The "want to be" gun confiscators would have a daunting job ahead of them

[montana]

I think that's the wrong interpretation. IMO, they're not stocking up for "the revolution." They're just buying something they desire because they fear it might not be available later.


I agree, that does appear to be the common interpretation. But, it looks like more of a myth, than a truth.


That takes us back to my original observation. When both the citizenry and military were armed with single-shot muzzleloaders, the citizens had the same destruction potential as the military.

Today there is no such "balance of power." The best weapons available to most citizens are semi-auto rifles, while the military arsenal is several orders of magnitude greater in destructive force.

The consequences of such a lopsided matchup would be devastating, to be sure, but not for the military.




King George was defeated by organized military forces, not armed citizenry. Same for Hitler, Hirohito, and bin Laden.


Meh. I'll be dead of natural causes long before such an event comes to pass.

There are a few key factors you have left out of your scenario. The majority of military personnel,"at this time" are pro Constitution and pro gun rights. Dropping 1000lb Jdams on foreign entities, "who love to behead helpless victims" is a far different scenario than dropping it on the neighbors house who refuses to follow illegal confiscation laws. Pretending gun owners will be the heroes in a red dawn movie is also just as absurd. Perception is everything, "if the gun owners are seen as victims of a corrupt anti-Constitutional government or as a bunch of illiterate whacked out red necks being held accountable by a responsible government securing the nation" will make all the difference. People who believe in a cause, "whether right or wrong" will always resist. The key factors to an actual shooting war, "IMO" would only occur in similar situations we have seen in "Bosnia or Venezuela" where other key factors are needed to instigate wide spread violence. Trying to guess the course of any conflict is an act of futility. Even our own top experts fail more than they succeed at guessing the outcomes or best strategies of the conflicts we have gotten into. There is no more determined foe than the one who believes their cause is just and place it's value higher than their own lives, hence the continued conflict with muslim nations.

[stanc]

There are a few key factors you have left out of your scenario. The majority of military personnel,"at this time" are pro Constitution and pro gun rights. Dropping 1000lb Jdams on foreign entities, "who love to behead helpless victims" is a far different scenario than dropping it on the neighbors house who refuses to follow illegal confiscation laws.

Of course. In my previous post, I was only addressing the outcome when a military force does comply with orders to wage war on civilians.

If a platoon of main battle tanks were to assault your neighborhood, that prized AR15 in your hands would be of little more use than a rock.

[video=youtube;_jEQchTqaKA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jEQchTqaKA[/video]

Perception is everything, "if the gun owners are seen as victims of a corrupt anti-Constitutional government or as a bunch of illiterate whacked out red necks being held accountable by a responsible government securing the nation" will make all the difference.

Mostly agree. However, there are historical precedents of the military obeying orders to deploy against US citizens:

Whiskey Rebellion


Veterans Bonus March


WWII Internment


Kent State Massacre

People who believe in a cause, "whether right or wrong" will always resist. … There is no more determined foe than the one who believes their cause is just and place it's value higher than their own lives...

Indeed. Question is, how many Americans place more value on owning an AR15, than on, not just their own lives, but the lives of their wives and children?

[JASmith]

Did those M1 tanks really succeeed? If so, why do we still see US soldiers still being attacked in far of places?

Speaking of Twilight Zones, how is it that we have someone who pretends to be pro 2A arguing that we should give them up?

[montana]

Of course. In my previous post, I was only addressing the outcome when a military force does comply with orders to wage war on civilians.

If a platoon of main battle tanks were to assault your neighborhood, that prized AR15 in your hands would be of little more use than a rock.

[video=youtube;_jEQchTqaKA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jEQchTqaKA[/video]




Indeed. Question is, how many Americans place more value on owning an AR15, than on, not just their own lives, but the lives of their wives and children?

No sane person would value an object over the lives of their family or self. The revolutionary war "or any war for that matter" never started over one disagreement. Like I stated before, there would need to be other factors involved to become a shooting war. Any mas gun confiscation of a popular firearm like the AR-15 would be resisted nationally. How the government reacted could be the the other factors that could turn it into a snowball effect. Any unconstitutional order, law, etc. perceived by millions as an attack upon their birth right could be one such factor. As far as debating tank vs AR-15 citizens, I shall repeat myself. Trying to guess the course of any conflict is an act of futility. As far as the movie "The Beast" the hapless villagers eventually did destroy the tank and crew and did run the Russians out of their country

[stanc]

No sane person would value an object over the lives of their family or self. The revolutionary war "or any war for that matter" never started over one disagreement. Like I stated before, there would need to be other factors involved to become a shooting war. Any mas gun confiscation of a popular firearm like the AR-15 would be resisted nationally. How the government reacted could be the the other factors that could turn it into a snowball effect. Any unconstitutional order, law, etc. perceived by millions as an attack upon their birth right could be one such factor.

