for gun fools claiming that their guns are to protect them from the government.

[Fresh_Start]

have you seen what an unmanned drone can do?
You are lying to yourself and everyone else....and we know it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Cough..."ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PULSE"...cough

Pardon me, when I cough it sounds very odd.

[Fresh_Start]

5. silly nt

nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. Sillier than a "democratic" government using killer drones to spy upon and rule over its people?

Yet here it is. Five years ago people would not have said it possible.

[Fresh_Start]

12. actually the current state of drone love was easy to predict

pretty soon, walmart will probably have them cruising inside stores to defend against shoplifting (okay exaggeration here but not beyond feasibility)

[Oldenuff]

66. Bingo.

n/t

[a geek named Bob]

6. Can I have the parts from the junked drones?

It would really help out with my parts budget...

[Rex]

78. You going to run down to Wal-Mart and buy one?

Nice try, but not even close.

[Fire Walk With Me]

81. I never voted for the Patriot Act, the DHS, TSA, HR347, FISA, or drones.

I'm a Constitutionalist, if that's even a word. I believe I have a right to defend myself against tyranny and fascism and any police state propped up in place of our Democracy. If that means defending myself against the fascism of drones in American skies, then I deserve a focused electromagnetic pulse device to ensure my freedom. It's time for us to begin producing them, evidently. I'm 100% serious. This is no longer a Democracy. Fuck drones, fuck spying upon US citizens, fuck the neocon power grab accomplished through the meme that Americans are terrorists. Terrorism is the use of force or threat to get the target to change their behavior, for political reasons.

America is now the terrorist upon its own citizens. March with Occupy and you'll likely quickly find out exactly what I mean. We never got to vote about any of this crap. FISA and the NDAA were just extended this month, the first for another five years and the latter, with its indefinite detention of US citizens without trail or representation clause, for another year. Among other things.

DHS, FUCK YOU. I want back my DEMOCRACY. Democracy means "The will / voice of The People." The People didn't vote for any of this crap!

[hack89]

2. It is a silly argument, I agree. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

3. Yeah, we really kicked their butts in Afghanistan too.

[Mojorabbit]

101. +1000 nt

[easychoice]

4. good luck with your gun...

[NutmegYankee]

7. Meh, this is worse

[dairydog91]

28. There's no way to put this politely.

Are you effing NUTS?!? Are you seriously proposing using massive air firepower to quell a home-based insurgency? This is not like blasting away poor brown people 10000 miles away, as the US is so happy to do. In a homeland insurgency, there are no geographic barriers insulating the military or its supporters from the insurgents. The war cannot be confined into a nice, neat, field battle, nor can the military expect insurgents to play on its own terms and fight such battles. Also, every single innocent person who dies as "collateral damage" will leave enraged friends and loved ones on American soil. How on god's green earth do you think that an AC-130, or an A-10 for that matter, are good weapons to use to avoid collateral damage?

Notably, the British, who had to deal with an insurgency on their own soil, did not place maniacal Curtis Lemay clones in charge, nor did they frequently rain bombs from high altitude on suspected insurgents. Such a war has to be fought delicately; infantry patrols, not whizbang vehicles, have to do most of the fighting.

Edit: Imagine just how bloody America would be, right now, if Pakistan was located on the American border, and every last person who was enraged by US drone bombings needed only to walk or drive a few miles to strike at Americans. For extra fun, imagine that the insurgents are visually indistinguishable from American citizens and speak American English.

[NutmegYankee]

34. I was just comparing an AC-130 to an A-10 thunderbolt.

Because I thought it was a humorous and witty reply. Calm down and laugh at what will never come to pass.

[LAGC]

67. What's the government going to do with that? Firebomb suburban neighborhoods?

Get real.

Warfare has changed alot in 200 years. Soldiers don't dutifully form up to get shot, for one.

Guerrilla tactics can still be very effective against a technologically superior adversary. Especially when you're fighting in that adversary's own backyard.

[Bake]

80. That one looks manned to me.

Otherwise, why the need for a cockpit?

Bake

[bowens43]

8. the idea that the 2nd amendment was to allow us to protect ourselves

from our own government is an out right lie.

