At 1/9/13 12:34 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: the military may take orders from the government but if it violates the constitution or or some law they can legally disobey it.

Missing the hypothetical again where it is the UPPER MOST LEVELS of government telling them to do it. This sort of thing I imagine was meant to countermand bad generalship and such. Also you are once more taking out the idea that if individual soldiers don't believe the orders they're given are illegal or bad.

its in the UCMJ. and the you wouldn't think a large amount of our service members would desert if the government became tyranical?

I don't actually because people are corruptible, easily so. If the government became a tyranny (and let's be honest, tyranny can be a subjective term, one man's tyranny is another man's just another day at the office), then they'd need muscle to enforce it. Where would they get that muscle from? Why I do believe that would be the military! You know, the people who know just became waaaaay more important because they're the guys that know how the high tech toys work and now will get the most perks and best conditions due to the fact that they're maintaining tyrannical conditions. You know, those guys?

Seriously, how about actually thinking about stuff in a more constructive way instead of just naievely assuming that soldiers are just the best people ever. They're people. Some good, some great, some not so good, some extremely shitty.

thats putting alot faith in people when nowadays its all about money.

Huh? I'm saying that the only thing that keeps us from a military dictatorship is because the people in charge don't believe it benefits them for one reason or another. That's my whole point. It's not a 200 year old piece of paper, it's that they still believe that 200 year old piece of paper and it's prohibitions and prescriptions are enough to stop them. Or it's other reasons that boil down to them not seeing benefit for themselves.

hardly a false equivalency,

No, it really fucking is.

and you think american citizens much less the right wing militia groups would?

They don't have the armaments to stop the full might of a military unbound who is actively TRYING to oppress people and suppress rebellion. If the kid gloves are off, I don't give a fuck how many guns the right wing crazy folks have in their basement, they're dead before the game starts. It's not the Civil War anymore, the army and the average man haven't been on par for at least 60 years or so now.

I know I would they would be using guerilla tactics just like what went on in Iraq.

And you'd fail because this hypothetical centers around the US deciding that the rules no longer apply and they're going to act like every shit heel dictator they've put down and unleash the full might and wrath of the military on the citizenry. You CAN'T win in that situation! If you think you can, then you are quite frankly an idiot.

because the the UN and some rules say you can't or because its a damn good offensive tactic?

What? We don't do what guerrilla warriors do because WE as a society decided we won't. If we decide we don't give a fuck anymore and nobody cares about the consequences, then the American military will win every engagement ever because we do not even necessarily need to ever put troops in the field with the stockpile of missiles, drones, and other weaponry that we usually don't pull out against foreign nations because we agreed not to do it.

and you forget were talking of a military ruled by a tyrannical government so playing fair is off the table.

And if that military is again complicit, and playing fair is off the table, and that military is the US military, then the average citizen is fucking done. That's my whole point, whether they take all your guns, or you can have all the guns you want. Unless you can get comparable military armament (spoiler alert: you CAN'T) then gov't already won. So people who argue "I gotta have my guns in case the government wants to enslave me" it's the argument of a paranoid moron because the government can enslave you right the fuck now if they want to because they have better fire power then you will EVER have.

At 1/10/13 03:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: because the government can enslave you right the fuck now if they want to because they have better fire power then you will EVER have.

But in that movie, the moonshine drinking turtle hillbillies outwit the tyrants by sneaking though the sewers of Washington to take over the White House. And America turns into a third world nation overnight.

At 1/8/13 09:50 PM, Saen wrote: Sounds like typical redneck paranoia bullshit I've been hearing for years now, always something to be afraid of. Just can't wait for your end of days wet dream.

Well...it also works for the typical leftist paranoia bullshit I've been hearing since the '80s about the imminent collapse of the environment and its ability to support life. Hell if you've ever seen Doomsday Preppers on NatGeo they've got crazies who've moved to the desert because the ice caps are going to melt and swallow up most of the US...or the world is going to turn into a giant desert!

