mrstickball said:
SamuelRSmith said:
DarthVolod said:
leatherhat said:
Its not about home defense or hunting. Its about making sure the people can always "take care" of the government if they overstep their bounds, which America has apparently forgotten. |
Perhaps, this was once true, but it is an anachronism. Even armed citizens would stand no chance against the might of the U.S. military. A rebellion of force would simply be crushed by superior force. The only way to "take care" of government is to inform/educate people. An all out assault on the government with the small arms that Americans are permitted to carry would just be a bloodbath for the rebels.
I still believe we should have guns for other reasons though ... basic right to protect one's life/property for instance.
|
That's assuming that the military would take the orders. I doubt a very small fraction, if any, of the US military would fight on the side of the government against their own people, especially if the people were fighting to restore the constitution, or something. Afterall, the troops all pledged an oath, protecting the constitution.
|
During Hurricane Katrina, they did. They forced disarmament of everyone they could. If National Guard didn't comply, they hired mercanaries to do it (Blackwater).
I think you'd be surprised what the government can coerce the military to do.
|
Mmm, I hadn't considered the likes of Blackwater. However, I do think there is a difference between forcing disarmament and shooting/killing American citizens. Maybe I just have too much optimism.
I just believe there's a difference between the American military, who have pledged allegiance to the constitution and who's generals/etc are not power-hungry tyannical-wannabees, and the military's of, say, Syria who pledge allegiance to the dictators and who enjoy positions of extreme power.
