I am not going to get a gun

[Roon]

If the revolution or civil war or whatever breaks out, I am sure there will be plenty of guns to go around.

[frebrd]

1. So.......?

[Roon]

2. I just have a hard time with keeping a gun..

..so i met the issue halfway..

[rd_kent]

3. OK, good for you. That is your choice.

I just hope you dont oppose that same choice for me or anyone else.

[mkultra]

4. pepper spray ftw

but if things really go crazy, and they will not, then teh guns floating around will probably be pointed at you.

Just saying.

[PavePusher]

5. When you actually need a gun...

it's generally a little late to be trying to get one.

A bit like running out to the hardware store for a fire extinguisher after your house catches fire...

[AtheistCrusader]

14. I've got enough for my neighbors, if they need.

Hell, I can only use one at a time anyway.

[PavePusher]

21. Amateur...

:rofl:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. no matter the size of your gun, the military will have bigger guns

so if civil war breaks out, a trip to mexico or canada is advisable imo

:hi:

[baldguy]

7. +1

[SteveM]

17. Hmm. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Who had the bigger guns again?(nt)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. what do the casualties on either side look like?

[SteveM]

20. Quite horrible. Do you have a point? (nt)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. yes, people with large guns kill more. a civil struggle is nothing like

being occupied. this entire thread doesnt make much sense, but your response particular was not related. the damage the US army could do its people, if they so chose, is nothing like they do abroad.

apples--oranges etc

[pipoman]

24. I hear the "the military will out gun you"

arguments often, rarely from military families. I have recently spent quite a lot of time around marines. They are the sons and daughters of your friends and neighbors. They would not be very cohesive if asked to take arms against the populous of the US in favor of a tyrannical government...it would be the tyrannical government who should fear those good men and women.

[Statistical]

25. Actually any good Soldier would do their job.....

which is to defend the Constitution. They swear no alligience to Washington but rather the Constitution of the United States.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I think a substantial number of soldiers would refuse unlawful orders that are contrary to the United States. Some of them likely would fire upon those domestic enemies of the Constitution. It is also possible highly charismatic Generals would break away and bring entire units with them.

Of course about 1/3 of the Combat power is in the National Guards who are under the control of the National Guard.

So the very fact that Americans could resist (no matter how futile) increases the likelyhood that they will never have too.

[SteveM]

27. I think you miss the point...

All of us who have studied U.S. intervention are aware of the huge "collateral" damage. I don't know what you mean by this:

"the damage the US army could do its people, if they so chose, is nothing like they do abroad."

Do you mean the US army could do MORE damage here than abroad? Perhaps so, we've been through a civil war, after all. Still, in the context of effective militia (usually armed with "small" guns and make-do weaponry), there is ample record where governments have fallen and interventions have failed in the face of "small" guns. If you are arguing that the bloodshed is not worth it, and that a tyrannical government should continue to operate as a tyrant because the cost is too dear, then I understand. I don't agree that "resistance is futile," but I see your point.

[Taitertots]

23. That is specious reasoning at its worst

It assumes that simply by having bigger guns they are in some way unbeatable.

It is as if no group ever defeated a better equipped military. We know that to be false.

[lovecanada56035]

8. Me neither

Guns have no place in a civilized society.

[oneshooter]

10. It was firearms use

that BUILT a "civilized society"in both the US and Canada.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Statistical]

26. Also in Europe

The firearm directly contributed to the decline of feudalism which was necessary for emergence of modern governments. Prior to firearms combat was very experience dependent. To learn how to be a Knight took a lifetime of training. To support that Kings granted Lords land, people, and title. In return they supplied trained soldiers and peasant levies when called upon.

Due to the one on one or one on few nature of training in middle ages it didn't support large national militaries.

The firearm changed all that. Firearms enabled training on large scales. Kings were no longer dependent on Fuedal lords but instead could raise national armies. The small amount of time needed to become experienced in firearms (relatively speaking) caused firearm militias to be a credible force on the battlefield. Militias have a much lower economic cost of large standing armies also contributed to the demise of feudal system.

Even with poor initial accuracy of muskets a volley of 100 weapons against tight formations really could only be countered by another gunpowder unit. Men with a small amount of experience and firearms could kill men with a lifetime of experience in warfare and melee weapons.

On a more personal basis prior to the firearm (or arguably the crossbow) the commoner had no real way to defend his home or family from pillaging troops. So when an army was defeated and the invading army poured into the countryside a village had little means of defense. A group of soldiers swarming into a village or town with the intent to rape, pillage, and destroy there was no effective resistance. The rise of town militias equipped with firearms ended that. An invading army attempting to pillage could take considerable damage from town militias.

[Tim01]

9. Fine. Nobody cares. nt

[JonQ]

11. No problem

as long as you don't try to interfere with anyone elses right to get a gun that's cool.

Like abortions. You don't have to actually get one, or even approve of them really. You just have to not want to interfere with someone elses freedom to choose for themselves the right course of action.

[Israfel4]

12. That's all good with me but

1. Don't come crying to me when you can't find one and need it.
2. Don't ask to borrow one of mine.
3. Don't ask me how to use one if and when you do find one.

[slackmaster]

13. Good, but please don't come knocking on my door begging for food when teh Zombies take over

:hi:

[NewMoonTherian]

15. I imagine...

it'll be more of a clawing and groaning action than begging. Not that guns are necessary to neutralize a zombie threat, but someone too squeamish to keep one on hand will likely not have the fortitude to survive past a Class 2 outbreak anyhow.

[old mark]

16. OK. Thanks for posting, Roon.

NOBODY is requiring you to go against your conscience or do something you don't feel comfortable with.

It's all about the right to choose, as an adult human.

I know you won't believe it, but many of us who DO own guns had long debates with ourselves before making a decision. We think and feel things, too, just like the antis.
We just came to a different decision.

mark

[SteveM]

18. You're probably right about "plenty guns to go around"...

The reason why this would be the case is that there is no current government registration for firearms. Governments love terrorist watch lists -- which would no doubt expand to include those known to have guns.