Federal Assault Weapons Ban

So President Obama is seeking to put an "Assault Weapons Ban" on the American people. This means any semi-automatic rifle that uses magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols " ":

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, hand grip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns " ":

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine


Personally I find this to be great infringement on people's rights to bear arms. The Second Amendment was put into place so that the people could protect themselves from the government and from others when law enforcement is not able to. (Example: http://en.wikipedia....harles_Whitman)

To clarify:
The First Amendment was put into place so that the government could not control the populace and its voice about its doings. So therefore the Second would be so that the people could replace the government if needed. With the military technology advancing and new and better weapons being created, why should people not in turn be allowed to posses more advanced weapons systems for protection.

I know people are going to bring attention to gun violence and how this would create more casualties in an instance where guns are used but there has been research that shows that when people are allowed to carry concealed weapons, there has been decreases in crime rates.

So, what are your thoughts on this?

Ban the guns. In Australia (Where I'm from) Gun related/Viloent Crime went dramatically down hill when the ban on guns came into effect. We arent allowed to carry a weapon without a permit, and those permits are hard to get.

So remove the second ammendment and remove the guns.

Ban the guns. In Australia (Where I'm from) Gun related/Viloent Crime went dramatically down hill when the ban on guns came into effect. We arent allowed to carry a weapon without a permit, and those permits are hard to get.

So remove the second ammendment and remove the guns.

Australia =/= United States, what works for one people does not work for another.

With the military technology advancing and new and better weapons being created, why should people not in turn be allowed to posses more advanced weapons systems for protection.

What good would it do? Even with those you think you will be able to stand up to the military? Other than that what else would you need these weapons for? Bambi sure as hell doesn't warrant that kind of firepower.

The Second Amendment only garantees the right to a militia be it the state National Guard or those old bearded white guys that like to play soldier in the woods. Why you would want to give any kind of weapon to the latter group is beyond me.

I agree with both Goose and dark on this. I mean, take away the guns and you'll find yourself with less gun crimes. However, the founding fathers decided to throw that screwball in the constitution so that the people could rise against any threat to their freedoms. If the grave scenario came into play where the people's freedoms were in danger of being represented or taken away all together by government or another oppressor, I would like to know I had a large assortment of weapons to choose from. But, that's just me.

Ban the guns. In Australia (Where I'm from) Gun related/Viloent Crime went dramatically down hill when the ban on guns came into effect. We arent allowed to carry a weapon without a permit, and those permits are hard to get.

So remove the second ammendment and remove the guns.

This has not been true in my community. When our local government passed laws allowing for RTC (Right to Carry) in my state our crimes rates fallen.

A person who wants to use a gun for a violent crime is going to abtain it no matter what law is put against it. So why not allow for citizens to protect themselves?

With the military technology advancing and new and better weapons being created, why should people not in turn be allowed to posses more advanced weapons systems for protection.

What good would it do? Even with those you think you will be able to stand up to the military? Other than that what else would you need these weapons for? Bambi sure as hell doesn't warrant that kind of firepower.

The Second Amendment only garantees the right to a militia be it the state National Guard or those old bearded white guys that like to play soldier in the woods. Why you would want to give any kind of weapon to the latter group is beyond me.

"I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto.

Ever hear that quote?
If the government were to turn tyrannical what are the chances of it being able to convince more than half of the military to conquer their own nation in the name of a new government?

The second part about what the Amendment guarantees is untrue.

"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."


People are guaranteed the right to own weapons for protection.

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"
---Thomas Jefferson

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

People should be allowed to own guns, mostly for hunting purposes and possibly self defense. I am also keenly aware that there are stupid people who think grenades and shotguns are just plain 'fun' and nearly end up taking off their own foot. And then laugh and try it again. I am related to such people. Intoxication is usually involved along with it, I might add. So while it may be an American tradition to parade around with firearms, that doesn't necessarily mean its the smart or responsible thing to do. If you're going to own a gun, I think you should have to pass a test before you even get to use the thing. You don't let an untrained 10 year old drive a car. You shouldn't let one fire a gun. But people do, because it's an American tradition™!

Nobody needs an AK-47 to go hunting or adequately defend their home. Obama's new rules aren't exactly crippling to gun owners, unless those gun owners happen to be building a military grade arsenal for reasons beyond common understanding.

The First Amendment was put into place so that the government could not control the populace and its voice about its doings. So therefore the Second would be so that the people could replace the government if needed. With the military technology advancing and new and better weapons being created, why should people not in turn be allowed to posses more advanced weapons systems for protection.

I played devil's advocate to something like this in a debate once before, purely for fun, but the simple fact of the matter is:

An armed militia will not defeat the United State Army. Ever.

Ever ever ever ever.

If you gave every single American civilian an M-16 rifle and a Stinger launcher, they would still lose. In fact, they would not only lose, they would be slaughtered like brainless cattle. Simply having weapons does not mean you are remotely likely to defeat the most powerful and technologically advanced army in the entire world. The moment an A-10 rolls in on you, you are dead. The moment an F-15E gets within bombing range, you are dead. Under-trained, ill equipped, undisciplined militia forces have a snowball's chance in hell of beating any real army, let alone the US Army.

To even stand a remote chance at beating the US Army, you would need a whole fleet of advanced fighter and CAS aircraft, bombers, and naval vessels. Not to mention a huge chain of cargo planes and transport vessels, as you are screwed from the get-go if you don't secure supply lines and maintain good logistics. And even if you do steal these things, the US military will still likely whoop your ass.

Even Canada would whoop the rebellion's ass. Well, likely. They did burn down the White House once before.

So 'keeping guns to overthrow a corrupt US government' does not fly as a real argument. 'Stalling an enemy invasion' works a little better, but even that's not likely to actually be of much use. And involves a lot of people sacrificing their lives, as their effort to stall invasion will inevitably result in huge loss of life and property.

Life and technology has changed rapidly from the time of Jefferson. His soldiers fought with muskets. Ours fight with stealth aircraft.

As for Yamamoto, his invasion would have failed not because of armed civilians, but because his little island would never drum up enough resources, manpower or equipment to properly invade a country the size of the United States. Russia was the only country that stood a chance, and it has since fallen. Even the whole of the EU would have difficulty.

"I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto.

Ever hear that quote?

That doesn't answer why those guns need be assault weapons. Even in the '40s an untrained and unorganized civilian force would have been crushed by trained and orgaized Japaese forces. Assault weapons would have made little difference. Today the chance of being invaded are very remote. An invading force today would have to be one the most advanced. Aagin, assault weapons will make little differece.

If the government were to turn tyrannical what are the chances of it being able to convince more than half of the military to conquer their own nation in the name of a new government?