[Fresh_Start]

10. but are they going to admit its because they are afraid of unusual noises in the night....

not likely.

Just like the big talking CEO of Tactical whatever it was callled....they are a crutch that the person needs to deal with their own fear.
The facts don't support their position so they have to make up a fake 'patriotism' position.

[ellisonz]

57. +1

There is no inherent right to keep arms for the purpose of overthrowing the government.

[RantinRavin]

104. Really?

Not according to the Federalist Papers.

[Fresh_Start]

13. law enforcement is also buying drones

and I think we've seen that law enforcement (think of AZ for example) is not beyond extreme anti-american positions.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. I don't think you're going to see law enforcement shooting missiles from drones and blowing

people up. I just don't.

[Fumesucker]

23. I'm not so sure about that

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/06/police-shoot-137-times-into-car-after-chase-killing-unarmed-couple.html

Police Shoot 137 Times Into Car After Chase, Killing Unarmed Couple

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Williams’s uncle, Walter Jackson, said that 24 bullets had been removed from her body and the damage to her face and torso was extensive. Williams’s mother, Martha Mae Williams, said, “I’m not going to let them close her casket … They’re going to have to look at what the police did to my child.”

There were more bullets lodged in these two unarmed people than German police fired at suspects in 2011.

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. Law enforcement doesn't fly drones armed with missiles, nor do they fly AC-130s or A-10s. n/t

[Fresh_Start]

48. I think the border patrol will have armed drones within 5 years....

because its very easy to dehumanize the illegal immigrants...

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. My post didn't refer to Border Patrol OR illegal immigrants.

[Fresh_Start]

54. you suggested that law enforcement would never have armed drones

I'm putting a stake in the ground and saying we'll see it in the border patrol first and it will spread.

[Rex]

79. Aww looky there! Someone is working on their transparency page!

Wow, who knew the OP would set some people off. It is so silly that people are taking it seriously!

[Hugabear]

61. You seem pretty sure that American soldiers would not take up arms against fellow Americans

I guess that memo didn't get around back in 1861.

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. A couple of things: First off, 1861 was over 150 years ago.

Second, no matter how hard some in the anti-RKBA camp taunt, insult, or offend (think Mopar and the one who calls himself bong), no wedge can be driven in between gun owners/non that is as big as that between North/South/Industrial/Agrarian was in the 1800s, and that's not even mentioning slavery.

Last, I'd guess a majority of today's Servicemembers, Officers AND Enlisted, are RKBA supporters. So look for a huge breakdown in the chain of command. I honestly think you'd see them shooting at each other over orders most would consider unlawful before you'd see them shooting at civilians, or dropping bombs in American neighborhoods from A-10s, or strafing Senior Centers with AC-130s.

[Hugabear]

63. The military has a duty to protect against enemies - foreign and DOMESTIC

If a group of gun nuts or militia types decides they want to start killing government officials or other Americans, then they've crossed the line from being just gun nuts and would then be considered terrorists.

[jeff47]

88. So...never heard of Kent State then? (nt)

[Chisox08]

14. What good will gun do when Hellfire Missiles rain down on you?

I'm sorry but Skeeter, Billy Bob and them can't take on the power of our military. If they try it won't end well. If you don't believe me ask Osama, he's at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.

[Bigmack]

15. The jackbooted thugs of the government...

... won't need drones, Warthogs, or Puffs.

All they'll need is the power to seize bank accounts, cut off services, and, if necessary, send the 82nd Airborn to enforce the law. The 82nd integrated the schools in the segregated south, you will recall.

Those badasses will shit themselves if any of the above happens.

[mr hands]

83. simple

buy gold and silver.

[Bigmack]

107. WTF are you talking about...

... have you ever tried to buy anything with gold or silver?

"I'll give you twenty silver dimes for that case of beer."

[NickB79]

16. Piloted by whom?

You're telling me the US military, composed disproportionately of soldiers from conservative, low and middle-income families located in the Midwest, South, and Southwest, is going to have no problem with troop morale and participation when called upon to pacify the areas of the nation most likely to have outbreaks of civil unrest?

Namely, the Midwest, South, and Southwest.

Yeah, I'm sure there are tons of 25-yr old Iraq vets out there that would line up to bomb their own hometowns

[Fresh_Start]

18. so they will outsource it like they outsourced all the other horrible things

our government has done but wanted to deny.

[NickB79]

24. Fuck, that's a scary thought

And sadly, not outside the realm of possibility.

But without "boots on the ground", so to speak, you can't really do much to pacify unrest in such huge swaths of the country.

Besides which, a few dozen dead American women and children from Chinese-piloted drone strikes in a suburb of Atlanta or Dallas probably wouldn't be good PR for the US military.

[Fresh_Start]

25. I really wasn't talking about unrest....

I was thinking of a one-off kook with a trove of weapons.
I also don't believe that there will be civil war over the right of someone to have a high capacity weapon.

[nyquil_man]

52. You'll never get any National Guard troops to open fire on a crowd of protesting college students.

No. Never in a million years.

Said no one since Kent State.

[jeff47]

90. First, we're talking about armed rebellion

not some folks getting a tad upity.

Second, ever hear of Kent State?

Soldiers will open fire just fine. Because they're firing back against the people shooting up their hometown.

[-..__...]

17. And when there's collateral damage, deaths of uninvolved non-combatents...

school house strafed (ooops.... sorry about that), you can just blame that on the NRA too.

[Fresh_Start]

21. we blame others all the time in Afghanistan

I guess I'm confused because I also think those people were humans worthy of enjoying their lives even though they were not Americans.

[R_Flagg_77]

19. Yesterday...

I got involved in another thread on this topic, and for stating that if a civilian insurgency attack the logistics network and personnel that support drones, military aircraft, and tanks, (as opposed to facing them head on) that the insurgency would stand a chance. For this I was met with ridicule and derision. While I was tending to my work today I mulled over the topic and I didn't say somethings I ought to have said.

When we begin to discuss the Federal government using military force against American civilians, all bets are off. Something has gone horribly, unspeakably wrong with our nation, and at that point violence must be done by American military forces, and what passes for a rebellion or insurgency. At that point we have entered into a state of civil war, the most catastrophic thing that could happen in our nation.

As it was in the years of and between 1861 and 1865 not all American military personnel would remain true to the Federal government. Several high ranking commanders within the United States Army allied with the Confederacy. Countless other men serving with the Federal Army likewise defected to the Confederacy, taking with them skills and weapons. So we already have a precedent for that to occur in this second civil war. Since we do not know what will spark this war, or what issues will be prevalent at that time, who can say how many American troops will defect a second time? People make hard decisions in hard times; General Robert Lee was torn between his native Virginia and his loyalty to the United States.

This would be a bloody, devastating conflict. Even more so that a wise insurgency, and only a fool would think that it'd be a few 'bubbas' taking potshots with AR-15's at tanks; would wage a very long, very calculating guerrilla style war. Car bombs, IED's on the side of the interstate, the families of soldiers being slaughtered, schools and hospitals attacked, the electrical grid would be a very viable target, so you'd have rolling blackouts.

We are not discussing Gettysburg or Antietam, we are discussing Iraq during the American occupation... Right here in your own friggen towns and neighborhoods. This insurgency would not have the ability to face down Federal military forces in the field, but it could well be capable of being a thorn in all of our sides for decades. The insurgents might not take a column of tanks up Pennsylvania Avenue, but it might just force the Federal government to throw its hands up and just quit after thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands in lives and billions of dollars in damage.

Where the human will to fight is, is also the human capacity to think and to survive.

[a geek named Bob]

20. +100 n/t

[R_Flagg_77]

26. If I may continue...

What most people also fail to realize that on the government side, at least in the initial stages of this civil war, the main combats on the side of the government would not be military personnel. It would be the county sheriff department, town cops, Federal Marshals, FBI, and any other law enforcement agency. The volunteer fire department, and the local ambulance service would be viable targets as well. I could foresee school buses being ambushed, the passengers either held hostage, or simply slaughtered as well.

Why you ask? Because the point of any insurgency, ala' Iraq, isn't to achieve a quick victory on the battlefield. The point, is to sap the will to fight of your opponent. If we fight this unspeakably horrific war right here on our own soil, life would be very uncomfortable for all of us. It really would kill our economy; it would be the death blow to our Constitutional rights and protections; it would scar us in ways that our first Civil War never did.

The 'gun nuts' you so deride, the ones who boast and show off their expensive toys, those ain't gonna be the ones keeping you up at night with worry. Those types would get killed quick, or sit it out with their mouths closed. You've got to worry about the guys who know how the electrical grid works, the ones with remote cabins in Idaho, the trauma surgeon with questionable loyalties, a railroad worker who might not throw the switch at the right time or forget to fix those brakes, a school bus driver with extreme political views. In short, the men and women who could do real damage to our national infrastructure, and lend real support to this insurgency.

How much of our population is going to support the Federal government if it can't ensure the lights stay on day after day, that food will still be available at the store, that they can trust that their children will be safe in the classroom? Do you really want to question the loyalties of those you interact with daily? What if your neighbor is keeping their lights on at unusual hours; did you see some odd literature being passed around by your co-workers? How loyal is your local law enforcement to the powers that be? Are those questions we want to ask?

A guerrilla war isn't won by the man with the most guns; the victor is the one still living the next day, with the support of the population to keep up his fight.

[a geek named Bob]

27. again... +100

You make good points... and very scary ones...

[R_Flagg_77]

29. It's a scary subject...

I don't want to see this war, and I feel a bit sick looking at people gleefully posting about how drones are going to wipe an insurgency off the map.

They remind me of people going to watch the first Battle of Manassas (or Bull Run for the Northerners)... This was the first major engagement of our Civil War in July of 1861. People took picnics to watch the Federal Army smash the 'rebelling' Confederates; it was very much a party atmosphere. It was expected that after a quick battle, the Federal Army would simply march to Richmond and force a quick end to the war.

Well that didn't happen now did it?

[a geek named Bob]

31. R_Flagg_77

You sound like a student of history. I congratulate you for your education. I'd add a tad of "this will be a merry little war" feeling of 1914-ish to your statements.

Too many people here at DU seem to gleefully look forward to forcing others to "live the right way." I have no good solution for this issue.

[dairydog91]

32. Well, I think you overestimate how organized an insurgency would be.

However, I imagine that drone-lovers are seriously overestimating their utility for anything more than surveillance. What do they think is going to happen the first time a drone operator makes a whoopsie and nails a group of stoned teens in the woods with a Hellfire? Are their parents going to smile and say "Well, it's for the good of America," or are they going to go looking for the drone operators and the operators' families?

I imagine that if there's any reason an insurgency could not develop under current conditions, it's that most Americans have enough of a stake in the federal government that they would not actually go to war against it. Doing so means no Social Security, no medical safety net, and no other federal benefits. Even if the federal government couldn't cut off programs specifically, the massive costs of fighting a war on home soil would trash the economy and deprive social programs of funds, hurting the insurgents along with everyone else. In short, Bubba can't go to war with the gubbmint, he's better off with it than in fighting it.

[Fresh_Start]

33. I don't think there will be any insurgency

most gun owners are not on the side of the fools who want no gun control.
We'll be helping the government turning in the mentally unbalanced who are threatening the stability of our society.

[MightyMopar]

60. The Confederate traitors had the bulk of the professional army and you know it.

Quit spreading the RBKA extremist propaganda and glamourizing the insane fantasy of fighting the government. Go play a video game and quit spreading this crap. Just wear a sock over your head while you do it.

Drones are getting smaller and more precise with less collateral damage. Soon technology will make the guns these RBKA extremists claim they'll die for as obsolete as swords.

99% of the RBKA extremists will go home when their credit cards are cancelled, GMAC shuts down the computers in their vehicles and their wives threaten to leave them. Many of these gun guys wives are hostages anyhow and will turn them over in a heartbeat. Chris Rock made the point yesterday they should only allow people with mortgages be able to buy guns.

[MineralMan]

86. A ragtag bunch of disassociated RKBA nutballs

won't do much of anything. There won't be a war at all. That's just braggadocio at work. There may be a few loners who try to take out their frustrations on local law enforcement or even federal authorities. That will come to nothing very quickly.

There is no civil war looming. Sorry to disappoint you.

[LanternWaste]

38. I don't see any theme that could unify a disparate, comfortable and complacent nation

"If we fight this unspeakably horrific war right here on our own soil, life would be very uncomfortable for all of us..."


I don't see any theme in the here and now that could realistically unify a disparate, comfortable and complacent nation such as ours-- busy with our X-boxes into a insurgency culture supported by the population against one of the very mechanisms that allows us our comfort and complacency that people would be fighting for... Nor is there one ant-government theme in the here and now capable of unifying any opposition of note.

Those guys who manage the grid are clever enough to know that their comfort is dependent on their continued allegiance to our complacency. Outside of the odd fringe movement which are quickly ridiculed out of existence, and we're left with the lone nut-- who, while dramatic, is rarely effective in his agenda.

[NickB79]

58. One pissed, RW nuclear technician at a power plant

And it's Fukushima in the US

[Fresh_Start]

22. Don't see it

its theoretically possible...but are you really going to put your life and your childrens lives on the line for some a-hole who you know is a complete ass. Over his right to have brand A versus brand B of weaponry.


Not likely.

[Thinkingabout]

42. Why anyone even thinks it would be reasonable to take on US military is not smart.

We have a great nation here, you have exercised your right to speak and that is not possible in many other countries. In vase you still think it would be possible to take on the military read what happened to Saddam Hussein and his military. If you think you could interfere with the guidance system of the drones then you don't know a lot about the system. The drones will pinpoint target you before you could launch your first rocket. We have a trained military who are professional, have military commanders who are trained in combat, it will be over for you in a short time. Also, remember there just might be a "good guy" looking over your shoulder. Get over taking over the government or military.

[Macoy51]

73. Amen to that

+1,000 rec


In a stand up fight, no combination of RW/gun nuts could last more than a few days against the US. Military. But what about an insurgency? You know, like the ones we deployed over 1.5 million Americans to fight, who are now back home in Anytown, USA. If just 10% of those former soldiers (who were training in combating an insurgency) turned around and supported one here, it would cause problems.

All these people who are flippantly talking about crushing an uprising need to grow up and get a clue just how ugly it would be. Fantasizing about painlessly wiping out gun nuts is just as juvenile as the gun nuts dreaming about saving the day in a shoot out. It would be a bloodbath (on both sides) and we need to avoid if at all possible.


Macoy

[jeff47]

92. Winning a war requires winning two things

You have to win the fighting, and you have to win diplomacy.

In Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan we won the fighting. Hands down. Obliterated the shit out of anyone we found.

We lost (are losing) the diplomatic side. Giving the people a reason to stop fighting.

But to win a war, you have to win both.

In that situation, all the insurgents have to do is outlast our political will. Political will for war outside our borders fades very quickly. But how about political will inside our borders? We would no longer be fighting "over there".

I submit that our political will for war at home is much, much, much longer-lived. Why? Well, how long has the war on drugs been going on? It's pretty close to an insurrection. And we've been fighting it for at least 60 years. And the public still overwhelmingly supports it.

Because of that extended will, waiting out the US isn't going to be a workable strategy.

[doc03]

30. That guy that held back the red army tanks in Tienanmen Square would be more effective

than any yahoo with an AR-15.

[Paul E Ester]

35. This is what the next "Ruby Ridge" might look like.

[Glassunion]

36. Man I hope not.

Seems a tad indiscriminate. Hope I don't live next door when they rain hell down.

[dairydog91]

37. So the next time somebody might have a sawed off shotgun, there's an immediate airstrike?

Hooray. Next thing, we can get rid of those pesky pot growers in Washington by using massive howitzer barrages against any home or business suspected of containing pot. What could go wrong?

