5 ms·

I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones, etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." This argument has several flaws

by willurd 13y ago

I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones, etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." This argument has several flaws: 1. This is just more proof that we (the people) need to hold on to whatever arms we can get. We've mistakenly let our military accrue a cache and kind of weaponry that we have not allowed even ourselves to possess. If the powder keg does explode, less arms is not better than more. 2. Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people (and most likely would take up arms against a tyrannical government, should it come to that). This is why many veterans are proclaimed mentally incompetent and disarmed (http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/beneficiary.asp http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s). 3. There are 1.5 million active military personnel and 850 thousand reserves (Wikipedia). There 311 million Americans, not including the roughly 3 million that are active or reserve military personnel. We are a bigger force by far. 4. "You're going to die if you fight." Appeal to emotion. 5. "How can you even say that with a straight face." Appeal to ridicule. 6. There are many reasons to "want a gun" beyond protecting yourself from tyranny, including self defense from criminals, sport, hunting and recreation. But "wanting" has nothing to do with it. You don't need to explain why you want a gun and you don't have to show a "need" for it. It is your inalienable (seriously, look this word up, ponder its meaning) right. It cannot be taken from you (though you can give it up willingly, I suppose). EDIT: 7. In 2011, Ron Paul received 6 times (http://ronpaulronpaul.com/ http://ronpaulronpaul.com/) more in contributions from active military personnel than all of the other republican candidates combined. For those that don't know, Ron Paul ran on a campaign of small government, less war, etc. That should tell you where our military stands on this matter.

westicle 13y ago
In regards to point 6, how do you figure? I don't have that right, ergo it must not be inalienable. I might as well say it is an inalienable right to possess pipe bombs and molotov cocktails. At least those things are easily obtainable.
- willurd 13y ago
  Pipe bombs and molotov cocktails are "arms" (just ask the government). Don't confuse "should you" with "do you have the right". Should you have pipe bombs and molotov cocktails? Probably not, as I'm sure they are illegal. And even if they weren't, you might decide it's not a good idea for you. But do you have that right? I think our founding fathers intended for us to be as well, or even more well armed than our government. But again, there's a double standard going on here. Our government, even our local police forces, have these capabilities. They have the modern day and sophisticated equivalents of pipe bombs and molotov cocktails (grenades, flash bangs, drones, actual assault rifles, etc). Why are we trusting these people with these kinds of munitions? Anybody who has been paying any attention in the last 50 years has seen the gross abuses of power perpetrated by our police and government. So I ask again, why are we allowing them to have this kind of fire power? Or, do they just take it without our consent? If so, why do we need their consent to arm ourselves? Aren't we the boss? Don't they work for us? Aren't they public servants?
darkarmani 13y ago
> Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people This has been disproved by President Washington during the Whiskey rebellion. Everyone had equal guns and the insurrection was squashed.
- willurd 13y ago
  That was over 200 years ago. I am talking about people today. cf. point 7.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Doesn't it matter that the guy giving the orders was President-freakin'-Washington? Even putting aside the Constitutional questions of the Whiskey Rebellion, I don't think that's reasonable evidence on the fair-mindedness of U.S. military personel.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    But that is the closest match of weaponry there ever will be.
sliverstorm 13y ago
I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones, etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." It's actually reminiscent of the "got nothing to hide" argument re: surveillance!
- krapp 13y ago
  To be fair, though, you can dismiss the argument all you like, but they do have missiles and you don't. It does seem like a rational argument. I don't know that I necessarily want tactical nukes over the mantel but isn't that what it would actually take to balance things out at this point?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Firstly, I think it unlikely that the White House would drop a nuke on New York to quell political unrest/rebellion. Secondly, yes the gap in power has widened. But just look to the Revolutionary War. The British had the world's greatest troops, and the world's greatest Navy. (Hell, the Queen's Navy was like the prototypical American Navy) The power gap was already tremendous. I'm not a philosopher on the issue or anything, but the crux of the matter, the thing that makes revolution different from war, is the government does not need to crush. It needs to obtain consent. It wishes to govern, not to conquer, for a government without people is nothing at all. Firearms are one of the ways the populace can resist in some fashion, can refuse to consent.
    - krapp 13y ago
      You do have a point, the British weren't prepared for guerilla warfare. But I don't think it necessarily carries over to the modern day, our military's at least got some experience in urban warfare and the like. It probably depends a great deal on how far the government's willing to go and how far the military's willing to go. I understand the principle and I respect it. I just really, personally and at a visceral level hate the idea of armed uprising. I want the system to be salvageable. I want dialogue and compromise. But I suppose if it came down to real, true tyranny then you'd be correct. Everyone has the right to stand against that.

