I always hear that argument [against] an armed populace keeping a tyrannical government in line. The flaw with the “government firepower” thing is, it’s somewhat ineffective against guerrilla warfare, which is what most revolutions turn into.
Secondly, the tyrannical government does not need to be the feds. It could be a state, or even a county sheriff who’s gotten too big for his britches (there was a case of this in the 1940’s or 50’s. If I can find the cite I’ll post it).
Hmm. Government kicks down your door, violating your civir rights. You:
Is there something I’m missing here? Unless you can beat the police, national guard, and military as well, how is this scenario going to work out in your favor?
Is there seriously the sense that the politicians are deterred by the minimal resistance you can put up in your home with your gun collection?
begbert2 has it. The bit about overthrowing a tyrannical government by a few hunters with rifles, perhaps augmented by a few gangbangers with pistols, is, and has been for a long time, sheer fantasy, however cherished it may be.
The reality is (A) in a democracy, even an abused one like ours, government is not the enemy of the people, government IS the people, and (B) the sheer quantity of guns floating around has real-world effects on peoples’ lives that responsible citizenship does require be taken into account.
“Red Dawn” was not a documentary.
begbert2 and ElvisL1ves: it is better to die fighting for freedom than to live in slavery.
But an armed populace can mount an effective resistance against an army with technologically superior armaments - this has been proven time and time again. Nobody’s claiming that “a few hunters with rifles” can take on the U.S. Army - please stop trotting out that strawman.
I believe that what you are looking for is The Battle of Athens, McMinn County Tennessee, 1946.
Slavery? :dubious: Under what master?
Welcome to the fold. A reasonable form of gun “control” - to keep guns away from crazies and convicted criminals might be OK. However - and this always rankled - to take something away from everyone “because they might do something” is not OK.
“I don’t like it” is not a reason.
“Some maniac will do something some day” is not a reason.
Hey, begbert2 brought it up - if ever the stormtroopers come busting down your door to end your pesky freedoms for good, that’s when there’s only one choice left. I’m not saying that’s likely; I’m saying that just because a fight is futile doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be fought.
*What * stormtroopers? :dubious:
The number of people who think “Red Dawn” was a documentary is a little scary.
If the stormtroopers ever break down your door, by my figuring, you missed your choice. At that point it’s over.
If you’re going to be part of la resistance, you’re not going to be doing it from your house, and you’re not going to do it at the last minute. If you’re actually serious about this line of thought, I do hope you’re posting from inside an armored compound, surrounded by your rebel buddies and preparing your assault.
Buying a gun so you can shoot birds: sensible.
Buying a gun so you can shoot intruders: sensible.
Buying a gun so you can shoot your enemies: sensible (well, maybe).
Buying a gun so you can die a warrior’s death when the men in suits drop by: Umm, yeah. Good fricking luck with that.
Why, the ones that begbert2 was talking about, of course. 
But like I said, I don’t think that’s likely, and I agree with both of you in that waiting until they’re busting down your door to even lift a finger on your own behalf is a pretty stupid way to fight for liberty. Why harp on this point? I was just responding to begbert2’s hypothetical.
Contrary to NRA statements, Dubya is not “pro-gun”. He stated that he’d sign the Assault Weapon Ban if Congress reauthorized it. Thankfully Congress was more pro-gun than the pres (or at least smart enough to see what a joke the AWB was).
Well, this hypothetical seems to be the reason the OP is altering his perspectives. If it’s a fundamentally flawed one (as it seems to be to me), then perhaps he should reassess his opinions, to make sure that whatever he eventually decides to believe is based in something resembling reality.
You, and Elvis, continuously miss the point.
It’s not about an Army of One standing in his doorway in boxer briefs, armed with an “Assault Rifle,” yelling “FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOMMMMMMMMMMMMM!” as he’s shredded by a SWAT Team armed with MP-5s.
It’s about 10, 20, 100 million People, armed with AKs and ARs, who might take exception to that one provision of “Patriot Act 2012” that says anyone can be arrested at anytime, detained at undisclosed facilities for however long DHS deems appropriate, and they don’t have to be charged with anything, and even if they are, they have no right to counsel due to “security concerns in the face of ongoing terroristic threats.”
Oh.
Yeah.
We pretty much have that already, don’t we? :o
Dinsdale: I won’t say “Welcome to the fold,” as I gather from the tone of your OP that you’re still kinda uneasy with the road your thoughts are taking you down.
But, FWIW, I think that you’ve “got your mind right.”
Listening to the shrill, shrieking Left about Evil Pres. W, I’ve occasionally wondered when some of them might begin to change their minds about the outdated, outmoded, dusty, musty 2nd. Ad.
I’ve wondered when I’d see Cindy Sheehan in a Code Pink t-shirt and a green beret, blasting away at the Presidential Motorcade with an AK-47 (the real deal, with 100% Rock ‘n’ Roll).
You don’t have any pink t-shirts, do you, Dinsdale? :dubious:
It’s about 10, 20, 100 million People, armed with AKs and ARs, who might take exception and do what?? The OP said “No, I’m not recommending armed rebellion against our elected officials and armed services.” So what are we talking here? What are you talking here?
It sounds to me like 100 million people with security blankets. Especially since you pretty much just said that you weren’t going to rise up for a mere death of a civil liberty.
Then the People ought to have had that armed uprising well under way to stop it for a a while already, then, right? They don’t? Why not?
Oh, that’s it - the elimination of that particular constitutional right isn’t even Evil, and saying that it might be is “shrill and shrieking”.
I can think of several ways in which those views could be consistent, but none is respectable. Maybe you can explain it yourself?
oops, wrong thread
Personally I don’t an armed populace turning on the government is going to happen due to a chronic tyrannical government. Americans are fat, drunk, and stupid. If they have their remote control, Oprah, and sex a couple of times a month and their happy to surrender their rights piece by piece. The Boiling Frog Theory.
Where I think it could happen is under acute circumstances. Say there are massive earthquakes on the west coast and a tsunami causes more havoc. A change in climate or a comet collides with the earth. How about a couple of nukes terrorists planted around the country. Something huge, sudden, nation wide, and devistating. Something that motivates the most desperate of human responses:
Hunger!
People starving, their children are starving. All their personal belongings and income gone! And very little to eat. Kind of like New Orleans but 1000 times worse.
Now what’s left of government has turned to martial law to try to gain some kind of order. Cops and soldiers can’t stop looters but tell citizens to turn in their guns (just like N.O.)
All of this happens very quickly.
Then, yeah, I can see the masses revolting. Otherwise, not a chance.
I still want the right to my AR, just in case. 
I doubt the US Government could successfully deploy against its own citizens on account of “much firepower” being merely so much inert metal without a soldier willing to follow the orders to use it.
All the more reason to diversify the political spectrum that may get behind the term “Pro-Gun”.
All my life I argued against guns being so easy to get. Our murder rate has been far higher than countries with gun laws. But, that soapbox is gone. The guns are going no where and I have learned top accept it. It is a waste of time and effort.
The civilians outnumber the police/military. They run out of storm troopers before they run out of doors.
The more resistance that can be offered at any particular kicked-in door, even if resistance in futile for any given instance, the fewer total doors that can be kicked down.
Its one of those “for the greater good” ideas that tend to float around in the heads of people who talk about freedom and personal responsibility and other such notions.