I feel it's just more of the same "you just don't get it, but I'm right" argument coming from yourself with little evidence to back it up.
In an attempt to detract from this puerile argument, lets take a look at the iraq conflict as an example because the militia there are armed in a similar manner to how you describe, if not better. The chaps over there have access to explosives, RPG's, Mortars, rifles and some light machineguns. Granted, the majority of the US citizens wouldn't be able to legally own most of these items which takes the relevance away from the gun discussion at hand, but lets take an optimistic view for the purposes of this example, just for fun.
Now, I know you were saying we're not finding it easy right now over there, and I agree. However, take a look at the casualties. It's mostly humvees and transport trucks (ie unarmored vehicles) that are almost routinely attacked and destroyed.
If you remember back when the initial attack was made when old Saddam was still in power, you'll recall that we (the coalition) received remarkably few casualties apart from the odd blue on blue and the tanks pretty much rolled straight into Baghdad. The trickiest part was working out who was a 'bad guy terrorist' and who were 'nice folks' as GB would put it.
Very few tanks/APCs fell into pits or were opened up and had people shoot the occupants, IIRC. Stop me if I'm wrong...
Right now there are just patrols going about trying to maintain the peace, but this is tough work as they have to appear non-aggressive to the peaceful population but also be able to pack a bit of a punch. They are mainly peace-keeping however and certainly are not on some driving attack into the country.
Lets take a look at how the US attacked iraq and assume that they used a similar method against their own people in this crazyworld scenario you're expecting when the US military attacks it's own people.
First, the infrastructure of the country is broken down. The bombs with carbon rods are dropped and the power stations are taken out. Transport is stopped, runways destroyed, roads stopped, trainlines destroyed. Most of this is done from the air, by missile or maybe with artillery, ie weapons that nobody really can defend themselves against.
So you'd be there with no power, no fuel, no food, no mobile phone, no landlines, no internet, no CB radio. You have no communication with anyone bar the people you can physically travel to (and your fuel will last maybe a couple of weeks, tops). You have no idea of the location of the US forces or their plans. Coupled with that you have your own people acting like those in NO, looting, panicking and running about with their guns.
So what's your plan? Whip out the shovel and start digging that pit to try and take out one tank? Lets say you do that, then a batallion of eight tanks comes along and (lets be optimistic) your victim tank falls into this huge pit and even though it's a tank, it can't get out of there. What next? Run around chanting shooting your gun in the air? Are you going to run up to it with a bunch of other tanks aiming at you, blowtorch in hand and try to open it up?
What if you make a stronghold, and you're all there with your high powered anti-armour canons... what do you do when your airforce drops a smart bomb onto your hideout?
You don't have the jungle terrain advantage of the Vietnamise that forced the american troops to attack mainly on foot, nor do you have the advantage of it being the 1700's and the military having roughly the same weaponry as civilians.
Ok, you may be able to hinder them somewhat, maybe even kill a few hundered infantry, but you're not going to stop them are you? Certainly not using only weapons that you can legally own. You are not going to stop the american army, it is not a reason for owning a gun.
Further, I did not claim that those who owned firearms were wimps or geeks.
In conclusion, it's plain to see for anyone with an open mind that it would be impossible for the american army to be defeated on american soil with the civilians using legally-owned weaponry only. Also, it would be suicide for the US to attack it's own people as there would be several forces out there who would very likely take advantage of the america in it's weakened state post civil war.
The only true reason for owning a gun in the US is simply because so many other people have guns and you feel you need to protect yourselves against these potential threats, which is fair enough.
The downside to having firearms around so many members of the public are obvious and widespread: suicide attempts more often being lethal, more firearm deaths and attacks, more accidental deaths in the home, etc.
I contend that some potential military threat is no longer a valid reason for owning a firearm in this day and age.
My original and previous comments still stand.
Got any plans for a homemade Howitzer I could borrow? How about a bradley?
In an attempt to detract from this puerile argument, lets take a look at the iraq conflict as an example because the militia there are armed in a similar manner to how you describe, if not better. The chaps over there have access to explosives, RPG's, Mortars, rifles and some light machineguns. Granted, the majority of the US citizens wouldn't be able to legally own most of these items which takes the relevance away from the gun discussion at hand, but lets take an optimistic view for the purposes of this example, just for fun.
Now, I know you were saying we're not finding it easy right now over there, and I agree. However, take a look at the casualties. It's mostly humvees and transport trucks (ie unarmored vehicles) that are almost routinely attacked and destroyed.
If you remember back when the initial attack was made when old Saddam was still in power, you'll recall that we (the coalition) received remarkably few casualties apart from the odd blue on blue and the tanks pretty much rolled straight into Baghdad. The trickiest part was working out who was a 'bad guy terrorist' and who were 'nice folks' as GB would put it.
Very few tanks/APCs fell into pits or were opened up and had people shoot the occupants, IIRC. Stop me if I'm wrong...
Right now there are just patrols going about trying to maintain the peace, but this is tough work as they have to appear non-aggressive to the peaceful population but also be able to pack a bit of a punch. They are mainly peace-keeping however and certainly are not on some driving attack into the country.
Lets take a look at how the US attacked iraq and assume that they used a similar method against their own people in this crazyworld scenario you're expecting when the US military attacks it's own people.
First, the infrastructure of the country is broken down. The bombs with carbon rods are dropped and the power stations are taken out. Transport is stopped, runways destroyed, roads stopped, trainlines destroyed. Most of this is done from the air, by missile or maybe with artillery, ie weapons that nobody really can defend themselves against.
So you'd be there with no power, no fuel, no food, no mobile phone, no landlines, no internet, no CB radio. You have no communication with anyone bar the people you can physically travel to (and your fuel will last maybe a couple of weeks, tops). You have no idea of the location of the US forces or their plans. Coupled with that you have your own people acting like those in NO, looting, panicking and running about with their guns.
So what's your plan? Whip out the shovel and start digging that pit to try and take out one tank? Lets say you do that, then a batallion of eight tanks comes along and (lets be optimistic) your victim tank falls into this huge pit and even though it's a tank, it can't get out of there. What next? Run around chanting shooting your gun in the air? Are you going to run up to it with a bunch of other tanks aiming at you, blowtorch in hand and try to open it up?
What if you make a stronghold, and you're all there with your high powered anti-armour canons... what do you do when your airforce drops a smart bomb onto your hideout?
You don't have the jungle terrain advantage of the Vietnamise that forced the american troops to attack mainly on foot, nor do you have the advantage of it being the 1700's and the military having roughly the same weaponry as civilians.
Ok, you may be able to hinder them somewhat, maybe even kill a few hundered infantry, but you're not going to stop them are you? Certainly not using only weapons that you can legally own. You are not going to stop the american army, it is not a reason for owning a gun.
This is a perfect example of the attitude/cultural issue that I mentioned in my original post. The idea of the infallible 'american way' have been indoctrinated into the minds of americans for generations which is why the idea that something may be wrong is met with complete disbelief and non-acceptance. Little argument is put forward to negate given points, but acceptance is truly out of the question. Name calling and denial run rife.
Further, I did not claim that those who owned firearms were wimps or geeks.
Pray tell how a guerilla force suprise attacks a fighter jet that can supercruise?
Nice. See above comment about it not being the 1700's any more. Also, you're assuming that the government will change in such a manner that the entire population will be in disagreement with their policy and will work together to 'storm the place'. I think this is unlikely to happen; many people will go along with whatever the government wishes because it's the mighty US of A that is infallible in their eyes. Again, lets take a look at the iraq war. Thousands, if not millions were against the idea and many demonstrations were made. Many thought it a good idea, however. If those against the iraq war decided to 'storm the place', you can be damned sure that those that supported the war would defend their counrty/government and suddenly you've got yourselves a civil war on the go. The government would be fine in all of this, though.
I disagree with your comments here; I don't think they are backed up, nor do I think you've put forward a decent argument against the given list of comments I previously posted. Calling someone a coward or child does not constitute an argument.
In conclusion, it's plain to see for anyone with an open mind that it would be impossible for the american army to be defeated on american soil with the civilians using legally-owned weaponry only. Also, it would be suicide for the US to attack it's own people as there would be several forces out there who would very likely take advantage of the america in it's weakened state post civil war.
The only true reason for owning a gun in the US is simply because so many other people have guns and you feel you need to protect yourselves against these potential threats, which is fair enough.
The downside to having firearms around so many members of the public are obvious and widespread: suicide attempts more often being lethal, more firearm deaths and attacks, more accidental deaths in the home, etc.
I contend that some potential military threat is no longer a valid reason for owning a firearm in this day and age.
My original and previous comments still stand.
Facebook
Twitter