Like many a mainstream media outlet, The New York Times decided that the Mandalay Bay massacre justifies a renewed push for greater gun control. Despite the fact that none of the proposed laws would have stopped the slaughter, despite the fact that the paper’s publisher’s has a New York City concealed carry permit, the Times reckons it’s time [again] to take a shot at the entire concept of civilian firearms possession . . .
Gun-rights advocates also make the grandiose claim that gun ownership is a deterrent against tyrannical governments. Indeed, the wording of the Second Amendment makes this point explicitly: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That may have made sense in the 1770s, when breech-loading flintlock muskets were the primary weapons tyrants used to conquer other peoples and subdue their own citizens who could, in turn, equalize the power equation by arming themselves with equivalent firepower. But that is no longer true.
If you think stockpiling firearms from the local Guns and Guitars store, where the Las Vegas shooter purchased some of his many weapons, and dressing up in camouflage and body armor is going to protect you from an American military capable of delivering tanks and armored vehicles full Navy SEALs to your door, you’re delusional.
The tragic incidents at Ruby Ridge, in Idaho, and Waco, Tex., in the 1990s, in which citizens armed to the teeth collided with government agencies and lost badly, is a case study for what would happen were the citizenry to rise up in violence against the state today.
Is The Times right? Is the Second Amendment obsolete? Should we place our faith in “nonviolent democratic checks and balances on power, constitutional guardians of civil rights and legal protections of liberties”?
Moot question as the NYT is never right!
I think that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean citizens can stand up against tanks and drones anymore than free speech can stop a drone. What it DOES DO is up the price that government has to pay for tyranny.
Almost nobody starts out with murder and no tyrants start out with total control. If government finds the price of minor infringements too high, they’ll be less likely to get to major ones
Yes, the 2nd amendment is a bulkward against tyranny. An individual family in ruby ridge Idaho does not have a chance. But dozens of people organized with weapons against the government can resist a tyrannical government.
These people were called the Deacons For self-defense and Justice.
Another example is the fight against a corrupt government in Athens Tennessee.
The Bundy Ranch stand of is another example.
When a government agents arrest you for refusing to take a blood sample, what will you do????
When they break into your house because they have the wrong address what will you do????
When these government agents violate your civil rights, even kill the wrong person, do they ever go to jail????
When a government agent arrest me, I give up. When government agent breaks into my house, I give up. And no, government agents don’t go to jail, x government agents might.
Korean Americans in Los Angeles discovered that the government doesn’t have to come and help you. That is why you have the second amendment.
Along your train of thought, did anyone else notice the reference to “breechloading flintlock muskets”?
Yes,… but the subsequnt fail in philosophy burried the early fail in nomenclature.
Just means we need to repeal the NFA and give civilians access to better gear. Funny how ISIS and the Taliban are doing just fine with a tiny handful of shooters and far worse gear.
fine is debatable but what’s not debatable is that they have military equipment not civilian weapons.
Military small arms. Exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment protects the ownership of.
I agree completely. The small arms resistance in the middle east shows exactly the power that the small arms can provide a determined populace. Not to mention that a significant portion of the honorable servicemen of the country would not be willing to mow down their fellow countrymen. Some of those tanks would be on the side of liberty.
I say this all the time whenever liberals scoff at citizens rising up against the U.S. Army
The Taliban never flew one sortie, drove a single tank or operated anything bigger than a pick up truck
Yet they have fought us and our coalition partners to a stalemate
Our entire strategy there is only to avoid defeat
No prospect victory in sight
I E D’s and Ak’s have proven enough to negate all our planes, tanks, artillery and drones
I think a widespread insurgencey in the continental U.S. would do even better
There also seems to be an assumption that the U.S. Military will be fighting the people. A significant element of the Armed Forces is going to be on the side of the people, against a tyrannical government.
There is also the assumption that it’s the military that we would be fighting. It’s hard to run a tyranny when your political apparatus and supporters are room temperature.
Why would the American people ” rise up” against our government? Military fight the people? I hear a song, ” Four dead in Ohio” ,. Branch Davidian, to save the children from the devil, we’ll burn them up, good going there Janet. Ruby ridge, dogs wives and kids are fair game .
Government may have more fire power, however civilian fire power would give them pause. I will stand with Jefferson!
“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government… Thomas Jefferson
would give them pause Is firing on fellow Americans. Should they choose to do so we have nothing to stop air or armor.
Than we do guerilla warfare, blending in with the general population and taking the military arms we need from the government troops that we overcome in coordinated strikes like just like resistance has done in centuries past.
“Should they choose to do so we have nothing to stop air or armor.”
Bud, it’s gonna be *very* unpleasant living in those military bases, very fast. Very dark, and very cold. With a dwindling stock of crappy MREs.
Those high-tension powerlines run all the way back to the powerplant. They get cut first. The diesel for their generators will run out, and there will be no re-supply of *anything*, especially food, via public roads.
It won’t be like Tienanmen Square, where the Chinese brought in troops from the far-away sticks to machine-gun the students to death, those troops will be firing on their neighbors and friends.
It will be an insurgency like never before seen.
We will take heavy losses, but we *will* prevail…
I was thinking through this the other day and came to the same conclusions. Modern militaries depend on uninterrupted logistics and military bases rely heavily on the surrounding infrastructure to provide it. Create a 50 mile no-mans land around a base and that base will quickly become untenable. Power, roads, water, sewage, food production and distribution, etc are all volnerable and critical infrastructure and the government knows it which is why an overt tyranny is stupid…. they will play the long game and herd us in to comfortable prisons of our own making that we will fight tooth and nail to stay in. Look at europe and how much derision they have for our rights and the concept of self reliance/defense.
The key resource is water. Any military base or city will fall when their water source is destroyed. Rome fell because the aqueducts were destroyed. It is hard to believe we are still susceptible to that today, but I digress. Believe me, any descent military is aware of this vulnerability, and is prepared for it. What any society is unprepared for is the destruction of the water supply of multiple large cities, say LA and SF, and unless they draft half the population of California into the military, there is simply not enough resources to protect their water systems. But, let’s get real. We are a long way from that. Although the media has become a propaganda machine for the liberal fascists in our society, and making it seem like We The People are losing, they aren’t winning the majority…only the weak minded. In fact, the more they play identity politics, the more real support they lose.
That’s why I’m going to fight from Berkely, CA. I shoot my Mosin Nagant at a few helicopters and they bring in air and arty on the progressive homeland.
Don’t fight in flyover country. Fight in nyc, San Francisco, DC. etc. Force the heavy handed tyrants to use a scorched earth policy on Feinsteins neighberhood.
A twisted version of what I’ve been saying for years but, yes…. fight them here in their places of comfort. Win hearts and minds in their neighborhoods. Raise you children here and fill their heads with your values so the childless libtards and their ideas die out and get replaced.
Yep, they would probably just drop a nuke on the insurgents. Oh, wait………
you still have to have somebody fly those sorties bud. most patriots would not fire on their countrymen if ordered. ask any servicemen you might know.
Christian Dominionists would, if they considered the government to be Christian, which is exactly why there is such an effort by such to in the hearts of cadets at the Air Force Academy.
There’s a difference between a handful of feds shooting a woman in the head as she holds her baby and an actual declared sustained conflict.
This is why the takeover is compartmentalized and incremental. A nut in a house here, some recluse in the woods there, a group of LARPers in Texas. No problem. No resistance. Being a guy with his own family a world away I could not care less. Just as I don’t care one bit about the 50 in Vegas or the other 8,000+ who died that day or any other day. Not my family, not my friends, not my problem.
Now, declare full on confiscatory measures and travel prohibitions, start cutting off food and power, send in uniformed shock troops to take over high value targets. That’s a different story.
And there will be some amazing innovation. Like converting civil aviation crop dusters into light attack aircraft.
