# Would people in the US really try to fight the military/police with hunting rifles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910 "2006-07-02T03:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/81 "2006-07-04T00:15:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **Sam,** you seem to be persistently and stubbornly ignoring two very obvious facts: > > 1. No totalitarian state will allow its people to have weapons they might use to resist it **effectively.** > > 2. An armed citizenry will never prevent a republic from degenerating into a totalitarian state. And you persist in missing my point, which is that allowing citizsens to own their own weapons and defend themselves is _symbolic_ - a constant reminder of where the power of government comes from, and that the people are ultimately free and choose to have government for their benefit, and that government is subservient to them - not the other way around. In fact, the very phrase I used above - ‘allowing citizsens to own their own guns’ shows how far we’ve come in abdicating power to the state. The state has absolutely no business ‘allowing’ me to defend myself. It’s an intrinsic right I have as a free being on this planet. I need not ask a government for permission to defend myself or my family. Taking guns away from people is essentially reversing the role of government - telling people that they have no right to defend themselves, that the state alone shall be the arbiter of power in all things, even when it comes to the personal safety of individuals. As I said before, the actual tactical arguments around how people could defend themselves from a rogue government is quite beside the point - akin to arguing that it’s okay to restrict what the press says, because after all, people have other ways of finding things out. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/82 "2006-07-04T00:31:45Z")
“Taking guns away from people” doesn’t mean the entire law-abiding populace are left with naught but Nerf-foam to defend themselves. Just looking around my desk in my study now, I can see several non-firearm things that would be perfectly adequate for defending myself or my fiancee from violent attack- including a Pattern '07 bayonet and a cricket bat. Sure, I’m not in the habit of wandering down to the shops with a bayonet hanging off my belt, but then I’m also not likely to be assaulted in broad daylight on a busy thoroughfare, either. Having said that, I do support CCW laws. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/83 "2006-07-04T00:40:06Z")
[QUOTE=Martini EnfieldJust looking around my desk in my study now, I can see several non-firearm things that would be perfectly adequate for defending myself or my fiancee from violent attack- including a Pattern '07 bayonet and a cricket bat.[/QUOTE] :dubious: Not exactly ranged weapons, are they? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/84 "2006-07-04T00:46:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: Not exactly ranged weapons, are they? No, but then in the event of someone breaking into the house , they’d be just as effective- if not more so, IMO. (Our house isn’t very big, though!) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/85 "2006-07-04T01:03:46Z")
> [@Martini Enfield](#): > > No, but then in the event of someone breaking into the house , they’d be just as effective- if not more so, IMO. > > (Our house isn’t very big, though!) You really think so? Unless you are trained very well, taking a knife or a club against an unknown assailant is likely to get you dead. A bat isn’t nearly as easy to use as you’d think, and neither is a knife. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/86 "2006-07-04T01:06:05Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > A bat isn’t nearly as easy to use as you’d think, and neither is a knife. Both rather depend on the advantage of surprise . . . not applicable when the cops knock on your door. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/87 "2006-07-04T01:30:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Both rather depend on the advantage of surprise . . . not applicable when the cops knock on your door. Unless you think you can kill someone or disable them with a single blow in close quarters, I wouldn’t even count on surprise. A lot of people who are stabbed fatally live for minutes or even hours after the stabbing. And a baseball bat, unless it lands perfectly, is liable to have you staring down a furious attacker, and HE may have a gun. Never bring a knife to a gunfight. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/88 "2006-07-04T01:35:28Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Never bring a knife to a gunfight. The reality is that a housebreaker in Australia is unlikely to be carrying a firearm, and so it would probably come down to, for your average homeowner, cricket bat/nine iron vs crowbar. The official police advice (which I intend to heed!) is to not confront a housebreaker, however- unless they’re directly threatening you or other members of your household. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/89 "2006-07-04T01:39:19Z")
> [@Martini Enfield](#): > > The reality is that a housebreaker in Australia is unlikely to be carrying a firearm, and so it would probably come down to, for your average homeowner, cricket bat/nine iron vs crowbar. > > The official police advice (which I intend to heed!) is to not confront a housebreaker, however- unless they’re directly threatening you or other members of your household. So it’s his strength/aggression against yours. I’m sure that comes as a big comfort to all the single women living alone. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/90 "2006-07-04T01:50:10Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > If ever there’s a disaster, be it earthquake, flood, riot, alien space bats, and law enforcement’s not able to keep the area safe, it’ll be up to me to protect my family. In case of alien space bats, the guns aren’t likely to be worth much. Better keep a broadsword around just in case. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/91 "2006-07-04T03:50:04Z")
Friendly suggestion: we have an interesting discussion of one particular aspect of gun ownership. We don’t need to turn this thread into a generic gun debate, of which we’ve had plenty. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Never forget that the [**lack**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state) of government is even worse! Never made any claims towards that. Taking government as a necesary evil and limiting it’s power is the only viable solution. Arming the people is one of the core methods, amongst others, in doing this. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/92 "2006-07-04T03:53:27Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Taking government as a necesary evil and limiting it’s power is the only viable solution. Quite true. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Arming the people is one of the core methods, amongst others, in doing this. Quite false. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/93 "2006-07-04T04:32:55Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Friendly suggestion: we have an interesting discussion of one particular aspect of gun ownership. We don’t need to turn this thread into a generic gun debate, of which we’ve had plenty. Fine with me! 🙂 The thing I’m trying to understand- with only varying degrees of success- is how some gun owners (primarily in the US) feel that having a firearm protects them from “The Government”- not “other people” who wish to physically harm them, nor wild animals- but The Government, be they in the form of Black Helicopter CIA/ ATF/FBI Agents, or even the local police department. It seems as if, in some cases, a firearm acts almost as a protective charm for “keeping The Government out of my business”- ie, the mere act of ownership somehow grants the owner immunity from Government interference in his or her life. I’m interested as to how this attitude- that owning a gun is so vitally important that if it came down to a choice between living your life without an AR-15 or being shot by a SWAT team, there are reasonable numbers of people that would prefer to shoot it out with the SWAT team- came about. I realise the US had to fight and long and bloody War of Independence from Britain, and it was important to ensure the borders remained secure thereafter- but that was 230 years ago, and I can’t see the British Army under His Majesty King George VII deciding they want Delaware back anytime this side of the introduction of the Nobel Prize for Wine Tasting. That doesn’t mean the US isn’t without threats- but there’s a professional army in existence now, well trained and equipped, and so it seems- to me, at least- that the traditional idea of a Citizen’s Militia is now an anachronism. I’m sure **Crafter\_Man** and others will disagree with me in this respect- as is their absolute right- but I cannot help but feel that the Gun Lobby’s overall cause would only be helped if they started moving away from the “Owning guns to prevent tyranny” aspect and moved towards more of a “People should be able to pursue their hobbies without anyone telling them how to do it, provided they’re not hurting anyone” angle. Before anyone launches into a lengthy political tirade, I should once again like to point out that I don’t live in the US, and so I am speaking purely from my personal opinion, based on information I’ve gathered from various sources, primarily internet-based Military Surplus Firearm collecting forums. I realise that the picture I have regarding US gun politics is far from complete, and I’m more than willing to listen and be educated- as long as the political slanging is kept to a minimum. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/94 "2006-07-04T05:06:54Z")
It’s amazing how fast a thread like this can deteriorate - we’re all friends here, if we had a few “guns are evil, you murdering SOB!” then the name calling could begin. Anyway, to the point - I believe it’d all depend on how the gummit went about it. If they tried the Clinton approach, that is - slowly outlawing bits and pieces; certain specific guns, certain magazines, vilifying anyone that disagreed - then by the time they actually got around to trying to confiscate anything we’d all have our good stuff buried in a safe spot (as noted earlier). The saying is “They’ll take my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand” not “I’ll kill the bastards before they get my gun” Honestly, my AR15 is a plinking gun, real life attack/defense - give me something with a little power behind it (M14, M1, dare I say, Enfield?), but I’m not giving it up. A gun-buy scheme would require some serious money to get most of us to hand over anything that wasn’t falling apart. (I’ll sell the gummit my Carcano 7.35x51 anytime they want to overpay me for the thing). If tomorrow “they” somehow passed a law requiring confiscation of everything but registered .22’s, they would have no way to enforce it and could be as safely ignored as the previous example. 1. There are 300 million people in this country spread out over 3.7 million square miles 2. I don’t know the numbers, but a great many of our guns aren’t centrally registered (gun dealers keep the paperwork themselves until requested by BATF to turn it in) and I’d expect a rash of small fires to destroy many of those records. 3. Local police probably wouldn’t be up to the challenge of searching every single home, and the U.S. Military? I’d expect both to report “nothing found”, even if you could convince them to search citizen’s homes 4. THERE IS NO NUMBER 4 5. Inherited and private-party sales are not tracked at all. I wouldn’t shoot anyone; I’d just hide the things until “they” went away. Any warning at all and I’d pay cash for as many reloading supplies as I could afford Our politicians are lying dirtballs, our military is generally made up of good people (IMHO) ATTENTION NSA GUYS – this is a purely hypothetical thought experiment, honest. I don’t own any guns at all, I sold them to this guy a couple of years ago, a Troy somethingorother, but this pipe broke winter before last and ruined the paper I had his name on. Really, all my base are belong to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/95 "2006-07-04T05:46:03Z")
Argh, so I missed this when I last posted. Sorry, but a lengthy political tirade is called for, it’s all _about_ politics. The government has no power, the only way they could take anything would be with the military and as **Airman Doors** and others pointed out, the U.S. Military can not be relied upon to violate the constitutional rights of the citizens. Thus the theoretical advantage afforded by a modern military is null and void. Also, I don’t know if you have anything like our National Guard, they’re “weekend warriors” - average people who serve one weekend a month and two weeks a year (before Iraq, that is) with real toys - fighter planes, tanks, etc. and they are supposed to protect the individual States (I believe each governor has authority to deploy his/her states troops, but I might be wrong here). So, would we use our guns against fellow Americans? If the military is in open revolt (or so divided that it’s fighting itself) then we are looking at a situation where you can bet your sweet bippy that I’m protecting my family from the chaos that would surely reign. No, I don’t see an armed march on Washington to retake the Capital, but defending the country from the government takes many forms. Just owning the gun is proof that the government is not completely out of control. Granted, that’s not what the guys you are referencing are talking about, so how about this - Our right to own guns is based on protection from tyranny, so therefore a government that takes our guns is tyrannical. 300 million Americans, who knows how many million guns, if only tiny fraction react a chain reaction could well start. We were, in some places, very close to chaos after Ruby Ridge and Waco. The fine folks at the FBI are still Americans and they can’t be expected to keep up that kind of thing for very long. If armed officers went through Montana and Idaho, for instance, and tried this I do believe that few would come out. As Admiral Yamamoto pointed out “It is impossible to invade the mainland of The United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” It’s creeping up on midnight here, and I worked today, so I’m going to stop before I get any less coherent - I hope that I’ve helped a little bit. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/96 "2006-07-04T05:59:24Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > What people lose perspective of, in our relatively well governed, benevolent period in the western world, is that historically the biggest threats to people’s lives and quality of life aren’t foreign invaders, or criminals, or terrorists. It’s their own government. Genocide, forced relocation, labor camps, death camps, imprisonment for political issues, or just relatively benevolent oppression like the later Soviet Union are all far greater threats to the life and liberty of people than any terrorist (the current boogeymen) has ever been. > > Most of you are are probably rolling your eyes. After all, we live in enlightened, modern times. Our governments would never present a serious harm to our life or liberty. > > The nature of government is inherently evil, inherently oppressive. Governments become larger, more overbearing, and more a hinderance of the life and happiness of their people as time goes on. This is historically true for just about any government. > > Modern western socialist thought that the elite few, the enlightened (among which most of you reading this post will consider yourselves, most likely) should make decisions on behalf of what they consider the impossibly stupid masses who couldn’t possibly make decisions for themselves, is a probably modern cause that will lead the extremely liberal (in a historical sense) modern western governments into tyranny. It’s a continuum, a matter of degree, but governments, absent revolts, always slide towards being larger, more powerful, more oppressive, and more an entity of their own, outside the will of the people. > > The distribution of force within a society is a critical measure and balance for curbing this tendency. Any society that wishes to be free from the evils of oppressive government must not let said government have a monopoly on force, and hence, a monopoly on power. History shows over, and over, and over, that such a monopoly on force can never be trusted to be benevolent. > > As such, I believe the attempted infringement on arms rights by a government on its citizens is the most important, and most direct assault on their freedom. It’s an attempt to establish a monopoly on force, an ability to rule as an entity outside the people with nearly absolute power. It’s a necesary stepping stone on the way to oppression. As such, any attempt on it should be resisted. > > Obviously I dislike this attitude. Your ability to hunt, to be sporting, to engage in recreational, are mere toys compared to the very critical issue of distribution of force. > > When bans on military-style weaponry come up for debate, often the recreational shooter crowd is all for them. The bulk of gun owners just want their hunting rifle, and to be left alone - they care nothing for their obligations to defend citizenry against the government. The dichotomy is flawed (hunting weapons make excellent insurgency weapons, and military-style weapons are not nearly as effective in comparison that people believe), but they are willing to sell out on this issue to protect their personal hobbies. Gun rights shouldn’t be about wanting to keep your toy for a hobby - they have so much more important a purpose. (There are plenty of other reasons that I oppose gun control, of course - I don’t want to narrow it down to only being about this issue). > > What makes you say this? There’s a big stir whenever there’s any sort of perceived violation of the first amendment - as well it should be. If there were any attempts to marginalize the first amendment in the same way that the second is, there would be a huge uproar. A proposed amentment to stop flag burning, because it’s a huge national scource. It’d be an add on to the First, and an add on that would, by its nature, take away from the freedoms given in the First. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/97 "2006-07-04T06:00:31Z")
Gr. Scource= scourge. Bad Trevor. Bad fingers. Trevor has bad fingers. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/98 "2006-07-04T06:38:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Quite false. What are the viable options? Checks and balances? Elections? That only works if the governmental entity decides to be submissive to the people it governs. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/99 "2006-07-04T06:45:16Z")
> [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > A proposed amentment to stop flag burning, because it’s a huge national scource. It’d be an add on to the First, and an add on that would, by its nature, take away from the freedoms given in the First. Yes, exactly, and it’s being fought tooth and nail. You seemed to be implying that no one got irate about the first as much as people do about the second, but the reality is that small violations of the first incur massive protest (as they should) while small violations of the second (need examples? I’ve got plenty) meet very sporatic resistance. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/100 "2006-07-04T07:19:48Z")
I’m curious to see how Crafter Man would answer to the question: “Who is ultimately in charge: people or the government?” Also, do we have a “standing army” here in the United States? I’ve no quarrel with groups that wish to be a safety net to help keep things together in times of dire situation. I do have a quarrel when they deal with “looting, economic collapse” and “lawlessness”. Why make that distinction and not homeless shelters? How did your group handle the (roughly) week-long blackout a couple years back? Last, and possibly most importantly, how do you feel with regards to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=377943&highlight=orders) question? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910.md?page=6)