So everyone has some sort of end of days wet dream!

How does the world turn into a giant desert when deserts are typically lower then the nearby mountains? Oh you crazy people on both sides..

At 1/10/13 03:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Two things I'd like to weigh in on here...and I'd like to think I've got some degree of insight into this.

I don't actually because people are corruptible, easily so. If the government became a tyranny (and let's be honest, tyranny can be a subjective term, one man's tyranny is another man's just another day at the office), then they'd need muscle to enforce it. Where would they get that muscle from? Why I do believe that would be the military! You know, the people who know just became waaaaay more important because they're the guys that know how the high tech toys work and now will get the most perks and best conditions due to the fact that they're maintaining tyrannical conditions. You know, those guys?

I think the military would fracture. I think about a third would follow the order. Another third would fight the first third. The last third would just go home and protect what was theirs.

You are right...people are corruptible. I know a certain captain from my past unit that would unquestionably follow the order because he's nothing more than a self-absorbed, career-minded fuckstick. He lacks integrity and any notion of service to something higher than himself.

On the other hand, the US military does indoctrinate members into the idea that it is illegal for us to conduct military operations inside the US (the same prohibition is placed on the CIA) through posse comatitus law.

So if the balloon were ever to go up...I think the military would fracture and be decidedly weaker.

They don't have the armaments to stop the full might of a military unbound who is actively TRYING to oppress people and suppress rebellion. If the kid gloves are off, I don't give a fuck how many guns the right wing crazy folks have in their basement, they're dead before the game starts. It's not the Civil War anymore, the army and the average man haven't been on par for at least 60 years or so now.

I think this view is a little disjointed from reality and history. The US military is not some all powerful and unstoppable force.

To illustrate: during the war in Iraq the Army was launching an aerial assault on a town with AH-64 Apache helicopters (also referred to as gunships). The lights in the town flickered off then on again, as the pilots were trying to figure what it all meant...they fell under fire by AK-47s. Nothing more. The AK barrage was so significant that virtually every helicopter suffered damage and two were forced to crash land in the middle of the desert.

Furthermore, the US military might is awesomely effective in the desert. So any militia hiding out in Death Valley is screwed. But you throw-in wooded areas as well as mountainous terrain...much of our power is stopped.

Also look at the wars we've fought in modern times:

* Korea: While we were able to smash through the North Korean military (the most advanced on the penninsula on 25 June 1950)...the least advanced army eventually fought us to stalemate. The Chinese had rifles from the Soviets, Americans, Japanese and even some French which made logistics a nightmare. No armor or air force to speak of...and yet they pushed us back from the Yalu and south of Seoul and held us at the 38th Parallel until 1953.

* Vietnam: Do I really need to go into this? I mean we suffered the most at the hands of Viet Cong insurgents NOT N. Vietnamese regulars.

* Afghanistan: All we really supplied the Mujahideen were small arms and some antiaircraft rockets. They held off an Army that was far tougher and simply had more shit than the US Army has. (I think there would be more people from the Army blindly following orders than in the other branches BTW.)

* Iraq & Afghanistan: Again...do I really need to go into it?

I'm sorry Aview...but I do not think the US military would be as effective nor would it be as monolithic as you think it would be.

Furthermore, you would have military equipment fall into the hands of the militias through the National Guard. So the playing field would be a lot more level than you assume it would be.

====

In order for the federal government to take over they would need to establish something similar to the Brown Shirts and Gestapo & SS in order to be effective.

At 1/10/13 10:06 AM, Gunner-D wrote: But in that movie, the moonshine drinking turtle hillbillies outwit the tyrants by sneaking though the sewers of Washington to take over the White House. And America turns into a third world nation overnight.

LOL.

What is it like to live in irrational fear all the time?

At 1/8/13 06:56 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: I have nothing in common with the trailer trash that usually upholds the viewpoint of the NRA. However, I can agree with their paranoia about the government.

