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

[montana]

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?


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.

So you would willingly accept a criminal government, whom would willingly use lethal force to kill American citizens, to enforce an illegal criminal act, since it would be committing suicide to do other.......... I'm being facetious Stan, but this is why JASmith is correct when he stated: those who are able need to be more aggressive in advocating our rights, support political candidates who share our views and VOTE!
Hopefully, “God willing and the Creek don't rise”, we will never have to make those type of decisions.

[bj139]

So you would willingly accept a criminal government, whom would willingly use lethal force to kill American citizens, to enforce an illegal criminal act, since it would be committing suicide to do other.......... I'm being facetious Stan, but this is why JASmith is correct when he stated: those who are able need to be more aggressive in advocating our rights, support political candidates who share our views and VOTE!
Hopefully, “God willing and the Creek don't rise”, we will never have to make those type of decisions.

If there was a like button I would like this at least twice, maybe more.

[LR1955]

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?


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.

Stan:

It isn't a question of a law you 'don't like'. It is a question of a government that you believe, for moral and ethical reasons, has become a tyranny and is worth the risk of your life to oppose in any way possible.

People who believe their governmental system has become so bad that its existence threatens their lives will fight if they have a means to fight and owning the most effective firearm for that type of violence is better than not owning that type of firearm.

I am not real worried about our military forces attacking US citizens in order to prop up a tyrannical government. Not how they are trained and not what they believe.

And please, don't cite the Veterans riots of the early 1920's as an example of what the military would do today. Nor Kent State. Or the Japanese being put into internment camps during WWII. Since those days, our military has changed so dramatically that using these as examples of something that can happen today or tomorrow is plain BS. Finally, everyone forgets that our entire military is pretty small compared to the size of the USA. It would probably take half of our Regular forces to effectively control a city the size of Chicago.

You aren't alone in believing that your life is worth more than an ideal. No revolution or civil war is ever started by the majority of a population. They are ended by the majority but not started.

LR55

[stanc]

Stan: It isn't a question of a law you 'don't like'. It is a question of a government that you believe, for moral and ethical reasons, has become a tyranny and is worth the risk of your life to oppose in any way possible.

Both questions have been under discussion. There is the subject of a law mandating confiscation of specific types of firearms, and there is the more general topic of a tyrannical government. I was addressing a question by montana that seemed to cover both issues: "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?"

People who believe their governmental system has become so bad that its existence threatens their lives will fight if they have a means to fight and owning the most effective firearm for that type of violence is better than not owning that type of firearm.

Fully understood. And what I'm saying is that, were the government system to become that bad, folks would need weapons a helluva lot more potent than the AR15.

I am not real worried about our military forces attacking US citizens in order to prop up a tyrannical government. Not how they are trained and not what they believe.

Completely agree. However, in discussing the hypothetical of a "government gone bad," it seems logically necessary to assume military support of the government.

[LR1955]

Both questions have been under discussion. There is the subject of a law mandating confiscation of specific types of firearms, and there is the more general topic of a tyrannical government. I was addressing a question by montana that seemed to cover both issues: "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?"


Fully understood. And what I'm saying is that, were the government system to become that bad, folks would need weapons a helluva lot more potent than the AR15.


Completely agree. However, in discussing the hypothetical of a "government gone bad," it seems logically necessary to assume military support of the government.

Stan:

Sorry old boy, have seen this technique of yours way too many times to fall for it. You are just trying to continue arguing for no reason at all but to argue.

Montana asked you 'where would you draw the line to resist if you were able?' Don't see an answer so it is 'logical to assume' you wouldn't fight. No problem because as I said, most don't. Of course you would be drawn into a civil war or revolution because they are brutally ugly and no one is allowed to be neutral.

And, your logic that 'we would need weapons more potent than the AR-15' doesn't hold water when it comes to civil war or an insurgency. Any weapon is of value for an insurgent and just because a oppressive government may equip its army and police with the most modern of weapons doesn't mean that a civilian version of those rifles are worthless. Or even a obsolete rifle like a Garand or M-1 Carbine for example. An insurgent doesn't fight a conventional fight and your logic is only intended to minimalize the value and thus the justification for American citizens to own such firearms as the AR-15.

And, no, your final statement about it being 'logical to assume' the US military would support a tyrannical US government in oppressing American citizens living in the USA, is not logical. Our Military vows to support and defend the Constitution first. And so far it has done so pretty well. Not all armies across the world are the same. Some have moral integrity. Ours is one of them, and has been for 200 + years. It is far more 'logical to assume' that our military would refuse an order to oppress and kill American citizens living in the USA

LR55

[stanc]

Montana asked you 'where would you draw the line to resist if you were able?' Don't see an answer...

Don't know how you failed to see it. First paragraph of post #112:

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."

And, your logic that 'we would need weapons more potent than the AR-15' doesn't hold water when it comes to civil war or an insurgency. Any weapon is of value for an insurgent and just because a oppressive government may equip its army and police with the most modern of weapons doesn't mean that a civilian version of those rifles are worthless. Or even a obsolete rifle like a Garand or M-1 Carbine for example. An insurgent doesn't fight a conventional fight and your logic is only intended to minimalize the value and thus the justification for American citizens to own such firearms as the AR-15.

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 like more capable weapons would be necessary.

And, no, your final statement about it being 'logical to assume' the US military would support a tyrannical US government in oppressing American citizens living in the USA, is not logical.

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 an enforcer. In the American colonies, the enforcer of British tyranny was the British military.

It is far more 'logical to assume' that our military would refuse an order to oppress and kill American citizens living in the USA

I totally agree with that being reality. However, doesn't that effectively negate the argument that private ownership of guns is necessary to be able to fight the government?

[LR1955]

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

[stanc]

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.

:confused: I don't think insurgents would take on tanks with carbines. I think they would want more potent weapons than carbines.

If you agree that reality indicates our military is less prone to oppress American citizens, then why the hypothetical argument that they would?

The subject (armed insurrection against a tyrannical US government) is hypothetical. If we assume, for the discussion, that the US military would refuse to obey any Presidential orders to impose tyrannical rule, then the premise of a tyrannical government would seem to evaporate, and with it, the rationale for even having the discussion.

[JASmith]

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.

LR55

Stan, this man has "'been there, done that" in closely related activities. I would follow his advice and read several texts on insurgencies. If you need suggestions, please ask and several of our participants will be happy to suggest them

More generally, the concept of combined arms applies to asymmetric warfare too. Consider the value of the rifle/carbine when used in conjunction with IEDS. Consider also the added leverage a divided population and the inevitable divisions within the military that results in more stuff than you can imagine getting into the fracas on both sides.

Nonetheless, the individual weapon, even a muzzle loading rifle, can be used effectively when the user understands and accepts the consequences of his actions. And before you claim you would not sacrifice yourself, remember that both current and past history shows that folks have often been willing to sacrifice their lives to create an effect they need for their cause. Indeed these heroes (regardless of which side) have more than once made enough of these well-reasoned sacrifices to huge differences in the outcome.

Our founding fathers understood that and knew that the right to keep and bear arms is a critical item in the checks and balances between civil liberty and effective governance.

Returning to LR's advice, please educate yourself in this area

[stanc]

Stan, this man has "'been there, done that" in closely related activities. I would follow his advice and read several texts on insurgencies. If you need suggestions, please ask and several of our participants will be happy to suggest them

Thanks, but I read enough about insurgencies in younger years that I don't need to read more now. Apparently he misread what I wrote, because I never said that I think lightly armed insurgents will take on tanks with carbines. To the contrary, I said that insurgents would need much more capable weapons to defeat tanks.

And before you claim you would not sacrifice yourself, remember that both current and past history shows that folks have often been willing to sacrifice their lives to create an effect they need for their cause.

I make no claim one way or the other. It would be quite illogical to claim I know what I would do in a scenario that is purely hypothetical.

Our founding fathers understood that and knew that the right to keep and bear arms is a critical item in the checks and balances between civil liberty and effective governance.

As a "check and balance" on government, the RKBA is quite ineffective. The people have owned guns ever since the nation's founding, but that has neither prevented the enactment and enforcement of unconstitutional laws, nor caused their repeal.

No, the Second Amendment is not one of the checks and balances that is intended to keep government under control. It's more of a "Custer's Last Stand" option to try to deal with a government that has already run amuck. If it reaches that point, all of the system checks and balances have failed.

Returning to LR's advice, please educate yourself in this area

Repeating my answer: Done it before. Don't need to do it again.

[LR1955]

:confused: I don't think insurgents would take on tanks with carbines. I think they would want more potent weapons than carbines.


The subject (armed insurrection against a tyrannical US government) is hypothetical. If we assume, for the discussion, that the US military would refuse to obey any Presidential orders to impose tyrannical rule, then the premise of a tyrannical government would seem to evaporate, and with it, the rationale for even having the discussion.

Stan:

Sorry but you aren't going to change the meaning of your statements after your arguments have been soundly defeated. You stated that there is no need for an American to own a AR-15 type of rifle because they would be useless when faced with tanks or armed helicopters from our military given an attempt by a regime to impose what we consider tyranny on the American people. Wrong because the US military isn't the Guardia National of a third world despotic s--t hole in South or Central America, or Africa. And wrong again because a guerilla targets weaknesses and avoids direct confrontation with a stronger enemy. There is no need for a G to take on a tank with a carbine to defeat the tank. You said you know all about it but you either don't or you refused to accept it in your arguments.

And assuming that a wannabee tyrant who somehow gets elected president won't move against the American people because he may not have the military to support him is also patently false. A military that supports them would be great but one that does nothing is almost as good. Hitler didn't have the military solidly behind him when he turned loose his Brown Shirts. Tyrants tend to use those they can depend on to get the momentum going that pushes fence sitters on to their side. They use their followers to start the movement -- militias and mobs. Look at some of the leftist congressmen and congresswomen who are urging their followers to harass anyone who supports the President. Or popular figures in the USA who utter violent statements directed towards the President and those who are not leftists. That's how civil wars start and they are fought by similar militias and mobs until one side gets the upper hand.

You focus on an AR-15 design as one that isn't 'needed' by the public in the event that some tyrant wants to push a bit too far in taking away our rights and property. Because after all, a AR-15 isn't capable of stopping a M-1 Tank or Apache. I guess if it were, you would be saying it is OK to own? Yet you don't mention firearms like the M-1A, Garand, or even the puny M-1 Carbine. So why does the AR-15 make the cut in your book and not a M-1A or Garand?

And I am heading out to do some practice today at 600 yards using a rifle that would be one of the last to get banned -- but would be banned none the less.

LR55

[montana]

As a "check and balance" on government, the RKBA is quite ineffective. The people have owned guns ever since the nation's founding, but that has neither prevented the enactment and enforcement of unconstitutional laws, nor caused their repeal.

No, the Second Amendment is not one of the checks and balances that is intended to keep government under control. It's more of a "Custer's Last Stand" option to try to deal with a government that has already run amuck. If it reaches that point, all of the system checks and balances have failed.

For real??? Just the unique mentality of the American citizen having the right to own and carry firearms, "compared to the other poor slops of the world" has given us a national conscience unique only to the American citizen, "which is the envy of freedom loving people all over the world", yet you think the 2nd Amendment is ineffective?? Just the concept of the citizenry having the right to own and carry firearms sends the elitist, leftist, tyrannical, control freaks of the world into a psychological melt down, yet you think the Second Amendment is ineffective??? I repeat myself, but every democide occurring in the last century began with the confiscation of private firearm ownership, yet you think the 2nd Amendment is ineffective??? With freedom comes the responsibility and consequence of such freedom, yet you deride such freedom and consequence as ineffective, "which by the way is the very corner stone of the leftist gun grabbers of this country. We will have to definitely agree to disagree on this one Stan.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...LkVvwbiD7o

[montana]

Stan:

Sorry but you aren't going to change the meaning of your statements after your arguments have been soundly defeated. You stated that there is no need for an American to own a AR-15 type of rifle because they would be useless when faced with tanks or armed helicopters from our military given an attempt by a regime to impose what we consider tyranny on the American people. Wrong because the US military isn't the Guardia National of a third world despotic s--t hole in South or Central America, or Africa. And wrong again because a guerilla targets weaknesses and avoids direct confrontation with a stronger enemy. There is no need for a G to take on a tank with a carbine to defeat the tank. You said you know all about it but you either don't or you refused to accept it in your arguments.

And assuming that a wannabee tyrant who somehow gets elected president won't move against the American people because he may not have the military to support him is also patently false. A military that supports them would be great but one that does nothing is almost as good. Hitler didn't have the military solidly behind him when he turned loose his Brown Shirts. Tyrants tend to use those they can depend on to get the momentum going that pushes fence sitters on to their side. They use their followers to start the movement -- militias and mobs. Look at some of the leftist congressmen and congresswomen who are urging their followers to harass anyone who supports the President. Or popular figures in the USA who utter violent statements directed towards the President and those who are not leftists. That's how civil wars start and they are fought by similar militias and mobs until one side gets the upper hand.

You focus on an AR-15 design as one that isn't 'needed' by the public in the event that some tyrant wants to push a bit too far in taking away our rights and property. Because after all, a AR-15 isn't capable of stopping a M-1 Tank or Apache. I guess if it were, you would be saying it is OK to own? Yet you don't mention firearms like the M-1A, Garand, or even the puny M-1 Carbine. So why does the AR-15 make the cut in your book and not a M-1A or Garand?

And I am heading out to do some practice today at 600 yards using a rifle that would be one of the last to get banned -- but would be banned none the less.

LR55

Excellent synopsis, well stated!

[stanc]

Stan: Sorry but you aren't going to change the meaning of your statements after your arguments have been soundly defeated.

:confused: I'm not attempting to change their meaning.

You stated that there is no need for an American to own a AR-15 type of rifle because they would be useless when faced with tanks or armed helicopters from our military given an attempt by a regime to impose what we consider tyranny on the American people.

I most certainly did not state that.

And assuming that a wannabee tyrant who somehow gets elected president won't move against the American people because he may not have the military to support him is also patently false. A military that supports them would be great but one that does nothing is almost as good. Hitler didn't have the military solidly behind him when he turned loose his Brown Shirts. Tyrants tend to use those they can depend on to get the momentum going that pushes fence sitters on to their side. They use their followers to start the movement -- militias and mobs.

