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.
You and the other anti-gun zealotry can have your ban on semiautos when those same exact weapons are banned from military and law enforcement use. If the citizen cannot possess it, then neither can the agents of tyranny.
Propose a COMPLETE ban on semiautos, STARTING with the police and military, and then fine...ban away. As long as I can remain on relatively equal footing with the opponent that has the absolute, far and away highest probability of actually oppressing me at the point of a gun, then sure, do whatever you need "for the kids."
Until the military and police put theirs down, I won't put mine down.
"Overlords in Washington". "Giving up a piece of their personal power". Paranoid much?
Nope... just a realist.
How long have you been alive and not realized that some people actually enjoy controlling other people? It's only been Humanity's favorite hobby since our kind spent their day swinging from the trees and kinda, well... dumb to think somehow human nature has done an about-face on the issue last few years.
Wars are won with supply chains and boots on the ground. The civilian citizen is producer/supplier of the military's supply chain, and has ~20x more boots on the ground. The big weapons of war that are exclusive to the military are only as good as the people who build them, maintain them and operate them. We aren't ruled by Skynet just yet.
Right off the bat, who feeds the military if the civilian farmer shuts their machines down? Who supplies the weapons and fuel when the civilian defense contractors shut their machines down? The armed citizen in America represents an army of ~100 million people, with ~350 million weapons and a few trillion rounds of ammunition, and that army controls the national supply chain. Guess how effective a tank or fighter jet is when it runs out of fuel? The best supply chain will always prevail.
Deer hunters alone outnumber the entire military by ~3 to 1. And these are people who are highly proficient in various sniper techniques like stealth, camouflage, extended solo operations in the field, etc. And given their target is generally accepted as being way more defensively equipped for spotting snipers than any human and the operator only gets one shot and has to make it count, they are actually really good snipers. 10 million skilled, well equipped snipers on their home turf is formidable, terrible, scary thing. And that is just the people who hunt deer with licenses every fall.
Don't underestimate the farmer and their pitchforks versus the big dog military. Cornwallis did, and here we sit.
In any armed rebellion ...
1. Not all farmers are going to sympathize with the rebels. Many won't, and those who don't will be able to feed the army.
2. Not all military equipment factory workers are going to sympathize with the rebels. Many won't, and those who don't will be able to build the military's equipment.
3. Not all oil field workers and other energy industry workers are going to side with the rebels. Many won't, and those who don't will be happy to continue doing their jobs supplying the government's army with fuel.
3. Not all deer hunters and other armed citizens are going to sympathize with the rebels. Many won't, and those who don't will be able to fight alongside the government's army.
And so on. You unrealistically assumed EVERYBODY in the populace would side with the armed rebels. That is such an unrealistic expectation it's not even worth considering. Even during the Revolutionary War, observers noted that only 1/3 of the population sided with the rebels, another 1/3 were Loyalists, and another 1/3 were indifferent.
1. Not all farmers are going to sympathize with the rebels. Many won't, and those who don't will be able to feed the army.
2. Not all military equipment factory workers are going to sympathize with the rebels. Many won't, and those who don't will be able to build the military's equipment.
3. Not all oil field workers and other energy industry workers are going to side with the rebels. Many won't, and those who don't will be happy to continue doing their jobs supplying the government's army with fuel.
3. Not all deer hunters and other armed citizens are going to sympathize with the rebels. Many won't, and those who don't will be able to fight alongside the government's army.
And so on. You unrealistically assumed EVERYBODY in the populace would side with the armed rebels. That is such an unrealistic expectation it's not even worth considering. Even during the Revolutionary War, observers noted that only 1/3 of the population sided with the rebels, another 1/3 were Loyalists, and another 1/3 were indifferent.
You unrealistically assumed EVERYBODY in the military would simply follow orders to slaughter their own citizens.
Same rules would apply to the military.
Only 1/3 of the military may be willing to slaughter their own citizens and 1/3 willing to fight anybody who does.
We are apes, so let's consider the issue from an ape perspective:
In the jungle, a stick is (limited) protection and security.
You have a stick.
Crazy-eyes dick ape has a stick.
Alpha ape has lots of sticks.
You give your stick to Alpha, agree to never get another stick and Alpha promises to protect you from crazy-eyes if Alpha is around or feels like it. Otherwise, Alpha only guarantees he'll show up eventually and clean up the mess.
Which one of the apes actually ends up without a stick? Which ape is the LEAST safe? Not Alpha, he never runs out of sticks and he already guarantees to at least show and clean up the mess when bad stuff happens to you (he HAS to to keep the entire troop from falling apart). Besides, Alpha's come and go... today's Alpha is fairly benevolent and only rapes your monkey a$$ once a year to reaffirm his dominance but who's to say what tomorrow's Alpha will be like?
