so can MarinesParker wrote:
but they can shoot.
apparently you guys that think that gun owners could take out the government must also think the the iraqi insurgency has beaten us militarily.
i believe that the US military could be defeated by their own countrymen.
convince me otherwise.
convince me otherwise.
everyone in iraq owned an AK before we invaded. Look what good that did.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-03-08 14:08:42)
I doubt Soldiers would fire on their own citizens and vice versa, I reckon if the Govt ordered the military of countries like the USA or the UK to go down on its own citizens they'd simply not do it, or even do a coup against the government. That's what I think. Not trying to say anything about the loyalty, but there is a line.
equipment based, normal countrymen are screwed...Parker wrote:
i believe that the US military could be defeated by their own countrymen.
convince me otherwise.
fighter planes?
tanks?
sub machine guns?
submarines?
surely your Military has stuff the 'normal' public can't get...
enemies foreign and domesticMek-Izzle wrote:
I doubt Soldiers would fire on their own citizens and vice versa
we own more than firearms.
i have anti armor options as well as anti infantry.
my main problem would be in the air, but it would only be a matter of time before someone thought of something.
i have anti armor options as well as anti infantry.
my main problem would be in the air, but it would only be a matter of time before someone thought of something.
If the sides were divided by two opposite ideologies with strong support, the one with better military power and leadership would win.Parker wrote:
i believe that the US military could be defeated by their own countrymen.
convince me otherwise.
well that and I will gladly shoot anyone shooting at me.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
enemies foreign and domesticMek-Izzle wrote:
I doubt Soldiers would fire on their own citizens and vice versa
damn straight we do.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
equipment based, normal countrymen are screwed...Parker wrote:
i believe that the US military could be defeated by their own countrymen.
convince me otherwise.
fighter planes?
tanks?
sub machine guns?
submarines?
surely your Military has stuff the 'normal' public can't get...
the most effective thing an insurgency could do would be planting retarded ass IED's in some retarded road.
That better be a damn good idea to bring down 6,217 planes.Parker wrote:
we own more than firearms.
i have anti armor options as well as anti infantry.
my main problem would be in the air, but it would only be a matter of time before someone thought of something.
they gotta land sometime.Gawwad wrote:
That better be a damn good idea to bring down 6,217 planes.Parker wrote:
we own more than firearms.
i have anti armor options as well as anti infantry.
my main problem would be in the air, but it would only be a matter of time before someone thought of something.
lol
Anyway most US/Western Citizens are too content with their own personal lives, aswell as too educated, to even seriously think about doing a rebellion. Because that's what it boils down to at the end of the day
Anyway most US/Western Citizens are too content with their own personal lives, aswell as too educated, to even seriously think about doing a rebellion. Because that's what it boils down to at the end of the day
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-03-08 14:16:45)
Wow. How many people here see it as a fight with the rightous gun owners in one corner, and the military in the other when they face off? What about people in the military who ARE gun owners? What would the military do if they were told to illegally attack citizens in the US? What would you, as a soldier do, if you are given an illegal order. What would your commanders passing down the orders do?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
apparently you guys that think that gun owners could take out the government must also think the the iraqi insurgency has beaten us militarily.
What if the National Guard were called up, and told to fire into crowds that contian people they may actually know?
If things progressed to that point, what would become of the military? What would those people, or individual units do? Soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen. They are not automatons. They see and think. Personally, I think that units would experience mass desertions if it ever came to that point. Or entire units not following orders, or just standing down.
The fight is not gun owners against the goverment. That is too narrow of a view. Perhaps it comes down to situations. Just having the guns out in the public makes it too difficult to try to establish a police state because of the losses that they police or establishing agency would suffer, thus forcing the military to... back to the situation above.
To me, a move by the government to ban guns is a sign that the government no longer trusts the people. That it views the public as something to rule over instead of the body it gets it power from.
i know, but im still convinced it could be done.
every piece of hardware has its weaknesses.
every piece of hardware has its weaknesses.
Or you could overun the bases and take over the command centre with AA batterys and shit. Then shoot down the planes or capture them as they land. Then get some Ex air force guy to fly them and then you have your own air force.Parker wrote:
they gotta land sometime.Gawwad wrote:
That better be a damn good idea to bring down 6,217 planes.Parker wrote:
we own more than firearms.
i have anti armor options as well as anti infantry.
my main problem would be in the air, but it would only be a matter of time before someone thought of something.
