There are no gaurantees, especially with deterrence.
Nonetheless, an armed population ups the costs of tyranny and so reduces the likelihood pf success.
for phishfood and others — one needs to pay close attention to what Stan writes or you will surely fall victim to his verbal traps. For example, the use of the word deter. We respond to the insinuation and rebut the points he uses to support his position, only to find that he claims he meant the strict definition of the term rather than more nuanced “make the tyranny very costly”.
Every one of the arguments he cites below are examples of miscalculations on the part of the major power and support the argument that “deterrence doesn't work. One the other hand EVERY ONE OF THEM are examples of a successful repulsion of the occupier by an armed population.
The exception is the Whiskey rebelion — which is a poor example of resistance to a tyrannical act.
For me, I learn a lot from the rebuttals to Stan’s provocative claims but no so much from his own writing. For now, I will continue to follow the discussions and comment when it seems appropriate even though the claims and insinuations about the value of the 2nd Amendement are infuriating.
Nonetheless, an armed population ups the costs of tyranny and so reduces the likelihood pf success.
for phishfood and others — one needs to pay close attention to what Stan writes or you will surely fall victim to his verbal traps. For example, the use of the word deter. We respond to the insinuation and rebut the points he uses to support his position, only to find that he claims he meant the strict definition of the term rather than more nuanced “make the tyranny very costly”.
Every one of the arguments he cites below are examples of miscalculations on the part of the major power and support the argument that “deterrence doesn't work. One the other hand EVERY ONE OF THEM are examples of a successful repulsion of the occupier by an armed population.
The exception is the Whiskey rebelion — which is a poor example of resistance to a tyrannical act.
stanc Wrote:Wrong. I never said that an armed populace would be unable to resist a modern army.Now, ask yourselves — what are Stan’s real objectives in these discussions? Do they serve the forum and his fellow posters in a way that makes us better? The answer will help decide whether to put him on your personal ignore list or continue the discussions.
I'm saying an armed populace does not deter invasion or oppression by a modern army.
I won't admit it, because history doesn't support it.
The Afghans had firearms, but that didn't protect them from invasion by the Soviets.
The Colonials had firearms, but that didn't deter oppression by the British.
The Pennsylvania farmers and distillers who took part in the Whiskey Rebellion had firearms, but that didn't stop George Washington from leading the militia against them.
Having firearms would certainly enable the people to fight back, but history shows that the possession of rifles and pistols does not by itself deter government use of force.
For me, I learn a lot from the rebuttals to Stan’s provocative claims but no so much from his own writing. For now, I will continue to follow the discussions and comment when it seems appropriate even though the claims and insinuations about the value of the 2nd Amendement are infuriating.
shootersnotes.com
"To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-- Author Unknown
"If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle
"To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-- Author Unknown
"If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle