Putting the "guns protect our democracy" argument to rest in one easy step

[oxbow]

In a fight between an AR-15 and a jet, who do you think is going to win? To those who would arm themselves against the day that their government becomes a tyranny, I would just say this: the government has tanks. They have helicopters, missiles, troop carriers, etc., and endless rounds of ammunition and munitions for all of their military-grade gear.

Making it a right for most anyone to purchase an assault rifle is not a way of protecting liberty; it makes no difference, in the final equation. It does make it more likely that someone unbalanced will use an assault rifle to hurt people, however. When it comes to protecting our rights, I must say that the pen is mightier than the sword (or, keyboard mightier than the gun?)

This line of reasoning should shut down any overzealous "defenders" of our 2nd amendment, if not give them some food for thought.

[mercymechap]

1. Try to get that across to our

gun-nut crazy fellow citizens. I know there are some Democrats, Progressives and Liberals that feel the same way as the many that are against any type of restrictions, but the majority of these 2nd Amendment gun patriots are Republicans, and the irony is that they claim to respect "life" and value "life" when they whine about abortion, yet most of them idolize guns, whose sole purpose is to destroy life. Go figure.

[lastlib]

3. Sadly, the bullet-heads will only see it their way.

They don't grasp that their threats to "defend democracy" with their guns will, in the long run, destroy the very thing that they think they are defending. Mao Zedong said that "political power flows from the barrel of a gun." So, in effect, they are really just trading one form of tyranny for another.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. gross.

[CreekDog]

109. is your one word response (typical) supposed to convince anybody?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

123. lovely to see you. Have a Nice Day

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. gross.

[lastlib]

2. The REAL protector of our democracy is our VOTE and its wise use.....

and our INVOLVEMENT!! As long as we exercise those, and use them wisely, we can avoid the tyranny they (erroneously) think they can defeat with their guns. In Benjamin Franklin's words, we are "a republic--if you can keep it."

[mercymechap]

7. That's true, but it is really

hard to beat them at their game of dishonesty. When they gerrymander the districts in states where Republicans rule, you can have a thousand more Democrats voting and the Republican will still win the election. Look at what has happened in Mich, the Libs don't even have a say so anymore in their local elections. If they continue this way, they'll always have the House, and nothing will get accomplished unless it is to their liking. It's a bitch.

[oxbow]

9. Gerrymandering---the dirtiest open secret in American politics!

It's why you hear such nonsense coming out of some parts of Congress...They are not talking to you at all when they say that crazy sh*t; they're talking to the people back home who they've basically handpicked to vote for them.

Thanks for writing this...I really wish people in the media/Washington would talk more about this issue.

[holdencaufield]

4. "In a fight between an AR-15 and a jet who do you think is going to win?"

I forget -- how many jets did the Iraqi insurgency have when they fought the US to a standstill for nearly a decade? How about the Taliban and Mujahadein? For that matter, what role did North Vietnamese jets in defeating the largest military force on the planet? Jets and drones don't win insurgencies -- it takes boots on the ground.

You also forget one important fact -- America isn't Germany. If tomorrow, a totalitarian government installs itself and begins to destroy the Constitution, those who are sworn to protect and serve that Constitution, our men and women in uniform, wouldn't unanimously flock to the side of the dictators. Most of them would bring their tanks, planes and M4's to the fight.

[lastlib]

6. **snort **

what do you smoke at those NRA meetings?? (Pity we didn't have any of that in the '70s...)

[Trunk Monkey]

54. He's correct air power does NOT win wars

You can not take and hold ground with an airplane

[xoom]

75. What makes you think they attend NRA meeting where they are smokinging something you wish you had in

The 70's???

Just because your statement was shot down you must attack the person because you cant defend your argument. nice.

[lastlib]

87. My statement was shot down?? Not by the guy w/ the AR15....

I wasn't attacking the person who allegedly shot down an argument, I was simply alluding to the asininity of his concept. It would take incredibly potent hallucinogens to make stupid claims like that.

[oxbow]

8. The whole government vs. the people scenario is ridiculous on its face...

....It should never be used as an excuse to keep guns in circulation that could be used to hurt scores of people without reloading! But if such a tyranny were to hypothetically happen, it would not go well for the militias at all....

The military owns all that gear and would not give it to supporters of an insurrection lightly. So I don't know how many people would be bringing "their" M4's to the fight. Add to that the fact that most of the people who are stockpiling weapons live in remote, rural areas, and you have prime candidates for precision air strikes. Boots on the ground would be needed mostly to quell insurrection, not take out compounds in the middle of nowhere.

The irrationality of the paranoia needed to sustain such a belief is clear to anyone who looks at the math objectively. The power of light infantry is not enough to defeat the machine. Better to vote, discuss and write about your rights in order to change the culture, than to try to protect them through years of war that may or may not even result in a standstill...wouldnt you say?

[gejohnston]

11. while your last paragraph has a point

But Pinochet was not elected. He used other means to replace an elected government. Japan also had a democratic government until the coup in the 1920s.

[holdencaufield]

13. "The whole government vs. the people scenario is ridiculous on its face..."

You're very correct -- because, in America, it will NEVER be the whole government against anything. Because, as I've said before, we are a people (and most of our government is made up of those people) who jealous guard our rights and fiercely protect our liberties.

And ... lest you for forget ... most of our liberties and the liberties of the most down-trodden of us have come from the barrel of a gun.

[JDPriestly]

76. No. Women did not get the right to vote at the barrel of a gun.

We have won many liberties through persuasion and by appealing to the sense of morality that is natural to most Americans, maybe to most people.

Revolutions fought with guns succeed sometimes in the short-term. Generally, however, the "success" ends with the division of the people into winners and losers. It is very difficult to establish a civil society after the trauma of a violent revolution.

[holdencaufield]

83. Tell that to these kids

[JDPriestly]

91. Those are National Guard officers, not citizens gone wild with guns.

[gejohnston]

92. wrong on both counts

they were active duty and enlisted. 82d Airborne IIRC. One is a Staff Sergeant and several Privates.

[JDPriestly]

96. I was a child when I saw that picture in a newspaper.

They were enforcing a lawful court order which had been obtained peacefully and patiently, not anything obtained through violence.

The soldiers (thank you for correcting me) or guard (as I thought) were protecting the students from violent people who were fighting the peaceful change that was occurring. The peaceful change was what we needed.

