The right wants to keep their assault rifles to protect against the tyranny of the govt?

[Kablooie]

And ...uh ... just how is that supposed to work?

Whether the government is a lawful Democracy or a violent dictatorship, once you shoot at government forces, no matter what the reason, you give the government the right and the duty to capture or kill you. If you continue to resist you will bring down the full force of the government's military force upon yourself. The same military force that the right wing has so gleefully been making "invincible".

No matter how many assault rifles and ammo you have stocked up you are going to go down.
So what's the purpose of keeping the rifles around?

The right wants to create the most obscenely powerful military the world has ever known but also wants to keep their measly little assault rifles around to protect themselves from it in case the government goes rogue.

So ... uh ... How's that supposed to work exactly?

[loudsue]

1. That post needs to circulate the web. I love it.

Since don't do FB or Twitter, I won't be the one to spread it, but it is certainly worth spreading.

[The Straight Story]

2. I am not sure the right does, but our founders held their guns close

King George would have been a head off removing them, and if the founding fathers were good citizens they would have turned them over to him.

And that military force is made up of people like my son who would not attack US citizens because he, and many others, are not robots who simply obey everything.

As for me personally, I would rather go down fighting then walking into a camp saying 'oh well, what can I do?' - kind of like those people in Iraq and Afghanistan who resist.

A single gun can make a difference, if it could not then why would so many want to remove/ban them??

[Fumesucker]

3. Getting kind of lonely out here, innit?

That's often the way I feel on DU too as well as in real life.

If you need to blame anyone for people wanting to ban guns then blame the media, if it bleeds it leads and people are tired of hearing about it, they want it to stop and don't care how it happens.

The bubble headed bleach blonde comes on at five.

Give us dirty laundry.

[Whovian]

6. Me too! I likes to hold my plug out Remington close when I sleep!

Jus' hope my finger don't twitch in my sleep.

[caseymoz]

14. George Washington had two insurrections to put down

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. The latter was over taxes. Washington was pretty one sided about both, taking the tact that the people had no right to insurrection.

That's what the Father of the Nation thought of rebellion against the domestic government.

The soldiers were drawn from the population and had as much divided loyalties as you perceive today. In fact Shay's rebellion was over Revolutionary War veterans getting paid. They had a completely legitimate complaint, but Congress had no money. The soldiers did not rebel then, and by and large, they won't now.

And the Founders were dead wrong about a militia, at least according to current events; it seems an armed citizenry in peacetime doesn't do shit against tyranny. Check Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and soon Syria. These were not heavily armed populations. But in Libya, they've found that armed factions are making difficult to put a new government together post tyranny. You have the country being divided up into fiefs.

And as has been debunked here, Hitler did not compensate guns. No, he did the reverse.

If you think the military is going to support an idiots rebellion, guys who cite traffic laws and the always failed gold standard as tyranny, you are one of the worst gamblers ever. Yes, it can happen, but I suggest you don't bet the house on it, let alone your freedom and your life.

[fasttense]

16. The founders also held their slaves close,

Just because the founders did it does not make it right. The founders are not God or saints. They were deeply flawed men trying to understand the world.

The founders were using inaccurate, poorly constructed, flawed weapons. Todays weapons are much more lethal. Our founders were using their weapons, as flawed as they were, for hunting. Today, high capacity magazines and automatic weapons are not used for hunting but merely for killing people.

The founders were using their weapons against an outside force. They did not see the British as their government and the British didn't treat Americans as they did British citizens. King George treated Americans like a conquered state, extracting as many taxes and as much wealth as possible. The Boston Tea Party that the wacko teabaggers like to tout, was a peaceful protest against one corporation of the British Empire that had been granted a monopoly and tax exemption by the king. It was very successful and NOT one single shot was fired. It encouraged Americans to rebel.

The Americans saw themselves as fighting against an outside force. They were NOT using their weapons against their own government.

The US Military is made up of Mercenaries too, like KBR, Halliburton, and X or Blackwater. Corporation hire cruel and vicious men to go out and kill just like King George did with the German Hessians. A Blackwater former Pinochet soldier will not hesitate to slaughter Americans. And of course we have the example of our own police shooting the Occupy protesters and the National Guard murdering Kent State students. So yes Virginia, US military troops will slaughter their own citizens.

The only way to succeed against your own tyrannical government is through peaceful protest in mass. A single gun will never make a difference. If the gun is used against your own government, you'll end up dead or in GITMO being tortured (Thanks to George W). But a mass of people nonviolently protesting will always make a difference like in Egypt, India, Martin Luther King etc...

A single gun is useless in the face of a huge powerful military but masses of nonviolent protesters are a deadly threat to a tyrannical government...and they know it.

[baldguy]

17. The US military has the capability of killing an individual from 10,000 mi away.

When that capability becomes within reach of the average gun owner, then we can talk.

And if members of that military did not follow the orders of their commanders, the Civil War would never have happened.

Or Kent State, for that matter.

Getting soldiers to fire on civilians isn't that difficult. Just fill them with propaganda against their targets, create a social crisis for them to "bring security" to, then place them in a stressful situation. Whether it's a political protest, a union action, or a plea for social justice the result will be the same: several dead civilians & a military who believes they were justified in their actions.

Soldiers follow orders. That is their purpose. If they believe they can pick & choose which orders to follow, then they are terrible soldiers. And just what is the procedure for a soldier to refuse to carry out what they think is an illegal order in the field? Do you have any clue at all? Does your son?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. During the height of Stalin's rule, my grandparents were routinely harassed by the authorities.

All because of their nationality (Ukrainian) and religious affliation (Catholic). Relatives of theirs had actually been deported to Siberia for the exact same reason.

They loved their country and didn't want to leave. So they could have hunkered down in their home with whatever weapons they could and fought off Stalin's thugs, and likely go out in a blaze of glory.

Except they had an infant daughter, my mother, and love of family trumps even love of country when the shit hits the fan.

So, they fled. They fled across Europe during World War II, hid in ditches, and only made it to the American sector of Vienna by hiding out in the back of an ambulance.

Some might say that was the cowardly thing to do and true patriotism would have required them to stay and fight in the interests of their country, even if it meant their own deaths or loss of liberty. But when you have a family to look after, sometimes the most heroic thing you can do is to get out of town.

And frankly, I'm glad that they did. Because I literally wouldn't be who I am because of it.

[caseymoz]

26. Oh, to your last sentence, why . . .

. . . would so many people want to remove/ban them, perhaps because a bunch of kids got killed? Or could that only be an excuse?

And perhaps because they suck as a deterrent, and they're not needed to get rid of tyranny? Recent events have shown the most important thing against tyranny is information. The First Amendment, not the Second one is he effective safeguard.

[gtar100]

4. It's because they are suffering such terrible oppression under

the Obama administration.

Off hand I can't think of any examples but I'm sure there must be some considering how loud they are whining about it.

[cantbeserious]

5. Some Gun Owners Have Randy Weaver And David Koresh Fantasies

eom

[AnnieK401]

7. Very well said! K&R (n/t)

[ManiacJoe]

8. A lot has to happen before that gun owner fires the shot.

An important part of the scenario is that the cops and military know that the civilians are armed, often including their families. They then need to decide how much they want to risk in obeying what would usually result in illegal orders "attack" or "disarm" the civilians.

Multiple studies have been done by the military and cops on the military and cops about the men's willingness to obey such orders. I don't recall the exact results of the cops, but the military tended to be around 60-75% unwilling to obey such orders for various reasons. If I remember correctly....

From that perspective, the armed civilians have an initial advantage.

[ReRe]

9. They just want to go out in a "Blaze of Glory"....

....and the USG will avail them of their wish. All they ("the right&quot have to do is shoot first. "The right" is the rogue element in the equation. I can't help but think of Tina Faye (sp?) playing Sarah Palin on SNL when I hear the term "going rogue."

[RandiFan1290]

10. Cops and National Guard rounded up guns in New Orleans when Bush was pres

They did nothing.
No militia came to save the day

They like to talk tough. That's about it. Chicken shits all of them!

[LAGC]

11. Modern warfare has changed alot from the days of soldiers dutifully lining up to get shot.

Having an armed populace provides many opportunities for guerrilla warfare.

Should the government ever become tyrannical and start oppressing its people, the level of violent unrest would quickly make the new status quo unbearable.

Just the prospect of this helps keep the government from abusing its power too much.

[k2qb3]

12. Wow there have been a lot of threads on this topic, it's surprising to me given this nations history

Tyranny is always personal, whether it's the petty tyranny of a mugger or the violence of a rapist or domestic abuser or the wider tyranny of a state or some ogue element within it. It always comes down to one human being violating the rights of another by force. The law, of a legitimate government or illegitimate, is ultimately enforced by men with guns. Not bombs, not drones, human beings.

A lot of people are not willing to give up the means to resist that force, not because they think they're going to fight a war against the federal government or even because they plan on shooting a criminal but because they believe that means of resistance is a check on such tyranny happening in the first place. Once the means of resistance is lost it's likely gone forever and they and their progeny will just have to accept whatever comes. So a lot of people figure the fight to retain that means of resistance is the appropriate place to take a stand, because once it's gone no more stands can be taken. It's often said the second amendment won't be needed until after it's gone, and in the minds of many, many people it's probably the only political issue likely to motivate them to forcibly resist, because to them all possible tyranny is contained within it. So far we've never really tested that question again since General Gage got his answer, because so far none of the measures have had any significant effect. Only 3% took up arms in our revolution, but 3% today would be ten million people. Given the current political and social environment I expect a serious threat to the RKBA would result in a truly horrific shitstorm of one kind or another even if it were only a tiny, tiny fraction of that number, especially if one or two of them happened to be governors, which is why ultimately I don't think we'll see a serious threat.

What we will see is a lot of political capital wasted, the republican party resuscitated, and very likely a failure to win a house majority in '14 and a greatly diminished second term for PBO...and a whole lot of profits for the gun industry. Nothing sells guns like talk of bans.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. "...you are going to go down."

fuck a bunch of gun nuts. they are going down.

[madrchsod]

18. michigan has it`s own militia.....

http://www.michiganmilitia.com/

according to them they are ready to take on the federal troops.

[deafskeptic]

19. hmm..

The question here is are they able to take on the USA government?

[gelsdorf]

20. I would love to see the Red Dawn Brigade

take on an M1 Tank. This isn't the movies

[no_hypocrisy]

21. Devolution.

Back in the Fifties and Sixties, the rationale for keeping guns was to protect yourself from the Russian Commies. (Watch "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming" to see the mindset at work.)

Then it morphed into protecting yourself from your government (if it was a democratically controlled Administration or at least one chamber of the Congress was democratic).

Now it's protecting yourself from the U.S. military and state National Guard.

What I think amassing an arsenal really is: to "protect" yourself from your neighbor whom you don't talk to and don't know. Or to threaten your spouse in your home.

[1-Old-Man]

22. In the Warsaw Ghetto they held out for nearly a month, it wasn't much, but they did it.

When the Germans went in to finally kill the last of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto they expected to complete the killings in one day. But the Jews fought back, against what was at that time an utterly invincible military power, with a few rifles, pistols, and homemade grenades. They (I believe by that time they were down to about 6000 people left alive) lasted about a month and finally had to be burned out by the Germans.

[Recursion]

23. The Taliban has held out for 12 years (nt)

[derby378]

24. And let's not forget the French partisans of World War II

A lot of DUers seem to have quickly forgotten just how resilient an insurgency can be. They dismiss someone who owns a military weapon as someone who's just going to sit there and let corrupt soldiers gun them down, but when you've adopted the mindset that you'd rather die on your feet than live on your knees, you have no idea what feats of endurance humankind is capable of.