[morningfog]

64. Only in your fantasy.

[R_Flagg_77]

39. @dairydog91 and Fresh_Start

I agree that the likelihood of a civil war is low right now; people are still eating, the lights are on, and while there is a lot of discontent with the government its not at a critical level right now. Our economy is in bad shape, but it's on a slow path to recovery; and that helps stability more than anything; economic factors were more of a cause for the Civil War than anything else.

Should my scenario come to pass however, an insurgency wouldn't be organized at anything above a regional level; and at regional level it be only a loose association of 'us vs. them'. Any organization present would be at a local level, a handful of guys occasionally meeting up to throw a monkey wrench in the gears of society. You'd also see more than a few of the 'lone-wolf' variety; solo individuals working outside any organized structure.

Fresh_Start you are right, most gun owners do want a certain amount of gun control, it varies as to what level of control. I personally discount the 'Bubba's' who openly talk of waging war on the Federal Government; like I said before, most of them would die pretty quick or simply sit out the fighting at home.

The men that worry me, the men that will fight in an insurgency are the ones you ain't talking to. Because those people are very quietly buying a few boxes of ammunition along, spare parts for the weapons they already have, and buying cases of water, food, and medicine in bulk. (The serious ones, aren't buying massive amounts of munition and guns; they're buying food and water in massive amounts.) The ones that will be a factor in an insurgency, are the ones who don't discuss anything with people they don't know and trust intensely; because they know that talking would bring them attention.

If I had any serious concerns about a civil war happening on American soil, I'd be focusing more attention on people buying electrical components, disposable cellphones, the sort of medical supplies you use to treat trauma, and chemicals in small amounts.

[Fresh_Start]

43. I can't join you in your fantasy

civil war over the right to have weapon B v weapon A, never going to happen.
It would be like going to war over Coke v Pepsi.

The idiots buying food in massive amounts thankfully are not in my neck of the country...they already don't contribute much to society due to their delusions... they will withdraw even more and not be missed.
Those survivalists are fringe and won't be able to create an insurgency we need to worry about.

[Glassunion]

45. I resemble that remark.

I have recent bought 1 month of food for 6 people. I don't like to consider myself an idiot.

[Fresh_Start]

49. 1 month of food for 6 people is earthquake supplies out here.....

its not someone who is preparing for a siege.

[pkdu]

56. Why a month of food ? Nt

[Glassunion]

59. Ready.gov recommends three days

The hurricane we had recently said otherwise. Took two and a half weeks to get power, and another few days for the supermarket to open. I was glad I had it. So were my neighbors.

People mistake self reliance with loner, rebel, outcast, ect... Self reliance is a beginning, not a destination.

[R_Flagg_77]

51. Who says...

That a civil war would occur over firearms? Short of anything extreme, which won't come to pass, firearms won't be a cause of a civil war in the United States. My scenario does not list a cause, I'm simply delving into the true nature of such a conflict. What might cause an internal conflict is of no interest to me, as it isn't likely to happen.

You also missed my point, how do you know that people stockpiling for such a scenario aren't in your neck of the woods? I'm not trying to describe a mountain man character with a beard and a compound out by the river; the people I'm describing would be nondescript, buying enough food to feed a typical family of four or five for a month, while only being a family of two on a weekly shopping trip. Have you ever seen a couple go through a checkout line with two shopping carts full of food? It might be they're stockpiling for something.

What you might take for earthquake supplies might have other purposes. You can't tell automatically who would be a potential insurgent and who wouldn't. Thats the point of an insurgency, you blend into the civilian population to commit your attacks, giving you safe harbor from enemy forces; (or safer harbor than wearing a distinctive uniform and conducting yourself as a standing army would).

[Viking12]

40. 'Red Dawn' is not a documentary.

[meow2u3]

41. Try shooting at an armored tank with AR-15's

The score will be....tank, 1, gun nuts 0.

[Glassunion]

44. Only an idiot would consider it.

And only an idiot would drive one up Main Street.

[meow2u3]

76. Just exaggerating...

...to illustrate the point that all these guns, especially where they shouldn't be, is a silly idea.

[Remmah2]

69. That's why .50 caliber semi-auto rifles need to be kept legal.

eom

[One_Life_To_Give]

74. For sorting out the Gene pool?

50BMG wouldn't penetrate most WW2 light tanks. Hence the Panzerfaust, Bazooka and RPG's with Shaped Charge (HEAT) rounds. And even then penetrating the 100mm armor of a Tiger was only possible if you knew the weak spots.

[Remmah2]

77. Funny

Last week all the gun grabbers said they used armor piercing bullets. Go figure. Lie of the month club.

[Macoy51]

75. Try the Fuel Truck

Try shooting an AR-15 at the fuel truck that keeps that tank mobile.


Score AR-15: 1, fuel truck: 0


Macoy

[Oldenuff]

53. Gun fools??

You don't see me calling gun control groups Fools do you?Maybe under my breath,but not out loud or anything like that.

[Fresh_Start]

55. as a gun owner who has had guns in the house for more than 50 years

I know that there are gun fools...
people I don't trust with the weapons they already own.
Being a gun owner does not endow anyone with wisdom or maturity....
there are fools in the population as well as in any other population.

[morningfog]

65. You should say what you really feel. There are plenty of gun fools here.

[Remmah2]

68. Why would I need to fear drones?

Has the US really come to this?

Is freedom dead? Have they really started confiscating firearms and detaining citizens?

[WilliamPitt]

70. I wrote this the day after Newtown

I know I know I know I know, you own an AK-47 or an AR-15 and the world didn't end...because you're responsible, right?

Is everyone you know responsible? Everyone with even fleeting access to your "Arsenal of Freedom"? Is everyone who might rob your home responsible?

...pssst...

You don't need an assault weapon. You really really really don't.

You're going to defend yourself against a government that has nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, drones, SEALs and the United States fa-chrissakes Marine Corps with your piddly-ass AR-15? Good luck with that; send me a note from the front.

Grow up.

You don't need it. You want it. End of file.

Your right to bear whatever fantastically lethal thing you set your cap to is infringing upon everyone else's right not to die in another God damned bloodbath.

You don't need it.

You want it.

There's a difference.

And that's the beginning of real reform, if you decide to accept it.

Make the very Christian decision that you will, in fact, be your brother's and sister's keeper.

You don't need an AR-15 or an AK-47.

You just want it.

Other people want them, too. See: Newtown.

Exert a little self-control over your desires. Your ability to responsibly enjoy an AR-15 is NO LONGER argument enough to defend their wide, wild availability.

This is not rocket science. This is basic humanity, and enlightened self-interest.

The old saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society."

Well, we've been an armed society - 300 million guns and counting - for a long while now.

I'm sure everyone will be very polite at the 20 funerals for those 20 kids.

Mission accomplished.

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17696-an-armed-society-is-a-polite-society

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. I'm assuming RW insurgents would be "insurging" against a Democratic president

What Democratic president would use drones, nuclear weapons and stealth bombers on US population centers?

Seriously.

And if you won't use them then you effectively don't have them. And if a democratic president did use them then she or he would be worse than Q'dafi, Saddam Hussein or Assad.

[Romulox]

71. And yet we LOST in Afghanistan. Wrap your heads around that little fact. nt

[Erose999]

84. In AFGN our total manpower commitment any one time would barely fill a college football stadium. An

insurrection of freepers and gun nuts on American soil could result in the full force of the military being called up which could be magnitudes more troops than the Dubya wars.

[Romulox]

87. We've lost over 3,000 soldiers in 12 years. And now, we lost because we didn't really want to win?

Aesop had a story that fits:

Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' People who speak disparagingly of things that they cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves.

[Erose999]

89. I'm just giving you a statistic I'm not implying anything about whether we're "winning" or "losing"

Bush's wars. If its any consolation to you, I've been against them from the start.

[Romulox]

91. There is ZERO evidence that greater manpower would've lead to victory though.

I think that you certainly implied that greater manpower may have lead to "winning" (put the fact that "winning" in Afghanistan is undefined to one side, that's the entire point, of course.)

There is still no evidence whatever that the US Military can defeat a well trained and highly motivated guerrilla army--we've lost every war in which we've faced such an enemy.