Not Crazy-eyes... he makes his living with a stick and acquiring/keeping one to use for his benefit is his #1 priority. Not to mention that if Crazy-eyes somehow can't get a stick in the Jungle (yeah, right!) , he'll just use a stone instead. To him, Alpha is an obstacle to get around and a stick is simply a means to an end... and that end (living an easy life at the expense of other apes) does not change.
Wars are won with supply chains and boots on the ground. The civilian citizen is producer/supplier of the military's supply chain, and has ~20x more boots on the ground. The big weapons of war that are exclusive to the military are only as good as the people who build them, maintain them and operate them. We aren't ruled by Skynet just yet.
Right off the bat, who feeds the military if the civilian farmer shuts their machines down? Who supplies the weapons and fuel when the civilian defense contractors shut their machines down? The armed citizen in America represents an army of ~100 million people, with ~350 million weapons and a few trillion rounds of ammunition, and that army controls the national supply chain. Guess how effective a tank or fighter jet is when it runs out of fuel? The best supply chain will always prevail.
Deer hunters alone outnumber the entire military by ~3 to 1. And these are people who are highly proficient in various sniper techniques like stealth, camouflage, extended solo operations in the field, etc. And given their target is generally accepted as being way more defensively equipped for spotting snipers than any human and the operator only gets one shot and has to make it count, they are actually really good snipers. 10 million skilled, well equipped snipers on their home turf is formidable, terrible, scary thing. And that is just the people who hunt deer with licenses every fall.
Don't underestimate the farmer and their pitchforks versus the big dog military. For the modern reference, ask a backwards, uncivilized, neanderthal goat herder in Afghanistan if small arms and marksmen can hold the super duper US military at bay.
1.) When was the last time a rabble of randomly armed civilians beat an organized military force?
2.) If the Afghans really thought small arms would do the trick they wouldn't rely so heavily on IED's and suicide bombers. They know an armed standoff with US military is a dumb idea and thus avoid it.
3.) Assuming a tyrannical government comes into power and has control of the military. You can be assured that said tyrannical government will have a large and broad civilian support base. That means the supporters of the tyrannical government will also be as heavily armed as those that oppose it. So having armed civilians can cut both ways. If it can help defend freedom, it can also be used to take it away.
4.) With 100 million armed people, even if they do rise up. Who is in charge? Whats are the objectives? How can you tell friend from foe? What would stop America becoming like Syria with dozens of different ethnic, religious, and political factions all fighting each other for power?
5.) Your point about shutting off the military's supply chain rests on a false assumption that the US military is only able to procure weapons via home based manufacturing. A tyrannical US government could simply side step a halt to domestic manufacturing by simply buying weapons or being given weapons by a foreign power.
You unrealistically assumed EVERYBODY in the military would simply follow orders to slaughter their own citizens.
Same rules would apply to the military.
Only 1/3 of the military may be willing to slaughter their own citizens and 1/3 willing to fight anybody who does.
You could be right. Maybe even, as happened in 1989, ALL of the military would be unwilling to slaughter their own citizens. In which case the citizenry will not need to be armed at all.
I still have yet to hear from you how 1989 was possible.
1.) When was the last time a rabble of randomly armed civilians beat an organized military force?
2.) If the Afghans really thought small arms would do the trick they wouldn't rely so heavily on IED's and suicide bombers. They know an armed standoff with US military is a dumb idea and thus avoid it.
3.) Assuming a tyrannical government comes into power and has control of the military. You can be assured that said tyrannical government will have a large and broad civilian support base. That means the supporters of the tyrannical government will also be as heavily armed as those that oppose it. So having armed civilians can cut both ways. If it can help defend freedom, it can also be used to take it away.
4.) With 100 million armed people, even if they do rise up. Who is in charge? Whats are the objectives? How can you tell friend from foe? What would stop America becoming like Syria with dozens of different ethnic, religious, and political factions all fighting each other for power?
5.) Your point about shutting off the military's supply chain rests on a false assumption that the US military is only able to procure weapons via home based manufacturing. A tyrannical US government could simply side step a halt to domestic manufacturing by simply buying weapons or being given weapons by a foreign power.
Assuming your 5 points are all rock solid 100% accurate predictions, the best course of action is disarming the civilian populace?
You could be right. Maybe even, as happened in 1989, ALL of the military would be unwilling to slaughter their own citizens. In which case the citizenry will not need to be armed at all.
I still have yet to hear from you how 1989 was possible.
In fact, here's a thought: Maybe the militaries of eastern Europe in 1989 did not shoot their fellow citizens BECAUSE they were unarmed. Think about it.
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.
