Will the war in Iraq change the arguments of the US pro gun lobby

One of the major arguments in favor of guns is that you need guns to defend yourself against the government. However Iraq has shown that guns are basically meaningless, what you need are bombs. Roadside bombs, suicide bombs, just use enough bombs and even superpowers start to reconsider pretty fast if what they are doing is worth it. Guns themselves do not seem to play much of a role in the insurgency. I could be wrong, but it seems like bombs are the weapons of choice in Iraq.

Will this have any effect on the argument that you ‘need guns to defend yourself against the US government’ since Iraq has proven that ‘no you don’t, you need bombs’?

They use bombs because they cause more destruction/death. I’m pretty sure the people making these bombs sleep with guns under there pillow as well. Just in case.

If a foreign nation invaded my country and I wanted to bag me a few soldiers, I’d want a gun. Of course, I’m a pretty good shot, whereas I know very little about bombs. Still, the whole bombs-over-guns thing strikes me as being counterintuitive; guns are easier to learn to use, less likely to blow up in your face while you’re setting them, reusable (and therefore cheaper in the long run) etc. etc.

Granted, with a bomb you can kill people long after you have fled the scene. But it seems to me that if you’re a decent shot, in an urban environment you could shoot enemies from hundreds of metres away and avoid capture, provided you’re patient and willing to wait for the right spot and opportunity. You could easily shoot someone from 300, 400 metres away. That’s a LONG way in a city, especially. People wouldn’t even be sure where the shot came from.

Now, if you wanted to scare civilians, that’s a different story.

You need the guns to get the bombs

Guns are also a bit more convenient when the unexpected pops up. Bombs are really only practical at a certain safe distance.

Only bombs intended for use by a well-regulated militia.

friend patriotx,

anyone with a bit of electrical and chemical knowledge can make a bomb. the basic concepts are rather simple, despite the way it is portrayed in movies. a few simple, easily obtainable and untraceable consumer items can be fabricated for the intended purpose.

for example: with less than twenty five dollars in hobby shop parts, ten feet of wire, a twelve inch square of heavy gauge sheet metal and half an hour or so of privacy i can arrange for a car to explode the next time the high beams are turned on…

Not really. The terrorist factions in Iraq are trying to destabilize the government. In the US, the pro-gun lobby envisions, should it become neccessary, a large citizen militia capturing politicians and capitols (not so much capitals), in such a manner that the military cannot respond or afford to respond. Alternatively, when the jackbooted thugs kick down your door to take you away, you pop two or three in the head. By weeks end, no more jack-booted thugs.

PS: What’s a jack-boot, and where can I get them?

We can have guns to help protect ourselves. If we don’t have this capability then we need more police which means more bureaucracy which would mean more opression from the government. So having guns helps keep government weak.
So no.

The guns are still important in a lot of the intimidation that happens with the general Iraqi citizenry and police.

But the bombs (dont’ forget the grenade launchers and mortars) are the only thing that seem to affect the US military directly.

The far right in the US obviously understands the power of bombs (see Oklahoma City), but I get the feeling that the only thing that they’d fight the government for is the right to keep their guns. Having the gun is much more important to them then overthrowing the dadgum govmint and that’s just the bottom line.

I would say that line of argumentation you’re addressing is pretty much loony though, when I’ve pressed people on this they couldn’t really back themselves up in my experience. The US army has this thing called body armor, you know.

In general, I can’t think of any violent revolution recently accomplished without some real military gear that would be illegal for citizens in the US to possess.

FYI Body armor doesn’t stop most rifle bullets.

The bombs are a terrorist weapon and are used by cowards. They attempt to maim and kill through suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices.

The terrorists are indiscriminate with their targets. A rifle or pistol however has a very narrow and limited scope of damage that requires a certain amount of skill to harness effectively. It seems that their goal is not to overthrow the US Army, just to create uncertainty. Bombs are all it takes for that.