3 ms·

Exactly. Just look at how the US government quickly and easily wiped out all those insurgents in the Middle East. Oh wait... it's been a decade and a half since

Exactly. Just look at how the US government quickly and easily wiped out all those insurgents in the Middle East. Oh wait... it's been a decade and a half since the attack on the World Trade Center, and they're still there making trouble. If you're fighting the government head on in a conventional war, and the military sides with the government against the citizens, then of course you'll lose. So don't do that. Armed citizens defending themselves and their families on their own turf against modern militaries using asymmetric warfare techniques have actually proven pretty effective. In any case, you're assuming an all-out civil war where the government has free reign to send in the military against its own citizens with no concern for political fallout, using whatever level of force is needed to achieve their objective. In practice they don't have that much freedom even when dealing with a foreign group intent on causing us harm. Under more realistic circumstances, the mere possibility of armed resistance serves as a major deterrent to tyranny vs. the ease with which unarmed civilians can be rounded up for "re-education".

scotty79 9y ago
> Exactly. Just look at how the US government quickly and easily wiped out all those insurgents in the Middle East. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-islamic-state-us-american-soldier-how-many-deaths-killed-iraq-syria-a7226061.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is... Not sure about wiping them out but US got pretty good at killing them and not getting killed themselves in the process. > Armed citizens defending themselves and their families on their own turf against modern militaries using asymmetric warfare techniques have actually proven pretty effective. Examples? Preferably of last decade or two because modern military technology is ... well modern. And your future insurgency won't be countered even with today technology but future one. > In any case, you're assuming an all-out civil war where the government has free reign to send in the military against its own citizens with no concern for political fallout, using whatever level of force is needed to achieve their objective. In practice they don't have that much freedom even when dealing with a foreign group intent on causing us harm. If you own a gun to shoot your foot or spouse, government will happily restrict itself from interfering with your freedoms. Try to use it go gang up with few dozen of hundreds of citizens and oppose some tax regulation or something government actually cares about. You'll have FBI on your ass before you ramp up, and if that's not sufficient, yes, also military. And don't be so sure they'll restrict themselves then, especially if you fire even single shot at them. Even pointing your gun in their general direction could be enough to lift any restrictions. > Under more realistic circumstances, the mere possibility of armed resistance serves as a major deterrent to tyranny vs. the ease with which unarmed civilians can be rounded up for "re-education". I wonder why so many western countries don't descend into tyranny even though their citizens don't own guns.
- nasredin 9y ago
  >>Try to use it go gang up with few dozen of hundreds of citizens and oppose some tax regulation or something government actually cares about. You'll have FBI on your ass before you ramp up, and if that's not sufficient, yes, also military. IIIRC the Bundys did EXACTLY that and US government is having a tough time convicting them. >>I wonder why so many western countries don't descend into tyranny even though their citizens don't own guns. Maybe because America acts as a guarantor of security via NATO and thousands of other ways?

scotty79 9y ago

> Exactly. Just look at how the US government quickly and easily wiped out all those insurgents in the Middle East. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-islamic-state-us-american-soldier-how-many-deaths-killed-iraq-syria-a7226061.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is... Not sure about wiping them out but US got pretty good at killing them and not getting killed themselves in the process. > Armed citizens defending themselves and their families on their own turf against modern militaries using asymmetric warfare techniques have actually proven pretty effective. Examples? Preferably of last decade or two because modern military technology is ... well modern. And your future insurgency won't be countered even with today technology but future one. > In any case, you're assuming an all-out civil war where the government has free reign to send in the military against its own citizens with no concern for political fallout, using whatever level of force is needed to achieve their objective. In practice they don't have that much freedom even when dealing with a foreign group intent on causing us harm. If you own a gun to shoot your foot or spouse, government will happily restrict itself from interfering with your freedoms. Try to use it go gang up with few dozen of hundreds of citizens and oppose some tax regulation or something government actually cares about. You'll have FBI on your ass before you ramp up, and if that's not sufficient, yes, also military. And don't be so sure they'll restrict themselves then, especially if you fire even single shot at them. Even pointing your gun in their general direction could be enough to lift any restrictions. > Under more realistic circumstances, the mere possibility of armed resistance serves as a major deterrent to tyranny vs. the ease with which unarmed civilians can be rounded up for "re-education". I wonder why so many western countries don't descend into tyranny even though their citizens don't own guns.

nasredin 9y ago
>>Try to use it go gang up with few dozen of hundreds of citizens and oppose some tax regulation or something government actually cares about. You'll have FBI on your ass before you ramp up, and if that's not sufficient, yes, also military. IIIRC the Bundys did EXACTLY that and US government is having a tough time convicting them. >>I wonder why so many western countries don't descend into tyranny even though their citizens don't own guns. Maybe because America acts as a guarantor of security via NATO and thousands of other ways?