@ TrPrado

"Arm millions of Americans, all of them angry at Afghani terrorists, and put them in Afghanistan. The Taliban hides anywhere and everywhere, so how exactly do you expect these Americans to tell the difference between most Afghani citizens and Afghani terrorists? Some of these same Americans may see that Afghanis are sentimental towards terrorists and that they are all threats, and that can't be good."

When did I ever say that I wanted to do that?! You don't send civilians to fight a war elsewhere! That's why we have a professional military. However, having a well-armed populace deters foreign invaders. Why didn't the Japanese even consider invading the US during WWII? A well-armed populace. Why did the British fail in North America? A well-armed populace.

@ orathaic

"have they stopped the tyranny of the US government?"

No, but only because the government hasn't really crossed any lines yet. It is getting dangerously close. We're seeing more and more states revive the nullification debate, and the Nullification Crisis was a prelude to the Civil War. I could envision open fighting between red states and blue states inside of two decades, and the divide will not be as geographically neat as the Civil War.

"Well done you guns have lead to dead children at police hands, and you're not up in arms about it. I *TOTALLY* see your point of view now..."

Privately-owned firearms save FAR more lives than they take. Read the front pages of "American Rifleman" magazine. You'll see >10 cases of legal firearm owners using their firearms in lifesaving self-defense EVERY MONTH.

@ Randomizer

"About 10 years ago, "60 Minutes" ran a segment about a group legally buying in the US .50 caliber rifles"

What's so bad about legally purchasing a .50 caliber rifle? Other than the cost, of course. I would love to own a .50, but regrettably I don't have thousands of dollars lying around.

>10 lives saved per month. So maybe 200 per year. Compared to the ~9000 firearm homicides per year, I am entirely unimpressed by that. I suspect that "Privately-owned firearms save FAR more lives than they take" may be complete bullshit.

Invictus prophesized the rise of a tyrant and now Gunfighter suggests we will be at civil war within a few decades.

Why has webDip not been tagged as a conspiracy site yet?

@ bo

And not forgetting Thucy's "We need to teach our governors that it's going to be Change, or Die" comment. How I wish for a return to the moderate days of Maple and Draug and old krellin...

Gunfighter: "When did I ever say that I wanted to do that?!" So what am I supposed to assume "Yet with all of those resources, the all-powerful government can't seem to defeat a few thousand Afghan hillbillies lightly armed with 30-year-old secondhand Russian weapons. Imagine millions of angry Americans, many with state-of-the-art small arms" means?
"Why didn't the Japanese even consider invading the US during WWII? A well-armed populace." Um, no. That was ALSO the professional army. We always have some on our own soil to prevent foreign invasion, and that's why Japan didn't invade.
"Why did the British fail in North America? A well-armed populace." Still the army. Nothing about a well-armed populace affected how well the British did here.
Octavious: I took Thucy's comment as part of a hypothetical extreme in response to the question I had previously posed. The little bit he put before is a necessity because it makes it far less disturbing.

@ mendax

http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense/

@ TrPrado

"So what am I supposed to assume..."

Oh, I don't know, maybe you could have assumed that I was unfavorably comparing the Taliban with hypothetical American resistance movement. If the US government cannot defeat the Taliban, then how could the US government possibly hope to vanquish millions of its own citizens?

"Um, no. That was ALSO the professional army. We always have some on our own soil to prevent foreign invasion, and that's why Japan didn't invade."

Right, because the US Army of late 1941 was a world-beating force. Now you're just being ignorant.

"Still the army. Nothing about a well-armed populace affected how well the British did here."

Ever heard of ta guy named Francis Marion? You know, that guy who basically forced the British to move to Yorktown? Are you trying to tell me that they were a conventional Army unit and not merely well-armed citizens? Once again, your ignorance is apparent. Also, you are assuming that the Continental Army of the late 1700s was an effective force (with respect to the American Revolution) and that the American Army in the early 1800s was an effective force (with respect to the War of 1812). Both statements are laughably false. The Continental Army/American Army lost more battles than unofficial groups like Marion's Partisans.

"Right, because the US Army of late 1941 was a world-beating force. Now you're just being ignorant." Not world-beating, but enough to scare Japan. They wanted to keep the US out of the war because they knew they didn't stand a chance. And we can again talk about the National Guard, because there was more than just the Army here as a professional army.
"Are you trying to tell me that they were a conventional Army unit and not merely well-armed citizens?" They served South Carolina. They were the colony's militia. Not necessarily conventional, but they would heed the orders of not only Swamp Fox, who was a trained military officer, but also the government of South Carolina.
"Also, you are assuming that the Continental Army of the late 1700s was an effective force (with respect to the American Revolution)" Never said that. We couldn't have possibly won the revolution if the French professional army didn't provide aid.
"and that the American Army in the early 1800s was an effective force (with respect to the War of 1812)." Didn't say that either. I mean, the British didn't leave North America until much later. Britain gave up a little more land, the last bit involving the US, leaving them only Canada, partially because our more-formidable-than-previously professional army was coupled with US expansionism, and Britain wanted to avoid that. Britain didn't want to fight in another war with the US, and the US didn't want to be in 2 wars at once, even though a large swath of Americans wanted British blood and Oregon.

petition to change the law - http://act.watchdog.net/petitions/4882?n=80474267.A2nwhM

@Gunfigther:


i said: "have they stopped the tyranny of the US government?"

you said 'No, but only because the government hasn't really crossed any lines yet. It is getting dangerously close.'

Let me be clear - there is no line, there is no slippery slope. They have done more in the past ten years to erode your freedoms than you care to admit. If they continue to normalise this behaviour it will be easier in future to remove citizens who they see as a threat - whether those citizens have guns or not.