Stopped reading right there.

OBAMA TALKING ABOUT USING EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR GUN CONTROL TO BYPASS CONGRESS!

this doesn't wreak of tyranny at all.. much less abuse of power for political and personal gain. though I just went to the bank to see if I could get a loan for 25K loan so I could purchase firearms and I got it at 4% for 90 months! One Million AR-15 Magazines On Backorder which is just dandy. I really hope this shit doesn't happen and if it does it will get taken to the SCOTUS because if it violates District of Columbia v. Heller or any SCOTUS rulings it can be thrown out.

At 1/9/13 08:13 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/9/13 07:06 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: Well, you should have apologized back for being a tard on every other thread so I take it back...

Hmm....you start a thread that offends gun owners in the first sentence.

My posts don't offend anyone.

I have no reason to apologize.

I double take it back now, you mullet redneck hillbilly. Actually I watched some of your Youtubes and I totally expected you to be fat and old, but you're not. There's still hope for you. Pray more.

At 1/10/13 03:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/9/13 12:34 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

Huh? I'm saying that the only thing that keeps us from a military dictatorship is because the people in charge don't believe it benefits them for one reason or another. That's my whole point. It's not a 200 year old piece of paper, it's that they still believe that 200 year old piece of paper and it's prohibitions and prescriptions are enough to stop them. Or it's other reasons that boil down to them not seeing benefit for themselves.

I liked your entire assessment. For the sake of brevity I'll only comment on this one part, though.

Dude, that's the genius of this whole thing. We ARE under a military dictatorship, but the genius is that what enslaves us is not the Thought Police gun in our face, although it's going there. It's a much more sophisticated kind of enslavement that takes only what it needs, the money, and leaves everything else alone so that people have the illusion of freedom.

There's no need to make martyrs out of outspoken citizens like other countries do. That's why everyone thinks Gaddafi was some evil guy and somehow American presidents have more moral authority. Gaddafi was bold enough to kill his enemies while he improved the literacy rate of the country to over 80%, made a high standard of living a RIGHT and created wealth in Africa like no other regime in the modern era.

But we call him a tyrant because he brought the guns out into open air where the cameras could see.

No, America just takes the money. If you sell a book saying "fuck cops, the government can go to hell," America will let you do it all day as long as you pay your fuckin money back up to the system. So who cares? The government makes money off of dissension just as much as compliance. That's the genius.

And if you don't pay the tithes, they have the documents in place to justify putting the guns in your face and dragging you off so you can't be a martyr and make others rise up. No, the public will call you a lawbreaker, a criminal.

It's genius.

This is why my left leaning ass is leaning all the way right on this gun issue. Fuck that. I WANT an assault weapon. There's a gun store not 2 miles from my house. I live in Alabama, after all.

At 1/10/13 08:03 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I think people are seriously overestimating the capabilities of our military vs anything other then conventional militaries. Afghanistan is giving us trouble, and that's with our soldiers unified and not split, which would inevitably happen if they're ever ordered to do shit on US soil. There'll be those who split immediately, those who split if given an order, and then those who will split during/after said order. Look at Syria. Pilots defected mid flight, saying fuck all that noise and crash landing.

The capabilities (like I know or something) seem to be more nuclear than ground. The US could blow up the world 50 times over, so we're not overestimating capability. Maybe capability to go in and pick off a single target, yes. But that only matters when it comes to expansion missions. Afganistan, Syria, Lybia, those were all missions of expansion. Not accomplishing them takes away nothing from the land controlled by the US.

At 1/10/13 06:43 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: I double take it back now, you mullet redneck hillbilly. Actually I watched some of your Youtubes and I totally expected you to be fat and old, but you're not. There's still hope for you. Pray more.

I have not a mullet, nor am I a redneck/hillbilly.

Thanks for the views by the way!