Imagine the damage an airliner full of fuel can do, flown by a retired airline pilot who was given a cancer death sentence and volunteers for a one-way mission to restore America…
Private firearms ownership is the only bulwark against tyranny…but only if the citizenry have the fortitude to stand up against it.
Based on the answers and comments I see I would say that Americans don’t have the will to stand up to tyranny…so what’s the point in having the means?
“…but only if the citizenry have the fortitude to stand up against it.”
That is a monumentally important point.
Fortitude can be created. Tyranny — especially full-on murderous tyranny — can do that to a person.
True. This is why our ROE in Iraq and Afghanistan is so restrictive, we want to avoid innocent civilian casualties and avoid whole villages rising up against us and their new government. Another *terrible* example is Timothy McVeigh. He was on scene at Waco and what he saw there drove him to plot and carry out the OKC bombing. One could say that had they not been so heavy handed in dealing with Waco and Ruby Ridge OKC may have not happened.
But everyone is waiting for some, as you say, “full on murderous” tyranny.
After the revolts against the monarchies the professional plunderers learned their lessons. They figured out that full on tyranny doesn’t work so well in the long run.
We have and have had an ever increasing “soft tyranny” since the inception of the republic. Read about the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays rebellion…and not the Wikipedia entries.
The goal is to make debt slaves. Nobody gets it. Wars aren’t about “democracy” or “freedom” or “stopping evil regimes”. It’s about money and power. Governments are about power and money. We’ve not had the fortitude since the end of the “civil war” to stop the encroachments.
Drug laws, gun laws, all the regulations, fees and taxes…it’s all about revenue generation. Hey get to tell you what to do, enforce it at the end of a gun and you obey and pay up. They get to use your money for whatever they want. That used to be called highway robbery. Now it’s called being a citizen of a democratic republic and being a “law abiding”.
Just wait until the dollar collapses and the empire really starts to decline…weep for your children and grandchilden.
Unfortunately, I tend to agree with “The Punisher” here above.
Repealing the Second Amendment is not going to happen and further attempts to circumvent it may ultimately lead to civil war.
This kind of thing does not seem to me to be a very good plan, especially if your goal is to reduce violence
Ancient wisdom says Violence is not always the best option but it is always an option.
Yes guns in the hands of normal citizens do prevent tyranny much the same way our nuclear arsenal prevents nuclear war. Deep down in their cold black dead hearts every congresscritter knows if they screw up bad enough they will be shot and there’s f*ck all anybody can do to stop it as gun owners outnumber the U.S. military. That being said the price of a civilian uprising (without the military deserting en masse or refusing to engage civilians) would prove extremely dear in terms of lives lost especially considering we have no air, armor, or artillery assets. Our casualties would be f*cking enormous compared to military losses. That being the case, the best we could hope for is a stalemate. To prevent this whole scenario the left is pushing disarmament in order to achieve their goal of abolishing our way of life and “making us as modern as those European nations.”
Violence may not be a good option, but sometimes it’s the only option.
“Our casualties would be f*cking enormous compared to military losses.”
Only if we form obvious well-defined lines and battle fronts, which would be asinine.
Remember the two most important principles in Sun Tzu’s Art of War:
(1) Always fight your enemy on your terms, not theirs.
(2) Know your strengths and weaknesses as well as your enemy’s strengths and weaknesses.
You need to know number (2) in order to avoid fighting on their terms!
VC, isis, taliban, mahdi militia, et al casualties are much MUCH higher than ours and can only be estimated as they often remove their dead from the battlefield before we do our Battle Damage Assessments and count enemy dead. You are also discounting the abilities of the military to hold you in a fight and find you afterwards. Remember we own the night you might fight and escape but can you trust your neighbors to not give you up? What about your family?
We also don’t have the numbers to draw from that North Vietnam, isis, taliban, alqaeda, and the rest have to draw from these guys can and do draw from other countries and various small cells across the globe. We do not have that luxury. Eventually we would either have a stalemate or be crushed under the weight of our casualties and be relegated to a historical footnote. Guerilla warfare only works so long as you have the numbers and an enemy not accustomed to fighting an asymmetric war. You also discount the fact that they will deploy the Special Forces, SEALS, and Rangers to do what they do. SF to train guerillas to take us on, Rangers to harass and raid us anywhere we gather, and SEALS to look pretty, write books, and score movie deals.
NOTE: THIS SCENARIO DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE MILITARY ACTUALLY JOINING OUR SIDE IN DROVES.
The military only “[owns] the night” against illiterate goat rapists. Americans own quite a bit of NV gear of our own and know how to use it.
“Guerilla warfare only works so long as you have the numbers and an enemy not accustomed to fighting an asymmetric war.”
Then you’re talking about 300-1 for the numbers, potential freedom fighters vs. uniformed US military.
16 years of sustained combat has flooded the nation with retired-out combat troops who will be happy to provide some training…
You clearly do not understand how a well-armed United States populous would fight back against a domestic tyrannical government here in the United States.
Hint: resistance would bear ZERO resemblance to 1940s U.S. military tactics on foreign soil. Every police officer, military grunt, military support person, police/military commander, mayor, city councilman/woman, governor, government clerk, etc. all have to go home at night, drive to work in the morning, and circulate among the very populous with whom they would be at war. There are infinite vulnerabilities to exploit.
I can give you one simple example: tyrant police commander notices that his home telephone no longer works and calls for a repair. What the tyrant police commander does not realize is that a telephone technician purposely disabled his/her phone in order to gain access to the tyrant’s home. Once inside the home, the technician could place a hidden incendiary device which would burn down the tyrant’s home at a later date/time.
Again, the possibilities are endless.
You really think they’ll call civilians and go off post? Hell no if they ain’t doin patrols they ain’t leaving post in those conditions. They will air lift food and supplies in and mil spec nvgs are better than what you buy to hunt with. At least better than the mid range ones I bought back in 2010 that may have changed. Again this assumes no military defected to our side. But in all honesty it will look a lot like Iraq with Army and Marine posts becoming FOBs. Troops will not be going off post unless they are kitted up and in their armored vehicles. We’ll be stuck with IEDs and quick ambushes on dismounted patrols.
Yeah, that’s changed quite a bit. I guarantee you that my privately owned NODS are just as good as anything found outside of JSOC.
As for your FOB concept… Where are they going to airlift this food from? Who’s going to grow it? Package it? It’s not like Iraq where you have this huge secure rear area called The United States.
you also have to account for, as you said, large numbers of defectors and non-participants on the .mil side. Also, the massive number of former police/mil is not insignificant after 16 years of perpetual war. Furthermore, the elephant in the room is that a nasty civil conflict on American soil means the government and military logistical machine is vulnerable in ways not seen before. I’m sure there are plans in place to harden and secure a lot of the places the military and the gov have determined as “critical Infrastructure” in their logistical production and chains. Even then that will likely only go so far, especially once you consider the reality of not just outside militia attack, but very real insider threat these places would have to deal with. It would be a horribly messy and terrible affair and I hope we never see it. I foresee that even if the “good guys” of the militia won, America would have some real deep and horrible wounds physically, economically, and socially.
Police and military have families they go home to – assume back in ‘Indian country’ – so shooting cops or so warring on general public in towns and cities will not be end up well after a few days. Everyone knows where your neighbor police/soldier families live.
Re: general uninformed populace on gun ownership and state tyranny – it won’t take long for regular folks – like those in say Venezuela – to figure out gun do a lot to help fight back against Tyranny is a very good thing. Since VZ took guns 10 years b4 the batons and armored cars came out – after everyone got to enjoy free lunches with Other People’s Money – might have been hard for everyday joe to see the correlation… But it won’t be forgotten by those VZs that survive their completely supine position they find now….
