4 ms·

> How is this particular development relevant? Well God forbid it ever comes to that, but there's probably 60 Million people with guns here, and most own more

> How is this particular development relevant? Well God forbid it ever comes to that, but there's probably 60 Million people with guns here, and most own more than one... so basically a gun for every man, woman and child; its a formidable defense against tyranny. I mean it's not like we won in Viet Nam, to name one armed conflict that didn't go our way.

enraged_camel 7y ago
>>so basically a gun for every man, woman and child; its a formidable defense against tyranny. No it isn't? I mean, I know it's a very common conservative fantasy, but if the federal government comes after you, they are doing so with tanks and helicopters, and your puny guns won't change the outcome. Vietnam is not a good analogy. Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined. The Viet Cong were none of those things. This is aside from the fact that an armed populace only encourages the government's law enforcement agencies to arm themselves more, and increases tensions in every encounter because the LEO has to assume the target is armed.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > but if the federal government comes after you, they are doing so with tanks and helicopters, and your puny guns won't change the outcome. Vietnam is not a good analogy. Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined. The Viet Cong were none of those things. Because our tanks and helicopters have done so well at suppressing a bunch of afghani sheepherders, right? I don't think you're really qualified to evaluate the ability of the US's rural population to adapt to guerrilla warfare. In all seriousness, it's easy to use superior weaponry to subjugate a populace... if one of the win conditions is killing everyone in the population to be subjugated. As soon as you have to care about things like "mass killings" or "civilian casualties" or "are you sure this isn't genocide" that gets a lot harder. And I'm relatively sure that the people who make up the US military would care, particularly when it's people they identify with that they're exterminating.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > if the federal government comes after you, they are doing so with tanks and helicopters What is that supposed to do against the domestic population? Would they use their tanks and planes to blow up their own bridges and cities? Those are weapons used to claim territory from other governments. They're not very useful in a guerilla war where you don't even know who the enemy is. > Vietnam is not a good analogy. Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined. The Viet Cong were none of those things. Where does that leave the American government if that's the population they draw their soldiers and law enforcement from and they're each only trained for a couple of months? What do you do when half your new recruits sign up with the intent to turn against you as soon as you've trained them and provided them with weapons and equipment? Fighting a civil war is hard. The US government is well aware of that, hence the bread and circuses. > This is aside from the fact that an armed populace only encourages the government's law enforcement agencies to arm themselves more, and increases tensions in every encounter because the LEO has to assume the target is armed. The solution to which is to expressly prohibit them from doing so. Random sheriffs have zero need for military tanks and riot gear and they shouldn't even be allowed to touch it. You don't need a SWAT team to serve a warrant on a check forger. You don't need a SWAT team at all, because anything it could legitimately be used for is the rightful role of the national guard. Just because the domestic population is armed doesn't mean even 1% of them would shoot a police officer. And the people who would, tend to be the people who acquire firearms unlawfully regardless. If the problem is that violent drug dealers have illegally-obtained guns, you can't solve that by taking legally-obtained guns away from peaceful hill billies and women who just want to feel safe walking home at night.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    > What is that supposed to do against the domestic population? Would they use their tanks and planes to blow up their own bridges and cities? To fight an insurrection of its own populace? This is what is being described. This has precedent. See Tianamen, Soviet Union sending the tanks to its satellite republics, the Turkey failed coup. The only time the federal government can be stopped is to wait 4 years and electing a new president. Allowing individuals to own AR-15 has no bearing on 'freedom' from federal attacks.
- RaceWon 7y ago
  > Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined. Hmmm... and yet we rule the World. Go figure ;)
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't respond to flamebait by taking it. That just makes this place worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7y ago
  > Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined We've asked you so many times to stop posting this and other kinds of flamebait to HN, and you've so often ignored our requests to stop, that I momentarily banned your account when I saw this. On looking at your recent comment history, though, I saw that you mostly haven't been doing this lately (that's good), so I unbanned you. Please don't do it again, though, because if this becomes a pattern again there won't be much slack left to cut. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - 420codebro 7y ago
    Wow you really showed him. He surely won’t do it again (he will).

enraged_camel 7y ago

>>so basically a gun for every man, woman and child; its a formidable defense against tyranny. No it isn't? I mean, I know it's a very common conservative fantasy, but if the federal government comes after you, they are doing so with tanks and helicopters, and your puny guns won't change the outcome. Vietnam is not a good analogy. Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined. The Viet Cong were none of those things. This is aside from the fact that an armed populace only encourages the government's law enforcement agencies to arm themselves more, and increases tensions in every encounter because the LEO has to assume the target is armed.

DuskStar 7y ago
> but if the federal government comes after you, they are doing so with tanks and helicopters, and your puny guns won't change the outcome. Vietnam is not a good analogy. Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined. The Viet Cong were none of those things. Because our tanks and helicopters have done so well at suppressing a bunch of afghani sheepherders, right? I don't think you're really qualified to evaluate the ability of the US's rural population to adapt to guerrilla warfare. In all seriousness, it's easy to use superior weaponry to subjugate a populace... if one of the win conditions is killing everyone in the population to be subjugated. As soon as you have to care about things like "mass killings" or "civilian casualties" or "are you sure this isn't genocide" that gets a lot harder. And I'm relatively sure that the people who make up the US military would care, particularly when it's people they identify with that they're exterminating.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> if the federal government comes after you, they are doing so with tanks and helicopters What is that supposed to do against the domestic population? Would they use their tanks and planes to blow up their own bridges and cities? Those are weapons used to claim territory from other governments. They're not very useful in a guerilla war where you don't even know who the enemy is. > Vietnam is not a good analogy. Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined. The Viet Cong were none of those things. Where does that leave the American government if that's the population they draw their soldiers and law enforcement from and they're each only trained for a couple of months? What do you do when half your new recruits sign up with the intent to turn against you as soon as you've trained them and provided them with weapons and equipment? Fighting a civil war is hard. The US government is well aware of that, hence the bread and circuses. > This is aside from the fact that an armed populace only encourages the government's law enforcement agencies to arm themselves more, and increases tensions in every encounter because the LEO has to assume the target is armed. The solution to which is to expressly prohibit them from doing so. Random sheriffs have zero need for military tanks and riot gear and they shouldn't even be allowed to touch it. You don't need a SWAT team to serve a warrant on a check forger. You don't need a SWAT team at all, because anything it could legitimately be used for is the rightful role of the national guard. Just because the domestic population is armed doesn't mean even 1% of them would shoot a police officer. And the people who would, tend to be the people who acquire firearms unlawfully regardless. If the problem is that violent drug dealers have illegally-obtained guns, you can't solve that by taking legally-obtained guns away from peaceful hill billies and women who just want to feel safe walking home at night.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  > What is that supposed to do against the domestic population? Would they use their tanks and planes to blow up their own bridges and cities? To fight an insurrection of its own populace? This is what is being described. This has precedent. See Tianamen, Soviet Union sending the tanks to its satellite republics, the Turkey failed coup. The only time the federal government can be stopped is to wait 4 years and electing a new president. Allowing individuals to own AR-15 has no bearing on 'freedom' from federal attacks.
RaceWon 7y ago
> Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined. Hmmm... and yet we rule the World. Go figure ;)
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't respond to flamebait by taking it. That just makes this place worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 7y ago
> Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined We've asked you so many times to stop posting this and other kinds of flamebait to HN, and you've so often ignored our requests to stop, that I momentarily banned your account when I saw this. On looking at your recent comment history, though, I saw that you mostly haven't been doing this lately (that's good), so I unbanned you. Please don't do it again, though, because if this becomes a pattern again there won't be much slack left to cut. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- 420codebro 7y ago
  Wow you really showed him. He surely won’t do it again (he will).