At 1/10/13 10:34 AM, TheMason wrote: I think the military would fracture. I think about a third would follow the order. Another third would fight the first third. The last third would just go home and protect what was theirs.

My thought was never that you'd need 100% of the man power you have now, my point is even with the fractioning, this isn't like say the Civil War. You would not have a case of two forces with parity of training, weaponry, and such. You might have parity in some of the training, but when it gets down to artillery, the government still has any citizen force totally and completely outgunned and can enforce their will powerfully, and immediately, that's what all that spending since the 50's has been for. The American government being able to throw it's weight around whenever it wants in a totally dominant fashion

You are right...people are corruptible. I know a certain captain from my past unit that would unquestionably follow the order because he's nothing more than a self-absorbed, career-minded fuckstick. He lacks integrity and any notion of service to something higher than himself.

That's unfortunate, scumbags like that every fucking where. If only we could round them up and remove them.

On the other hand, the US military does indoctrinate members into the idea that it is illegal for us to conduct military operations inside the US (the same prohibition is placed on the CIA) through posse comatitus law.

However, they also indoctrinate you into the idea of loyalty to your unit, your commanders, and your orders do they not? I mean, programming is programming, they can flip the script and enough would go along I believe to quash those that don't pretty quick.

So if the balloon were ever to go up...I think the military would fracture and be decidedly weaker.

Weaker doesn't mean beatable.

I think this view is a little disjointed from reality and history. The US military is not some all powerful and unstoppable force.

Compared to the civilian population of the US? Yes, yes it is. They have planes, tanks, bombs, ships, etc. What does the average civilian have? A rifle? A magnum maybe? A pistol? Yeah, fat lot of good that's going to do.

To illustrate: during the war in Iraq the Army was launching an aerial assault on a town with AH-64 Apache helicopters (also referred to as gunships). The lights in the town flickered off then on again, as the pilots were trying to figure what it all meant...they fell under fire by AK-47s. Nothing more. The AK barrage was so significant that virtually every helicopter suffered damage and two were forced to crash land in the middle of the desert.

And yet we probably went back and finished that town off did we not? I'm not saying every operation is always a success, but when you're talking about a well trained, highly equipped force vs. a civilian population lacking those things, civilians go boom. That is my point, the argument that the reason Americans need guns is in case the government tries to oppress them is a ludicrous idea in this day and age.

* Korea: While we were able to smash through the North Korean military (the most advanced on the penninsula on 25 June 1950)...the least advanced army eventually fought us to stalemate. The Chinese had rifles from the Soviets, Americans, Japanese and even some French which made logistics a nightmare. No armor or air force to speak of...and yet they pushed us back from the Yalu and south of Seoul and held us at the 38th Parallel until 1953.

We also had certain rules we had to follow did we not? So we could stay "the good guys" I'm positing a situation where we don't give a fuck about such rules.

* Vietnam: Do I really need to go into this? I mean we suffered the most at the hands of Viet Cong insurgents NOT N. Vietnamese regulars.

We did, again though, following rules. Like the one that had us stop using Agent Orange once we found out how harmful it was. Had we stuck with that sort of defoliant warfare and other dirty tricks not giving a damn about our image, I'm thinking things would have gone differently.

* Afghanistan: All we really supplied the Mujahideen were small arms and some antiaircraft rockets. They held off an Army that was far tougher and simply had more shit than the US Army has. (I think there would be more people from the Army blindly following orders than in the other branches BTW.)

The Russians? There is DEFINITELY info out there that counters pretty much every argument the US ever made about being behind the Soviets at any point in ever.

I'm sorry Aview...but I do not think the US military would be as effective nor would it be as monolithic as you think it would be.

I can't see it because again, my hypothetical is that at that point the government no longer cares about the rules of warfare, the geneva convention, any of that shit. That they'll just simply try and WIN, no holds barred. We don't fight that way now.

Furthermore, you would have military equipment fall into the hands of the militias through the National Guard. So the playing field would be a lot more level than you assume it would be.