Concur.

As far as debating tank vs AR-15 citizens, I shall repeat myself. Trying to guess the course of any conflict is an act of futility.

I'm not talking about predicting the course of a conflict. I'm talking about what 120mm gun tanks can do to a neighborhood, versus what 5.56mm rifles can do to tanks.

[video=youtube;g2ej5f6H_lA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2ej5f6H_lA[/video]

As far as the movie "The Beast" the hapless villagers eventually did destroy the tank and crew and did run the Russians out of their country

Yes, the villagers in the movie did eventually destroy the tank, but not with rifle fire.

And although the Russians eventually tired of fighting and withdrew their forces, casualty figures for that war vividly illustrate the devastating consequences to the civilian side in a military vs civilian matchup that I noted earlier: 15,000 Russians killed; 1,000,000 Afghans killed.

[JASmith]

I'm not talking about predicting the course of a conflict. I'm talking about what 120mm gun tanks can do to a neighborhood, versus what 5.56mm rifles can do to tanks.
....
And although the Russians eventually tired of fighting and withdrew their forces, casualty figures for that war vividly illustrate the devastating consequences to the civilian side in a military vs civilian matchup that I noted earlier: 15,000 Russians killed; 1,000,000 Afghans killed.

So, what else is new?

War is costly, civilians take the brunt of suffering, and are always at a disadvantage to well-trained forces with tehnological advantages. Nonetheless, the examples given show that determined armed resistance can prevail, even though at enormous costs.

How does this negate the value of the right to keep and bear arms?

[montana]

So, what else is new?

War is costly, civilians take the brunt of suffering, and are always at a disadvantage to well-trained forces with tehnological advantages. Nonetheless, the examples given show that determined armed resistance can prevail, even though at enormous costs.

How does this negate the value of the right to keep and bear arms?

+1

[stanc]

So, what else is new?

War is costly, civilians take the brunt of suffering, and are always at a disadvantage to well-trained forces with tehnological advantages. Nonetheless, the examples given show that determined armed resistance can prevail, even though at enormous costs.

How does this negate the value of the right to keep and bear arms?

Well, if the value of being able to own rifles like the AR15 is to enable the people to obtain a Pyrrhic victory over military forces, then I guess it isn't negated.

[montana]

Well, if the value of being able to own rifles like the AR15 is to enable the people to obtain a Pyrrhic victory over military forces, then I guess it isn't negated.

I'll quote Patrick Henry:
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! http://www.history.org/almanack/life/pol...giveme.cfm
Freedom is not free Stan. I have seen the fear and misery people had to live while under the thumb of tyrants. IMO, that type of life is no life at all and is already a walking death. Pyrrhic victory is your opinion, it is a chance for true life in my opinion.

[stanc]

I'll quote Patrick Henry:
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Meh. As I recall, Henry was one of those guys who was long on exhorting others to go to war, but rather short on doing any actual fighting himself.

Freedom is not free Stan. I have seen the fear and misery people had to live while under the thumb of tyrants. IMO, that type of life is no life at all and is already a walking death.

And yet most people will opt for life "under the thumb of tyrants" as preferable to death.

Pyrrhic victory is your opinion...

Is that not an accurate description for an exchange ratio of nearly 70:1 (friendly vs enemy casualties)?

...it is a chance for true life in my opinion.

Sure, it's a chance for "true life" -- for those lucky enough to survive. Not so much for the massive numbers of dead.

In any case, the point I was addressing was not if tyranny should be resisted. It was the value of semi-auto rifles in going up against a military equipped with tanks, attack helos, jet fighters, etc.

[montana]

Meh. As I recall, Henry was one of those guys who was long on exhorting others to go to war, but rather short on doing any actual fighting himself.


And yet most people will opt for life "under the thumb of tyrants" as preferable to death.


Is that not an accurate description for an exchange ratio of nearly 70:1 (friendly vs enemy casualties)?


Sure, it's a chance for "true life" -- for those lucky enough to survive. Not so much for the massive numbers of dead.

In any case, the point I was addressing was not if tyranny should be resisted. It was the value of semi-auto rifles in going up against a military equipped with tanks, attack helos, jet fighters, etc.

So I will ask you Stan, where would you draw the line to resist if you were able? When they confiscate our AR-15 type rifles, handguns, shot guns, homes, families, never? Should we just cower and never put ourselves at risk knowing the odds? Should we hope other suckers do the fighting? Is there or is there not anything worth fighting and dying for? I have had many "former friends" who were great cheer leaders watching safely from the side as the fight was beyond their ability or character. I also have life long friends who never hesitated to stand nest to me during any conflict. Which type of person are you Stan? No sane person wishes for any type of conflict, but when should a person stand up? If a Grizzly bear is attacking a loved one like a child, should we just run for help knowing it will never come in time, "but it would save face" or should we jump in, "knowing it is an impossible endeavor" but to do nothing and survive would be a fate worst than any death? Talk is easy, but action is what separates people.

