I see Whack-a-mole has not yet acknowledged his lack of awareness of American history.
Heh. The one thing that has never changed in this world is human nature. Different world today? Not as far as I see it.
What the hell are you on about with this? Scumpup set me straight the very next post after mine way back about this. Apparently you missed the part too where I acknowledged my lack of awareness on this issue. Was in post #124. I’ll bold the relevant bit as an aid for you. Some of you guys are seriously digging deep for irrelevancies to the topic at hand. Should be a clue to start rethinking your position.
I agree. What has that to do with what you quoted? By “different world” I was referring to it militarily. Different when the military you faced in 1700 had muskets and you had muskets versus today where you have a 9mm and the military has helicopters and tanks and APC and satellite surveillance and chemical weapons and nukes and so on.
I believe a citizen insurrection opposing a US government going all tyrannical has a pretty good chance of working, actually. We’ve covered this before.
F’r one thing, whose side do you think the National Guard and Army will be on?
Seems to me a tyrannical government without the army on its side is cannot be very tyrannical.
Further, if the National Guard and Army will side with the people and oppose the government why do the people need guns?
If other civil wars and insurrections are any guide, portions of the armed services will be on both sides.
Great point. If you have the support of your armed forces, who are you going to be fighting?
True but seems to me any coup or government tyranny would need the support of the lion’s share of the military (at least the army as air force and navy would have little ability in such a mess). If the coup is not a fait accompli it is almost certainly doomed to failure and the guys who would try are smart enough to know not to bother without a reasonable expectation of success.
Also not sure the military on the people’s side would welcome armed citizens running about. Would confuse the issue and of course lots of the citizens would not be fighting with them but looting or causing all sorts of other mayhem.
The nature of civil war is that it is a bloody confusing mess where very often nobody ends up with what they wanted when the war started. It’s a good thing that it is that way, as it makes avoiding civil war a more pressing concern for those who have a lot to lose. Arms in civilian hands up the unpleasantness ante and guarantee more destruction and bloodshed. In a way, it works like MAD. We don’t have to defeat wannabe tyrants quite so much as make them aware that a real grab for power will destroy everything they want to control.
Fair enough but I think unarmed (in this case merely meaning no one or few have guns) citizens can still cause quite enough damage anyway to achieve what you are saying. Just look at the mess most rioters cause. Rarely if ever are they armed with guns and yet they manage to cause plenty of damage.
Arms in civilian hands help with the balance of terror. Unpleasant though it may be, it helps if the police, bureaucrats, etc. who allow a tyranical government to function become targets of assassination and know they can catch a bullet any time, without warning. The more reluctant they are, out of fear, to carry out their daily jobs, the weaker and more ineffective the government of which they are a part becomes. A fuhrer barricaded in his bunker is powerless if there are no flunkies above ground willing to continue carrying out his orders.
The power apparatus needs to be kept in a certain level of fear. That fear, even if it works at only a subconscious level, makes it easier for us all to avoid civil war.
Duh, their armed forces. 