Oh? Like planes? Naval shit? Bombs? Atomic weaponry? That kind of shit? I'm doubting it...

In order for the federal government to take over they would need to establish something similar to the Brown Shirts and Gestapo & SS in order to be effective.

Again, assuming their hell bent on doing it, why wouldn't they? We've seen some administrations flirting with the tactics that indoctrinate people to accept such ideals in the past.

At 1/10/13 06:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: OBAMA TALKING ABOUT USING EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR GUN CONTROL TO BYPASS CONGRESS!

He's talking about an assault weapons ban...that we used to have until this President didn't renew them...plus Bush used executive orders to do all sorts of shady shit but I don't recall you bitching much then. Guess it's only a problem when the black dem pres does it...

At 1/14/13 01:14 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: He's talking about an assault weapons ban...that we used to have until this President didn't renew them...plus Bush used executive orders to do all sorts of shady shit but I don't recall you bitching much then. Guess it's only a problem when the black dem pres does it...

Thanks for admitting that Obama is at least as bad as Bush.

At 1/14/13 01:14 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: He's talking about an assault weapons ban...

I know that but its up to congress to make those laws.

that we used to have until this President didn't renew them...

technically the AWB (administered by clinton) went out of effect in 2004 Bush Time, those asshats in the Brady Campaign spent a fortune trying to get it extended but failed.

plus Bush used executive orders to do all sorts of shady shit but I don't recall you bitching much then.

alot of them aren't really that bad, there are only a few shady ones Executive Order 13366- Committee on Ocean Policy is so sinister.

At 1/14/13 01:14 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/10/13 06:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: OBAMA TALKING ABOUT USING EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR GUN CONTROL TO BYPASS CONGRESS!

He's talking about an assault weapons ban...that we used to have until this President didn't renew them...plus Bush used executive orders to do all sorts of shady shit but I don't recall you bitching much then. Guess it's only a problem when the black dem pres does it...

Wow good job turning that into a race issue. By the way unless large portions of the population were wiped out the military could NOT occupy this country.

And you still seem to be under the grand illusion that soldiers are mindless puppets. They aren't, and their willingness would greatly change when dealing with fellow Americans. In addition to that, the budget would need vast expansions just to have the personnel required to reinforce martial law.

And you go on to assume no foreign action would take place?

At 1/14/13 01:29 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

And you still seem to be under the grand illusion that soldiers are mindless puppets. They aren't, and their willingness would greatly change when dealing with fellow Americans. In addition to that, the budget would need vast expansions just to have the personnel required to reinforce martial law.

And you go on to assume no foreign action would take place?

I guess we'll see if soldiers are mindless puppets when the fate of America rests on whose side they take. Lemoncrush, you ARE a hillbilly, whether you know it or not. And dude, there is no "budget." Don't think that the organization with a monopoly both on creating money and on force can't put a gun in your face whenever it wants.

The government already does exactly what it likes.

I don't know if its just the fact people watch too many kurt russell movies, but what kind of warped reality are you living in if you seriously think there's ever going to be a situation where you need to rise up in arms against a mature advanced military force like the sort that is under control of the american government? When the constitution was drafted perhaps it would have been possible, but these days it's delusional babble. Your toys that make you feel big inside are no match for nukes.

Also, remember that you live in a democracy and that is NOT how you get shit done. There's plenty of notable examples, such as the totally non-violent labor movement, the civil rights movement, the suffragettes, or the vietnam protests. That's how real change is achieved. Bare in mind the only recognition you get by being violent for your political means is that they treat you like a terrorist.

I'd love for anyone to answer me this question. Considering how the government currently behaves, what do they actually need to do in order for you gun wielding revolutionarys to 'rise up'? Because they already have just as much control as they need to raise taxes or go to war without any resistance.

