Hey, the OP just wanted to know if guns prevented tyranny. He didn’t say anything about whether they prevented secular non-monarchial dictatorships, which of course resemble tyranny in no way.
Oddly the guns that the military uses for individual soldiers are “smaller” than most hunting rifles.
Full auto is of little practical use except in covering fire, most military groups actually spend quite a bit of time trying to get their armies to not use full auto or removing it completely.
The M4 only has 3 round burst for most configurations, full auto only wastes ammo for the most part.
He didn’t say anything about full automatic fire. However, you’d have to be nuts to say a weapon capable of fully automatic fire is not preferable to a semiautomatic. British troops in the Falklands actually looted automatic FN FALs from the corpses of Argentine troops because theirs were automatic and the British-issued version wasn’t.
Members of the U.S. military grew up in a culture that believed in the 2nd Amemdment, the U.S. Constitution, and the right of the people to be free of government tyranny. They are not easily swayed by some fast-talking politician/military leader (aka Commander in Chief) who believes our sons and daughters should attack their own friends and family to give some tyrant more power. Ain’t gonna happen here.
The gun grabbing supporters of registration/confiscation made several advances in changing U.S. laws for many decades. Currently, they have little support. The majority of taxpaying voters replaced many of the elected representatives who pushed for gun control and registration/confiscation laws.
The UN is pushing for more gun control in it’s member States. The UN isn’t exactly popular in the U.S.. Our President can select a UN representative but that doesn’t mean that the U.S. Senate will vote to accept any agreement between the Whitehouse and the UN.
Our elected representatives don’t currently address major gun control issues because the voters WILL replace them.
Straw man, the idea was that the it would help prevent a military takeover of the government, so there would be a portion of popular support, it was not for a group of survivalists to be able to take over the government. And to claim that the Colombian government doesn’t have the full support of the US military is a bit silly too.
In that case, what difference does private ownership of firearms make? You can’t have it both ways: either the military is some overarching Defender of Freedom, or it isn’t.
Actually historically it has been both…thus the founding fathers fear of standing armies. That is pretty much their entire point in having one, while trying to restrict it’s power.
That’s not the point. doorhinge seems to think the military will rise up in opposition to a coup, Turkey-style (and presumably that, Turkey-style, it will turn power back over to a civilian administration afterwards). If that’s the case, then private ownership of firearms is irrelevant.
The fact it may be true, if it were, this decade does not mean it will be true in 30 years.
Fair enough. I will concede that private ownership of firearms could theoretically prevent tyranny in some dimly imagined future. We might also be riding on flying cows in 30 years, too.
Straw man, the US military does not run our foreign policy.
Wait…what???
How did you straw man with a straw man…that is so meta.
The claim that FARC and Columbia was evidence that citizens uprising doesn’t work, the fact that the US military provides money, equipment and training to the Colombian government is quite relevant.
The political structure that provides that external support is not relevant.
Yes, I can. BEFORE you can have an attempt at a tyrannical takeover, you have to convince others that the takeover has a chance of succeeding. An armed society is much, much, much harder to subdue than an unarmed one.
As long as “We the People” still have a voice in our government, as long as “We the People” still have a means to legally change who our elected representatives are, there will be NO armed takeover attempt by either a tyrant or the populus.
Private ownership of firearms is no guarentee that an overthrow will never be attempted but private ownership of firearms insures that it will be a very costly attempt with no guarentee of success.
Straw man… you have to recognize the context of the support.
All kidding aside, the first point you make here is a great one. The best defense of a modern civil society is the fact that a country has a modern civil society. The enfranchisement of the American people through guarantees of free speech, association, voting, and economic opportunity (plus the structure of the government with checks and balances, etc) are reasons number one through a hundred of why the United States remains a free society. The threat of violence against the government is a miniscule reason why the country remains very free and secure.
But really, the OP isn’t about the United States Constitution. The question is broadly applicable to other countries as well. And as I’ve said repeatedly, there is no correlation whatsoever between the relative freedom of countries and the ownership of weapons. The presence of a robust civil society and the freedom of the government, on the other hand, are directly connected (with perhaps a couple of exceptions).
I think you refer to the Arms Trade Treaty. It has no thing to do with control of guns in member states, it is about international trade in small military arms.
The treaty text says
“the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”
Please do not promote ignorance.
As the sole method of protection from a military junta a armed population is not effective, it is quite useful as a portion of a systemic balance of powers.
But who was claiming that the right in it’s self was the sole protector from tyranny?
misuse of straw man 
However I present FMLN, your argument is invalid.
As I asked you on the previous page, please provide proof of this.