4 ms·

Buddy, if it ever comes to pass that fully 1/3 of the population rises up in armed rebellion against the government, equipped with the kind of military-grade we

Buddy, if it ever comes to pass that fully 1/3 of the population rises up in armed rebellion against the government, equipped with the kind of military-grade weaponry and foreign backing that sustained the Afghan/Iraqi insurgencies, then the USA has become a dystopian warlord state and freedom and democracy are dead letters for the next dozen generations. Get real. These kinds of justifications are just completely absurd fantasies, for people who want to picture themselves as the heroes of another "Red Dawn" remake.

hga 13y ago
Are you familiar with the concept known as an insurance policy?
smsm42 13y ago
So you acknowledge that the government can not rule over non-consenting armed population, yet call this idea "absurd". >>> for people who want to picture themselves as the heroes of another "Red Dawn" remake. Nobody wants it. But the option is there, and was there from the start. Just as no responsible person wants to kill other people, but if these people break into his house and threaten his life... And yes, this is an unrealistic scenario which never happens to vast majority of people. But if it does, some people want to be prepared. Given how many times defense against completely imaginary scenarios was brought in this topic, as justification for government doing anything, I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand when it's not the government that is doing it.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > So you acknowledge that the government can not rule over non-consenting armed population Unarmed non-consenting populations can and have brought down governments. e.g. in Egypt and in the Czech republic. But if the government is determined not to let go at any cost at all, side-arms won't help you against a decent army. Protesters with guns is nothing more than a good excuse to send in the tanks/drone strikes/etc. So the presence or absence of civilian guns are not the issue that you make them out to be.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    >>> Unarmed non-consenting populations can and have brought down governments. e.g. in Egypt In Egypt, the power was actually taken by the military after Mubarak has resigned. If the military had supported Mubarak, you can look in Libya and Syria how it would play out. >>> side-arms won't help you against a decent army Depends what you mean by "help". You can destroy a city with a bomber, but you can not actually govern the city with a bomber. >>>> So the presence or absence of civilian guns are not the issue that you make them out to be. It is. If the population is disarmed, the only force who decides if the government is to survive or not is the military. It's good if the military is on your side, if it's not you're in for a long and unpleasant ride.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      > It is. If the population is disarmed, the only force who decides if the government is to survive or not is the military. What I and others are saying above is that with handguns in the population, the situation is much the same.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        The modern experience teaches us that it is very hard to subdue and keep under control a noncompliant and armed population, even if the army has vastly more powerful arms.
        SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        Which modern experience would that be? Citation needed.

hga 13y ago

Are you familiar with the concept known as an insurance policy?

smsm42 13y ago

So you acknowledge that the government can not rule over non-consenting armed population, yet call this idea "absurd". >>> for people who want to picture themselves as the heroes of another "Red Dawn" remake. Nobody wants it. But the option is there, and was there from the start. Just as no responsible person wants to kill other people, but if these people break into his house and threaten his life... And yes, this is an unrealistic scenario which never happens to vast majority of people. But if it does, some people want to be prepared. Given how many times defense against completely imaginary scenarios was brought in this topic, as justification for government doing anything, I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand when it's not the government that is doing it.

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> So you acknowledge that the government can not rule over non-consenting armed population Unarmed non-consenting populations can and have brought down governments. e.g. in Egypt and in the Czech republic. But if the government is determined not to let go at any cost at all, side-arms won't help you against a decent army. Protesters with guns is nothing more than a good excuse to send in the tanks/drone strikes/etc. So the presence or absence of civilian guns are not the issue that you make them out to be.
- smsm42 13y ago
  >>> Unarmed non-consenting populations can and have brought down governments. e.g. in Egypt In Egypt, the power was actually taken by the military after Mubarak has resigned. If the military had supported Mubarak, you can look in Libya and Syria how it would play out. >>> side-arms won't help you against a decent army Depends what you mean by "help". You can destroy a city with a bomber, but you can not actually govern the city with a bomber. >>>> So the presence or absence of civilian guns are not the issue that you make them out to be. It is. If the population is disarmed, the only force who decides if the government is to survive or not is the military. It's good if the military is on your side, if it's not you're in for a long and unpleasant ride.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    > It is. If the population is disarmed, the only force who decides if the government is to survive or not is the military. What I and others are saying above is that with handguns in the population, the situation is much the same.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      The modern experience teaches us that it is very hard to subdue and keep under control a noncompliant and armed population, even if the army has vastly more powerful arms.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        Which modern experience would that be? Citation needed.