Mass Shooting El Paso...

[Cow Poke]

We're living that history right now, and for most of the first world, developed nations, things seem to be going along swimmingly. If the stuff actually hit the fan, there is no way a citizen militia would outgun the US military.

I see a number of problems with that logic.

A) You would have to assume that all of those assets (or even a large part of them) in the US military would turn against their own countrymen
2) The "theater of operations" would be largely urban warfare, at which the largest part of our military does not excel
C) How many of those "military" would become "civilian militia"

Reminds me of the story of the battle over the Russian White House in 1993... There was quite a separation of loyalty between the upper commanders and the "grunts".

I remember the testimony of a Russian Christian who was a tank commander, having been ordered to bring his column of tanks to the white house. Civilians blocked the bridge over which the tanks had to come, and the column of tanks came to a stop. The commander of the second tank called out to the guy in the first tank "what's the hold up" - the guy in the lead said, "there's a woman on the bridge, and she won't move'. The second tank's guy said "RUN HER OVER" --- to which the lead guy yelled "SHE'S MY MOTHER!!!!"

I don't think it's possible to predict how a conflict between the US military and the US citizenry would go. I'd guess it wouldn't go very well.

[Teallaura]

We're living that history right now, and for most of the first world, developed nations, things seem to be going along swimmingly. If the stuff actually hit the fan, there is no way a citizen militia would outgun the US military.

Um, we didn't outgun the British, either.

I mean, I don't think there's a lot of validity to the argument MM is making - but the US military is still under the US government - which probably doesn't want a guerrilla war on the home front.

[Cow Poke]

Um, we didn't outgun the British, either.

I mean, I don't think there's a lot of validity to the argument MM is making - but the US military is still under the US government - which probably doesn't want a guerrilla war on the home front.

Besides the fact that it would be illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act.

[Adrift]

That argument is such bunk because it wouldn't go down like that, and we've had this discussion before. It doesn't matter how much more powerful US government is because US military is not going to order missiles to rain down on American neighborhoods.

Oh, good. Then the whole fear that we need guns in case the government goes rotten is unfounded. The military isn't going to kill us, so then we don't need guns to defend us from the military.

If government outrightly banned guns in America, it would have to be door-to-door. And if anyone thinks this would go down smoothly for government forces, just look at how difficult it was for practically an entire police force to track down and kill Christopher Dorner, and he was one man. You're talking hundreds of thousands, if not millions of armed folks across the nation, many of which have military training.

Yeah, it's a shame that Americans might become law breakers in order to hold onto a chunk of lethal metal.

[seanD]

Oh, good. Then the whole fear that we need guns in case the government goes rotten is unfounded. The military isn't going to kill us, so then we don't need guns to defend us from the military.



Yeah, it's a shame that Americans might become law breakers in order to hold onto a chunk of lethal metal.

Okay, now you're just being dumb. Second amendment IS the law, so those defending it wouldn't be lawbreakers. And the amendment is really to serve as a deterrent first, defense against a tyrannical government second. Hopefully armed Americans will prevent the latter.

[Adrift]

I see a number of problems with that logic.

A) You would have to assume that all of those assets (or even a large part of them) in the US military would turn against their own countrymen
2) The "theater of operations" would be largely urban warfare, at which the largest part of our military does not excel
C) How many of those "military" would become "civilian militia"

So, like my reply to seanD, this is not a scenario we really need to worry much about. Worse case scenario, the military defends us against the evil government that we seek to overthrow.

Honestly, this entire rebuttal (not original to you of course) that we need guns to fight the "evil government," but that the "evil government" wouldn't win because the military would turn on it is the stuff of apocalyptic fantasy. I'm surprised people argue it with a straight face. I seriously have a hard time believing that otherwise reasonable individuals actually think that we're going to ever go to war with our nation (unless you're some craze-eyed militiaman-type living in a bunker in the woods), and that we'll win with shotguns, pistols, and AR-15s. Red Dawn was a movie, a good movie by one of my favorite scriptwriters, but it wasn't a prediction of the future, or even very realistic.

[rogue06]

Um, we didn't outgun the British, either.

Nor did the Afghans outgun the Russians or the North Vietnamese outgun the U.S.

[Adrift]

Um, we didn't outgun the British, either.

Can you expand on this, because, as I understand it, that's sorta what we did. Granted, they didn't turn their entire military on us, but we kinda gave them what for.

[Adrift]

Okay, now you're just being dumb. Second amendment IS the law, so those defending it wouldn't be lawbreakers. And the amendment is really to serve as a deterrent first, defense against a tyrannical government second. Hopefully armed Americans will prevent the latter.

The second amendment wasn't written by the finger of God on Mount Sinai. It's a piece of paper that can and has been updated many times. Sometimes even repealing previous amendments. This sort of almost holy reverence for the Constitution is unhealthy.

[seanD]

So, like my reply to seanD, this is not a scenario we really need to worry much about. Worse case scenario, the military defends us against the evil government that we seek to overthrow.

Honestly, this entire rebuttal (not original to you of course) that we need guns to fight the "evil government," but that the "evil government" wouldn't win because the military would turn on it is the stuff of apocalyptic fantasy. I'm surprised people argue it with a straight face. I seriously have a hard time believing that otherwise reasonable individuals actually thinks that we're going to ever go to war with our nation (unless you're some craze-eyed militiaman-type living in a bunker in the woods), and that we'll win with shotguns, pistols, and AR-15s. Red Dawn was a movie, a good movie by one of my favorite scriptwriters, but it wasn't a prediction of the future, or even very realistic.

My guess is that most military personnel would blindly follow government orders no matter how unlawful it was, but there would be a faction that would rebel.

[seanD]

The second amendment wasn't written by the finger of God on Mount Sinai. It's a piece of paper that can and has been updated many times. Sometimes even repealing previous amendments. This sort of almost holy reverence for the Constitution is unhealthy.

I don't think it's unhealthy at all when we have a slew of historical examples of what happens to a unarmed societies run by a tyrannical governments. It's just a matter of self-preservation. Now whether you believe we should instead adhere to Romans 13, give up our arms and trust in God to deliver us from an evil government, that's a whole other discussion and probably not suitable for this section.

[Cow Poke]

So, like my reply to seanD, this is not a scenario we really need to worry much about. Worse case scenario, the military defends us against the evil government that we seek to overthrow.

But you're the one who brought it up.

Honestly, this entire rebuttal (not original to you of course) that we need guns to fight the "evil government," ....

Woah, hold on there, cowboy --- I was just responding to your post -- I have never cited the reason we "need guns" is to defend us against our own military.

[Cow Poke]

My guess is that most military personnel would blindly follow government orders no matter how unlawful it was, but there would be a faction that would rebel.

On this, I disagree, because so many people in the military have family at home, and family blood is thicker than band of brothers blood.

[Adrift]

But you're the one who brought it up.

Did I? Looking back it looks like MM did.

Woah, hold on there, cowboy --- I was just responding to your post -- I have never cited the reason we "need guns" is to defend us against our own military.

Huh? My post was in reply to MM and then seanD's implied and stated beliefs that the government might need standing up against. Then you replied to me. I find the notion that the government would turn on its citizens to the point of armed resistance implausible, and I find even more implausible the idea of a citizen militia winning against the modern US military. I was then told that the military would be unlikely to fight against the citizens and would instead side with the citizens, which makes the whole hypothetical moot.

[Teallaura]

Besides the fact that it would be illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act.

To be fair, in the event of an armed insurrection, I suspect the act would be quickly suspended.