Remember, the French Revolution was sure and violent -- and it led not only to Napoleon but eventually to the return of the monarchy.

Violent revolution is not a solution. Peaceful people united in favor of change can change society, really change society.

[Ikonoklast]

99. You just shot down your own argument.

That is the force of the Federal Government being used against the MAJORITY OPINION of the people in that state to enforce the civil rights of the minority.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

78. "The whole government vs. the people scenario is ridiculous on its face." Agreed, but it may be the

best straw-man argument that some gun-controllers have.

[gejohnston]

5. I don't know about that argument

it is a simplistic argument that doesn't take in account logistics. Nor does take in account the history of asymmetrical warfare. The aircraft would be grounded within a couple of weeks without fuel, spare parts, getting to the base. Hackers would attack flight training and maintenance records. Why shoot at one plane when you can ground the whole wing by taking out POL? Same with tanks.

Thing is, while armchair generals and mall ninjas sit around and chat about tactics, professionals worry about logistics.

[oxbow]

10. If an insurgency cut off supply lines and communications, then they might have a chance

I would suspect that the military would plan for such an eventuality...Protect/decentralize their fuel and supply lines. Have some cyber-warfare specialists working on taking out hackers, while protecting their own systems. If you look at the resources that we've pumped into the MIC, I would think they would be well-prepared and fortified against asymmetrical warfare...especially after a decade in Iraq!

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. You still seem to be assuming an intact or nearly-intact military.

I can't see any scenario of reasonably widespread insurrection in which an intact military would be a likely (or even plausible) component. As others have pointed out, a significant portion of the military would side with the insurgents in such a scenario.

Not that they'd be likely to be bringing complex, modern weapons or communications systems with them. But in the confusion and general logistical fustercluck that widespread defection would cause (to say nothing of the effect of deliberate sabotage), the loyalist forces would be denied these systems in many cases, as well.

[gejohnston]

30. there is a cyberwarfare command

the fuel etc has to get to the base. If you destroy the base facilities, they would have to repair them before fuel would be replaced. They usually plan for the last war.
You are also assuming the US military would blindly follow someone after a coup. Not happening.

[krispos42]

12. That is only a superficial argument.

In the event of a widespread domestic insurrection/insurgency/guerrilla war in the United States, there would be no organized armies fighting a conventional war. It would be like any number of civil wars being fought in Africa.

Who are the jets going to bomb? What are the jets going to bomb?

If the American rebels/insurgents, guerrillas are getting their ammunition from American sources, then the American government forces cannot simply bomb an ammo factory into oblivion, because it's also the ammo factory for loyalist forces!

Federal troops can't simply burn farmland in Iowa because there are a lot of insurgents living there; that food also feeds loyalist troops and loyalist civilians.

Insurgents using a bridge? If you bomb it, you destroy a whole lot of loyalist commerce as well as rebel.

And of course, insurgents will attack the factories that make the "endless" supplies of ammo and guns and spare parts.

We also face the possibility that military units would defect, bringing their tanks and APCs and SAMs and such to the other side, or at least destroying them to deny them to the loyalist troops.



The Michigan Militia or Glenn Beck's wet dream compound in Idaho is not going to form a battle line and engage US troops. If anything happens, it will be guerrilla-style. It will be like fighting the Viet Cong.

It would be a giant, bloody mess, and the insurgents would likely lose after a protracted period of time. But it would not be a simple as a squadron of F-16s bombing a dug-in line of uniformed rebels that don't have air cover.

Look at Iraq. The US troops had unlimited men, ammo, spare parts, air supremacy, spy drones, artillery, etc.... and virtually none of the high-tech stuff was used after the couple of months. And what the artillery blasted and the bombs wrecked in Iraq had no impact on domestic production of the materiel of war. And we were STILL in a grinding insurgency, with tenuous control over anything outside of Baghdad or Basra. And Iraq had the advantage of having one, and only one, critical city.

The US doesn't have that. We have dozens, hundred of important cities, but taking New York or Los Angeles will not put you in charge of the whole country.



The other side of the coin, of course, is that if there is an insurgency in the US, there will be plenty of dead loyalist soldiers to strip armaments from, plenty of convoys to ambush, plenty of magazines and supply dumps to raid or rob or infiltrate.

You can even argue that, in insurgency warfare, a deer rifle is better than a AR-15, because insurgent snipers can shoot at loyalist troops at ranges they cannot readily respond to with their 5.56 rifles.

[oxbow]

14. Thats certainly one scenario..

Don't know how much we can look at Iraq as an example of what will happen. Precisely because the military has also been looking at Iraq, and by now likely achieved greater mastery of unconventional warfare (between that and Afghanistan, I'm sure they've picked up quite a few tricks). Which just goes back to my point. They have more resources, be it military, financial, logistical, or mental, to throw at the situation should it ever devolve to that level. All the more reason to try to keep the country from going down that path in the first place. If you say you really care about our freedoms, work towards a solution that doesn't involve guns! When the concept of warfare and protection has grown so far beyond a simple gun, the second amendment doesn't mean the same thing it did at the time of creation, anyways.

[krispos42]

37. Remember, too, that there are hundreds of thousands...

maybe over a million, civilians that are veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan or both, and ,lots of them will be lending their knowledge to the rebels add well.

But it's not going to happen. there is no national or regional or even local will to do such as thing.

A.civil war that results in an overthrow of the federal government could happen. if it's happened before it can happen again.

But it won't happen. The national mood is simply not there. nobody came to help the Branch Davidians. Nobody came to help Weaver at Ruby Ridge. Nobody came to help the Hitari Militia. Or the Michigan Militia..Or that got blowing up the abortion clinics in Atlanta.

We are nowhere near the level.of discontent required for a rebellion or revolution, and the nuts stocking up on MREs and AR-15s and toilet paper are harmless. Wasting their money, yes, but harmless.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. As one who was there...how did Vietnam defeat the US

with all its air power with AKs?

You easy step is a long one down into the abyss of history

[rdharma]

16. North Vietnam was a country a bit larger than your average trailer park.

And they didn't just have AKs!

Are you sure you were there? If so, I wonder why you didn't remember that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Just using a little reducto ad absurdum on the OP

which is in dire need of it.

[rdharma]

20. "a little reducto ad absurdum"

ReductIo ad absurdum!

RIIIIIGHT!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. I'm here all week...