[Erose999]

108. We've also never fought such an army on the continental US. Unless you consider the Confederacy to

be a "guerilla army," but we crushed them pretty soundly. And there was the whiskey rebellion, also crushed.

[jeff47]

94. Actually, we didn't lose. We failed to win.

And that's not just semantics.

Militarily, we blew the shit out of everything and won massively. But you don't win a war just with guns. You also have to win a war with diplomacy. And we completely fucked that part up. Mostly because the war was being run by morons who thought guns were enough.

So the insurgents just had to wait out our will to keep blowing the shit out of everything. And that evaporates fairly quickly when you're talking about conflicts outside the US. But what about inside the US? Well, the war on drugs looks an awful lot like an insurrection. We've been fighting that for 60 years now, and the public still massively supports it.

As such, a rebel force in the US couldn't rely on the public getting tired of the war, and would have to do a lot more fighting in order to win. And that fighting would not go well for them.

[dairydog91]

105. But the war on drugs isn't close to an insurrection.

Drug dealers do not normally aspire to violently overthrow the government, or even to gain sovereign power over a parcel of American land. Insurrections are aimed at political ends, drug dealers are simply violating criminal laws by selling widely-desired items. If anything, the war on drugs merely demonstrates that when a government bans possession of an item, but that item remains widely desired, the black market will fulfill the demand for that item.

[jeff47]

106. It's a group of people violently resisting the government

The only difference is their goals are economic instead of political.

Either way, the differences you cite would make the public give up faster than an actual insurrection.

[One_Life_To_Give]

72. Look to what the French Resistance used

Vietnam, El Salvador, Afganistan. Asymmetrical war-fare is about making the most of what you have while avoiding the oppositions strengths. An M1 Springfield or Lee Enfield may be for more dangerous to well equipped modern army than any M16 or AK47.

[jeff47]

97. Asymmetrical warfare is about waiting out your opponent.

The French resistance didn't win - they harassed until the allies invaded.

El Salvador took decades for the rebels to tire of fighting - not exactly a good example for the rebel side.

Afghanistan - again, just wait out the USSR and then the US.

But what about inside our borders? The war on drugs looks a lot like an insurrection. We've been fighting it for 60 years, and the public is still overwhelmingly supportive of it.

The rebels would have to wait multiple lifetimes for the US to tire of fighting their rebellion. That's not gonna happen with these yahoos.

[mr hands]

82. You know if this slaughter of the right happens

We are going to be in a dictatorship when it is finished.

Hope you like the outcome,

[Fresh_Start]

95. read the post, I'm not advocating slaughter of the right.

I'm saying the fools who think their guns will protect them against the government are delusional.
Personally I don't advocate violence by either gun fools or the government.
But it if happens, it will be the gun fools who incite it.

[samsingh]

85. these guns are stockpiled to be used against civilians

can you imagine these overweight, middleclass gun nuts being able to fight well trained, well equipped, supported by air, military personnel?

how crazy is it to think otherwise?

[Fresh_Start]

93. yes, thats the point

they are in a fantasy world about what their weapons afford them.
They don't buy safety.
They don't protect against the big bad government.

[samsingh]

96. agreed

[moondust]

99. Why no big gun and militia movements in France or Russia?

After all, those countries have real past experience with tyrannical governments and revolutions. "Old Europe" knows the potential dangers of government first-hand, yet their populations don't seem to have much fear or they'd be stockpiling weapons like Americans, no?

[Fresh_Start]

100. Its difficult to argue that France or Russia are less romantic than America

in their beliefs about their own cultures.
So I'm assuming its because they are less loudmouthed than Americans...and not that they are less likely to create a resistance is and when such resistance is really needed. I believe that most people won't fight to the death over Coke versus Pepsi.. (or weapons versus high capacity weapons).....

[Grantuspeace]

102. The Egyptians and Libyans didn't have a 2nd amendment.

And they overthrew their tyrants.

[kestrel91316]

103. I just tell them they nave NOTHING to fear from the government unless they have

done something wrong. And we know they would NEVER do anything wrong.