At 1/14/13 01:00 PM, Fim wrote:

I'd love for anyone to answer me this question. Considering how the government currently behaves, what do they actually need to do in order for you gun wielding revolutionarys to 'rise up'? Because they already have just as much control as they need to raise taxes or go to war without any resistance.

I do believe that if the government tried to institute a gun ban on a large enough scale, certain people would try fighting back and "rise up".

At 1/14/13 01:18 PM, ZJ wrote: I do believe that if the government tried to institute a gun ban on a large enough scale, certain people would try fighting back and "rise up".

Surely nobody can legitimately class that as 'tyrannical' though?

At 1/14/13 01:00 PM, Fim wrote: The government already does exactly what it likes.
Your toys that make you feel big inside are no match for nukes.

Countries this day in age will not use nukes. Doing so will result in immediate extinction

You people really oughta watch this. Be warned though cause it contains some graphic images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgJg3L7VLxU

At 1/14/13 01:10 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'm going to address the three general themes of your post rather than go point by point. As I see them they are:

1) An imbalance of military hardware skewed towards the government
2) That this hardware would totally pwn an armed civil populace.
3) That the key difference that would favor the government domestically over overseas engagements is the gloves would come off.

One by one:

Imbalance of Arms
Like I said and you acknowledged; the military will fracture. Just by doing this the imbalance would probably be balanced. For several reasons:

a) Modern military equipment in the US requires a lot of maintenance and support. The loyalists would have a deficiet of trained personnel to fix and maintain the tanks, fighters, etc. Furthermore, increasingly a lot of the infrastructure is becoming relient upon civilian contractors which adds an x factor since a good portion of defense contractors are increasing having little or no military experience (ergo they are not as 'programmed' as you think military members are).

b) The constitutionalists as well as the apathetic will take all sorts of weapons with them. If there is succession involved, the constitutionalist states would maintain control over tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, missiles (except nuclear weapons), etc. So you would have state and private militias with more than rifles, magnums (which is a type of round...not a type of gun and mostl pistols BTW) and pistols.

So no...the government would not retain all the toys like you're assuming. A major part of this is what states will NOT go along with martial law. Texas has a third branch to their state military in addition to the Army & Air Natl Guard other states have. I believe SC has one too. Several states such as Wyoming have put forth legislation that would nullify federal gun law...going as far as fining and jailing federal law enforcement agents who enforce federal gun law.

Desserters would take weapons and equipment with them, and then maintenance issues will inflict losses through attrition. Then there is the issue of the ability to man the equipment. Say an Air Force base stays under Federal control, it has three F-16 squadrons each with 20 aircraft. After the constitutionalists and apathetic people leave they may only be able to launch and maintain less than 20.

Likewise, a civilian populace has the means and skills to cut off supply routes that will keep the jets flying. Afterall, a Falcon cannot take off without gas.

Hardwar Pwnage
The deserts of Iraq and the open spaces of Afghanistan are suited for the US war machine. However, tanks and armored vehicles cannot manuever in wooded spaces...this means we have so many more choke points in which armor and mobile infrantry can become ambushed or pinned down or otherwise rendered ineffective.

Likewise, you cannot bomb what you cannot see. Rules of Engagement does not really change this. We saw this in Vietnam when we bombed the jungle in order to make toothpicks for the Viet Cong. Quite simply, the US military may actually be too large to fight its own populace. It may be too technologically advanced. We are incredibly dependant upon logistics and the US is too large of a country to support the military. A civilian military force would be able to cut-off these supply routes blunting the military might of the war machine.

So you can see the battlespace here in the US would actually limit a degraded US military's ability to fight.

Gloves Coming Off
I think some of the rules would still apply. I think rebels would have supply routes that would cross both the Canadian and Mexican border and US units would not be allowed to pursue.

In the areas where the government would be more ruthless I think that would work against them. We see this time and time again, when the government goes too far it actually erodes their support amongst the population and is a tool for recruitment. Therefore anytime they take the gloves off and fight dirty...all it does is hasten the regime's end.