Not sure about the next one

[rdharma]

29. Hang in there, dude!

I find you amusing!

[oxbow]

18. I need to write better titles!

Which is to say, I think the first step is just having the conversation, and the rest will happen by itself. I respect your experiences, and the wisdom you've gained. The military has also learned since then in multiple theaters..so imo even planning for some 2nd revolutionary war means you are accepting a no-win scenario.

Better to look for a win-win solution!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. The reality is that a 2nd revolution is absurd whether its by Occupy or the Tea Baggers

Major overnight change is impossible. The people and the infrastructure cannot support it short of war, which is why the vast majority of possible revolutions never get off the ground…too impractical. Revolution means no transportation and utilities. Too many will starve in the dark were that to happen in the US

[JDPriestly]

77. I never understood the Occupy movement to be about a 2nd revolution.

I thought it was there to raise awareness and bring the dispossessed and alienated together to work together to make change. But they did not allow weapons of any kind. They did not permit violence (even though there were exceptional people who committed it on rare occasions). Occupy was not about a 2nd revolution in a military or violent sense but rather in a revolution of the hearts and minds, of the consciousness of people who were losing out to the heartlessness and mindlessness of the 1%. It was not even really anti-government. It was anti-big-corporation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. Depends where you were

Some locations talked openly and often about some form of revolution, the restructuring of society, confiscation of capital items like factories.

Idle Now More seems to have taken up that mantle in some ways according to some

[JDPriestly]

88. Where in the world was that?

I was in two locations in two different states and never saw or heard anything remotely resembling what you are describing. I did not stay long -- just a few hours at most -- in either place.
I also watched the televised meetings of those taking part.
I never heard anything about violence.

Restructuring society and confiscating capital items like factories do not necessarily involve violence. They can be achieved through peaceful means. Restructuring society has often occurred through peaceful means. Think of the movements for universal suffrage, for school integration, for unions, etc. The violence was on the part of the government and the bosses, not on the part of the ordinary people seeking to restructure society for fairness.

And confiscating capital items like factories -- can happen in times of economic chaos and disaster. It happened in a sense in the automobile industry in 2008-9. In addition, workers have been known to take over factories and companies. Was it American airlines or United? I'm not sure which.

Our society is held together by a social contract -- and the terms can be changed, peacefully changed. We still have majority rule.

[shedevil69taz]

70. Yes we have learned a great deal about fighting an insurgency

on the other side of that coin is the knowledge on how to operate an effective one. If given an order to fire on a civilian citizen of the US this Soldier would not be following it and I guarantee I am NOT in the minority among service members.

[apocalypsehow]

44. So now the "professor" is a Vietnam Vet too, eh? Let's see*: you are a "self made milllionaire"; a

University of California "professor"; you "marched with MLK and Bobby Kennedy"; and now you were also fighting in Vietnam at the same time, and are a veteran of that conflict? Really?

BTW, last year you stated to me that you were dying of cancer, and would not be around to participate on DU much past the New Year, 2013. You asked me to stop replying to you in opposition to your pro-NRA posts because of this fact, or at least strongly suggested you'd appreciate my doing so insofar as, and I quote you directly, "none of this going to matter soon."

I now ask you: was that claim along the same lines as your ones here on DU to being a "self-made multi millionaire," and a U-Cal "professor," and a "Civil Rights marcher with Martin and Bobby," and now a Vietnam Vet?

To ask the question is to answer it.


*ALL claims the "professor" has made at various times in various threads and *repeatedly* on DU over the years.

[hack89]

19. What about the "guns are fun" argument?

that is a lot harder to refute.

[rdharma]

25. I can't refute that! Guns are fun!

But, I'm willing to register them and be responsible for their proper use and safe keeping.

A modest price to pay for my fun hobby........... Wouldn't you say?

[hack89]

27. I don't need to register my guns to be responsible

registration serves no purpose. It will not stop mass killings - the Sandy Hook shooter's guns were registered.

[rdharma]

33. "registration serves no purpose"

Oh, yes it does! Especially when dealing with straw/illegal sales!

[spin]

40. And it is also difficult to ban can or confiscate unregistered firearms. (n/t)

[BainsBane]

46. so much for supporting

the president's gun reforms.

[hack89]

47. Does the President actually call for registration? nt

[JDPriestly]

79. Do you have any statistics or data or other evidence to prove that assertion?

And . . . if you don't think that gun registration will stop the mass killings, what do you think would?

People want to stop the mass killings, or better said, people want to stop all the killings.

How would you propose to do that?

I don't think people want to register guns or get rid of military-style weapons because they are mean or because they think it would be fun to take other people's guns away or because they don't like people who like guns. Even if they people backing gun registration and bans on specific types of weapons are mean, etc., that is not why they are proposing this legislation. There are easier and more effective ways to be mean, etc.

People are looking for ways to end or at least reduce the killing. Please be a part of the solution. Arming everyone is not the answer. I'm older and have horrible eyesight. If I lost my glasses, if they were knocked off my face, I would not be able to see much of anything. You really don't want me carrying a gun or even owning one. And I am not unusual. Should we who for various reasons cannot carry guns have to live in a world in which the might of a gun makes right?

What solutions do you suggest?

Because sooner or later, unless the killing just stops by itself, gun control laws will be enacted. It is just a matter of time. Those who have guns for sport need to be in the forefront in deciding how the gun control laws should be enacted. Otherwise you will all get something you don't like.

[gejohnston]

80. how would registration prevent mass murder?

Nothing would stop them. To think they will magically end, not happening.

I don't think people want to register guns or get rid of military-style weapons because they are mean or because they think it would be fun to take other people's guns away or because they don't like people who like guns. Even if they people backing gun registration and bans on specific types of weapons are mean, etc., that is not why they are proposing this legislation. There are easier and more effective ways to be mean, etc.

actually, it is more about culture war than public safety. I tend to believe in the slippery slope.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932

People are looking for ways to end or at least reduce the killing. Please be a part of the solution. Arming everyone is not the answer. I'm older and have horrible eyesight. If I lost my glasses, if they were knocked off my face, I would not be able to see much of anything. You really don't want me carrying a gun or even owning one. And I am not unusual. Should we who for various reasons cannot carry guns have to live in a world in which the might of a gun makes right?

So you are advocating a world where physical strength and youth might makes right?

What solutions do you suggest?

