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.
Military won't all be on the dictators side... Some military people are smarter than the average democrat...
Three points that undermine your overall argument:
1) If the military side with the rebels, why do the people need small arms?
2) who is this theoretical dictator?
We live in a democracy that chooses it's leaders via the people. If a President becomes "tyrannical, whatever that really means, we have mechanisms such as impeachment to deal with that within the constitutional framework.
3) There is no provision in the constitution that sanctions overthrow of the government -- none.
It worked for the Afghan rebels and it's working for the Taliban now. Their AK-47 is little more than our AR-15.
The rebels drove out the Russians. The Taliban is giving our Smart Bombs a run for the money.
Both funded their war with less money than you spent on coffee last year.
It took the combined military efforts of the U.S., England and the U.S.S.R. years to defeat Germany and Italy in World War II. To think that if only their people had rifles (presuming they would spawn an uprising) they'd defeat these powers is fantasy.
The idea that we need these personal weapons to defeat a theoretical tyrant, is also fantasy.
It took the combined military efforts of the U.S., England and the U.S.S.R. years to defeat Germany and Italy in World War II. To think that if only their people had rifles (presuming they would spawn an uprising) they'd defeat these powers is fantasy.
The idea that we need these personal weapons to defeat a theoretical tyrant, is also fantasy.
Rebels will never attack the military directly. We would concentrate on making this country such a hell that there'd be no economy nor order. Then the military would be defeated because it needs lots of money to fight. No money = no government, no military.
One more thing: US defeated Italy and Japan. USSR defeated Germany. England had no appreciable role in WW2.
It took the combined military efforts of the U.S., England and the U.S.S.R. years to defeat Germany and Italy in World War II. To think that if only their people had rifles (presuming they would spawn an uprising) they'd defeat these powers is fantasy.
The idea that we need these personal weapons to defeat a theoretical tyrant, is also fantasy.
Actually, Germany was suffering from attrition from partisans near the end of the war. It didn't bring them down, but it certainly hurt them.
Guns are just a distraction. The government is coming for your social security, watch out. When you are 70, penniless and holding a gun much help will that be...
Guns are just a distraction. The government is coming for your social security, watch out. When you are 70, penniless and holding a gun much help will that be...
No, the government is coming for your Medicare. That way you don't make it to SS: Two birds; one stone.
It took the combined military efforts of the U.S., England and the U.S.S.R. years to defeat Germany and Italy in World War II. To think that if only their people had rifles (presuming they would spawn an uprising) they'd defeat these powers is fantasy.
The idea that we need these personal weapons to defeat a theoretical tyrant, is also fantasy.
You my friend know very little about that period of time. Read up on it before you comment. Because you are wrong!
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.