. Once the US military decides to carpet bomb an American town, or orders you to drive a tank through an American home, or orders you to attack a American civilian target then you probably will not be nearly as loyal.

Plus, would you care to try and use those planes without a runway? Rebels can take it out. Can you use a tank without fuel? Rebels can cut supply lines. And all of this is made much easier by the fact that US military bases are designed to protect the US from an external enemy but not from the American population. Which is why some of the most important military facilities are in the middle of nowhere while some of the most important training bases are on the coast lines. Tell me how good those planes are going to be to you when the NORAD command centers fall. Also, the east and west are virtually cut off from each other by one giant rats nest. Inside that area are some of the most well armed anti-government people in the entire country. You want to invade Idaho? They hated the government before it was cool and that state has the highest gun ownership rate in the country. Your tanks are no good in the mountains. I can hit a target at over 1,000 meters effectively. Are you going to carpet bomb my area every time I take a shot? Well guess what, any idiot knows that after you take a few shots you move. So you will just be wasting millions of dollars in ordinance to take out one person. And even if you do hit me, there will be millions more to take my place.

BTW I actually have an equivalent of this-

image

And I can use it at 1,000 meters which might I add is 700 meters further than what your average American soldier can even engage a target at. Better equipment does not mean jack if you cannot use it effectively or if you cannot use it at all.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked