3 ms·

You have overestimate that there is no overthrow of these. Geurilla war in Vietnam, Midle East, other have been fight best militarys with succeeding. But here w

You have overestimate that there is no overthrow of these. Geurilla war in Vietnam, Midle East, other have been fight best militarys with succeeding. But here we also have reason why we are needing for to keep gun rights, and for to end existing infringment (e.g. no restricting on automatics).

iso1210 6y ago
Its a reason you need to keep the people in your military against the totalitarianists. US police officers kill about 1000 people a year, guns don't seem to protect them.
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  Yes you are right on this. Policeman killing is random in most case, so not surprpse here. Also one may not be using gun against police; I am presuming that in rebelion one may, state monopoley on force is going out the window.
  - iso1210 6y ago
    The state has no monopoly on force. The US armed forces are made up of US citizens. They are sworn to defend the constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. That could include a president and congress, it could include corporations, it could include Canada. The narrative of armed citizens operating in a structure to defend citizens and the constitution works fine if you don't have armed citizens operating in a structure to defend citizens and the constitution. If you lose hearts and minds of one group armed US citizens (the military), why is your group of armed citizens any more justified? If you don't lose it, why do you need the armaments?
ajuc 6y ago
Overthrowing the government is not the same as defending against invasion. When you invade somebody and lose - you return to status quo (with some bad diplomatic consequences but still). There's a point past which it doesn't make sense to escalate. When your citizens try to overthrow you and you lose - you and your family are dead soon. There's no thing that autocratic government won't do to avoid being overthrown. As for fantasies of gun rights preventing fascism - it didn't historically (see Italy where before Mussolini the gun laws were very loose). Nor did fascism necessarily resulted in stricter gun control (in Germany Hitler actually loosened the gun laws after he took control). It frankly doesn't matter. The simple fact is - in a developed country uprisings have 0 chance of winning against a professional army. Hand guns change nothing. The only way to win is to persuade the army to take your side. Which usually happens when the country doesn't have enough money to buy their loyalty.

iso1210 6y ago

Its a reason you need to keep the people in your military against the totalitarianists. US police officers kill about 1000 people a year, guns don't seem to protect them.

da_big_ghey 6y ago
Yes you are right on this. Policeman killing is random in most case, so not surprpse here. Also one may not be using gun against police; I am presuming that in rebelion one may, state monopoley on force is going out the window.
- iso1210 6y ago
  The state has no monopoly on force. The US armed forces are made up of US citizens. They are sworn to defend the constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. That could include a president and congress, it could include corporations, it could include Canada. The narrative of armed citizens operating in a structure to defend citizens and the constitution works fine if you don't have armed citizens operating in a structure to defend citizens and the constitution. If you lose hearts and minds of one group armed US citizens (the military), why is your group of armed citizens any more justified? If you don't lose it, why do you need the armaments?

ajuc 6y ago

Overthrowing the government is not the same as defending against invasion. When you invade somebody and lose - you return to status quo (with some bad diplomatic consequences but still). There's a point past which it doesn't make sense to escalate. When your citizens try to overthrow you and you lose - you and your family are dead soon. There's no thing that autocratic government won't do to avoid being overthrown. As for fantasies of gun rights preventing fascism - it didn't historically (see Italy where before Mussolini the gun laws were very loose). Nor did fascism necessarily resulted in stricter gun control (in Germany Hitler actually loosened the gun laws after he took control). It frankly doesn't matter. The simple fact is - in a developed country uprisings have 0 chance of winning against a professional army. Hand guns change nothing. The only way to win is to persuade the army to take your side. Which usually happens when the country doesn't have enough money to buy their loyalty.