Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The right to bear arms is NOT to give us a fun hobby, provide personal protection against criminals or to hunt (though it benefits all those activities)...
Man for man, armed citizens have little hope of overcoming trained military units, but the fact the general public IS armed means the military could never successfully operate against the citizenry without incurring unacceptable losses on both sides, creating a "No Win" situation.
The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is that by arming the public, they have taken that option off the table for potential future malevolent leadership.
But when a direct attack by the government against it's own people IS an option, history shows us what can happen:
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR HORRIFIC ACTS AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE CLAIMED TO BE BENEVOLENT AND WORKING FOR THEIR PEOPLE!
NONE OF THESE ATROCITIES COULD HAVE EVEN BEEN INSTIGATED IF THE CITIZENS HAD THE MEANS TO FIGHT BACK IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Only a fool gives up their greatest protection against such horrible atrocity. Random acts of violence and crime are terrible and unacceptable, but they are a small price to pay to prevent state-sponsored mass murder and genocide.
And don't think for a second that it can't happen here. The people of Germany, Cambodia and now Syria once thought that way too... but times change, governments change and evil people continually seek out and obtain positions of power as time goes on.
Confide in promises of perpetual benevolent protection of the State at you... and your children's peril.
It might have made sense back when your average civilian and military person was equally matched. Isn't it an archaic concept that an armed citizenry can keep the military in check?
It might have made sense back when your average civilian and military person was equally matched. Isn't it an archaic concept that an armed citizenry can keep the military in check?
It is only archaic if you accept that the government has good intentions for your well being and would never do anything against your rights as a citizen or violate the constitution.
It might have made sense back when your average civilian and military person was equally matched. Isn't it an archaic concept that an armed citizenry can keep the military in check?
I dont have exact numbers but the U.S. military has what 500,00 soldiers in a country of 300 million. We can keep them in check pretty easy
The right to bear arms is NOT to give us a fun hobby, provide personal protection against criminals or to hunt (though it benefits all those activities)...
Man for man, armed citizens have little hope of overcoming trained military units, but the fact the general public IS armed means the military could never successfully operate against the citizenry without incurring unacceptable losses on both sides, creating a "No Win" situation.
It wouldn't work that way today. The military has much, much more powerful weaponry and training that is orders of magnitude better than your average citizen with a shotgun. You can see that they whoop ass pretty well in places like Afghanistan, and that's when they're fighting with one hand behind their back, intentionally restrained so as to still somehow get Afghani government cooperation. If it was all-out combat, the losses would be very one-sided - and not on their side.
mateo45, 2 pictures are worth 1000 words - thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty
It might have made sense back when your average civilian and military person was equally matched. Isn't it an archaic concept that an armed citizenry can keep the military in check?
Of course it is. But the gun nuts work tirelessly to maintain the status quo, which insures that there are more massacres in the pipeline. Which, in their minds, justifies their arsenal.
It wouldn't work that way today. The military has much, much more powerful weaponry and training that is orders of magnitude better than your average citizen with a shotgun. You can see that they whoop ass pretty well in places like Afghanistan, and that's when they're fighting with one hand behind their back, intentionally restrained so as to still somehow get Afghani government cooperation. If it was all-out combat, the losses would be very one-sided - and not on their side.
Do you really believe that a force of 500,000 military of which only about 1/3 are actual combatants could contain a nation of the size and magnitude of the US? Of those, how many would actually fire on US civilians? Yes, it is a huge deterent.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,461,442 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker
Do you really believe that a force of 500,000 military of which only about 1/3 are actual combatants could contain a nation of the size and magnitude of the US? Of those, how many would actually fire on US civilians? Yes, it is a huge deterent.
Tell that to the folks at Kent State...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