Because sooner or later, unless the killing just stops by itself, gun control laws will be enacted. It is just a matter of time. Those who have guns for sport need to be in the forefront in deciding how the gun control laws should be enacted. Otherwise you will all get something you don't like.

There scant evidence that it will. We are, only to be shouted down and listen to classist rants and speeches of "a good first step".

While I believe you are sincere, the Astro turfers who run the gun control lobby are not.

[JDPriestly]

90. So do you want to just let nature take its course and have lots more

mass killings and domestic violence and accidental deaths by gunshot and children killed? Cause the choice is doing something about our national gun death rate or just letting a lot of innocent people die from gunshot wounds -- including young children and others who are unarmed.

Are gun owners going to be the problem, or part of the solution?

[gejohnston]

93. my choice is doing what works

I'm interested in curbing all violence. Theater and infringing on the rights of others do not save lives.

[CreekDog]

110. No, your choice is to do as little as possible, that's your first priority

what you're doing is outright opposing most actions, but in the cases where you aren't, are trying to raise doubts about going forward on the rest.

[gejohnston]

113. Mine would actually be effective and fix the problem

even though it would take a lot of hard work. Yours would be putting a band aid on someones arm because they have a broken leg, makes a nice appearance but doesn't actually do anything.

[CreekDog]

114. you're saying my desire to change the gun culture to one of non violence is a band aid?

and doesn't do anything?

[Clames]

116. Cheap talk is cheap.

That's all you do on that matter.

[CreekDog]

117. can you provide an example of my "cheap talk" about non violence?

or were you referring to MLK's as "cheap talk"?

i see why you almost never leave this group.

[Clames]

118. Pretty much the majority of your posts on this group.

Nothing but insults and constant whining. Non-violence? No, you are just anti-gun because you haven't made one damn suggestion that would actually do anything about violence. I was referring to you specifically despite your obvious obtuse reply that I knew would result.

[CreekDog]

119. if you never leave this group how do you know what i've posted on non violence?

the SOP of this group is so limited that posts on non violence aren't explicitly allowed.

i've posted non violence posts and threads, relating and not relating specifically to guns, in lots of places on DU.

you don't seem to have read any of those, yet are claiming to know what i've said, when you haven't.

you don't leave this group, basically ever yet you are accusing me of being narrow minded.

[Clames]

120. A whole lot of not very much.

Don't blame the SOP for your own failings. Purity tests are proof of being narrow minded and lacking in maturity...

[CreekDog]

121. please cite a post of mine on non violence which is a whole lot of not very much

i would indeed like to learn from this experience.

[Clames]

122. I was actually referencing #119.

I forget you have a problem with understanding context and willfully misrepresenting the statements of others. You should learn to correct that problem first...

[gejohnston]

124. the "gun culture" is not the source of violence

that is why you are putting the band aid on the body part that isn't even hurt. BTW, MLK owned more guns than I do.

[CreekDog]

125. oh the gun culture is a source of violence and death

and guns are as well.

this is not debatable.

[gejohnston]

126. bullshit

Deer hunters and target shooters are not the source of almost all US murders. It is the drug culture and the greed of the suppliers.

[CreekDog]

127. you're setting up a strawman now, which is not arguing in good faith

you are saying that for the gun culture to be responsible for violence and/or death, that:

deer hunters and target shooters have to a be the source of ALMOST ALL US murders.

which is obviously false reasoning.

but then, that's how the NRA argues, falsely.

[gejohnston]

128. that is the definition of gun culture

That is also the common definition of gun culture in the US. What do you define as "gun culture"? If you use the UK definition, meaning the criminal element like drug dealers and gangs, then we agree.

You don't know the definition of "straw man"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[hack89]

84. You would have to ban and confiscate all semi-automatic firearms including handguns

to stop mass shootings.

Handguns are the killers. They are also the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

If a law could not have prevented Va Tech then it will not prevent mass shootings. The Va Tech shooter used a handgun with a standard magazine. At best, assault weapons are use to kill a couple of hundred people a year. Handguns kill about 30,000. And lets not forget that since a mass shooter can substitute a handgun for a rifle, there is no reason to believe that banning assault rifles will make us safer.

The solution to gun deaths include:

1. Since the majority of deaths are suicides, single payer health care with mental health coverage is needed.

2. End the war on drugs and focus the justice system on violent offenders. Empty the prisons of non-violent drug offenders and fill them up with people that commit violent crimes. If you use a firearm in the commission of any crime, you go away for a very long time.

3. Crack down on the illegal gun trade. Keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

4. Strengthen the background check system and make background checks universal.

[JDPriestly]

89. Good ideas.

I would add mandatory anger management training for anyone, ANYONE, who owns a gun.

And maybe a law against touching a gun when under the influence of alcohol? Knew a guy who liked to drink and also liked guns. Bad combination.

[hack89]

94. It will never happen in our lifetime though

So I will settle for universal background checks and limits on mag size.

On edit. I would also put more effort into healthcare reform. Single payer health care with mental health coverage would do much to reduce suicides and hence gun deaths.

[cantbeserious]

28. Agreed, The Red Dawn Style Fantasies Of Self-Styled Militia Members And Zealots Is Misplaced At Best

eom

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. So was the invasions that was the pretext for it

It was not revolution.

[cantbeserious]

32. Don't Follow Your Point - Regardless, Defending Oneself From Drones And Other Flying Weapons

Will Be Pointless With AR-15 Style Defenses.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. Look back to Vietnam

We had unarmed drones then and (for their day) sophisticated sensor systems. We got out asses kicked in what is now recognized as an asymmetric conflict.

While I think the concept of revolution is inane (be it Occupy or Tea Baggers), AR's are effective weapons against light troops.

[rdharma]

35. "AR's are effective weapons against light troops"

But not heavy weapons, armor, artillery, or aircraft?

I'm glad you've finally come to that conclusion!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Some aircraft...Hueys, even the Yankee are still very soft targets and the Zulu is in some

ways more vulnerable than the Whiskey.

Its asymmetric warfare. Not something many civilians have a good handle on, including most police agencies.

Some are upset about the militarization of the police, including MRAPs, but a couple of trained snipers could put most of Bloomie's private army to flight.

[Eleanors38]

42. Yeah, I noticed all those jets guided missile cruisers & tanks used by Afghan insurgents.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. They gotta get out of it to take a shit sometime.

A tank, even a Abrams, as advanced as it is, is vulnerable without infantry.