[JASmith]

Well said montana!

Those of us who have ‘been there, done that’ in real life share your sentiments, but hesitate to speak because we all know from first-hand experience the terrible costs of warfare. At the same time, we know all too well that there are times when one needs to act.

The good news is that the last election cycle shows that the people can still speak at the ballot box when sufficiently motivated. Nonetheless, those who are able need to be more aggressive in advocating our rights, support political candidates who share our views and VOTE!

[stanc]

So I will ask you Stan, where would you draw the line to resist if you were able?

I presume you mean, what would I consider sufficient cause for me to try to kill American police or soldiers who are attempting to enforce a law that I disliked?

I really don't know, but probably not over gun confiscation since I agree with you that "No sane person would value an object over the lives of their family or self."

Your question would be better directed to those here who insist that they need an AR15 to counter government tyranny. At what point would they start shooting?

Should we just cower and never put ourselves at risk knowing the odds?

I didn't say one should never fight. I'm saying that for civilians who are armed only with rifles and pistols, to fight a modern military force is tantamount to suicide.

Personally, I'm not much interested in committing suicide.

[grayfox]

Well said montana!

Those of us who have ‘been there, done that’ in real life share your sentiments, but hesitate to speak because we all know from first-hand experience the terrible costs of warfare. At the same time, we know all too well that there are times when one needs to act.

The good news is that the last election cycle shows that the people can still speak at the ballot box when sufficiently motivated. Nonetheless, those who are able need to be more aggressive in advocating our rights, support political candidates who share our views and VOTE!

+2 here. The weapons I pushed around were the sub-launched ICBM/MRV types, that would lay waste to a city, each one of them. There were indeed sobering, I mean, SOBERING, moments where we thought the call was coming to push the button... Granted not the same as living with incoming fire every day but we knew that signal could come even though we hoped it never would (and thankfully never did).
War is not pretty, and I do not glorify it. But it is as my Dad had told me, you don't need to start the fight but if someone does you sure as **** finish it. He was coming from WWII and Korea, with the 8th Army from Pusan up north past the 38th, kunu-ri the gauntlet etc, and he saw plenty. We will not go quietly I assure you. One reason why I have Patrick Henry's quote in my tagline.

MAGA, yes!

[stanc]

MAGA, yes!

The slogan "Make America Great Again" implies that it is not great now, but used to be great.

So I can't help wondering -- what is the "great" era to which you wish to return the country?

[NugginFutz]

Red herring

[JASmith]

The slogan "Make America Great Again" implies that it is not great now, but used to be great.

So I can't help wondering -- what is the "great" era to which you wish to return the country?

And the point is, and how does this relate to the 2nd Amendment?

[stanc]

And the point is, and how does this relate to the 2nd Amendment?

I dunno, Joe. You should ask grayfox. He brought it into the discussion.

[Drillboss]

The slogan "Make America Great Again" implies that it is not great now, but used to be great.

So I can't help wondering -- what is the "great" era to which you wish to return the country?

I've got two eras to point to. I was born in 1960, so I don't remember the growth that came after World War II. What I do remember is the growth that came after Reagan was elected. Lee Greenwood recorded "God Bless the USA" in 1984. That song started to be played at the beginning of every rodeo I went to or saw on the television, right after the national anthem.

The next era came after the 9-11 attack. Regardless of the opinions put out during the last election cycle, as I recall, President Bush's approval rating to his response to the attack was above 90%. Toby Keith and others released songs that echoed the national feeling at the time.

Obama then started his apology tour. I was talking to my son in law a couple years ago, and mentioned that I hadn't heard anything in the national media that indicated "proud to be an American". He replied that he'd never felt that way.

So there's the point. I'm hoping that Trump's "Make America Great Again" campaign results in more Americans feeling proud to be American. As far as I'm concerned, it's been working so far.

[grayfox]

Apparently somebody was asleep during the previous Admin's 8 years of American apology tour, "make America a banana republic"-style "we're gonna get the guns!!" tour.... where the prime objective was to completely disarm regular citizens who "cling to their guns and their religion"... all the while allowing themselves (ala Ms. Lib Dianne Feinstein who carries a gun with her) the elites the "right" to be armed. But woe be to a normal guy who dares to do so! That was the character and policy of the Bammster's years...
Or maybe not asleep but approving of such an agenda?
Eliminating such an agenda is part of the make America Great Again slogan, along with the President who is championing it. Who has said several times he's not going to let the 2A get trampled upon.
I approve of his promise.