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy
I laugh out loud when I hear the ‘Antifa’ use that quote.
Some of their girls do look hot in their red ‘Che’ t-shirts with no bra on underneath…
‘Indeed, the wording of the Second Amendment makes this point explicitly: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and b ear ar ms shall not be infringed.”’
So they’re admitting that the g un control they’re proposing is unconstitutional…
The Slimes is too ignorant and partisan to take seriously on much of anything, especially the topic of firearms.
Afghanistan was only armed with small arms and they beat the Russians. We have now been there over a decade with no end in sight and it isn’t like they have tanks and jets.
What they do have are nearly unlimited numbers of religious zealots, ignorant fools whose only education is from radical imams, imported fighters, and a non existant R.O.E. They also don’t have to comply with the Laws of Land Warfare and Geneva Convention.
Meanwhile our troops have to fight following a ROE written by politicians who have never seen armed conflict in the past 40 years, Laws of Land Warfare, Geneva Convention, and we have a much more limited source of fighters being we are an all volunteer force.
“What they do have are nearly unlimited numbers of religious zealots,…”
You obviously have never been to a Pentecostal, Baptist, or other church that uses an active ‘audience participation’ style of worship, have you? 😉
*LOTS* of those in America…
Christians don’t believe that killing other people is their ticket to heaven. Therein lies the difference.
My in laws are pentecostals and my wife is baptist. I’m familiar with it, difference is their religion doesn’t call for the murder by any means necessary of all other religions. See these muslim boys are dumb as rocks but fanatical, experience, and no fear of death.
The people in the NYT should virtue signal by giving up their guns and burning their CCLs…
Wow they actually brought up Ruby Ridge and Waco.
As if we don’t need more stark examples of Government Behaving Badly as a justification to not let them have a monopoly on force.
Yep, all governments are in the habit of murdering their citizens, some more than others.
The founders started a war, and a nation, due to less onerous royal laws. We all stood and watched Waco, then went to the bar to quaff a cool one. If Waco is/was not enough, then where is the red line? Waco was not like BundyII. The Branch Davidians had done nothing illegal. Local LE was aware of the compound and the leaders there. Everyone was at peach. The the federal government heard that the Davidians were not quiet, compliant sheep, and were preferred to defy a government out of control. Suddenly, potential child abuse became a federal matter. None of the local officials had heard anything about child abuse. DOJ informed the local officials that there were guns at the compound, and children at the compound. Something had to be done to ensure the children were not being harmed, or were in danger of being harmed because they could possibly find the guns. The appropriate response by DOJ was to militarily (SWAT teams) assault the compound, and subsequently kill the children in order to keep them safe. The DOJ had no federal authority to intervene, in any manner, in an alleged child abuse situation in a non-federal location (Waco). Yet the feds showed up, guns blazing. How does it get worse than that?
And we stood and watched.
Um how about cointelpro and Philly?
“We all stood and watched Waco, then went to the bar to quaff a cool one.”
Sam, some of us watched the flames at Waco and noticed WalMart had a sale on Mini-14s and bought one.
And bought a box or two of ammo periodically after…
Right, I was surprised to see them invoke Ruby Ridge…methinks they don’t really know what Ruby Ridge was about…
Hundreds of government agents against a few individuals. They were bound to lose and are bad examples. So if they are so confident then why do they keep coming after guns? There is an answer!
I had this same argument recently with a neighbor. He said, “How do you defeat and tank!” Easy, kill the supply chain and hit the operators…at home if necessary. You think Johnny Bravo is going to roll his tank when there is no fuel or his family is in danger…hint…no! Second of all, how many US soldiers would obey orders to drop bombs and burn down US cities. Me thinks not many. Here is the MSM’s and libtards biggest problem. They think any uprising or “war” would be fought out in the open like some video game. Wrong! It would be small skirmishes and guerilla warfare tactics (see Northern Ireland IRA vs. England, or the Russians in Afghanistan). Watch a few politicians, media types, and leftists get picked off and it would be a complete shit show. No one’s safety could be guaranteed by the big bad .gov. No one would dare go outside and you would see the breakdown of social order happen very fast. If the Left didn’t fear gun owners and the end result of a civil uprising against tyranny then they wouldn’t keep bringing up gun bans. The fact they keep talking about reinforces their belief of what will happen to them. Fear keeps them honest and from overreaching. Therefore to progress with their ultimate plan of liberal utopianism through genocide of anyone that disagrees with them they will keep talking about guns. This is why we fight for the 2A.
“… to progress with their ultimate plan of liberal utopianism through genocide of anyone that disagrees with them …”
Wow, that is the most succinct and accurate description of the Progressive agenda that I have ever heard. I am going to quote that shamelessly and often, and probably without attribution.
How about am example of 2nd amendment battling tyranny post-musket ball?
Some one should let the Times know that breech loading firearms were not available in the Revolutionary war. And armed citizenry is indeed a bulwark against tyranny, no one says we have to fight a set piece conventional war, hundreds of dedicated freedom fighters scattered across the fifty states could and would bleed the tyrants and perhaps change their judgement on subduing the citizens. There is no guarantee that the US Military in masse would follow the commands of those who sought to subdue the very Constitution those in the Military swore to protect. Perhaps those at the Times should reconsider their calculus!!
Actually there was one breech loading firearm available at the time of the Revolutionary War. It was the Ferguson rifle.
Developed by a British officer, it employed a screw operated breech mechanism that lifted the breech block straight up to allow loading of powder and ball much quicker. The rotating mechanism was reversed, pan primed and fired. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle There was even a rapid fire repeating flintlock musket developed that required multiple serial loads of powder, patch and ball that were then fired by a sliding flintlock. The technology of that time was already moving forward to repeaters and breech loaders. So the moronic idiots citing the musket of then as being the only weapon intended in the 2A is pure BS! The civilian and militia were meant to progress equally in firearm technology and ownership.
I don’t know the “real” answer to this but I would point out the following:
A “Second Revolution” or “Civil War 2.0” would be a horrendously bloody event and I would hope that knowledge by itself would give a potential tyrant pause.
Secondly, it wouldn’t be as easy as the NYT seems to think. A LOT of service personnel would do something other than follow orders to fight against their fellow countrymen. Some would “defect”, some would go home, so.e would sabotage and some would plot a coup.
Third, Afghanistan. We’ve been at war with a bunch of people who live in caves and generally don’t number more than 50,000 during the fighting season and we’ve been at it for 15 years without a convincing win. Now, those motherfuckers can’t even really launch a major attack against one of our key installations. What happens when the numbers of people are far greater, within striking distance of most of our major installations and some of the people at those installations are sympathetic to “the enemy”?
Further, Americans have access to far better tech than Taliban/Haqquani Network/whatever.
Even further, no matter how you cut it infantry is what takes and holds territory. A bunch of dudes with hunting rifles that reach out to 1000+ yards with skilled people behind the trigger hiding out in the mountains of Colorado or Pennsylvania doesn’t seem scary until you’re the poor fuck with an M4 sent in to root them out. Oh, also the guys with long distance rifles probably have a fuck-ton of IEDs and other explosives as well as a shitload of other traps waiting for you.
It’s not a good situation to think about. I would hope a would-be tyrant would be dissuaded by the 2A because if they aren’t it’s gonna be a bloodbath.
Before anyone dismisses this statement from strych9, I submit the recent event in Pennsylvania where police were trying to apprehend ONE MAN who allegedly attempted to murder two police officers and disappeared into the forests of Pennsylvania. Something like 200 to 300 cops converged on the region and proceeded to patrol the area for days on end. What did they not do? They did NOT routinely go hiking into those forests looking for that ONE MAN. Why? Because they KNEW that ONE MAN would likely kill at least one if not multiple cops in the woods if the police were blindly walking those woods with no idea of the suspect’s location.
As bad as Pennsylvania police wanted that suspect, they were not eager to risk their lives and it showed.
Police aren’t trained in small unit open ground infantry tactics. Yes infantry does take and hold ground. No there are more than 50,000 fighters in Afghanistan and you underestimate the ability to continually replace your dead from a worldwide pool. It’s not afghanis we are fighting it’s Syrians, Iranians, Libyans, Somalis, and every other flavor of muslim radical being shipped into the battle space in order to hold us there while other cells in other countries do their thing. It’s also a much closer fight fighting there trying to whittle down our numbers there rather than shipping enough jihadis to take em on here. Logistically it’s just easier to train equip supply and smuggle fighters in to Afghanistan through Iran and Pakistan than it would be to send large numbers here to fight. Especially since we aren’t pulling refugees like European nations.
I may have low balled it a but adding all the top end Pentagon estimates of enemy fighting strength for any given year yields a number around 70-75k.
Yes, they replenish from other countries and via forced conscription within Afghanistan. That’s effectively immaterial to the topic at hand.
No offense, but the vast majority of my comment seems to have gone over your head because your response makes little sense.
I agree completely. There’s somewhere between 50 and 100 times as many armed citizens as there are active military personnel, and like you said many, if not most, would be sympathetic to the gun owners.
It is not just a bulwark against tyranny, it is THE bulwark against tyranny. Otherwise they wouldn’t spend all of their time fighting against one of the items least often used in homicides: the Semiautomatic rifle. Fists, clubs and knives each are used 2 to 4 times as often to kill than all rifles combined.
WW2 Germany, Russia, and numerous examples show the folly and death of civilian disarmament.
Many people dismiss those arguments as counterfactual history. How do you rebut that?
A few years ago, one lone nut named Christopher Dorner shut down the entire state of California for over a week with an AR-15. Granted, Dorner’s indignation was misplaced, but imagine what a few million armed citizens with a righteous cause could do.
exactly. dorner was an awful person who deserved what he got. However His case demonstrates how much trouble he was able to cause. Same thing about the Boston bombers. The Tsarnaevs were just a couple of evil jerks with one pistol and a bunch of fireworks. but they tied down the whole state and shutdown the city for days.
I think of firearms are a deterrent to tyranny. Thy make the price of being too brutal with the population too high.
The price for everyone would be too high . that fact should keep all sides reasonable.
Nobody of any sense thinks the model is the tricolon hats and regular lines of infantry facing Apache helicopters and M1 Abrams tanks. nothing like that is going to happen. Hopefully nothing at all will have to happen and the ballot box will suffice.
“Breech loading muskets”?
But to your question: if not tactically, then logistically, they are. The appetite for armed resistance may not need to be present in every gun owner, it just needs to be present to some real degree to keep the government guessing. Until it isn’t.
So, if the government decides that it wants to usurp our rights and declare war on its own citizens, then because of their superior firepower we are just going to give up without a fight? I think not. Despite the tactical advantage that they might have, wars have been won when the advantage was initially on the side of the ultimate loser. It is a costly win, but it is possible. Where the will is stronger than the firepower, the winner will be obvious even if many battles are lost. And if the war is lost, it is only temporary. Because we will NEVER give up on the battle for our freedom.
Plain and simple, if privately owned firearm were not a significant factor no one would be pissing and moaning about banning them
People asking this question never ask the reverse: what uses of military power could a government realistically deploy?
The worst of the worst would be off the table because it would deny the territory to the government itself. If a pocket of Texas is being rebellious and you nuke it, you lose it and a good chunk of other territory as well. Other parts of the arsenal are tricky to deploy. Send a tank column rolling into Downtown Plano and suddenly a lot of people who were on your side won’t be. Or hit a farmhouse with a Hellfire and then see videos of the family who lived there intercut with cellphone video of their corpses on the internet.
There are fairly restrictive ROEs in Iraq and Afghanistan and they’re halfway around the world. If we’re talking about realistic scenarios, why should we imagine that the ROEs for operating here in the US would be less restrictive? If anything, they should be a lot tighter.
CarlosT for the win!
If fedzilla or a state government attacks We the People, they will have incredibly restrictive rules of engagement or else they will lose any popular support that they had and ultimately be convicted of war crimes. In other words all those tanks and airplanes would basically be useless.
The fight wouldn’t be centralized to just cities and towns. There’s still a lot of open spaces in America. Now as for urban fighting have you not seen what we can do with our ordnance? We have laser guided arty shells, bombs, and missiles that can come through your bedroom window, detonate, and leave your neighbor’s house untouched. Tanks can and are still used in urban warfare they still have a coax 240, a 50, and another 240 plus the main tube. They don’t fire just HEAT rounds anymore and then there’s the Bradley and Striker vehicles too. Sure they will try to avoid wiping out a whole block but they will still use everything they have to destroy their enemies. Collateral damage is a thing no matter what weapon is used. There is always collateral. You shoot haji muhammed, the bullets pass through him, and hit a car. That’s collateral damage. You shoot a house with a tank and the explosion breaks the windows of the house next door. Same thing. Neither of these get you busted, however, you take fire from 2 houses and you carpet bomb the block… That gets you a trial in Geneva. Bottom line long as they don’t willfully target innocents with their fire they can still bomb the sh*t outta Anytown USA in war.
You’re thinking in terms of what’s physically possible, while I’m talking about what’s politically possible. Collateral damage is one thing when it’s foreigners on the other side of the planet. It’s another thing altogether when it’s little girls from the next town over.
Pouring fire from a Bradley over a white picket fence into Ward and June Cleaver’s house is definitely something the US military can do. Is it something that they want video on the internet of them doing? Could they do it and keep control over the population at large?
These scenarios always assume the military would be completely unleashed to do whatever it takes. But military action, even in repressive societies, has political considerations. If the political costs of the action are higher than the gains, then it won’t happen.
You’re assuming a level of operational intelligence they can’t possibly develop. A small cell structured organization will make their life a living hell. Remember, this is where they LIVE. This is where their FAMILIES live. A military unit that uses indiscriminate force against a civilian target will quickly be identified and a cycle or reprisals and counter-reprisals will start. Look at Oklahoma City. That was ONE guy doing a reprisal attack for Waco. How long do you think the government will last when they are pulling a Waco multiple times per week and getting his with reprisals every time they do?
Video’s , cell phones? Those were shutdown two weeks ago, ham radios signals jammed, electricity cut off, no fuel, highways blockaded, food shortages, poisoned water supply’s, airships dropping flue viruses, agent Orange the crops, anthrax the cattle,shutdown pharma companies, ect. There I just defeated the uprising and never fired a shot.
And also destroyed all the revenue generating tax money for the .gov. Nice try but that’s not going to happen. .Gov won’t do scorched earth. Funny how you trolls think the .gov is omnipotent.
… yeah… and it only requires you to have a few million genocidal followers willing to trade the lives of thei families for your ideology. The Tarkin Doctrine is probably the most retarded method of suppressing a mass uprising imaginable.
There are a little over 1,000,000 law enforcement officers operating in the US. You can add military personnel to that. Still doesn’t add up to the leaglly armed citizens. The military, law enforcement and citizens would never fight, unless united against a tyrannical government. Yes some of these might side with tyrannical government, but they wouldn’t last long. I mean how stupid, can you imagine tanks, artillery, air power used on US citizens, by US citizens. We are all here to live peacefully, but there’s nothing wrong with being prepared, more than likely only to defend oneself from predator criminals, but if it came down to it, to protect this country.
Law enforcement has fought in the past, and will fight in the future. Insurgents are criminals, and the police represent the Government. They consider that what insurgents might do is illegal and they will pull out all the stops to end them. Just look at the Boston Bombing–no, not the Tsarnevs, at all the other people’s homes that were entered without warrants and searched in violation of law. Boston and its adjacent suburb was turned into a virtual police state over night until the boys were caught. Do you really think that they will act any differently if self-styled patriots attack the institutions of government? Personally, I wouldn’t be on it.
And that raises a whole ‘nother question: how do you win such a war? What do you have to take, what territory, before the “government” is defeated–and just how many governments is that? It isn’t just the fed, necessarily, but every state and local governmental entity as well. Who will lead? Who will replace what was there before–after all, it was the People who elected the leaders who are there, and you cannot over thrown the federal givernment and tell people they don’t have the right to vote on its replacement.
Simple, with any tyranny the solution has been the same since the Roman Republic. Cut off the head and the body dies. You target the politicians, you target senior staff, you target senior field commanders. If you can’t reach them, you target their families. Being a drone pilot will look a lot less appetizing when you have to live in lockdown because you or your family will be targeted for a reprisal strike.
It’s an unimaginable scenario, and the reason is because we have half a billion guns.
This is by design.
2017 will be known as the golden age of stocking fat and deep. The big war is here.
Funny how the newsies can have front row seats to watching Afghan insurgents stand up to our military for years without end in sight, yet blithely assume that much better armed and trained USA insurgents can’t possibly do the same thing.
I’ve found that disconnect puzzling as well. Not to mention Somalia, Iraq, or Vietnam. Many on the left outright lionized the VC for outlasting the technologically superior U.S. military…but find the idea of an armed citizenry in the U.S. standing up against tyranny as laughable. The paradigm get even sillier seeing how half the country has been hyperventilating since the election, breathlessly declaring at we’re on the verge of fascism…and yet the government needs to disarm the citizenry. Such mental gymnastics must be exhausting.
I like to think that the presence of an armed citizenry will prevent authoritarianism in ‘Murica. It is interesting that the U.S. has never had either a Communist or Fascist revolution, nor has hosted effective radical movements. Few democracies can make that claim.
The VC were a hell of a lot tougher then us, they depended on a cow dragging a stick to prepare their fields, go all day on a hand full of rice. We are fat and lazy and smell like grease
Your underestimation of what you US population is actually capable of in a “full tyranny” scenario is laughable. See Northern Ireland and tell me if England really won with the IRA. I’ll wait here with my popcorn…oh and Michael Jackson just sat down.
The loss in Vietnam was because politicians insisted on micromanaging and high ranking military leaders were trying to fight the last war.
Many (most?) military leaders now are still trying to fight set piece battles instead of using “lessons learned” to deal with insurgents who live among the general population and don’t wear a uniform.
I know many Marines both active and reserve from private to Major Generals. There may be some who will “follow orders” but the vast majority will not. I suspect the Army is similar. The Navy would probably stand off shore and wait it out; I’m not sure what the Air Force would do.
A “civil war” is anything but. Everyone will suffer during and even more after the war is over. The American Republic will be destroyed. Notice I said will…..
That is a prediction, not an endorsement. I fear what will come after.
To those who are saying that the 2A is obsolete, I am going to point you to Catalona in Spain. The Catalonians voted for independence, and the Spanish Government sent in La Federale’s to stop them from going away. And guess what the Spanish Government regulates firearms just like they do in France. Look at what’s happening there, people aren’t able to defend themselves against tyranny. Now before you say about how the South did it in the Civil War, I imagine if Bobby Lee wasn’t the Commander, the South might have won.
So if not Lee, what General could have defeated the Union? Only one that came close was Jubal Early failing to roll into Washington before its few defenders were reinforced?
The Confederacy had no manufacturing base to speak of. Smith & Wesson and the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts, Colt in Connecticut, The duPont gunpowder mills in Pennsylvania and Delaware, and the coal mines in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to supply all of the steam powered factories. Pretty much all of the South’s munitions were acquired in the months before the war. The naval blockades were pretty effective, but the south was edging toward being recognized diplomatically by France and Great Britain.
Lee’s greatest tactical errors were crossing out of Virginia into Pennsylvania and Maryland. There was no good strategic reason to do so; it unnecessarily exposed his army and re-energized a flagging north where there were growing movements to sue for peace.
” Look at what’s happening there, people aren’t able to defend themselves against tyranny.”
They haven’t started to really resist yet.
They will announce their independence on Monday, according to reports. After that, things will get interesting.
“Catalonia moves to declare independence from Spain on Monday”
Spain had better tread *carefully*. They are in for a very ugly surprise if they think the Catalonia people are disarmed.
Progressives always think they’ll be controlling the armed forces who will then gladly do their bidding.
I’m suspecting, and counting on, it being a lot messier than that…
They remember Franco…
Do any of these people follow news that happens outside the US? Around the world, there have been dozens of counter-insurgencies, revolutions, and civil wars in just the last 5 years, many still ongoing. This is something that happens constantly, and the little people are not wiped out by overwhelming force.
How do they picture an armed resistance shaping up in the US? White supremacist rednecks lined up against hundreds of M1 Abrams, getting carpet bombed by B-52s? The military is not made up of mindless robots built in a factory. They all have homes and families in the same places as everyone else. A full scale revolution against a tyrannical government will not see 2 million active and reserve personnel riding rampant through the backwoods of America, squashing preppers in their bunkers. Military may well make up the backbone of resistance.
It’s only been 150 years since the US Civil War, and 250 since the US Revolutionary War. That’s a blip on the timeline of history. And during those wars US citizens produced, owned, and operated modern warships and artillery, the height of military destructive power, let alone the most advanced light arms of the day.
You are correct. However, don’t expect a ton of support from USAF and USN personnel… From my work with them out at the retirement home and various interactions in VA waiting rooms it seems a not insignificant number would gleefully side with the left.
I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying. Who won’t be receiving support from the USAF or USN? And what side is “the left” on in this scenario?
The revolutionaries (gun owners).
The left (democrats, commies, or tyrannical government troops)
We the revolutionaries wouldn’t get a lot of support from those two branches. Not at all is that scientific just what I’ve noticed talkin to some of the vets I’ve met from 60s through the cold war.
One might also observe that a free press is a bulwark against tyranny – that’s why the notion was conceived. But when the media continues it’s tirade against freedom and for MORE tyranny? Well while we’re at it, let’s repeal the First Amendment, too.
Yes and no. Potentially – yes. I think before we envision a citizen army fielded against the might of a tyrannical US government, let’s envision the steps, the inflection points that get us there. THAT’s where an alert and armed citizenry will make the difference – stopping the machinery of repression before it goes past second gear.
100 years ago this year my family was in the midst of a (ultimately successful) uprising against the most powerful empire on Earth at the time. Take it from someone with the IRA in their family tree: the answer is yes.
And to understand how privately held firearms are a bulwark against tyranny, it is important to understand how the IRA won. It was not by conventional, strategic war. It was by asymmetric war that made the country ungovernable.
Now, look, we simply don’t face the governance situation Irish people did a century ago. But it is this kind of insurance policy always in the background if our government ever started to behave the way the British empire did.
Photo by John Boch. 😉
Turn in your guns. Trust your government.
Worked for the Indians, didn’t it?
Just ask the Lakota.
The question is being asked of the wrong demographic. Only federal officials can answer the question. Our opinion is moot. The people of the nation cannot know whether there is any hesitation toward government encroachment, and if the hesitation is caused by fear an armed populace will rise up in rebellion.
There is no effective civilian solution to armor and air.
“There is no effective civilian solution to armor and air.”
Where do the children of said armor and pilots live?
Think on that for a bit.
That armor and air power consumes a ton of Jet-A, although the tanks can run on diesel or kerosine. To the best of my knowledge, no military installation has an on site oil field and refinery. Sure they have storage tanks, but those tanks depend on regular deliveries from the refinery through what is now friendly peaceful territory. All that would change in an insurrection situation.