If that government had enough of the military on its side it wouldn't need to do any conquering. And what would civilians be able to do? This is a scenario between two military forces. The one with the most rescources wins.

People are guaranteed the right to own weapons for protection.

I agree and I disagree. I don't think the Second Amendment specifically grants rights to the individual. Except for assault weapons I think we are or should be not denied an individul right to bear arms. I think it should be left to the states.

People should be allowed to own guns, mostly for hunting purposes and possibly self defense. I am also keenly aware that there are stupid people who think grenades and shotguns are just plain 'fun' and nearly end up taking off their own foot. And then laugh and try it again. I am related to such people. Intoxication is usually involved along with it, I might add. So while it may be an American tradition to parade around with firearms, that doesn't necessarily mean its the smart or responsible thing to do. If you're going to own a gun, I think you should have to pass a test before you even get to use the thing. You don't let an untrained 10 year old drive a car. You shouldn't let one fire a gun. But people do, because it's an American tradition™!

Nobody needs an AK-47 to go hunting or adequately defend their home. Obama's new rules aren't exactly crippling to gun owners, unless those gun owners happen to be building a military grade arsenal for reasons beyond common understanding.

I agree, that's just overkill. But self-protection is a defensible position for having firearms.

I played devil's advocate to something like this in a debate once before, purely for fun, but the simple fact of the matter is:

An armed militia will not defeat the United State Army. Ever.

Ever ever ever ever.

If you gave every single American civilian an M-16 rifle and a Stinger launcher, they would still lose. In fact, they would not only lose, they would be slaughtered like brainless cattle. Simply having weapons does not mean you are remotely likely to defeat the most powerful and technologically advanced army in the entire world. The moment an A-10 rolls in on you, you are dead. The moment an F-15E gets within bombing range, you are dead. Under-trained, ill equipped, undisciplined militia forces have a snowball's chance in hell of beating any real army, let alone the US Army.

To even stand a remote chance at beating the US Army, you would need a whole fleet of advanced fighter and CAS aircraft, bombers, and naval vessels. Not to mention a huge chain of cargo planes and transport vessels, as you are screwed from the get-go if you don't secure supply lines and maintain good logistics. And even if you do steal these things, the US military will still likely whoop your ass.

Even Canada would whoop the rebellion's ass. Well, likely. They did burn down the White House once before.

Well, I'm sure they said the same thing just before the Revolutionary War. But then again, technology has changed much faster than the natural physical defenses of the human body has evolved.

----

Personally, I think that the Second Amendment should be kept there. Regardless of it's original reasons for creation, at this point, to remove it is only going to take the guns away from the 'victim' side of the equation. A law-abiding citizen is going to hand in his guns. A criminal is not.

People should be allowed to own guns, mostly for hunting purposes and possibly self defense. I am also keenly aware that there are stupid people who think grenades and shotguns are just plain 'fun' and nearly end up taking off their own foot. And then laugh and try it again. I am related to such people. Intoxication is usually involved along with it, I might add. So while it may be an American tradition to parade around with firearms, that doesn't necessarily mean its the smart or responsible thing to do. If you're going to own a gun, I think you should have to pass a test before you even get to use the thing. You don't let an untrained 10 year old drive a car. You shouldn't let one fire a gun. But people do, because it's an American tradition™!

Nobody needs an AK-47 to go hunting or adequately defend their home. Obama's new rules aren't exactly crippling to gun owners, unless those gun owners happen to be building a military grade arsenal for reasons beyond common understanding.

The First Amendment was put into place so that the government could not control the populace and its voice about its doings. So therefore the Second would be so that the people could replace the government if needed. With the military technology advancing and new and better weapons being created, why should people not in turn be allowed to posses more advanced weapons systems for protection.

I played devil's advocate to something like this in a debate once before, purely for fun, but the simple fact of the matter is:

An armed militia will not defeat the United State Army. Ever.

Ever ever ever ever.

If you gave every single American civilian an M-16 rifle and a Stinger launcher, they would still lose. In fact, they would not only lose, they would be slaughtered like brainless cattle. Simply having weapons does not mean you are remotely likely to defeat the most powerful and technologically advanced army in the entire world. The moment an A-10 rolls in on you, you are dead. The moment an F-15E gets within bombing range, you are dead. Under-trained, ill equipped, undisciplined militia forces have a snowball's chance in hell of beating any real army, let alone the US Army.

To even stand a remote chance at beating the US Army, you would need a whole fleet of advanced fighter and CAS aircraft, bombers, and naval vessels. Not to mention a huge chain of cargo planes and transport vessels, as you are screwed from the get-go if you don't secure supply lines and maintain good logistics. And even if you do steal these things, the US military will still likely whoop your ass.

Even Canada would whoop the rebellion's ass. Well, likely. They did burn down the White House once before.

So 'keeping guns to overthrow a corrupt US government' does not fly as a real argument. 'Stalling an enemy invasion' works a little better, but even that's not likely to actually be of much use. And involves a lot of people sacrificing their lives, as their effort to stall invasion will inevitably result in huge loss of life and property.

Life and technology has changed rapidly from the time of Jefferson. His soldiers fought with muskets. Ours fight with stealth aircraft.

As for Yamamoto, his invasion would have failed not because of armed civilians, but because his little island would never drum up enough resources, manpower or equipment to properly invade a country the size of the United States. Russia was the only country that stood a chance, and it has since fallen. Even the whole of the EU would have difficulty.

You let the 10 year old fire a gun to train him. If you introduce a child to guns and train him on the proper saftey techniques then not only will he be comfortable with guns but also safe.

You might not need an AK-47 to protect yourself from an ordinary robber, but the more advanced systems would be for protection from the government.

In the Vietnam War America, despite its advanced military technology, had trouble handling the opposition. Guerilla forces can withstand an assualt from even the most advanced of military opposition. Look at our America's Revolution. We should have been soundly thrashed, but we won. Look at Vietnam. Plus chances are not all of the military will agree with a government overthrow and the internal power struggles would not leave the military at its full capacity. Plus since it is fighting its own people, any lenghty campaign would be fatal as not only would they lose the funding but they would be destroying what they are trying to take over.

Edited by darkravenntk, 04 March 2009 - 10:07 AM.

Ugh, it's like everyone mindwiped what we learned in that other gun topic:

1) Abolishing guns does significantly obstruct general access to guns. If you are a criminal wanting a gun, you'll need a connection, which is why they gun crime in the UK has become practically isolated to street gangs. Any random person who decides to take to crime is not just going to be able to get one at the snap of their fingers.

2) Owners possessing guns are statistically shown to have no effect on preventing burglars from committing crimes.

3) A gun is going to accomplish nothing against a trained army intent on conquering you. Imagining yourself dying in a blaze of glory will not make soldiers think twice.

