HappySqurriel on 18 August 2009
| NJ5 said: I always hear about this notion that owning weapons in the USA is for "overthrowing the government" if needed. I find it hilarious. Does anyone really think the population could overthrow the government without support of the military? Imagine a bunch of guys carrying assault rifles and marching towards the white house... without the support of the military they would get immediately flattened by artillery or a plane bomber or something. If, on the other hand you have the support of the military, you don't need the assault rifles to overthrow the government. In either case, I don't really see how assault rifles help you overthrow the government. |
Modern warfare has taught us that a handful of poorly trained individuals take an amazing amount of resources to suppress; and if just 1% of the population of the United States (roughly 300,000 people) decided to resist government action through force, the US military is not powerful enough to suppress them. A conflict like this would become a war of attrition, and the side which had the most support from the citizens would eventually win.
Now, the reason for bringing a weapon like this to a rally is to make a statement and to get noticed ... The man was able to get interviewed by CNN (and other media sources), and was able to make a statement without screaming over top of someone else.