Then there’s the issue with getting food from the farms and factories to your troops. Throw in electrical generating facilities, transmission lines, substations. etc. All subject to sabotage.
Ask that of the Afgans when the Russians invaded. We through the CIA started arming them with stingers and anti-tank weapons which eventually caused the Russians to withdraw. It became their Vietnam. I have no doubt that the Russians would not hesitate in supplying us with the same firepower just to get even, let alone the Chinese. Both would think they would benefit from such an arrangement.
“There is no effective civilian solution to armor and air.”
You’re a funny guy, Bud!
I haven’t had a laugh like that in a *long* time!
You just keep right on believing that, OK?
Im taking a shot in the dark, but at best the government might have 5 million people under arms, cops and military combined. The population of the United States runs about 320 million. Conservative estimates assume that there is a firearm for the hands of everyone person and then some.
Now lets say 5% of the population decides to wage insurrection. Thats 16 million people. A more than 2 to 1 advantage for the citizen side.
The government would have to wage an intense air and ground war that would devastate the country’s infrastructure. It would be no easy task for the United States government to put down a large organized insurrection. That would have to give any one considering subduing a large portion of the US population pause.
” Are Privately Held Firearms A Bulwark Against Tyranny?”
You bet your ass, Waco and Ruby Ridge might have been forgotten by now if citizens went quietly like sheep.
It’s the WHOLE DAMN REASON THE RTKABA IS PROTECTED. All those spouting “Sporting Purposes/ hunting/or merely personal self-defense” can ALL FYWSSAH (F yourselves with something sharp and heavy) and without even a spit of Skoal for lubricant.
Make tyranny pay badly whenever you can.
Tyranny and oppression are infinitely harder when it’s immediately a messy fight to the death. Sleep on that notion.
Poeple are already forgetting the peaceful standoff in Oregon that led to the murder of Lavoy.
“The tragic incidents at Ruby Ridge, in Idaho, and Waco, Tex., in the 1990s, in which citizens armed to the teeth collided with government agencies and lost badly”
OTOH, five agents were killed in the two engagements. How many jackbooted thugs does The Slime think the government has?
Solzhenitsyn was right when he said: “What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? . . . The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”
He added: “We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more — we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure!”
Like The Slime. Submitted with pleasure. And a smirk.
As the NYT is so happy to point out, we didn’t win in Iraq. Regular Iraqi civilians with minimal training, rifles and homemade bombs held off tanks, Navy SEALs and drones until America lost the will to win (with a little help from the NYT of course). There’s also the little fact that the full might of the U.S. military was only brought to bear at the very beginning of the Iraq war. In this leftist fantasy, the U.S. military would be conducting 24/7 “Shock and Awe” airstrikes on American communities, and running armored battalions through red-state suburbia machine-gunning everything that moves with zero restraint. They’d agitate for total war against their fellow citizens, and cheer it on from their digital soap-boxes. Too bad they pushed so hard for chemical and biological disarmament, because they’d happily use those too. They also gloss over the fact that not only are American Soldiers AMERICANS, but there are TONS of veterans out here. Even with a total gun ban, we’d still get our hands on weapons. We’d take them from the traitor units in costly assaults using improvised weapons, or loyal units would vet and arm trustworthy civilians to serve with them. It would suck for everyone, but it would happen. As for the assertion that no first world government would suppress its citizens using violence, let’s cast a wayward glance in the direction of Spain. What doth mine eyes behold? Be that a first-world government deploying armed troops to suppress a political movement they dislike? I do declare it indeed is that very thing! It just goes to show that any “civilized” nation is one election away from anarchy. And that anarchy comes from the left side of the political spectrum. Balkanize now. Don’t “heal” with these bastards.
We didn’t lose the war in Iraq (either time). We took down the last pot, but Ohole left it on the table. It’s a psychological thing, you have to stay long enough to let all other parties know you won, so he cut and ran FAST (so fast, it even has a name: the “Obama Bugout”). It was purposefully designed to make us look like we were retreating, and that’s exactly the way the third world over there viewed it. Bush took 90 days to beat Saddam’s Iraq, we fought MFs from around the globe (INCLUDING THE WHOLE POS UN) in an effort to stabilize it after, the Obama bailed (and likely got paid to do so by the muslim brotherhood (ISIS) that he bent over backwards his whole presidency to support). F all of them. We coulda emptied the country and still not done the inhumae damage that ISIS was allowed by the UN and THE WORLD. Again, F em all.
The real enemy is the left wing media inciting violence and the politicians sitting idly by allowing it to happen against conservative groups. Until the lawyers and media are held accountable for their words and actions, thing will continue to spiral out of control.
I think the NYT fails to account for OTHER tyrannical governments. An armed populis can protect the homeland if the military can’t
How about Ruby ridge
and wounded knee. The Lakota did not fare to well.
Why is it that their solution to the Second Amendment being not the greatest bulwark against tyranny is to have none at all?
Try and take them and they will unleash a fury never seen before… Bill of Rights are a list of items/actions the government cannot infringe upon the citizenry… simply stated… It limits what government is allowed to do…progressives hate this and want to change this to spread their liberal socialist/communist ideas… anyone who disagrees with them is labeled a racist, bigot, redneck, blah, blah, blah…. The Founding Fathers thought it was important, this is why the Bill of Rights is not taught in schools anymore…keep your subjects ignorant.
Yep. Bulwark…gun behind every blade of grass as it were. Molan Labe.
Posts not posting
an armed citizenry took on more than 200 agents of the federal governments bureau of land management in bunkerville nevada on april 12 2014 and made them stand down when they concluded they were outgunned and outmanned
they were armed with rifles
Tyranny has come to America.
It just likes to call itself the “Gun Reich movement”.
Australia, Europe, Canada. Japan and Australia against have yet to turn into despotic hellholes like you braindead hicks like to believe.
I still don’t see the Japanese self defense force dragging citizens out of their homes and killing them.
I still don’t see the Australian SAS turning cities and neighborhoods into concentration camps.
I still don’t see blood and guts anarchy happening anywhere in the EU. (Except third world euro-hellholes likes Switzerland and the Czech republic.)
I still don’t see the Royal Canadian Armed Forces or the Canadian government turning into some fascist regime.
You people can continue to live in fear of imaginary boogiemen.
If people like you ever studied history, We would have never won the war against the British empire without the help of France, Spain, Dutch, Indian tribes that sided with the colonists.
And the 2nd amendment never saved us from getting curb-stomped by colonial Canada TWICE!, But you people refuse to see that. And Canada is now the new land of the free.
The irony is that Pro-gun groups have actually started tyrannies, Just asks the villains in history that used armed citizens to do their dirty work for them.
You probably need to write for a different audience. Here it is just hate.
And you need to proof-read buddy. You listed Australia twice.
Oh and also, you should check your history. Before the U.S. curb-stomped them, the Japanese, Germans/Austrians et al disarmed and rounded up a bunch of people into camps and systematically killed them. It was called the Holocaust. Doubt they’re doing it now because we sorta stopped them and severely limited their government’s ability to start that ball rolling again.
But even though I may not agree with what you say, I will defend unto my death your right to say it.
It’s called Liberty.
Hey, fun fact– when britain was under the eminent threat of nazi invasion, the population lacked any significant means to resist due to complete disarmament. Now we arent talking ethics, just the fact they had next to nothing nor the ability to produce the required amount on such short notice. Even America could barely divert the resources nessary to arm an entire nation and procecute a war on three fronts.
The arms, instead, came from donations by the American citizens. They were donated. Thousands upon thousands of privately owned arms were shipped overseas in the 20th century to fight tyranny.
Not even counting instances of wide scale civil unrest. The defense of korea town during the LA riots. More recently, the St. Louis riots and Ferguson only to name a few where police response was supressed or non-existent as policy.
If you can’t fathom the breakdown of law and order in a modern first world society where you may need to defend your life with a firearm, you aren’t looking very hard.
Let me get this straight. You want to give the .gov of Donald Trump, whom you’ve described as a Nazi the power to disarm the citizens of this nation?
Does this mean you support Trump and his so called fascist .gov?
Or are you just the dumbest human being ever?
I am a gun owning second amendment supporting liberal who reads the New York Times and cringes at all the gun control craziness that happens after mass shooting events. There is an opinion piece that goes so far as too say we need to repeal the second amendment. This makes absolutely no sense. There is no even remotely possible series of events that would lead to this. There simply are not enough states that would support it. On the flip side, I have trouble envisioning a series of events that would lead to the kind of violent revolt being described by commentors here. It is not the government that wants to melt down the guns, it’s the liberals. Could they gain control of the government? Yes, and they have. And gun control legislation fortunately went no where. The writer of the Times article was not really trying to argue that armed citizen revolt is not realistic; he was mostly interested in showing the need to support democratic institutions. But the debate on this website is really trying to detail how the unrest would go down. I don’t think it would–not the way commentors are saying. Nothing happens that quickly. Gun restrictions would happen slowly over time. There would not be a point at which a large enough number of gun owners would agree to give up everything for the sake of the fight. As for other forms of tyranny such as restrictions on free speech or illegal searches and seizures, the same thing would happen slowly and over time. The only way to stop tyrrany and still maintain our way of life is to fight for gun rights. And all rights. And not expect guns to regain those rights–by that time it will be too late.
As a liberal what will you do when Antifia blocks the voting booths across America and where you vote??? Even if you don’t vote what do you think will happen??? What do you think will happen when conservatives with guns aren’t allowed to vote because of a mob action???
They just blocked the 101 freeway a few days ago in California. Thousands of travelers were stopped, by people holding signs stating “4 November it begins”
Only the democrat party government leaders will profit from this denial of the vote.
The democrat party government has ordered the police to stand down in blue states. The Black Panthers blocked voting centers in Philadelphia in 2012, I believe.
The government under Obama did nothing. We will see how a bulwark the 2nd amendment is very soon.
The government of the democrat party did steal the election from Bernie Sanders. But what did democrat voters do???
Why does every liberal think that an armed resistance would go up against the “government”? even if that’s the objective ‘enemy’. POS (D) sit in nice concentrated clottes zits around the country and are extremely vulnerable, and disruption of THOSE LIVES, up to and including their breathing, would be the best place to start fing shit up against the gov’t. NYC only has to be blocked in to-fro traffic, the have the communications and utilities and trash service cut. SChitcago is an old POS rampant city that works extremely hard to keep from losing a daily battle with a certain lage lake. L.A. (Like Miami, etc., etc.) is a sprawling civil war day to day you only have to trip up the civil authority preventers. Boston, Philly, Seattle… not defendable, and it’s too easy to get the populaces in those cities to do self imposed lockdowns. Bottom line, it’ll be a close in battle between peoples calling out each other as the known problem, and, either way, it’s what we promise each other as Americans, so that’s why we don’t put up with aholes who attempt to do it (“legally” or “legislatively”) without a fight, all wile attempting to strip us the means of a good fight. F em all. We can do it with rocks if we have to, and it’ll be war-answered so don’t be a sissy about it, cause it’ll be fing worse for you and yours.
Si vis pacem, para bellum applies to the relationship between citizens and the state just as much, if not more, than it does between states.
Very nicely stated!
YES!!!Next Stupid Question…The government of WE The People has been a misnomer for 50 years. Politicians sell the same old B.S. Pretending to do what their constituents want. All the while doing whats best for themselves and their cronies. Both sides are guilty and I believe everyone is finally beginning to see the dishonesty of their ways. Their fear of the armed populace is greater now then at any time in this nation history. I believe they keep each side of (The People) fighting against the other in order to cover for the what the are doing To The People. In war the best strategy is always to divide and conquer ones enemy. I’m beginning to believe that All The People are their enemy. So Yes They Fear GUNS…Especially the Guns of Their Enemy. Keep Your Powder Dry…
“They” use racism very well indeed. And all this talk about over throwing ” my’ government, mmmm I don’t know about that, I don’t see much wrong with it, sure there’s lots of stuff wrong, but there’s lots of stuff that is right. It’s not a Tyrannical government. I love my country
as a Katrina survivor I can say they came for our guns! Thats right “American national guard, most from out of state, came door to door to take guns away from those who stayed in their homes. They are not a drafted army but, an all volunteer one. Many just like killing people and getting college degree money. I know that many in the USA military would never do it but I want all you people to know that there are many yet still in the USA military that will draw down on American civilians. You bet we need the 2A. I want them to think twice before they start killing American citizens. We can shoot back!
So let me get this straight… The left attacks the second amendment for decades and illegally gets it watered down and limited to where we the people can no longer have equivalent weaponry as the military like full auto fire and the like by distorting the purpose of it. Then, they move the goalposts and claim because we the people don’t have weaponry equivalent to the military that we the people can’t possibly bulwark tyranny. So now it’s outdated, unable to fulfill it’s original purpose and should be scrapped.
That’s pretty convenient. Systematically and illegally weaken it by lying about the purpose, then complain it’s too weak to work as actually intended (which was denied all along) so it should be scrapped. Instead it seems to me they just made the argument for restoring the 2nd amendment so it can work as intended more effectively.
Of course, since their argument is that the second amendment is to weak to be valid, there is a easy way to make it relevant again…
When the police refuse to enforce law and order in St Louis and you have to rely on some guy with an AR in a t-shirt that says “all day long”.
Ahhh, for the days of the “breech-loading flintlock musket “. Is there anything that the NYTimes can’t get wrong? Seriously, people still actually pay attention to the Fish Wrap of Record? And we’re supposed to take their scribbling as sacred gospel from the anointed/enlightened ones? Yeah, sure, I’m totally down with that, aren’t you? And Jesus wept.
“Is The Times right?”
Is The Times going to keep its own damned doors open? Nope, not even by POS fat cat bailout.
“Is the Second Amendment obsolete?” NOPE, or else wet-shit MFs at the times wouldn’t be threatened by it. If the Second Amendment goes away, your RTKABA will still be going strong and you can plant a new Liberty Pole deep in their fallen asses. What’ll support the RTKABA if the Constitution falls you ask? Don’t worry, THE WORLD is on notice that it better go Fing hide, that millennium.
Nevermind, I guess, the fact that insurgents have indeed stood up against world powers repeatedly, sometimes winning, many times punching above their weight and giving the next global bully pause to reconsider his ambitions.
Lots of tough talk on this website. Most of it fairly well reasoned.
I do think that an armed population is a bulwark against tyranny, until they allow or have their guns taken away. My question would be, where in the 20th century did government confiscation of arms NOT eventually occur.
“Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless”
and from the same person, “One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers Communist and the disarming of the bourgeoisie the middle class.”
Both quotes from V. I. Lennin. Is that not the playbook today? Where in history has that not eventually happened ?
It is not always “our” government which is staved off by an armed citizenry. Japan flatly rejected an invasion of mainland US in WWII because they knew the US citizens were well-armed and feared they could not devote the forces to suppress the population and still push into the mainland.
The more important point that is being lost in all of the hullabaloo is this: the left is screaming that Russia (not China although they’re massively more equipped to do so, but only Russia for some reason) interfered in our last election because it was somehow to their advantage to do so. Nevermind that China could easily have arranged it so that the activities merely looked like they originated in Russia. Begone, violator of the narrative!
How is it that not one mainstream media source is even raising the point that massive propaganda directed toward disarming the People of the United States would provide a direct advantage to Russia, China, heck, even North Korea, all of whom would be giggling themselves silly if they actually convinced the stupid left to disarm the leader of the free world.