4) Every social development within a nation is a step away from the ideals of dictatorship. The Bush Administration is the worst that America has ever come to a government infringing upon human rights in the 20th/21st centuries, and they've been soundly beaten by the media and the polls.

I honestly don't mind the legality of guns if people can find meaningful reasons for keeping them, but please let's not go into fantasy-land fearmongering. It's a running joke that the most powerful first-world nation is also the most insecure. I'm shocked that people have to refer back 200 years to attempt to make their point. What, am I supposed to believe that society has not changed in any significant way since the American Revolution? Jeeesus....

Edited by Raien, 04 March 2009 - 11:26 AM.

Am I missing the point? Obama's ban only seems to target weapons with cheifly criminal applications. Is the main objection to the law that it is the start of a slippery slope that leads inexorably towards far stricter gun control?

In the Vietnam War America, despite its advanced military technology, had trouble handling the opposition. Guerilla forces can withstand an assualt from even the most advanced of military opposition. Look at our America's Revolution. We should have been soundly thrashed, but we won. Look at Vietnam. Plus chances are not all of the military will agree with a government overthrow and the internal power struggles would not leave the military at its full capacity. Plus since it is fighting its own people, any lenghty campaign would be fatal as not only would they lose the funding but they would be destroying what they are trying to take over.

The key here is that the opposition in Vietnam was well co-ordinated and motivated. Would that be true of some kind of domestic uprising?

An armed militia will not defeat the United State Army. Ever.

Ever ever ever ever.

If you gave every single American civilian an M-16 rifle and a Stinger launcher, they would still lose. In fact, they would not only lose, they would be slaughtered like brainless cattle. Simply having weapons does not mean you are remotely likely to defeat the most powerful and technologically advanced army in the entire world. The moment an A-10 rolls in on you, you are dead. The moment an F-15E gets within bombing range, you are dead. Under-trained, ill equipped, undisciplined militia forces have a snowball's chance in hell of beating any real army, let alone the US Army.

To even stand a remote chance at beating the US Army, you would need a whole fleet of advanced fighter and CAS aircraft, bombers, and naval vessels. Not to mention a huge chain of cargo planes and transport vessels, as you are screwed from the get-go if you don't secure supply lines and maintain good logistics. And even if you do steal these things, the US military will still likely whoop your ass.

Even Canada would whoop the rebellion's ass. Well, likely. They did burn down the White House once before.

So 'keeping guns to overthrow a corrupt US government' does not fly as a real argument. 'Stalling an enemy invasion' works a little better, but even that's not likely to actually be of much use. And involves a lot of people sacrificing their lives, as their effort to stall invasion will inevitably result in huge loss of life and property.

Life and technology has changed rapidly from the time of Jefferson. His soldiers fought with muskets. Ours fight with stealth aircraft.

As for Yamamoto, his invasion would have failed not because of armed civilians, but because his little island would never drum up enough resources, manpower or equipment to properly invade a country the size of the United States. Russia was the only country that stood a chance, and it has since fallen. Even the whole of the EU would have difficulty.

that's the problem, you are assuming that the nation would keep all of it's military, in reality, whatever resources were in the secceding states would go to them, so you would end up with the civil war (again) the difference would be in the details, like if the south and everything west of the missisippi(excepting the western seaboard) were to secede,the US would lose a good portion of it's army and everything and would have great difficulty fighting off that, again it depends on who are the people seceding but the point still stands.

You let the 10 year old fire a gun to train him. If you introduce a child to guns and train him on the proper saftey techniques then not only will he be comfortable with guns but also safe.

I'm all for gun education and safety, but that's still a 10 year old holding the gun. I find it more responsible to verbally educate the 10 year old on gun safety and what not to do, and actually let them fire it when they are of a much older and more responsible age. It's dangerous enough letting a 16 year old drive a motor vehicle, much less use a weapon that's specifically designed for killing something.

You might not need an AK-47 to protect yourself from an ordinary robber, but the more advanced systems would be for protection from the government.

I somehow don't feel comfortable with the thought of my neighbor owning a mobile surface-to-air missile launcher in his garage. That's the kind of equipment one would need (in great supply) to stand a chance. And, given the likelihood of actually having to wage a people's war on the US government, chances are higher than such equipment would be used more for illegal purposes than for the reason of just defense. And would be very tempting for criminals to steal. Pack a gun with you or not, you're not there to keep an eye on your property all day long.

In the Vietnam War America, despite its advanced military technology, had trouble handling the opposition. Guerilla forces can withstand an assualt from even the most advanced of military opposition. Look at our America's Revolution. We should have been soundly thrashed, but we won. Look at Vietnam. Plus chances are not all of the military will agree with a government overthrow and the internal power struggles would not leave the military at its full capacity. Plus since it is fighting its own people, any lenghty campaign would be fatal as not only would they lose the funding but they would be destroying what they are trying to take over.

Well, I'm sure they said the same thing just before the Revolutionary War. But then again, technology has changed much faster than the natural physical defenses of the human body has evolved.

Vietnam:
Americans fighting in unfamiliar, very rugged terrain. It was also highly unpopular with Americans back home, and we had no major motivation beyond keeping a third party from invading a country that was not our own. It was a war we could afford to lose. Also, the vast majority of the fighting was done by the Vietnamese Army, not by random armed civilians. In fact, a lot of civilians suffered in that war.

Revolution:
To say armed civilians are the reason we won the Revolution is absolutely 100% false. In fact, the militia had very little to do with the outcome of the actual war. The standing US Army, fighting conventionally and trained by experienced French officers, did the brunt of the real fighting. The French Navy also has an important role in the war. The militia get played up as romantic heroes, but if you actually look at the facts, their role in the war is actually quite minor.

Do you know what actually won the war? Logistics. The British were an ocean away. It took months simply to send news back to England. It took more months on top of that to muster reinforcements or gather basic supplies and ship them to the Colonies. The British already had a huge amount of debt on their shoulders due to the Seven Years' War. To worsen matters, the war was unpopular with British citizens and members of the British parliament, who endorsed or were neutral about American independence. The Americans, on the other hand, were fighting on their home turf and had immediate access to supplies. They could also communicate rapidly with their military leaders and politicians.

In a purely American revolution, the people vs. the government, the situation would be very different. Both parties would have access to local supplies. Communication is instant regardless of where you are thanks to technology. Unfortunately, given the Army's collection of advanced weaponry and equipment, they would take over all vital supply lines. Especially if they have the Navy blockading key port cities. With supply lines choked, the already underpowered militia would be strangled into submission. If they didn't have bombs dropped on them before then, of course. It's also not a matter of simply having weapons or good logistics - you need excellent training. That takes time and extra resources, even if every American citizen starts driving tanks to work instead of cars. Just because you have military equipment does not mean you are qualified to use it against an expertly trained army.

that's the problem, you are assuming that the nation would keep all of it's military, in reality, whatever resources were in the secceding states would go to them, so you would end up with the civil war (again) the difference would be in the details, like if the south and everything west of the missisippi(excepting the western seaboard) were to secede,the US would lose a good portion of it's army and everything and would have great difficulty fighting off that, again it depends on who are the people seceding but the point still stands.

I'm not assuming anything, just going off what he's saying. Your situation is more realistic. It will still end in the same result however, mostly for the same reasons it ended that way in the first Civil War. The US would lose a large chunk of its current military, but all of those people are volunteers. Once a "union" draft kicks in, they will be about even. The "confederacy mk.II" may win a few key battles at the start given that they have the more experienced soldiers, but that too will even out. And even if it doesn't, it's the "union" states that are the hubs of technology and production. Lockheed Martin is in Maryland. Boeing does most of its work up here in Washington State. Northrop Grumman is in Los Angeles. And so on, and so forth.

Furthermore, with the Midwest landlocked and sandwiched in between the Pacific states and the east, they will be strangled by logistical problems (again, logistics is what makes and breaks wars, not weapons). The Midwest has a lot of land, but most of it is rural and the population density is very low. The South is too, at least compared to New England and the Pacific, but would have a better chance.

It would be harder to win this form of Civil War, but with the "union" still in control of most of the technology and military resources, it would likely end in the same result as the last one. With or without the crazy people who collect armories for just such emergencies. And even if the spread of technology and manpower was dead even between both sides in the event of secession, it would be a long and brutal war that would wipe out a good part of our population. Worse than the real Civil War did.

I don't think the US will ever become so oppressive a dictatorship that it would actually require a civil war to overthrow the government, but if it did, the population would realistically need the help of other advanced nations (Britain, Russia, France, Germany...) to stand a chance.


A gun does not a war hero make.

See, for me it's not so much the vague possibility of an invasion or revolution that makes me want a gun, but the gang-bangers walking down the road with pistols tucked behind their belts.

That and I'm one of those crazy people that think it would be cool.

But I don't really see why I would need assault-weapon grade firearms for that.

Am I missing the point? Obama's ban only seems to target weapons with cheifly criminal applications. Is the main objection to the law that it is the start of a slippery slope that leads inexorably towards far stricter gun control?

In the Vietnam War America, despite its advanced military technology, had trouble handling the opposition. Guerilla forces can withstand an assualt from even the most advanced of military opposition. Look at our America's Revolution. We should have been soundly thrashed, but we won. Look at Vietnam. Plus chances are not all of the military will agree with a government overthrow and the internal power struggles would not leave the military at its full capacity. Plus since it is fighting its own people, any lenghty campaign would be fatal as not only would they lose the funding but they would be destroying what they are trying to take over.

The key here is that the opposition in Vietnam was well co-ordinated and motivated. Would that be true of some kind of domestic uprising?

Basically, and out dating the civilian armed response ability to the point that the no rebellion would actually be able to take place.

I am sure that Americans would be quick to defend their freedom and with advancing civilian communication technology (such as cellular phones) would be able to able to form a completely informed and mobile communication base.

I'm all for gun education and safety, but that's still a 10 year old holding the gun. I find it more responsible to verbally educate the 10 year old on gun safety and what not to do, and actually let them fire it when they are of a much older and more responsible age. It's dangerous enough letting a 16 year old drive a motor vehicle, much less use a weapon that's specifically designed for killing something.

Verbal instruction does not carry the same amount of learning capabilities as actual hands on training. Such as, you have a horse on a farm. If your parents just show you what to do to care for it and verbally instruct you, you do not gain the confidence or the actual experience with the horse and will not be as comfortable or be able to form your own methods of caring for the horse that are more comfortable for you. It's like your teacher showing you math problems and then not letting you practice any for homework.

I somehow don't feel comfortable with the thought of my neighbor owning a mobile surface-to-air missile launcher in his garage. That's the kind of equipment one would need (in great supply) to stand a chance. And, given the likelihood of actually having to wage a people's war on the US government, chances are higher than such equipment would be used more for illegal purposes than for the reason of just defense. And would be very tempting for criminals to steal. Pack a gun with you or not, you're not there to keep an eye on your property all day long.

Wouldn't you? That kind of weapons system is capapble of mass amounts of damage and should be regulated but keeping personal weapons systems up to date should not.

In the Vietnam War America, despite its advanced military technology, had trouble handling the opposition. Guerilla forces can withstand an assualt from even the most advanced of military opposition. Look at our America's Revolution. We should have been soundly thrashed, but we won. Look at Vietnam. Plus chances are not all of the military will agree with a government overthrow and the internal power struggles would not leave the military at its full capacity. Plus since it is fighting its own people, any lenghty campaign would be fatal as not only would they lose the funding but they would be destroying what they are trying to take over.

Well, I'm sure they said the same thing just before the Revolutionary War. But then again, technology has changed much faster than the natural physical defenses of the human body has evolved.

Vietnam:
Americans fighting in unfamiliar, very rugged terrain. It was also highly unpopular with Americans back home, and we had no major motivation beyond keeping a third party from invading a country that was not our own. It was a war we could afford to lose. Also, the vast majority of the fighting was done by the Vietnamese Army, not by random armed civilians. In fact, a lot of civilians suffered in that war.

Revolution:
To say armed civilians are the reason we won the Revolution is absolutely 100% false. In fact, the militia had very little to do with the outcome of the actual war. The standing US Army, fighting conventionally and trained by experienced French officers, did the brunt of the real fighting. The French Navy also has an important role in the war. The militia get played up as romantic heroes, but if you actually look at the facts, their role in the war is actually quite minor.

Do you know what actually won the war? Logistics. The British were an ocean away. It took months simply to send news back to England. It took more months on top of that to muster reinforcements or gather basic supplies and ship them to the Colonies. The British already had a huge amount of debt on their shoulders due to the Seven Years' War. To worsen matters, the war was unpopular with British citizens and members of the British parliament, who endorsed or were neutral about American independence. The Americans, on the other hand, were fighting on their home turf and had immediate access to supplies. They could also communicate rapidly with their military leaders and politicians.

In a purely American revolution, the people vs. the government, the situation would be very different. Both parties would have access to local supplies. Communication is instant regardless of where you are thanks to technology. Unfortunately, given the Army's collection of advanced weaponry and equipment, they would take over all vital supply lines. Especially if they have the Navy blockading key port cities. With supply lines choked, the already underpowered militia would be strangled into submission. If they didn't have bombs dropped on them before then, of course. It's also not a matter of simply having weapons or good logistics - you need excellent training. That takes time and extra resources, even if every American citizen starts driving tanks to work instead of cars. Just because you have military equipment does not mean you are qualified to use it against an expertly trained army.

that's the problem, you are assuming that the nation would keep all of it's military, in reality, whatever resources were in the secceding states would go to them, so you would end up with the civil war (again) the difference would be in the details, like if the south and everything west of the missisippi(excepting the western seaboard) were to secede,the US would lose a good portion of it's army and everything and would have great difficulty fighting off that, again it depends on who are the people seceding but the point still stands.

I'm not assuming anything, just going off what he's saying. Your situation is more realistic. It will still end in the same result however, mostly for the same reasons it ended that way in the first Civil War. The US would lose a large chunk of its current military, but all of those people are volunteers. Once a "union" draft kicks in, they will be about even. The "confederacy mk.II" may win a few key battles at the start given that they have the more experienced soldiers, but that too will even out. And even if it doesn't, it's the "union" states that are the hubs of technology and production. Lockheed Martin is in Maryland. Boeing does most of its work up here in Washington State. Northrop Grumman is in Los Angeles. And so on, and so forth.

Furthermore, with the Midwest landlocked and sandwiched in between the Pacific states and the east, they will be strangled by logistical problems (again, logistics is what makes and breaks wars, not weapons). The Midwest has a lot of land, but most of it is rural and the population density is very low. The South is too, at least compared to New England and the Pacific, but would have a better chance.

It would be harder to win this form of Civil War, but with the "union" still in control of most of the technology and military resources, it would likely end in the same result as the last one. With or without the crazy people who collect armories for just such emergencies. And even if the spread of technology and manpower was dead even between both sides in the event of secession, it would be a long and brutal war that would wipe out a good part of our population. Worse than the real Civil War did.

I don't think the US will ever become so oppressive a dictatorship that it would actually require a civil war to overthrow the government, but if it did, the population would realistically need the help of other advanced nations (Britain, Russia, France, Germany...) to stand a chance.


A gun does not a war hero make.

The number of military personnel that are active is 1,444,553. Reserve personnel is 1,458,500. That makes a grand total of 2,903,053 The American populace numbers 305,917,000. That makes it a 105 (civilian) to 1 (military personnel). That is assuming that the military keeps all of its personnel. So, if half of the populace does not even fight that makes it a 52 C to 1 M. (Once again that's if the military keeps all of its people.) Now, lets say that the military personnel kills 2/3s of the people that are in its ratio. That leaves 17 civilians left. Even if the military was in full force the sheer numbers of the American people would be able to hold back. The amount of military personnel that would support a new regime would not be the full amount and the tyrannical government would not just unleash upon the buildings and infrastructure that it was trying to conquer.

A gun does not make a war hero but not standing for your rights and being a defenseless sheep makes you a coward, war or no war.

The number of military personnel that are active is 1,444,553. Reserve personnel is 1,458,500. That makes a grand total of 2,903,053 The American populace numbers 305,917,000. That makes it a 105 (civilian) to 1 (military personnel). That is assuming that the military keeps all of its personnel. So, if half of the populace does not even fight that makes it a 52 C to 1 M. (Once again that's if the military keeps all of its people.) Now, lets say that the military personnel kills 2/3s of the people that are in its ratio. That leaves 17 civilians left. Even if the military was in full force the sheer numbers of the American people would be able to hold back. The amount of military personnel that would support a new regime would not be the full amount and the tyrannical government would not just unleash upon the buildings and infrastructure that it was trying to conquer.

I am very tired of this argument.

In the Spanish Cilvil War, back in 1936, the fascist side had approximately 60% of the army, and the least populated and developed areas of Spain were under their control, but they were very well organized. The republicans, however, had bot Madrid and Barcelona, the Spanish Bank under their control, most of the navy and the air army, and gave weapons to the people. Guess who won the war. Guess who governed Spain for 40 years.

And technology has advanced quite a little bit since that time.

Sorry, 'Lena, but I had to.

I played devil's advocate to something like this in a debate once before, purely for fun, but the simple fact of the matter is:

An armed militia will not defeat the United State Army. Ever.

Yes, I agree. The Iraqis are doing so much better a job than fat gringo Americans could ever do.


War is not an exact science. It used to be that all there was to war was line up, load, point, and shoot... and our rights were at least slightly influenced by that understanding. HOWEVER, even though the specifics of war have changed, the fundamentals have not. It's still true that to win you must be well-disciplined, well-organized, and -most importantly- under absolutely superb leadership.

Fact is, that combination is virtually certain with the military while it is very unlikely of any civilian militia. But it's not impossible. If a rebellion were to be lead by a retired military officer who is a very good leader, the outcome is far from a sure thing. And, in fact, that's exactly what we saw with the American Revolution; superior leadership succeeding over a far superior force.

War is not an exact science because leadership is what really wins wars, and leadership is an intangible.

The numbers are all very well and good, but that's a very poor and suicidal way to look at strategy if you're genuinely concerned with having the ability to overthrow the United States. The numbers look as if things are in the rebellion's favor, but the reality is much different. In fact, 'quantity over quality' is the method that Soviet Russia used. The US preferred 'quality over quantity' for a reason. The modern results speak for themselves when it comes to the numbers game. 100 expertly trained, well equipped and well supplied professional soldiers stand a better chance at waging war than 10,000 inadequately trained civilians who form a militia. Not to mention that a militia fighting an offensive campaign (which they will be if they're attempting to oust a government from power) is going to be more costly than a defensive one. Offensive campaigns expose your troops. And you can't oust a government if you're just hiding in your house with a rifle.

If you plan on an effective revolution you will need to:

1. Train your troops for months to get them remotely on par with government forces. This will require vast amounts of money and equipment. Somebody on the "loyalist" side is going to notice these training camps. Even if there are whole "rebel" towns, the US military has spy satellites that can view the town from above. That's not even counting traditional spies, law enforcement, government officials, or any other people who are likely to hear word of the training programs. The US Army will then move in to shut down the camps before most of your rebel troops get through basic.

2. Secure a vast amount of top-of-the-line military aircraft, tanks, SAM launchers, artillery, and other such vehicles. A scoped rifle with a grenade launcher doesn't beat an A-10 or an F-15E. You will only be able to do this if and only if you get a huge chunk of the US military to defect to your side. Or request the aid of another nation, much like the real colonial rebels did with France.

3. Acquire air superiority over the states/areas you wish to conquer. The most basic of strategies demands you have control of the air. If you do not have control of the air, you will lose. Why? Because A-10's will be rolling in to pump you full of depleted uranium bullets at a rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. Also present will be paratroopers, high altitude bombers, and attack helicopters than can shoot individuals through walls without destroying a house. You don't have to worry about extensive collateral damage with laser precision weaponry. I can provide video footage of an AH-64 pilot shooting Iraqi insurgent members through the walls of a house, leaving the structure with only a few holes and no major damage. This is not the era of the blind artillery barrage. The US Army no longer need to unleash upon infrastructure.

A problem with maintain air superiority? The military has the F/A-22, which is likely only going to be used by hardcore loyalists in the event of a rebellion. And no nation in the world has a fighter aircraft that can seriously match the Raptor in air-to-air combat, much less a militia army. There are many that stand a chance at dogfighting, but unfortunately they will be dead before they can close in. Your only chance to get rid of the Raptor is pray that its high maintenance costs force it out of service due to budget constraints. And the military will likely sacrifice older model fighters before they start boxing the 22's up.

4. Acquire domination of the coast. The US Navy can launch missiles from the coast and strike a wide range of land targets without ever coming into harm's way. So you have to find a way to remove these ships from service. Which, again, will require you to possess technology suitable for bringing down AEGIS cruisers and nuclear submarines.

5. Dominate the land, which involves finding ways to stop giant tank formations from entering your key cities. Tank rifles stopped working effectively in 1942 (at least), so you'll need missiles or some other kind of heavy weapon.

6. Find a way to keep this up for years, or find a way to do it all within the span of a few days. It's sort of hard to catch the US Army off-guard unless you resort to terrorist tactics, so bet on the former.

optional: Use an EMP bomb to wipe out all the electronics in a wide region. Of course, you also risk wiping out your own hi-technology. And even then, the US Army is equipped to fight without their fancy gadgets.

I am sure that Americans would be quick to defend their freedom and with advancing civilian communication technology (such as cellular phones) would be able to able to form a completely informed and mobile communication base.

Cellphone towers = systematically bombed in 1 hour. CB radios? Sure, maybe. Civilian radar? Easily jammed by EA-6 planes or EA-18s.

105 civilians to 1 US soldier? The army is more than capable, if you consider the fact that that 1 soldier might be behind the controls of an AH-64D.

A gun does not make a war hero but not standing for your rights and being a defenseless sheep makes you a coward, war or no war.

There are more ways to cause a revolution than to take up arms and shoot the people in power. There's a fine line between being brave and being an idiot. A militia might be heroic for standing up to the most advanced army in the entire world, but heroism doesn't change reality. A slaughter is a slaughter whether the force is heroic or cowardly. Standing for your rights, at least nowadays, means voting instead of putting a bullet through someone's head. There's a revolution in this country once every 4-8 years. Usually. The parties are so vastly different that it is going to be near impossible to go too far down one path without the other party eventually keeping things in check. And if politics fails, then there are still other methods besides the gun.

The militia and idea of people taking back their country through force is highly romanticized. The last few times it happened, it was in an era where soldiers wore cloth jackets and funny hats instead of kevlar and proper helmets. Since then, 'revolutions' have been ideological, cultural, or political. Standing up for your rights can be something other than a "heroic" charge into death. The modern militia is a vestigial remnant of America's early years. And was somewhat unwanted even then. There were debates in the late 1700's to get rid of the militia all together, much less keep it around for a hi-tech era 200-some years later.

In reality, a militia does two things:

1. Stall the enemy.
2. Irritate the enemy. This mostly concerns prolonged occupations in foreign territory.

Proper offensives are done by a well trained standing army.


edit:

And, in fact, that's exactly what we saw with the American Revolution; superior leadership succeeding over a far superior force.

Not exactly. The British were fine at what they did, so its not purely a matter of 'superior leadership.' Had England been on the same continent and a decent march away from the colonies, America would have likely lost the war. Again, logistics. It's the unsung hero of all military conflicts. And America would have been even more screwed had they not gotten the French on their side. I guess that takes away from the patriotic stories, though. Great leadership is an important element of warfare, but it won't necessarily be something that makes or breaks a war. In many cases, the two opposing generals are of comparable ability. Even if the militia got several ex-Army generals on their side, the remaining Army would still have more in reserve. Technology and logistics often end up being the factors that break stalemates or cause one-sided victories.

And while it might not be strictly impossible for a militia to force the real US Army to surrender (the 'never say never' mentality), it is a very extreme long shot.

The numbers are all very well and good, but that's a very poor and suicidal way to look at strategy if you're genuinely concerned with having the ability to overthrow the United States. The numbers look as if things are in the rebellion's favor, but the reality is much different. In fact, 'quantity over quality' is the method that Soviet Russia used. The US preferred 'quality over quantity' for a reason. The modern results speak for themselves when it comes to the numbers game. 100 expertly trained, well equipped and well supplied professional soldiers stand a better chance at waging war than 10,000 inadequately trained civilians who form a militia. Not to mention that a militia fighting an offensive campaign (which they will be if they're attempting to oust a government from power) is going to be more costly than a defensive one. Offensive campaigns expose your troops. And you can't oust a government if you're just hiding in your house with a rifle.

If you plan on an effective revolution you will need to:

1. Train your troops for months to get them remotely on par with government forces. This will require vast amounts of money and equipment. Somebody on the "loyalist" side is going to notice these training camps. Even if there are whole "rebel" towns, the US military has spy satellites that can view the town from above. That's not even counting traditional spies, law enforcement, government officials, or any other people who are likely to hear word of the training programs. The US Army will then move in to shut down the camps before most of your rebel troops get through basic.

2. Secure a vast amount of top-of-the-line military aircraft, tanks, SAM launchers, artillery, and other such vehicles. A scoped rifle with a grenade launcher doesn't beat an A-10 or an F-15E. You will only be able to do this if and only if you get a huge chunk of the US military to defect to your side. Or request the aid of another nation, much like the real colonial rebels did with France.

3. Acquire air superiority over the states/areas you wish to conquer. The most basic of strategies demands you have control of the air. If you do not have control of the air, you will lose. Why? Because A-10's will be rolling in to pump you full of depleted uranium bullets at a rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. Also present will be paratroopers, high altitude bombers, and attack helicopters than can shoot individuals through walls without destroying a house. You don't have to worry about extensive collateral damage with laser precision weaponry. I can provide video footage of an AH-64 pilot shooting Iraqi insurgent members through the walls of a house, leaving the structure with only a few holes and no major damage. This is not the era of the blind artillery barrage. The US Army no longer need to unleash upon infrastructure.

A problem with maintain air superiority? The military has the F/A-22, which is likely only going to be used by hardcore loyalists in the event of a rebellion. And no nation in the world has a fighter aircraft that can seriously match the Raptor in air-to-air combat, much less a militia army. There are many that stand a chance at dogfighting, but unfortunately they will be dead before they can close in. Your only chance to get rid of the Raptor is pray that its high maintenance costs force it out of service due to budget constraints. And the military will likely sacrifice older model fighters before they start boxing the 22's up.

4. Acquire domination of the coast. The US Navy can launch missiles from the coast and strike a wide range of land targets without ever coming into harm's way. So you have to find a way to remove these ships from service. Which, again, will require you to possess technology suitable for bringing down AEGIS cruisers and nuclear submarines.

5. Dominate the land, which involves finding ways to stop giant tank formations from entering your key cities. Tank rifles stopped working effectively in 1942 (at least), so you'll need missiles or some other kind of heavy weapon.

6. Find a way to keep this up for years, or find a way to do it all within the span of a few days. It's sort of hard to catch the US Army off-guard unless you resort to terrorist tactics, so bet on the former.

optional: Use an EMP bomb to wipe out all the electronics in a wide region. Of course, you also risk wiping out your own hi-technology. And even then, the US Army is equipped to fight without their fancy gadgets.

You act as if the full support of the military would be behind the government even if a fraction of the military did not support the new government then supplies would be able to distributed amongst the militia and their own weapons used against them. Superior thinking has always overwhelmed superior force. Technology is not the begin all and end all of defeating an armed opponent. (See "Unrestricted Warfare")

Cellphone towers = systematically bombed in 1 hour. CB radios? Sure, maybe. Civilian radar? Easily jammed by EA-6 planes or EA-18s.

105 civilians to 1 US soldier? The army is more than capable, if you consider the fact that that 1 soldier might be behind the controls of an AH-64D.

There are more ways to cause a revolution than to take up arms and shoot the people in power. There's a fine line between being brave and being an idiot. A militia might be heroic for standing up to the most advanced army in the entire world, but the downside to that is that they are now heroic morons. Standing for your rights, at least nowadays, means voting instead of putting a bullet through someone's head. There's a revolution in this country once every 4-8 years. Usually. The parties are so vastly different that it is going to be near impossible to go too far down one path without the other party eventually keeping things in check. And if politics fails, then there are still other methods besides the gun.

The militia and idea of people taking back their country through force is highly romanticized. The last few times it happened, it was in an era where soldiers wore cloth jackets and funny hats instead of kevlar and proper helmets. Since then, 'revolutions' have been ideological, cultural, or political. Standing up for your rights can be something other than a "heroic" charge into death. The modern militia is a vestigial remnant of America's early years. And was somewhat unwanted even then. There were debates in the late 1700's to get rid of the militia all together, much less keep it around for a hi-tech era 200-some years later.

In reality, a militia does two things:

1. Stall the enemy.
2. Irritate the enemy. This mostly concerns prolonged occupations in foreign territory.

Proper offensives are done by a well trained standing army.

I did not say that this is the best way to cause a revolution if you want change, did I? I said that it was put in place so that the civilian population could defend itself "IF" the government turned tyrannical. Political activism is an important part of keeping the government in check, but this was put into place in case of the worst case scenario and so it should be maintained in case of the worst case scenario. The scenario you are presenting has pitched combat already in the starting, but as Master Sun says(XD *thought that sounded funny*)- "Therefore the superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid." Who's to say that a militia formed by the citizenry will not take of the tyrannical government before they actually "invade"? This would not be accomplish able by just men armed with outdated weaponry, so if new systems are kept open, such governmental forms can be removed "surgically" before any real combats start. A revolution isn't just triggered by government action.

"When an enemy begins to plot an attack against you, you first attack them- this is easy. Figure out the direction of the enemy's plans and deploy your forces accordingly, attacking at the outset of their intentions" - Ho Yanxi

I find it funny that you all think that America is the most powerful nation in the world. China would destroy you should it come down to it.

I find it funny that your thinking, We need guns, incase government becomes corrupt and war breaks out.

Its your righ tot own a gun, according to your second ammendment, but what responsibility comes with that. If you were a kid, America, you'd be on time out with all guns taken away, because you shoot all your other classmates.

I find it funny that you all think that America is the most powerful nation in the world. China would destroy you should it come down to it.

I find it funny that your thinking, We need guns, incase government becomes corrupt and war breaks out.

Its your righ tot own a gun, according to your second ammendment, but what responsibility comes with that. If you were a kid, America, you'd be on time out with all guns taken away, because you shoot all your other classmates.

Lawlz.

Edited by darkravenntk, 04 March 2009 - 10:19 PM.

You act as if the full support of the military would be behind the government even if a fraction of the military did not support the new government then supplies would be able to distributed amongst the militia and their own weapons used against them. Superior thinking has always overwhelmed superior force. Technology is not the begin all and end all of defeating an armed opponent. (See "Unrestricted Warfare")

Neither of us clarified what percentage of the armed forces would turn against the government, if at all. The way the case has been presented so far, it sounded as if civilian militias would be able to handle things on their own. Which is unlikely.

If a good portion of the military defects to the rebel side, then the civilian militia is essentially obsolete, making the whole debate a moot point. If a large chunk (not necessarily the majority) of the real army turns on the government, then fighting will mostly be done by the loyalist and rebel soldiers. The militia would be relegated to support and harassment roles out of necessity - a good general won't be throwing in militiamen as cannon fodder if they have real soldiers waiting in the wings to fight. It's too great a risk if the generals are at all concerned with loss of life.

Also, technology is more important than you are indicating. It's not the only factor, but let's be honest. An F/A-22 has a phenomenally higher chance of victory if it's only flying against an F-15. Superior technology gives your troops a strong edge that you cannot afford to ignore if you're serious about winning. Technology and its application is also a part of "superior thinking." It's always a part of the larger picture, and it's a big reason that some wars are as successful as they have been. The Cold War was mainly a glorified technological arms race, for the very obvious reason of whichever nations remains technologically dominant has the better chance at winning any war. Technology was also an important factor in the real Civil War.

The scenario you are presenting has pitched combat already in the starting, but as Master Sun says(XD *thought that sounded funny*)- "Therefore the superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid." Who's to say that a militia formed by the citizenry will not take of the tyrannical government before they actually "invade"? This would not be accomplish able by just men armed with outdated weaponry, so if new systems are kept open, such governmental forms can be removed "surgically" before any real combats start. A revolution isn't just triggered by government action.

Attacking while plans are being laid was part of my scenario, mentioned during the training bit - the part where the US Army is likely to shut down rebel training camps even before the first few classes can graduate from basic training and execute their plans. The US Army will already have its soldiers trained and prepared for a crisis. The militia will not be in a situation where they can strike while US government plans are being laid, as it's the rebels that will be the ones that have to lay out plans and extensively prepare. And, given that this is a scenario where the US government would be tyrannical, chances are that communication lines are being tapped and more actively listened to than in the past. Especially if you're suspected of forming a full scale revolution against the nation.

