07-07-2018, 01:35 AM
stanc Wrote:Don't know how you failed to see it. First paragraph in post #112:
Unless you can show that an AR15 is all one needs to knock out tanks and IFVs, or shoot down attack helicopters and jet fighters, then it still seems to me that more capable weapons would be necessary.
I did not say that the US military actually would support a tyrannical government. I said that in discussing the hypothetical of a "government gone bad," it seems logically necessary to assume military support of the government. For if it is assumed that the military would refuse to obey unconstitutional orders, how could the government impose tyrannical rule??? In order for there to be government tyranny, there has to be enforcers.
I totally agree with that being reality. But, doesn't that effectively negate the argument that private ownership of guns is necessary to be able to fight the government?
Stan:
You need to read up on how a insurgency is conducted because if you think lightly armed insurgents will take on tanks with carbines, you are grossly wrong and it shows you have no clue about insurgencies.
If you agree that reality indicates our military is less prone to oppress American citizens, then why the hypothetical argument that they would? The military would face internal strife just like the public. And most likely not do anything. Which means who ever has the strongest mob or militia will go after those who they disagree. Thus civil war.
Private ownership of firearms, including the AR-15 and other semi-automatic service types of firearms, is not negated by the fact that our military would not oppress the American public. It is like any other check and balance in our system. It is a check on those who may try to impose a tyrannical regime on the American public.
LR55