One fallacy of this argument has been brought up before; using Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, and colonial US as examples. I well armed govt will not be able to stop a determined and more lightly armed populace, for a variety of reasons. One of which is that the army personnel will have some soul searching to do in taking up arms against their own people. Additionally, the ludicrous outgunning equipment works well in a conventional war with well defined targets, and standing armies, but its difficult to use your tanks on someone’s living room without running over the neighbors as well. Your surgical strike airforce are going to be killing a lot of innocent children, so its not as easy as bringing the army in and quelling an untrained outgunned organized force.
Without the threat of ultimate power being in the hands of the people…what else can you do…I personally will have to resort to outraged facebook posts…That’ll show the govt they can’t do anything they want.
By the way: I personally think Trump is the closest thing to a fascist dictator we’ve come to…As a person with liberal leanings, I’m not inclined to let his powergrab get too out of hand and will willingly oppose his tyranny should it come to that…I don’t really understand fully why other liberals who think he could lead us to tyranny think that angry facebook posts will suffice
The government isn’t “they”. It’s “we”. And we *do *have the ultimate power, via the government we have established.
The seemingly-prevalent Red Dawn fantasy, requiring We The People to be seen as some foreign occupying power instead of us, is one of the strongest barriers we face in forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, etc. It also requires ignoring the part of the Constitution itself that defines the purpose of militias as including suppressing insurrections. Not enabling them, *suppressing *them.
Arguments like this make a majorly false assumption that all your neighbors with guns that consider themselves to be “patriots” agree with each other as to what should be fought, what should be fought for, and who should be defended. “The People” will not rise to “Defend Freedom” because there is no agreed upon definition of what exactly that means. If the police roll in to violently oppress a gay rights rally will “Patriots” show up with their guns to fight back? When African-Americans marched for freedom and were attacked by police did “patriots” show up with guns to defend their rights? I have seen a shitload of articles decrying what happened at Waco…but where where the "patriots"with their guns when the shit hit the fan?
Same here. But where this moves from a simple statement to great debate is what kind of legislation. I want national databases for things like mental illness/substance abuse/criminal and more that would make the background checks already in place worth the effort but 95% of both my Right and Left friends would have kittens first. The friends on the far Left want a total ban and seizure while the far Right want almost no controls at all. It makes any stand in the middle uncomfortable at times.
Have the gun control laws we currently have been successful at preventing gun crimes? If not, what indication do we have that new gun control laws will succeed in doing so? What indication do we have that outlawing guns and confiscating all of them (how?) will be successful? Why do so many people think that passing more laws will solve problems?
You are correct, and the answers to your posited situations are “no.”
But this hypothetical is simply discussing the idea of the armed forces of the government going up against the people in this country who have the guns. Remove ideological considerations from the equation for the sake of the argument, except for the ideology of having the right to own guns. The government, for whatever reason, is using armed force to try to confiscate the guns from whoever has them. It doesn’t matter how many tanks, planes, and bombs the military has, they’re still going to need to use human beings to do the leg work here and those human beings would be shot at and killed in huge numbers.
Serious question: If the government does go door-to-door confiscating guns, would gun owners really open fire on federal agents?
Is it worth it to lose one’s life for the sake of the guns that one has in one’s closet or basement, etc.? Especially a gun battle that one has no chance of winning? (I’m assuming that federal agents wouldn’t be going alone by themselves, but rather, in a fairly large unit at a time, heavily outnumbering the gun owners at any particular residence.)
I think your points are acceptable as a good argument. I have a question for my own education on this quote though. Where is it in the constitution where the main purpose of militias were to suppress insurrections? My previous education indicates that the purpose was for the people to be able to preserve their liberties.
Again, I’m surely projecting, as as non-gun-owner, but if I had Glocks and Berettas in my basement and federal ATF agents come knocking and say, “We are acting under lawful orders, surely you’ve heard of recent Law XXX that calls for the confiscation of firearms, now here we are to offer you fair court-ordained compensatory value of $ _____ for your guns, now please produce them” - I don’t see it worth losing my risk to pull out the guns, shoot the ATF agents, and either get gunned down immediately on the spot, or have to spend the rest of my life as a hiding fugitive. What is there to be gained out of doing so?
“The people in this country that have guns”?
If a law is passed restricting gun access to those of the Muslim religion will patriots rise up with their weapons to defend them?
You’re thinking “door to door” like in an urban neighborhood block or something. The reality is more like the government has to go to thousands of 10-acre parcels of land in the middle of nowhere to take guns away from guys armed with AR-15s and enough ammunition to last into the fourth millennium…I’d say they’re in for a challenge, to put it mildly.
So Congress decides whether militias should be called up to defend against insurrection and/or defend the country, and it is also the role of Congress when it comes “to organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”? Sounds fair to me.
Which militias in the U.S. have been organized and or used as it says above?
Not enough to make a difference. It’s a dangerous sounding proposition, but it still comes down to: could the average person bring himself to shoot a single burgling intruder in the first place? I’d say most couldn’t make themselves do it. Throw in a badge & uniform, a front door knock, a search warrant, and a team–no, Joe gun owner isn’t going to shoot anybody. There will be lots of bravado and “If they come around here…” and that will evaporate just as soon as They actually come around. Now, that might change if the feds have been regularly getting up to shenanigans–kicking in doors, warrantless searches, midnight raids, disappearing neighbors, families, and neighborhoods, using lethal force to violently suppress otherwise peaceful protests, etc. But in a case where 2nd is legitimately repealed with public support, that dark of an atmosphere doesn’t seem likely.
And the irony is, those yahoos aren’t the ones killing people, and they’re certainly not going to be stocking the black market. Those guns have a purpose, and it ain’t so they can become commodities. .
A) Firing at the federal agents leads to only two possible outcomes: Immediate death, or a life as a fugitive.
B) Whereas giving up your guns just means you won’t have them, and you’ll likely get financial compensation. Not as much as one would like, but better than nothing.
Seems like B wins out over A in every scenario.
But really, collecting the guns is a fool’s errand–it would take too many agents and too much coordination & monitoring to make sure stuff’s not getting hidden, stashed, moved around to already “cleaned” areas, etc. Just ban the sale of ammunition and the guns turn into mere curiosities in fairly short order.
Maybe not the first time, but after seeing these heavily armed units going home to home, ransacking the houses, on their T.V. night after night (this would take YEARS), I could see some people starting to. And then I could see those people getting blown away by these heavily armed units, on their T.V. night after night, and then I can see a bunch of people (it wouldn’t take a whole lot) becoming radicalized by these horrible optics to become Tim McVeigh-level terrorists. And those people won’t be using puny firearms to make their statements.