/Hypothetical battle that someone should write about in a book.
I'm pretty sure they'd defend such strategic locations as military airbases pretty well, don't you thinkParker wrote:
they gotta land sometime.Gawwad wrote:
That better be a damn good idea to bring down 6,217 planes.Parker wrote:
we own more than firearms.
i have anti armor options as well as anti infantry.
my main problem would be in the air, but it would only be a matter of time before someone thought of something.
I dont trust most people to own guns.imortal wrote:
To me, a move by the government to ban guns is a sign that the government no longer trusts the people.
been tried in Iraq, hasnt worked yet.jord wrote:
Or you could overun the bases and take over the command centre with AA batterys and shit. Then shoot down the planes or capture them as they land. Then get some Ex air force guy to fly them and then you have your own air force.Parker wrote:
they gotta land sometime.Gawwad wrote:
That better be a damn good idea to bring down 6,217 planes.
/Hypothetical battle that someone should write about in a book.
Iraqi's are shit at shooting and organising anything bigger than a barbeque?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
been tried in Iraq, hasnt worked yet.jord wrote:
Or you could overun the bases and take over the command centre with AA batterys and shit. Then shoot down the planes or capture them as they land. Then get some Ex air force guy to fly them and then you have your own air force.Parker wrote:
they gotta land sometime.
/Hypothetical battle that someone should write about in a book.
Granted. I would say 'a lot' instead of most. Of course, I don't trust most drivers I have to share the road with. Wanna know who I fear more, and who is more likely to kill me?usmarine wrote:
I dont trust most people to own guns.imortal wrote:
To me, a move by the government to ban guns is a sign that the government no longer trusts the people.
I, first and formost, believe in RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. It is amazing how many people fail to see that word.
For a country to get to the point of civil war, there would need to be some very strong ideological differencies.imortal wrote:
Wow. How many people here see it as a fight with the rightous gun owners in one corner, and the military in the other when they face off? What about people in the military who ARE gun owners? What would the military do if they were told to illegally attack citizens in the US? What would you, as a soldier do, if you are given an illegal order. What would your commanders passing down the orders do?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
apparently you guys that think that gun owners could take out the government must also think the the iraqi insurgency has beaten us militarily.
What if the National Guard were called up, and told to fire into crowds that contian people they may actually know?
If things progressed to that point, what would become of the military? What would those people, or individual units do? Soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen. They are not automatons. They see and think. Personally, I think that units would experience mass desertions if it ever came to that point. Or entire units not following orders, or just standing down.
The fight is not gun owners against the goverment. That is too narrow of a view. Perhaps it comes down to situations. Just having the guns out in the public makes it too difficult to try to establish a police state because of the losses that they police or establishing agency would suffer, thus forcing the military to... back to the situation above.
To me, a move by the government to ban guns is a sign that the government no longer trusts the people. That it views the public as something to rule over instead of the body it gets it power from.
History tells us that it makes it a whole lot easier to kill your country men.
(see Finnish Civil War)
Source: Rabkin, Jeremy, "Constitutional Firepower" The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern, University, School of Law, Fall 1995, p. 245The arguments of earlier times may seem most remote in their insistence that private gun ownership is a necessary check on government opponents. Certainly, the "imagination recoils" at the thought of armed struggle by American citizens against their own government at the end of the twentieth century or decades into the next century. But even on this point, the wisdom of the past should not be dismissed too quickly. The truth is that Parliament triumphed in the English Civil War not with citizen militias but with a drilled "new model army" of professional soldiers. James II was not induced to abandon his throne by citizen militias but by a professional army under William of Orange. Even the American colonists could not have secured their decisive victory over the British at Yorktown without extensive assistance from the professional army and the sizable navy of France. Enthusiasm for armed citizens was not, even in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, based on the notion that such citizens could defeat professional armies on their own. The serious argument was always that armed citizens could raise the cost of tyrannical abuse--enough, at least, to give second thought to would-be tyrants.
That argument makes a lot more sense than the successful defeat of a standing, professional army. But it's still ridiculous.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-03-08 14:22:13)