Hell, even the Germans learned that in WWII when their tanks were pretty much king shit, and only lost out due to attrition.

You are ascribing mythical levels of 'power' to weapons systems that have historically not been as all-consuming, all-destroying as you seem to think. We've LOST wars against people with greater levels of disparity between combatants, than the US civilian and the US army.


Edit: A second civil war (and that's basically what we're talking about here) is a shitty, fucked up, no win goddamn shitstorm of an idea that is fortunately highly unlikely ever to come to pass. But let's keep it serious ok? It happened once. It consumed more than half a million Americans last time. If it happened again, it would be some staggeringly bloody shit, and have the potential to leave the US a fucked up right wing theocracy. So uh.. less funny. More useful public policy discussion.

[spin]

41. You appear to know a little about "sophisticated sensor systems." ...

Not many people do.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. Its from another life

Classic example in Vietnam was the chemical sensors we would use and the NVA would fool by hanging buckets of urine in the trees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_Vietnam_People's_Army_logistics_and_equipment and search for people sniffers

[spin]

59. Our use of technology to detect the movement of people and supplies was a great idea ...

that was largely defeated by our very resourceful opponents.

I too have some experience with these sensors and other associated equipment from another life in a different time.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. Damn...we both must be old at this point

[spin]

62. We may be older but hopefully we have gained a little wisdom over the years. (n/t)

[Clames]

38. Doesn't it ever occur to those of you who imagine these scenarios....

...that a significant portion of the troops would defect or simply leave the service. It's empty-headed nonsense to think there will some sort of armed uprising against the government and it is equally empty-headed to think that military (that is made up of less than 1% of the total US population) is some how invincible against the populace when 10 years of war against an insurgency that has figured out how to defeat the toughest tank armor with low-tech IED's.



Idiocy, technical ignorance, and arrogance all rolled into one....the hell has our education system wrought...

[cantbeserious]

39. Pockets Of The US Population Will Fight Others Not So Much

eom

[Eleanors38]

43. No wonder our government gets into no-win wars: They adhere to the gun-control theory of warfare.

We go in with all the weapon systems they cite, so in "one easy step" we win. The U.S. has logically won all its wars. Ta-Da-a-a-a!

[CobblePuller]

103. There are lots of highly educated people in the U.S.....

who can't (or won't) read. Or pay attention to current events.

[CreekDog]

111. you never post about education at DU

i guess because it's not about guns. if you really cared about the educational issue, or any issue besides guns...

[Clames]

115. Creekdog setting the precise example that I was looking for.

I'll add predictable and obvious to the list...

[apocalypsehow]

45. You got a ton of the typical Gungeon "Bring It On!" replies from our "pro gun progressives"*,

who spend half their time down here in the Gungeon fantasizing about shooting wars with other Americans a' la "Red Dawn".

It's really pretty funny stuff, until you consider the ugly right-wing racists and fanatics the "RKBA enthusiast" movement is aligned with.

*( )

[spin]

63. I am a strong supporter of gun rights and the Second Amendment. ...

I do not fantasize about a "Red Dawn" scenario occurring because the national government decides to ban and confiscate all or most civilian firearms.

If it ever does happen it will cause a tremendous amount of unnecessary disruption and turmoil in our nation. It might prove to be the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back" that will cause some Red states to leave the union and split our nation in half right down the middle.

I feel that you believe that many gun owners who oppose another AWB are white racists. That hasn't been my experience. I've known many Black and Hispanic gun owners who shot at the ranges I did. Some merely stopped by to test a new handgun but some were also regular members and shot often.

I happen to know a good number of Black and Hispanics who legally own firearms. I have talked to them and they also have no desire to lose their weapons. That may because I live in Florida and firearm ownership is very common here. Florida is a "shall issue" concealed carry state and consequently any honest and responsible person can get a permit to carry. Skin color and ethic background are not a consideration and you don't have to be rich or well connected to own or carry a firearm in Florida as is often the case in cities like New York. .

I will admit that I have talked to some gun owners who do indeed seem to believe that the government is planning to take their firearms and they intend to fight. They scare the hell out of me. So do the people who believe that the government should actually pass laws to ban and confiscate all firearms and if necessary use our military forces to go house to house and confiscate these weapons. I've even heard some supporters of this idea suggest that if necessary tanks, fighter aircraft and armed drones should be used to wipe out any possible resistance. Collateral damage be damned!

The solution to our gun violence problem is not necessarily to ban certain or all firearms. Gun violence is our nation is approaching an all time low, not skyrocketing out of control as suggested by the gun control groups. Better enforcements of current laws coupled to improvements and some well thought out legislation will reduce gun violence considerably. Most gun owners support such ideas. Why not simply try such an approach?

[apocalypsehow]

64. Another thoughtful, and well-reasoned reply. There's a reason why you're about the only

Gungeon "regular" whose input I respect, and that's because you don't shout or pontificate or simply re-post the NRA theme of the day. You actually take time and attempt to explain your position without snark or rancor.

"Better enforcements of current laws coupled to improvements and some well thought out legislation will reduce gun violence considerably."

I agree: it's the details of the legislation that I suspect we would have disagreements.

Thanks again for your post.

[spin]

65. Thanks for your support. ...

I grew up in the 1950s and 60s in a rural area in Ohio. The only people I knew who owned firearms were hunters and target shooters (if you include plinking tin cans as target shooting). Shotguns were common as they were the weapon of choice for hunting rabbit, quail and deer. I knew a lot of people who owned a .22 rifle for hunting squirrel and plinking. I did know one WWII vet who had brought home a German pistol as a war trophy but he had no ammo for it. I never got involved in hunting but I did own a single shot .22 caliber rifle for plinking and I had a hard time hitting the broadside of a barn with it.

I would like to see our nation return to that same level of gun ownership but I fear that it is unlikely.

Still I believe that we can make some headway in reducing gun violence in our nation if we try.

First all sides should admit that gun violence is actually decreasing and is approaching levels last seen in the 1960s according to FBI and DOJ statistics. The problem is that this fact does little to promote gun sales or gun control. Gun manufacturers profit from selling firearms for self defense and the NRA benefits from increased membership and donations from the firearm industry as firearm sales increase. Those who support strong gun control and the media who favors the gun control side see little benefit in saying that gun violence has actually decreased significantly since the first Assault Weapons Ban expired but we need to ban to pass a tougher version.

Our nation should seriously consider admitting that our War on Drugs was lost decades ago and a high percentage of the gun violence in our nation is the direct result of drug gangs fighting over turf. Chicago is a prime example. Legalizing some drugs such as marijuana would take much of the profit out of the drug trade and we could free some of the agents who are currently fight drug smuggling to combat crime on our streets.

We have lived through a number of tragic massacres recently that were caused by individuals with significant mental issues. Obviously our mental health care system needs improvement, but I also feel that some of these incidents are copycat crimes caused by the media. When we have a significant massacre, the media gives it 24/7 coverage for a solid week or more. The shooter is painted as a dark hero or some form of demigod. Is it at all surprising that all this coverage will convince some other disturbed individual to end his existence by racking up a high score of innocent people?

Perhaps we would have fewer of these incidents if the media would give them a little less attention and avoid any glamorization of the shooter. Why is it that we don't see more coverage of true heroes who died trying to stop the shooter? There were heroic teachers in the school Adam Lanza attacked so why don't we see some time devoted to their story and their portrayal as individuals to be admired by all citizens. Why are their names not known to most Americans?

The AR-15 is the evil firearm that was involved in many of these shootings but is that surprising as the media often calls it a "mass murder machine." Advertising works!

James Holmes, the shooter in the Colorado theater shootings first used a shotgun, but this fact is largely unknown as it is rarely mentioned by the media.

Yes, I hope to see gun violence drop and I feel we can pass good, effective legislation if both sides simply start by showing a little respect for each other and stop all the insults. The gun rights side needs to stop saying that Obama is coming for our guns and insinuating that he is a dictator and the gun control side should stop portraying gun owners as illiterate rednecks wishing for an opportunity to overthrow our government.

A little less drama and hyperbole would go a long way to helping find good solutions to this problem.

[Cummins14]

98. I am a strong supporter of gun rights and the Second Amendment. ...

Spin.
You forgot the MOST important part of the gun violence, the CRIMINAL.
Everyone talks about "gun control" and taking everyone's guns away from the 'legal' owner, but do they, meaning law enforcement types, go after the criminal types like they do to 'legal' types?
NO. They go after the 'legal' gun owners 'cause there are the most convenient types to go after.
They have the name & address of the gun owners. Do they have the name & address of the criminal?
Thought I would put in my $.02 in. For what is worth.

[spin]

100. Welcome to DU. ...

I have mentioned the fact in other posts that often our current gun laws are not properly enforced. For example, all too often a criminal who has a long record of violent crime is found to be carrying a firearm when stopped on the street. He gets a light sentence and then goes on to commit murder in a short period of time.

Hadiya Pendleton Charges: Two Men Charged With Murder In Death Of 15-Year-Old Chicago Honor Student
By DON BABWIN 02/11/13 11:00 PM ET EST

CHICAGO — Two Chicago gang members charged Monday in the death of a 15-year-old honor student mistook her and her friends for members of a rival gang and attacked the group in retaliation for a shooting that injured one of the men over the summer, according to police.

Hadiya Pendleton died after being shot in a park near the Chicago home of President Barack Obama on Jan. 29, just days after she performed during his inauguration festivities in Washington. Her death was among dozens of homicides in Chicago last month, but her background and ties to Obama thrust her death into the national headlines and helped put Chicago at the center of a national debate over gun control.

***snip***

McCarthy, who is pushing for tougher gun laws that would increase minimum sentences for gun crimes, noted that Ward was arrested in January 2011 on a gun charge but he received probation after pleading guilty to unlawful use of a weapon. If Chicago had laws like those in New York City, McCarthy said, Ward wouldn't have been on the streets....emphasis added

"This has to stop. Gun offenders have to do significant jail time," he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/hadiya-pendleton-charges_n_2665602.html

Better enforcement of current gun laws coupled with stiff sentences for those caught violating them would mean a more significant reduction in gun violence than would be accomplished by a new Assault Weapons Ban. Room for those caught illegally carrying in our prison system could be found by releasing those held for possession of minor amounts of marijuana. (In my opinion, we should end our War on Drugs which we lost decades ago. Drugs gangs fighting over turf cause far more deaths each year than are caused by the misuse of all rifles and shotguns.)

[CobblePuller]

104. "Bring It On!"? I've seen nothing here that could be construed that way. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

48. How did that work out for us in Vietnam?

The 'armed resistance to tyranny' thing doesn't assume there wouldn't be casualties on both sides (Some of these people approach near-martyrdom levels of fanaticism (Unless you cut off their cable tv, probably)) and doesn't assume lone, individual armed actors.

They assume a broad resistance, and there, numbers come into play. In the US there are some 300 million firearms in the hands of some 80-100 million people. The police comprise something like 0.00052% of the population a couple years ago. The army, not much more than that. Figure in all branches of the service, the police, all government employees in any capacity, and assume they are on the 'tyrannical authoritarian's' side. Ok, what do you have? Less than 1% of the population.

Now on the other side, let's assume 10% of all gun owners show up to fight. That's almost or about 10 million people. People that live in, around, and in some cases, on our military bases, and in our Military Industrial Complex's supply chains.


Now, most of these people are railing about utter nonsense and fabricated hogwash. (Kenyan birf certificate, FEMA camps, yadda yadda) But to simply assume 'the argument is put to rest' because you are unimpressed with the odds of some dude with twigs in his hair, with a rifle, against a jet, doesn't really do anything for the argument at all. It's just another opinion.

Like the fellow horking down twinkies, watching 'doomsday preppers' in his underground bunker (basement) with a stack of questionable-functionality/reliability firearms piled everywhere around him, waiting for the Agenda-21 bearing UN helicopters to take his freedumb away.

[slackmaster]

50. Nobody made it a right to be able to purchase a rifle

It's always been a right.

[av8r1998]

51. I don't know...

The afghans and Iraqi's have been doing a pretty good job of fighting the US Military Might.

Jets, Submarines, Missiles and Tanks don't win wars....
Boots on the ground infantry do.

Imagine where we'd be if our founders believed that fighting the British couldn't be done.
What if Washington and Greene when pinned down in Brooklyn Heights, instead of retreating and using ALL tools at their disposal, had put up their hands and surrendered?

(For those that have not read any detailed military history of the Revolution, in 1776, after a retreat from Boston to Long Island, the Continental Army found it self between an advancing British force coming up from Staten Island, the East River, and a British Armada in New York Harbor. A Northeast wind kept the brittish in the Harbor, and a fog allowed them to escape across the River to Manhattan, and eventually New Jersey)


It wasn't a Jet that raised the Flag at Iwo Jima.

The thing I remember about Helicoptors was them taking off from Hanoi as this great military force retreated not from an Army, but from an army supported by a much more passionate POPULAR resistance (Viet Cong) who used the tools available to them (Soviet and Chinese armament and funding not the least of them).

I don't believe the 2nd Amendment envisions treason.

Much like carrying a firearm for self defense, it is the last of last resorts...
What it DOES envision is an invasion from within by our government and military, which is exactly what happened in 1773 and beyond.

For all of history, an inferior, outnumbered and out gunned minority has been able to defeat a technologically superior force.

Rome was kicked out of Britain by the Saxons, who were eventually overrun by Normans.
The Russian Revolution... how could they overthrow the Military Might of the Czar? (Remember --- Machine Guns, Chemical Warfare and Heavy Artilary existed then), and but for a few misqueues by the Confederacy, the south almost won the civil war. (If you like History, read "What If's of American History - fascinating book)

Look, I'm not saying a revolution is coming, but I will ALSO never acknowledge that a determined, and well armed citizenry cannot fight an army. They can, and they have.

[/rant]

[jimmy the one]

66. no retreat

av8r: What if Washington and Greene when pinned down in Brooklyn Heights, instead of retreating and using ALL tools at their disposal, had put up their hands and surrendered?

Of the approx 8,000 militia which started the ny campaign, only about 2,000 remained at the end, albeit much later in the campaign. Had the british been quicker, washington would've had no choice but to surrender, as at the hudson river (eastside) fort a few weeks later when ~3,000 americans surrendered.
Washington's continentals held together better of course.

(.. in 1776, after a retreat from Boston to Long Island, the Continental Army found it self between an advancing British force coming up from Staten Island, the East River, and a British Armada in New York Harbor. A Northeast wind kept the brittish in the Harbor, and a fog allowed them to escape across the River to Manhattan..)

One correction, the continental army did not retreat from boston, as you're surely aware of your mis-think, it was a withdrawal & redeployment south. Apparent you just made a slip when writing quickly.

Rome was kicked out of Britain by the Saxons, who were eventually overrun by Normans.

Romans might've rather been glad to leave a then deemed worthless island, or at least more bother than worth.

The Russian Revolution... how could they overthrow the Military Might of the Czar? (Remember --- Machine Guns, Chemical Warfare and Heavy Artilary existed then),

The bolsheviks in 1917 were as formidable as the tsarists, having just endured 3 years of wwI, & had a lot of the arms & artillery leftover at their disposal. Could perhaps have been supplied by germans too.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. Not Hanoi, but Saigon.

Hanoi was/is the capitol of N. Vietnam. Saigon, the capitol of S. Vietnam, was the location of the famous picture of the last 'copter out.

[av8r1998]

69. damn....

Yes I did know that.
Cut me some slack... been on codine...

[GreenStormCloud]

71. OK. Colds/Flu are no fun. N/T

[Jenoch]

52. You make the mistake of assuming just what would

constitute a tyrannical government. Your fantasy of citizens with AR-15s against jets is your fantasy. An uprising against government by armed citizens has already happened in this country. Google "The Battle of Athens".

[Trunk Monkey]

53. You are aware that just one guy with a rifle had the entire city of Los Angeles tied in knots right?

No Text

[jmg257]

55. And how did that work out for him? nt

[Trunk Monkey]

56. He died

but I don't see how that changes the basic principle.

Perhaps you remember the DC sniper?

Any insurrection would be primarily asymmetrical warfare. I don't necessarily believe that the insurgents would win but they could certainly keep the government from doing so.

My biggest concern would be that (IMO) the rest of the world would not mind their own business while America was sorting this out.

[jmg257]

57. The basic principle is he is now dead. And odds are any other asses who want to take on the

US govt will also end up dead if they persit long enough.
Hey - those willing to die for their cause can certainly do some damage. They might not change things, but one thing is sure - they will indeed die.

[sylvi]

60. If that simplistic and flawed argument

If that simplistic and flawed argument was sufficient to "put the 'guns protect our democracy' argument to rest", this forum would have never come about.

[GreenStormCloud]

67. That's not the reason a revolution would fail.

Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics. The jet can be defeated, you just have to use the right tactics. But a lack of logistical support will kill any military. All revolutions that become a prolonged engagement have to have resupply, safe staging and training areas. They need a friendly country supporting them to give them supplies and a friendly country with a shared border to retreat to.

And a revolutionary force needs to communicate. With modern electronics intercept means listening to everything the revolution says, they will need to rely upon written messages carried on horseback, and hope the messenger doesn't get seen by a drone.

[ileus]

72. my firearms are used protect me and the family first and foremost....

What good is democracy if I or someone in my family falls to a criminal.


My AR's are designed to save lives...

[fredzachmane]

73. Wasn't the US established because

some "militias" fought back what was at the time the worlds most powerful military?

[DemDealer]

74. Indeed, and the first shots were fired over the citizens guns

Lexington and Concord happened because the Militia made a show of force against the British troops that had come to seize their armory.

A lot of the talk in conservative circles about a second revolution is caused by the belief in the "red line in the sand." That trying to disarm the American public is the sort of universal signal for "go time", as an acquaintance once put it. For these people, guns are a matter of principle. They represent something more important than following the law, living, or dying, or having a nice country with lots of money and Wal Marts and whathaveyou.

I don't know if 10% of all gun owners would partake in such a calamity, but there are still a lot who would, in my assessment. The ones I know are all happy to joke and josh and shoot targets, but even the more liberal ones get very serious when the topic of Americans losing their gun rights comes up. You should have heard the talk when rumors of the Feinstein bill being a confiscation bill came up. Even the most normal people around here - one fellow talking on his phone in a Best Buy, were talking about war. Not survival, not "prepping" - actual war. And meant it. It chills to the bone, and so many "gun control" advocates keep pushing for it because they don't understand how serious the other side is. I've seen it.

[Niceguy1]

81. fantasies of prohibition

And confiscation aren't helping any and are actually counterproductive to meaningful reform.

When i served inthe military most people agreed that they would never use arms against fellow Americans in the event of some kind of revolt. I doubt that has changed. And we would be fools to let it get that far. It isn't worth it.

[defacto7]

82. Never expect logic to come from the illogical,

or reason from the unreasonable, or truth from misinformation.

[Bazinga]

85. Even if standing up to tyranny would be futile,

doesn't the 2nd amendment at least preserve the right to try?

I by no means think the current condition of the country merits revolution, but can anyone guarantee that a century our two from now our situation won't change?

[iiibbb]

95. How do you hold territory with a jet?

That has been the failing of air power since it was devised.

[madville]

97. Those Syrian rebels should just give up

After all, Assad has jets, helicopters, chemical weapons, artillery, tanks, etc. They seem to still be putting up a fight against superior firepower and technology.

[CobblePuller]

105. Now, now.... don't be shoving a cold dose of reality into a warm, fuzzy delusion...

[Jackpine Radical]

101. My Favorite Wingnut has no illusions about defending democracy. His guns

are for the purpose of, first, defending his food cache from others After the Fall, and then going out & taking things from others. He's quite up front about this.

I told him he ought to go to survivalist meetings just to find out who else has food caches that he can raid.

[CobblePuller]

102. The Afghani's didn't get your memo....

but I'll try to pass it on next time I have to go back there.

P.S. Every revolutionary soldier in the world is laughing at you. The word is "naive".

P.P.S. In the meantime, let's try to not let things get to the point of armed revolt. I think we can agree on that.

[inb4tehlulz]

106. What about..

Been reading here for quite a while, but this post finally made me think I have to respond. So congratulations.

Regardless of gun control position, this entire comment is ridiculous. The idea that because the government has "They have helicopters, missiles, troop carriers, etc., and endless rounds of ammunition and munitions for all of their military-grade gear." that a large group of American's could not fight against and defeat it is ridiculous. It makes many inaccurate assumptions about what a possible revolution would entail.

Firstly, let us look no further than a country such as Egypt, where an uprising of the people has been battling their government who has "They have helicopters, missiles, troop carriers, etc., and endless rounds of ammunition and munitions for all of their military-grade gear." have used every method of attack and atrocity it can to quell the people. Why have these rebels continued to fight when they are vastly outgunned? Because for them, there is no other choice. They fight for their freedom, or they die. With that kind of motivation many would rather take a knife against a tank than lay down and be defeated.

Before you say "Well the Egyptian military isn't comparable to the US military". Then let's look through history shall we?

The American Revolution. The British Empire was the largest and most powerful empire of it's day. It's Army was well equipped, and well trained. They were by all means every bit as powerful and technologically advanced in their day as our Military is today. Yet a country with a dedicated populace (Even with it's detractors) was able to fight and defeat their military. It was at a great cost, but to the newly free colonials the price was worth it.

WWII. During WWII many resistance fighters were spread all throughout Nazi Europe. In countries such as France they were able to provide not only valuable intelligence, but also were capable of carrying out missions which helped cripple the Nazi war effort, even though most were lucky to be armed with a 40 year old rifle, let alone a modern carbine. Use of homemade explosives, and stolen equipment made them a formidable force, and the fact that it is very difficult to catch such resistance fighters unless caught in the act or exposed by neighbors the Nazi's would never have been able to eliminate them 100 percent.

Vietnam. The North Vietnamese while organized into a military and having a chain of command would be comparable to some of the groups of Americans who might rebel against the government. Even including North Vietnamese air power they were still vastly outgunned. We could carpet bomb entire jungles with napalm, and the Vietnamese could lose thousands upon thousands of troops a day, but yet we could not create a true victory. Determination and defense of their own territory is all it took to fight off the most powerful nation in the world.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Northwest Pakistan. Even today we can see the greatest example of how determined individuals with mostly rifles, and smuggled and stolen rockets, and smuggled, stolen, and homemade explosives, can bog down and slowly eat away at our military. I've seen with my own eyes the effects that a group of determined individuals can have on our "giant modern military". These guys know the territory like the backs of their hands. They know the politics of the region. They have either instilled enough fear, or respect, into their neighbors that few of them will inform to us. We have to hunt them down, and we lose men doing that. Do they lose more men then we do? Yes. But they will never quit. They would rather die down to the last man woman and child, than abandon their cause.

Do you really feel that if the government were to break it's duty to it's people that there would not be enough of an uprising that all the tanks and all the planes and all the bombs could not stop the inevitability? Do you think that parts of the military would not defect, taking equipment with them? Do you think that somehow America's military is beyond that? It's happened all over the world, why couldn't it happen here?

And honestly, f-16? At least reference something modern, like an f-22 or f-35?

[JaneyVee]

108. No, there wouldn't be enough of an uprising. We elect our officials democratically.

And there are term limits. Take your paranoia some place else.

[gcomeau]

112. Ummm... what?

1. The people are not fighting the military in Egypt, so no idea what the hell you're talking about there.

2. You may possibly have meant *Syria*? In which case:
2A)"The people" are not exactly fighting the military there with nothing but a collection handguns and semi automatic rifles. The resistance forces are being supplied with military grade equipment themselves.
2B)The country is being destroyed in the process.
2C)They are doing so because they have no alternatives... unlike in, oh let's say, A DEMOCRACY.

3. Various examples from Vietnam, WWII, etc... all involve use of military grade hardware on both sides.

4. The founders NEVER intended the citizenry to be a force that could raise armed resistance against the US government. NEVER EVER EVER EVER. One check against the US government turning tyrannical was not to give it a large standing army to use for those purposes in the first place. Kind of no longer applies.

The other check? The most important one? The one that trumps all others and makes this entire argument purely stupid? ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!

The militias were supposed to BE the government's freaking army. One of the provisions in the initial militia acts gave the president the ability to call up the militias to enforce the laws of the nations or put down rebellion for cripes sake, they were the OPPOSITE of a force designed to stand up to the government. Back in Washington's day you know how he would have dealt with modern day idiots waving guns saying they were going to resist the government by force? By calling the militia out to stomp on them, that's how. In fact, he damn well did exactly that (See the Whiskey Rebellion). Bunch of yahoo idiots declared they were going to refuse to comply with a new tax law and started waving around weapons and getting belligerent about it, Washington promptly marched 13,000 militia down to tell them that oh yes they would.

[guardian]

107. 106 replies to date

Looks like the "guns protect our democracy" argument was not put to rest in one easy step.