Australia is already the poster child for a hostile acquisition: no nukes, no armed citizenry, no meaningful ability to defend itself at all. The Aussies appear to be counting entirely upon the strength of… the ocean or something to defend themselves. Or maybe they think Uncle Sam will decide to sacrifice his children to protect the unarmed Land Down Under. Sooner or later, they’ll be conquered and it won’t be pretty. It will be sooner if the US disarms because then we’re next.
Let’s try to show some sense of history, of political reality, and of the fact that the US has a lot of enemies who want nothing more than to see us fall flat on our faces in a pit of acid. Can we all agree that we should try to avoid helping our enemies do that please?
I think that if an widespread insurgency were to break out against a tyrannical Government the police in urban areas would not be called on to help put it down. They would be too busy fighting the crime that would occur on a scale that no one has ever seen. Cities would be a no go zone just because of that. It would be up to the military and I figure 50% would follow orders.
What the elitist yellow scribblers don’t want to talk about is the hordes of supporters/sympathizers that gathered outside Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the more recent Bundy Ranch or those that supported them nationwide.
And don’t be fooled, the ivory-towered ones want “registration” so they can engage in “confiscation” and if you think it can’t happen just look at how the DACA/DREAMERS are shaking in fear now that the system they signed up for to get benefits can be turned around and used against them because an election went the other way. And don’t think the courts will help us, litigation takes years and tons of money, the elected scum know this and will strike with both Criminal and Civil systems and bury us in appeals.
Remember Sol Alinsky’s principle in Rules For Radicals:
When negotiating demand 100% of something, accept a 1/3 the first time, come back a second time and demand the remaining 66%, accept a 1/3 again as a compromise then come back for the third time and get the last 33%.
There is NO compromising with our opposition, they don’t bargain honestly and always have hidden ulterior motives. No matter what we agree to they, the Antis, will be back, they will NEVER be satisfied until we are disarmed and that IS their ultimate goal. We shouldn’t be surrendering on anything, not Bump-Stocks, not so-called “high”/”large” capacity magazines, NOTHING, we should instead be focused on restoring and expanding our 2nd Amendment Rights.
One of the federal agents at ruby ridge died.
He was likely killed by Randy Weaver’s 11 year old son after killing the kid’s dog, children know tyranny when they see it.
If you want the REAL unbiased story on Ruby Ridge read “Every Knee Shall Bow”, it’s by a reporter in the Pacific Northwest, it’s the definitive account and by someone without an agenda other than telling the true story.
Someone said once that we’re in that awkward stage of history where it’s too late to work within the system and too soon to shoot the bastards. Personally I’m not so sure about that the latter proposition.
Someone else said if it’s time to bury your guns, it’s time to dig them up.
Anyone with ANY knowledge of insurgencies in history knows that if you have ANY kind of firearm in your possession, you can get the weapons of your state enemy by simply shooting him. There was an insurgency somewhere, I think it was Cyprus, where the insurgency started with a handful of guys armed with bird hunting shotguns.
An article I read recently said that the 80 million Americans owning 400 million firearms represented SEVENTY TIMES the firepower of the entire US police force AND the military.
Anyone with ANY military comprehension knows that if even five percent of those 80 million Americans decided to take on the US military, that would be four million people armed with weapons that are identical to military weapons across the world with the sole exception of being semi-automatic. Since fully automatic personal weapons are almost useless in real combat except for suppressive fire and delivering a limited number of bullets to a specific target quickly, the fact that the US military is armed with M4’s is completely irrelevant. Not to mention the 400,000 fully automatic weapons still in private hands (although probably not for long as a result of Las Vegas.)
As for heavier weapons, yes, a tank can blow your house apart. A fighter jet can take out your whole town. Ask the Taliban how that’s worked out for the US military in Afghanistan. Don’t bother asking the US military because they’ll lie to you. They lost, they know they lost and they’ll keep losing until the US public tires of the body bags as they did in Iraq – where they also lost.
And naturally Waco is a bad example. No insurgency worth its salt would hold up in a compound and defy the US military. That’s how one commits suicide which is exactly what those religious nuts were doing – suicide by cop.
The problem for the US is that, aside from a few militia – most of whom are probably heavily infiltrated by the FBI and ATF – there is little specific appetite for going one on one with the US government for realsies. While a nation of lone wolves could do some serious damage, you need an organized insurgency to defeat a state military. And you need at least a modicum of support from the general population – neither of which are available at this time.
But never say never. If some sort of economic depression occurs or some other geopolitical crisis occurs which puts the US government in a completely untenable light arises, that five percent could arise.
The takeaway from the NYT article is that is exactly WHY these people are afraid of guns. They’re afraid that an armed America can never be fully tamed.
Aren’t these the same people that complained about drawn out wars in Iraq & Afg AGAINST POOR POPULACE WITH SMALL ARMS?
The article makes the case that under 2a ‘Arms’ mean Armaments. Is it not 2a’s intent to insure that the citizenry are adequately armed and to be able to ensure a free state? Without having access to appropriate arms, a well regulated militia cannot be formed. In a free state, arms are held as some mitigation against the emergence of a non-free state. In a free state, our inalienable right to life supports carry for self defense IMO.
Edward Snowden PROVED that our “legal protections” mean shit.
“Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to
do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?” -Frank Herbert, “Dune” author.
The “jackbooted thugs” may be in body armor, with up-armored military surplus vehicles, but, their families
When the call goes out “thugs, go forth and seize the guns”, they would do well to remember their wife and
children are unguarded (just like those who they disarm).
A record level of “blue flu” will result.
A few signs in front of the stations reading “while you are out violating the Constitution, your families are
unprotected”. Basic psyops.
In regards to the individual, the state will always win…. But, there is truth in Afghanistan: “The place where empires go to die.” Just as the superpowers to overestimate their odds of victory and overextend themselves in attempting to conquer it… So to a State’s estimate to take was is not thiers
The NYT has become ridiculous. During the Civil Rights movement the single factor that consistency reduced government tyrannical actions such as dogs on protesters, was whether the protesters were armed and bearing those arms. There is plenty of data on this since there were hundreds of major marches with scores that included armed civil rights workers.
Why mention Ruby Ridge, Waco etc when those were each unique events and not really about tyrannical government actions, when civil rights marches were?? The New York Times has gone to great length to state that Ruby Ridge, Bundy ranch and Waco were NOT poltical or civil rights/liberties based, but simply about crime. I take them at the word. so why now is the NYTimes claiming those were civil rights events?
Bu framing this question as one of illegal overthrow of the government the Times shows what patent double standards they are pushing. When has the NYTimes illegally overthrown the US government? Never? ok, by the Times” logic, that is proof the First Amendment press liberties are useless? are Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections useless because sometimes they work as they should and sometimes they do not?
And it is not just the Civil Rights movement marches — how about we look at all of human history? Societies that were broadly armed with privately owned arms are the least likely to see tyranny. It was when Greek Roman citizens had their own arms, own swords, spears and shields and armor that tyrannical conditions were the least likely. It was when these were converted to arms mostly held in monopoly by the state that tyranny was most likely.
The Times has in the past erected strawman arguments on what happened in re-Nazi Germany and Nazi occupied areas of Europe, pointing out some types of gun control that were pre-Nazi and some relaxation of gun control by the Nazi within Germany. This is used to cover up the main fact. The Nazis armed people loyal to the state, and denied arms to Germans they considered a threat (anyone not a Nazi). In occupied areas the very first thing they did was confiscate arms and make any possession of firearms a capital offense for anyone but proven collaborators.
Just ask someone who spent most of his life under despotism: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, writing in The Gulag Archipelago “What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. “
You can bet Hillary, Schumer, Feinstein, Murphy & Co. believe that it is.