The lack of privacy probably hurts more than a lack of guns would. The president has demonstrated a willingness to execute (by drone) US citizens who are deemed a threat. And NSA intel gathering means they can decide anyone is a threat.

Being a well armed populance means less than it did before we had modern airforces, and when police start using drones for surveilance you're going to see another reasonable step which brings the country further towards/across that line which doesn't exist. That blurry line between tyranny and democracy.

Your guns will not help.

Actually, the moment a group starts resisting the state, their guns will be used as an excuse to call them a threat to the state and have them executed.

Peaceful protests will continue to be more successful, and harder for the government to defeat. (things like the occupy wall street movement - despite ultimately failing, were harder for the government to deal with, imho)

@ora

Forgive me, but I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to the occupy movement. From my perspective it seemed very much like the government ignored them and they went away. Is that not the case?

Occupy was and is the permanent protest set of folks. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oct, yes that may be the case; i know that in ireland, where there was an occupy movement, they were ignored until the media attention lost interest and then quietly removed...

Notably nobody was killed by excessive police force.

@ TrPrado

"Never said that." That's almost exactly what you just said!

"Um, no. That was ALSO the professional army." "Still the army. Nothing about a well-armed populace affected how well the British did here."

I've grown tired of your word games.

"Not world-beating, but enough to scare Japan. They wanted to keep the US out of the war because they knew they didn't stand a chance. And we can again talk about the National Guard, because there was more than just the Army here as a professional army."

Well, apparently not scary enough to deter them from steamrolling through the Philippines and half a dozen other strategically vital American possessions in the opening days of American involvement in WWII. In a straight-up fight circa 1920-1941, the IJA would have made the US Army look terribly silly. Actually, they *did* make the US Army look terribly silly in the Philippines in 1942. It's enough to make one think why they never considered invading/attacking the Lower 48. Maybe it was because they knew that even the mighty pre-war IJA wouldn't stand a chance against millions of angry and well-armed American citizens fighting on their own soil?

@ orathaic

"Let me be clear - there is no line, there is no slippery slope. They have done more in the past ten years to erode your freedoms than you care to admit."
(
I'm *terrified* by the erosion of freedoms in the last decade, but that's why I *am* such a staunch gun rights advocate. Campaign finance has made the right to vote more or less irrelevant. Free speech and privacy have been suppressed, as you pointed out. A few Clinton-era and Reagan-era exceptions notwithstanding (one reason why I'm NOT a Reagan dick-sucker like most right-wingers out there), the right to keep and bear arms has remained largely intact through it all. I view the Second Amendment as our strongest and most iconic right at present. As such, it should be protected at all costs. It's one of the last bastions of freedom. True, it has been critically damaged by unconstitutional legislation dating back to 1934, but it is in much better condition than privacy or free speech IMHO.

"Being a well armed populance means less than it did before we had modern airforces, and when police start using drones for surveilance you're going to see another reasonable step which brings the country further towards/across that line which doesn't exist. That blurry line between tyranny and democracy."

An armed and sufficiently motivated individual is a de facto infantryman, and the infantryman will never be obsolete. Air power can obliterate, but only the infantry can occupy. Besides, I find it unlikely that police drones in the foreseeable future will be able to withstand small arms fire. Hell, there are only a handful of *manned* aircraft that can withstand small arms fire (well-armored attack planes and helicopters, et cetera)

@ Octavious

I don't think the government ever acknowledged them, but the movement really died when the media found a juicier story. We are living in an era in which the media has de facto control over the population. Just look at the Ferguson riots. Those riots would not have happened if not for excessive national media attention. Bad news attracts viewers. Occupy was doomed from the beginning because of its passive nature.

@Gun, i largely agree with you on the media's influence; though i think that the riots could have occured without being discussed in the media - they jsut wouldn't have been as big.

But drones will change policing, and regardless of their vulnerability to small arms fire - it will be illegal to shoot them down, because they will be police property, and the law already prevents you from damaging property...

So the act of shooting one down will justify them shooting back. You will have a well-armed police force who literally gets away with murder. (sorry, if it is legal it is just killing, but the phrase sounds so good...)

Being armed will be little-to-no defence; despite your belief otherwise. Infact being armed will be given as reason for police to shoot first. Which costs you the right to a fair and speedy trial.

"That's almost exactly what you just said!" No it's not. The Continental Army didn't kick the British out of North America, and the Britush largely remained afterward.
"I've grown tired of your word game." And thus decide not to respond to either of those quotes? That could make one assume you're just dodging.
"Actually, they *did* make the US Army look terribly silly in the Philippines in 1942." They made the US Navy look silly since the Pacific was naval battles more than anything else and the Army and Navy have always been separate entities. You play Diplomacy, you should know the difference between an army and a fleet.
"It's enough to make one think why they never considered invading/attacking the Lower 48." No it's not. Japan didn't have ground forces worth shit, that's why. They had air forces, but the US Army had anti-aircraft weaponry, so that would be useless, and you can't really take the navy's boats onto land. Invasion was a highly stupid idea for THOSE reasons.
What you seem to be missing is that what scares foreign invaders isn't how well the average individual is armed. What's more important is their organization. Organization and military training is very key in deterence, but a populace doesn't have that. Marion's Men, just to use your own example against you, had training and organization from Swamp Fox, a military officer. If you give a man a missile, he's well-armed. If you don't tell him how to use it, he can't scare shit.

Gunfighter06, why do you insist on thinking the Second Amendment is some sort of deterrent to foreign invasion? We have nuclear weapons, two oceans, and two friendly, weak neighbors. That is what makes a conventional invasion of the United States impossible. Not the fact that lots of people have handguns.

Bounce. I'll respond to all of you later.