At 1/14/13 05:04 PM, VGmasters wrote: You people really oughta watch this. Be warned though cause it contains some graphic images.

We actually have a history of this in the US. In the 1800s we disarmed the Indians as a means of preparing them for treaty breaking and slaughter. Same thing with our black population. 'Gun control' was part of the 'Black Codes' that disarmed African-Americans making them easy targets for the KKK (back when the Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democratic party).

At 1/14/13 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/14/13 05:04 PM, VGmasters wrote: You people really oughta watch this. Be warned though cause it contains some graphic images.

We actually have a history of this in the US. In the 1800s we disarmed the Indians as a means of preparing them for treaty breaking and slaughter. Same thing with our black population. 'Gun control' was part of the 'Black Codes' that disarmed African-Americans making them easy targets for the KKK (back when the Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democratic party).

The first part you mentioned was already shown in the video, if you'd take the time to watch the entire thing.

At 1/14/13 05:22 PM, VGmasters wrote: The first part you mentioned was already shown in the video, if you'd take the time to watch the entire thing.

Meh.

I started watching it. It seemed like they were talking about 20th Century events while I'm watching Centennial. Thought I'd go back to my movie. :)

First of all...Fim...KURT RUSSELL? Showin ya age...LOL

At 1/14/13 05:05 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/14/13 01:10 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'm going to address the three general themes of your post rather than go point by point. As I see them they are:

1) An imbalance of military hardware skewed towards the government
2) That this hardware would totally pwn an armed civil populace.
3) That the key difference that would favor the government domestically over overseas engagements is the gloves would come off.

I'm getting that the main point of your argument would be that the government would eventually bring about their own demise by overusing their superior firepower...

This may have been the case in the past when there was a time factor, but nowadays there are weapons of instant death and humanless armies. So if the population slowly catches on today that the government sucks, the firepower is too strong. Slow dissenters can be instantly wiped out and there are no humans to kill. The government can just keep killing with drones like the last scene in Matrix 3.

Would they do this? Depends on if you think the government is really national. I don't. This entire problem is because of bankers who have no allegiance to any country, so yes, they would take out millions with no problem. They are not patriotic.

The final verdict? The US is screwed. On the downside. Do not invest domestically. Do not overindulge on real estate. Take your money overseas. Take yourSELF overseas. That's what I'm doing.

At 1/17/13 07:01 AM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:

At 1/14/13 05:05 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/14/13 01:10 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'm going to address the three general themes of your post rather than go point by point. As I see them they are:

1) An imbalance of military hardware skewed towards the government
2) That this hardware would totally pwn an armed civil populace.
3) That the key difference that would favor the government domestically over overseas engagements is the gloves would come off.

I'm getting that the main point of your argument would be that the government would eventually bring about their own demise by overusing their superior firepower...

Main point? No...not at all. That is the third point. As Princess Leia said: "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers." (This is based on history.) That if the gloves came off and the goverment stopped following international and domestic law in fighting rebels...the faster their support will erode.

This may have been the case in the past when there was a time factor, but nowadays there are weapons of instant death and humanless armies. So if the population slowly catches on today that the government sucks, the firepower is too strong. Slow dissenters can be instantly wiped out and there are no humans to kill. The government can just keep killing with drones like the last scene in Matrix 3.

This would be true if not for what is actually my main point: That the military would fracture, and other actors such as states and militias would gain possession of the same military hardware.

In short, the same weapons like F-16s, drones, tanks, and armored vehicles a hypothetical tyrannical federal government would have...the rebels would have too.

In essence...significant portions of the military would abandon the government when the orders are issued. Therefore, the government's advantage is illusionary.

I don't really see how banning semi-auto rifles will do anything, they make up such a tiny percentage of murders using guns. And the extreme majority of guns used in murder are not acquired legally because criminals dodge the law. And gun murders in general make up an unimaginably small percentage of murders.