Renzatic on 6/10/2017 at 23:08
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
We had a lone shooter in Dallas last summer killing police officers. They killed him using C4 and a robot. Imagine the response to a real rebellion.
If someone does something stupid like kick off a rebellion (which I doubt'll happen anytime soon), the only hope these future rebels have of winning will be to run off into the woods, and become guerrillas. As Afghanistan and Iraq have shown us, our military isn't that well equipped to handle hit and run tactics over long periods of time.
Though any homegrown rebellion will have a few distinct disadvantages compared to their ME counterparts, mainly that our homegrown variety will be fighting a war right in the middle of a highly developed 1st world nation that just happens to be the backyard of one of the better trained, and most technologically advanced military in the world.
Really, their best bet would be to die on live TV in a way that garners the most sympathy from the public.
Jason Moyer on 6/10/2017 at 23:10
Er, the Taliban also had weapons far beyond what are available here. Unless there's a big black market for aircraft, tanks, RPG's, and so on that I'm unaware of.
Gryzemuis on 6/10/2017 at 23:53
Quote Posted by heywood
I would not say that the average American voted Trump into office. When you divide the number of Trump votes by the population, it's 19%. And the voters who really swung the election to Trump are pretty average working class people who voted for him simply because they were sick of losing manufacturing sector jobs.
I know Clinton won the popular vote. And I know only 55% of Americans did vote. Still, a huge number of people voted for Trump.
And about all the people who didn't vote: it makes me think of this quote:
Inline Image:
http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-world-is-a-dangerous-place-to-live-not-because-of-the-people-who-are-evil-but-because-albert-einstein-8-72-82.jpgYou could argue that the people who didn't vote, and allowed Trump to become president, do carry some responsibility too.
For some reason, I find it hard to picture an American who would vote for Trump, but also vote for stricter gun-control laws.
I also find it weird how Americans think the right to own a gun is their basic right.
A bunch of smart people, from all over the world, once wrote something called "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
(
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Important_ideas)
Right to healthcare is there.
Right to free speech. (The US is doing a better job than most European countries there).
But nowhere does it mention that people have a fundamental right to carry guns around.
catbarf on 7/10/2017 at 00:02
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Small arms fire isn't going to do shit against a drone. And if things were really serious, you have artillery. That's before even discussing real bombs, cruise missiles, tactical nukes, etc.
Yes, and using real bombs or cruise missiles, let alone tactical nukes, against your own population is exactly the sort of thing that galvanizes public and international opinion against you and triggers defections within your military, and pretty soon you have a proper civil war on your hands. Whereas riot police subduing unarmed civilians is over quickly and barely a blip on international news. At a basic level, widespread personal armament raises the political cost for a government to enact its will on its populace.
And that's leaving aside the ability of partisans to use personal arms to steal military equipment. Remember that even when the Constitution was written, the British military had a massive advantage in equipment. They had artillery, naval warships, proper military muskets, ammunition stores, etc that gave them an enormous advantage over rag-tag rebels with hunting rifles. The first order of business for those rag-tag rebels was stealing the means to fight a conventional war through the use of said hunting rifles. The same principle has held true in virtually every irregular conflict since, from French Resistance members in WW2 using air-dropped Welrods and Stens to steal German military equipment to the Syrian rebels using their rusty AKs to steal BMPs and artillery from Assad's military.
Like I said before, I'm not big on the resisting-tyranny justification for gun ownership, but history does bear out the principle that personal arms can make a difference against modern technology.
Jason Moyer on 7/10/2017 at 00:06
A resistance wouldn't get far enough to require heavy munitions imo. The moment an armed uprising starts, there will be drones everywhere.
heywood on 7/10/2017 at 00:27
The Taliban lost all their heavy stuff in the beginning. For the last 15 years, they've been getting by on small arms, mortars, RPGs, IEDs, etc. It seems to be pretty easy for them to steal and/or smuggle arms of that nature. Same for every other insurgency everywhere.
The potential success of a rebellion would totally depend on the cause behind it and the size. If it's a Whiskey Rebellion thing, involving a few hundred guys in one state, they would get put down pretty easily by federal law enforcement i.e. FBI, ATF, etc. But if the cause is sufficient enough to spark a nationwide or even a major regional rebellion, that would be a different story entirely. Think of the numbers for a second. If just 10% of the population supports the rebellion, that's 32.5 million people. If they own guns at the average rate, that's about 29 million guns in 12.5 million households supporting the rebellion. With that amount of popular support, they could muster an armed fighting force of a few million. Whereas the number of Taliban is currently estimated to be around 25-30k.
Also, the prevailing attitude of the US military is categorical opposition the idea of fighting other Americans, so unless we're talking about a terrorist group that the whole population hates, don't assume the military is going to stay united and follow orders. If a significant percentage of the population is behind the rebellion, you can bet that a significant percentage of military members and law enforcement will get behind it too. The way I see it, if you just get 10% of the population behind the rebellion, either the government folds or it's a full-on civil war.
It seems like kind of a pointless hypothetical discussion, but I'm sure it factors into some people's thoughts about owning a gun.
heywood on 7/10/2017 at 00:39
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
You could argue that the people who didn't vote, and allowed Trump to become president, do carry some responsibility too.
I think there are plenty of people regretting that right about now.
Quote:
For some reason, I find it hard to picture an American who would vote for Trump, but also vote for stricter gun-control laws.
I know a few personally, who voted for Trump either because of his campaign focus on jobs or because they couldn't stomach Clinton. Also, a lot of the more rural towns around here lean strongly Democratic but are full of gun owners.
Starker on 7/10/2017 at 00:50
I agree with catbarf. You can't win against a population that doesn't want to be governed. Just look at India, for example. And they didn't even have guns for the most part.
Also, these guns will probably come in real handy in case of a civil war.
Draxil on 7/10/2017 at 02:46
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
...
I also find it weird how Americans think the right to own a gun is their basic right.
A bunch of smart people, from all over the world, once wrote something called "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
(
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Important_ideas)
Right to healthcare is there.
Right to free speech. (The US is doing a better job than most European countries there).
But nowhere does it mention that people have a fundamental right to carry guns around.
It mentions a right to liberty and security of person, from which can be inferred a right to self defense. Self preservation is the most natural right in the world. If the government cannot guarantee my personal safety every minute of every day from every threat to my well being posed by someone who intends me ill, then it doesn't have the right to deny me the means to defend myself. A gun is a great tool for self defense.
Starker on 7/10/2017 at 03:49
A gun is a great tool for self-defense only if you know how to use it and if you handle it responsibly. Otherwise it's a liability to the gun-owner and everyone around them.