And this would apply even if it was somehow legal for every American was allowed to own their own fighter jet and laser defense system. The tyrannical part of the Army stands a much better chance of learning about the plans and striking first than the rebels do of launching a surgical surprise attack. At least in an age of instant information exchange and digital communication.

I find it funny that you all think that America is the most powerful nation in the world. China would destroy you should it come down to it.

Debatable, actually. This is another instance of quantity vs. quality. There are more Chinese citizens than American, but the Americans have better military equipment and technology. It would be brutal. It would be bloody. But it won't necessarily end in Chinese victory. The Chinese are advancing, but in terms of the military, they aren't necessarily there yet.

When I first heard about Obama taking away our second amendment rights, my first thought was that Texas will secede before they'd allow that. Now taht I know that he's only banning guns that ridiculously overkill and would only suit criminal purposes, I totally support him. Only sick people would need that amount of firepower just to "protect themselves."

Sorry, 'Lena, but I had to.

I played devil's advocate to something like this in a debate once before, purely for fun, but the simple fact of the matter is:

An armed militia will not defeat the United State Army. Ever.

Yes, I agree. The Iraqis are doing so much better a job than fat gringo Americans could ever do.


War is not an exact science. It used to be that all there was to war was line up, load, point, and shoot... and our rights were at least slightly influenced by that understanding. HOWEVER, even though the specifics of war have changed, the fundamentals have not. It's still true that to win you must be well-disciplined, well-organized, and -most importantly- under absolutely superb leadership.

Fact is, that combination is virtually certain with the military while it is very unlikely of any civilian militia. But it's not impossible. If a rebellion were to be lead by a retired military officer who is a very good leader, the outcome is far from a sure thing. And, in fact, that's exactly what we saw with the American Revolution; superior leadership succeeding over a far superior force.

War is not an exact science because leadership is what really wins wars, and leadership is an intangible.

War is not an exact science but that's a whole lot of weight being put on the chance that a rebellion would be led by such a leader.

What would tip the scales more is if US Soldiers had qualms shooting at US citizens.

Edited by SOAP, 04 March 2009 - 11:39 PM.

Neither of us clarified what percentage of the armed forces would turn against the government, if at all. The way the case has been presented so far, it sounded as if civilian militias would be able to handle things on their own. Which is unlikely.

If a good portion of the military defects to the rebel side, then the civilian militia is essentially obsolete, making the whole debate a moot point. If a large chunk (not necessarily the majority) of the real army turns on the government, then fighting will mostly be done by the loyalist and rebel soldiers. The militia would be relegated to support and harassment roles out of necessity - a good general won't be throwing in militiamen as cannon fodder if they have real soldiers waiting in the wings to fight. It's too great a risk if the generals are at all concerned with loss of life.

Also, technology is more important than you are indicating. It's not the only factor, but let's be honest. An F/A-22 has a phenomenally higher chance of victory if it's only flying against an F-15. Superior technology gives your troops a strong edge that you cannot afford to ignore if you're serious about winning. Technology and its application is also a part of "superior thinking." It's always a part of the larger picture, and it's a big reason that some wars are as successful as they have been. The Cold War was mainly a glorified technological arms race, for the very obvious reason of whichever nations remains technologically dominant has the better chance at winning any war. Technology was also an important factor in the real Civil War.


Attacking while plans are being laid was part of my scenario, mentioned during the training bit - the part where the US Army is likely to shut down rebel training camps even before the first few classes can graduate from basic training and execute their plans. The US Army will already have its soldiers trained and prepared for a crisis. The militia will not be in a situation where they can strike while US government plans are being laid, as it's the rebels that will be the ones that have to lay out plans and extensively prepare. And, given that this is a scenario where the US government would be tyrannical, chances are that communication lines are being tapped and more actively listened to than in the past. Especially if you're suspected of forming a full scale revolution against the nation.

And this would apply even if it was somehow legal for every American was allowed to own their own fighter jet and laser defense system. The tyrannical part of the Army stands a much better chance of learning about the plans and striking first than the rebels do of launching a surgical surprise attack. At least in an age of instant information exchange and digital communication.

You know, you're totally right. What was I thinking? Defending our freedom? Dang. I totally agree with you now, we should just get rid of any chance of pushing back the goverment if they turn tyrranical and just drop our pants, bend over, and take it if it ever happens.

Edited by darkravenntk, 05 March 2009 - 10:27 AM.

You know, you're totally right. What was I thinking? Defending our freedom? Dang. I totally agree with you now, we should just get rid of any chance of pushing back the goverment if they turn tyrranical and just drop our pants, bend over, and take it if it ever happens.

Do you think a lot of people would willingly walk off a cliff in order to defend a principle? The results would be more or less the same as fighting a trained army.

I would like to point out again that the Bush Administration has been the worst the American government has come to regarding the infringement of human rights in the last hundred years, and the resulting response has shown that in the events of such infringements, an allowance for a potential all-out occupation and dictatorship is just a ridiculous scenario. It's a product of fearmongering.

Edited by Raien, 05 March 2009 - 11:25 AM.

You know, you're totally right. What was I thinking? Defending our freedom? Dang. I totally agree with you now, we should just get rid of any chance of pushing back the goverment if they turn tyrranical and just drop our pants, bend over, and take it if it ever happens.

What you've failed to establish is how Obama's proposed law prevents you from defending your freedom. I'll repeat that this law quite specifically targets arms which have primarily criminal uses. Whether or not a militia is a deterrant to tyranny the capabilities of said militia are not harmed by this proposal.

If you are concerned that this law will lead to far tighter gun control in the future, then I think you are right to be suspicious.



As an aside with the extent of media control exerted by modern Governments, would the populace necessarily be aware of the tyranny of their Government? It was widely reported that at the time of the Iraq invasion most Americans believed Sadam had in some way aided the 9/11 attacks - mainly because the Bush administration repeatedly claimed this to be true.

As an aside with the extent of media control exerted by modern Governments, would the populace necessarily be aware of the tyranny of their Government? It was widely reported that at the time of the Iraq invasion most Americans believed Sadam had in some way aided the 9/11 attacks - mainly because the Bush administration repeatedly claimed this to be true.

If the government openly lies to the media, then the media cannot do anything other than report those lies. If the media calls information lies without proof, then they can be charged with slander. Ever heard of Piers Morgan, the British journalist who now judges shows like American Idol and America's Got Talent? He came into the public eye when he was charged for slander for saying the British government lied over Iraq. This was before the lies were officially exposed, of course.

Proof is instrumental. It's thanks to whistleblowers and freedom-of-information laws that most lies become exposed to the media, and consequently to the public. And in a democracy, there are always people who will search for the truth, even when the majority are prone to scares and fearmongering tactics.

Edited by Raien, 05 March 2009 - 12:43 PM.