Good point. I was focused on enforcing gun confiscation, and figured that the military would have to be used in any effort to implement such a law.

You focus on an AR-15 design as one that isn't 'needed' by the public in the event that some tyrant wants to push a bit too far in taking away our rights and property. Because after all, a AR-15 isn't capable of stopping a M-1 Tank or Apache. I guess if it were, you would be saying it is OK to own? Yet you don't mention firearms like the M-1A, Garand, or even the puny M-1 Carbine. So why does the AR-15 make the cut in your book and not a M-1A or Garand?

Oh, jeez. I was just using "AR15" as representative of military-type semi-auto rifles, because it's the most common such rifle owned by the public.

What I said in regard to the AR15 also applies to the M1A, M1 Garand, M1 carbine, Steyr AUG, SIG AMT, etc, etc.

[stanc]

For real??? Just the unique mentality of the American citizen having the right to own and carry firearms, "compared to the other poor slops of the world" has given us a national conscience unique only to the American citizen, "which is the envy of freedom loving people all over the world", yet you think the 2nd Amendment is ineffective?? Just the concept of the citizenry having the right to own and carry firearms sends the elitist, leftist, tyrannical, control freaks of the world into a psychological melt down, yet you think the Second Amendment is ineffective??? I repeat myself, but every democide occurring in the last century began with the confiscation of private firearm ownership, yet you think the 2nd Amendment is ineffective???

Private ownership of firearms did not stop the passage and enforcement of the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 machine gun ban, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, or any other gun control law in the country. Nor has it caused the repeal of any of those laws. As a "check and balance" on government, yes, the Second Amendment is clearly ineffective.

[LR1955]

Private ownership of firearms did not stop the passage and enforcement of the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 machine gun ban, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, or any other gun control law in the country. Nor has it caused the repeal of any of those laws. As a "check and balance" on government, yes, the Second Amendment is clearly ineffective.

Stan:

Back to your old way or arguing again. The most extreme of a straw man that you shoot down and say it extends to everything.

In this case, you are citing three, very specific laws that have been enacted over the last century and extending your argument by saying 'because these laws were passed, private ownership of firearms by the American citizenry will not deter a tyrant from attempting to take over the country.'

Your straw man is false, your extension into deterring a potential tyrant is invalid and historically false and is unproven.

The fact is that you don't know how effective the 2A is in keeping a potential tyrant from taking control of the country because it hasn't happened yet.

What history does tell us is that the first thing a tyrant does once he gets control of a populace is to disarm them. That is proven and irrefutable.

Sorry, this argument of yours if false when it comes to deterrence.

LR55

[stanc]

Stan: Back to your old way or arguing again. The most extreme of a straw man that you shoot down and say it extends to everything.

It is not a straw man, extreme or otherwise, and I did not say it extends to everything.

In this case, you are citing three, very specific laws that have been enacted over the last century and extending your argument by saying 'because these laws were passed, private ownership of firearms by the American citizenry will not deter a tyrant from attempting to take over the country.'

You keep telling everyone that I said things I did not say. What I actually said is that, because those four laws -- and every other gun control law in the country -- were enacted, private ownership of guns is ineffective at providing a "check and balance" on government.

Private ownership of guns has not deterred the Congress from passing laws that "infringe" on the RKBA.
Private ownership of guns has not deterred the President from signing those unconstitutional laws.
Private ownership of guns has not deterred the police from enforcing those unconstitutional laws.
Private ownership of guns has not caused any of those unconstitutional laws to be repealed.

Your straw man is false, your extension into deterring a potential tyrant is invalid and historically false and is unproven.

I said nothing in that post about "deterring a potential tyrant," but since you bring it up, your statement that it is "historically false," is itself false. The people in the American colonies were armed, but that did not deter King George from tyrannical acts against them.

The fact is that you don't know how effective the 2A is in keeping a potential tyrant from taking control of the country because it hasn't happened yet.

I agree. We don't know.

[JASmith]

Stan, after posting a large fraction of the 136 posts in this threat, you have not succeeded in convincing us that the 2A has no value to protecting our rights and freedoms.

It may be time to heed your own signature line and give up.

Further, you will not easily convince us that the 2A is worthless, so continuing the sophmoric arguments is probably not worth doing.

[stanc]

Stan, after posting a large fraction of the 136 posts in this threat, you have not succeeded in convincing us that the 2A has no value to protecting our rights and freedoms.

And just how much value has the 2A been in preventing or repealing the myriad of unconstitutional laws that clearly infringe on those rights and freedoms?

It may be time to heed your own signature line and give up.

At last we agree on something.

[JASmith]

I will try not to look astonished if you really have given up on this thread!