by willurd 13y ago

westicle 13y ago

In regards to point 6, how do you figure? I don't have that right, ergo it must not be inalienable. I might as well say it is an inalienable right to possess pipe bombs and molotov cocktails. At least those things are easily obtainable.

willurd 13y ago
Pipe bombs and molotov cocktails are "arms" (just ask the government). Don't confuse "should you" with "do you have the right". Should you have pipe bombs and molotov cocktails? Probably not, as I'm sure they are illegal. And even if they weren't, you might decide it's not a good idea for you. But do you have that right? I think our founding fathers intended for us to be as well, or even more well armed than our government. But again, there's a double standard going on here. Our government, even our local police forces, have these capabilities. They have the modern day and sophisticated equivalents of pipe bombs and molotov cocktails (grenades, flash bangs, drones, actual assault rifles, etc). Why are we trusting these people with these kinds of munitions? Anybody who has been paying any attention in the last 50 years has seen the gross abuses of power perpetrated by our police and government. So I ask again, why are we allowing them to have this kind of fire power? Or, do they just take it without our consent? If so, why do we need their consent to arm ourselves? Aren't we the boss? Don't they work for us? Aren't they public servants?

darkarmani 13y ago

> Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people This has been disproved by President Washington during the Whiskey rebellion. Everyone had equal guns and the insurrection was squashed.

willurd 13y ago
That was over 200 years ago. I am talking about people today. cf. point 7.
twoodfin 13y ago
Doesn't it matter that the guy giving the orders was President-freakin'-Washington? Even putting aside the Constitutional questions of the Whiskey Rebellion, I don't think that's reasonable evidence on the fair-mindedness of U.S. military personel.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  But that is the closest match of weaponry there ever will be.

sliverstorm 13y ago

I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones, etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." It's actually reminiscent of the "got nothing to hide" argument re: surveillance!

krapp 13y ago
To be fair, though, you can dismiss the argument all you like, but they do have missiles and you don't. It does seem like a rational argument. I don't know that I necessarily want tactical nukes over the mantel but isn't that what it would actually take to balance things out at this point?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Firstly, I think it unlikely that the White House would drop a nuke on New York to quell political unrest/rebellion. Secondly, yes the gap in power has widened. But just look to the Revolutionary War. The British had the world's greatest troops, and the world's greatest Navy. (Hell, the Queen's Navy was like the prototypical American Navy) The power gap was already tremendous. I'm not a philosopher on the issue or anything, but the crux of the matter, the thing that makes revolution different from war, is the government does not need to crush. It needs to obtain consent. It wishes to govern, not to conquer, for a government without people is nothing at all. Firearms are one of the ways the populace can resist in some fashion, can refuse to consent.
  - krapp 13y ago
    You do have a point, the British weren't prepared for guerilla warfare. But I don't think it necessarily carries over to the modern day, our military's at least got some experience in urban warfare and the like. It probably depends a great deal on how far the government's willing to go and how far the military's willing to go. I understand the principle and I respect it. I just really, personally and at a visceral level hate the idea of armed uprising. I want the system to be salvageable. I want dialogue and compromise. But I suppose if it came down to real, true tyranny then you'd be correct. Everyone has the right to stand against that.