sort by best latest
Best Answer junkseller says
Are you sure the military would be so successful. The soviet War Machine with armored tanks, jets and helicopters could not defeat the Afghans on horseback with rifles. History shows you don't need to defeat an army to stop tyranny. Only rebel.
Establishing control over a foreign people in a foreign land is very difficult (we haven't been successful at it either). Here, they already control everything so it's an entirely different scenario.
History is filled with a track record of minimally armed opressed people breaking the will of larger military powers through rebellion. Both domestic and foreign forces.
I must admit that although both of U R correct, j.s. has the best argument based on logic & reality in view of our current military strength. Increasing guns amongst the people only adds 2 the problem. They just need 2 B better controlled.
I do think this answer is based on logic and it is quite realistic. If people think the 2nd amendment will be of great help against the weapons the federal gov't has at its disposal then, watch this and think again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkk
The military would not fire upon US citizens, they are US citizens.
Mr. H: My comments were not meant as a put down. Your video link says: '' This video does not exist'' ?
I did not view your comment as a "put-down", Mr. Williams. And I am not sure why the video is not working. The link can be found if one types: "invisible tanks BEA Systems", in the Youtube search bar but I will try again: http://www.youtube.com/watch
History has shown over an over again that you need not defeat an army in traditional combat. Only break their morale.Gorilla tactics have worked well regardless of your opponents superior tech. Vietnam and Afghanistan are just a few recent examples.
I see the 2nd as being a check against the government ever trying tyranny, not a recipe to win a rebellion. Check was based on a strong organized militia relative to Gov army. That check is gone. No organized militia and nowhere near powerful enough.
History tells precisely a different story. The most advanced military regimes of their time have been repelled over and over again by highly motivated poorly armed people with a will to fight. Military outcome is determined by commitment not tech.
I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about killing the beast (a powerful federal standing army), but the point of the 2nd was to prevent the beast from existing. It has failed to do so.
- See all 12 commentsHide extra comments
Lisa HW says
Diana L Pierce says
Your right...people do kill people WITH GUNS.
While your focusing on mental health and anger management our children are being murdered every day. Get rid of 200 million unwanted and illegal guns for starters and nail the people that break gun laws.
Your arguments do have some merit, but they do not take into account the threats from such groups as the KKK (& others) who would kill off many innocent people if not held in check. Always 2 sides of every coin, & neither side can be ignored.
KKK/Black Panthers will be armed no matter what the law is. Laws have never prevented criminals from breaking them. If they did we would have stopped prostitution and drug abuse along time ago.
LW: this is true. It seems there will never be a solution that will cover all problems associated with them. I have never owned 1 but if i felt threatened i would want the option to get 1or 2. I don't believe they will ever be totally banned.
There is no perfect solution. But I always choose to error on the side of liberty when possible. I don't think a total ban will happen anytime soon. But I wouldn't say never.
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments