A Call to Arms

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

LOL

Simple question: is the notion of armed citizens being empowered to topple a tyrannical government now passe? If you agree the concept is no longer applicable - and the other 2nd Amendment advocates agree - then I'll readily admit being in error.

I've said what my belief is: weapons that a militia-person in the military would have (i.e. M16).

I'm not aware of a major gun lobby that advocated private ownership of tanks or intercontinental ballistic missiles as part of the 2nd amendment. Maybe you could point them out to me.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I've said what my belief is: weapons that a militia-person in the military would have (i.e. M16).

Ie, weapons stored in the armory? Small, trailered artillery - ie, behind a 2 ton truck? (I'm thinking Guard here.)

I'm not aware of a major gun lobby that advocated private ownership of tanks or intercontinental ballistic missiles as part of the 2nd amendment. Maybe you could point them out to me.

I can't find one any, either. However, for the sake of argument, any major gun lobby would be foolhardy to advocate such a position. Why wouldn't 2nd Amendment purists secretly (as need be) hold much more aggressive views? The F-16s and tanks example is a hyperbolic extension of stated, apparently isolated, views.

To the extent we used to see informal militias (ie, "Montana Militia") - now let off the militia hook by Heller - out on the desert, operating machine guns, why wouldn't common citizens be worried that these fanatics might be assembling impressive arsenals (individually, this time)? It's not as though getting flame-throwers and grenade launchers is impossible, out on the black market.

"If grenade launchers are outlawed..."

:j

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

LOL

Simple question: is the notion of armed citizens being empowered to topple a tyrannical government now passe? If you agree the concept is no longer applicable - and the other 2nd Amendment advocates agree - then I'll readily admit being in error.

As far as I'm concerned, it's NEVER passe.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by All-American

As far as I'm concerned, it's NEVER passe.

Fair enough.

What level of weaponry is required to plausibly topple the government? I've read scenarios where citizens break into an armory, teach themselves to operate tanks and from there the capacity becomes possible. [This scenario breaks down as weapons systems become more sophisticated & computerized, it seems to me]

But realistically, against a military with overwhelming capacity, what is the minimum level of weaponry required? It seems to me this is the (honest) level of arms the gun lobby should be advocating for individual ownership.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Fair enough.

What level of weaponry is required to plausibly topple the government? I've read scenarios where citizens break into an armory, teach themselves to operate tanks and from there the capacity becomes possible. [This scenario breaks down as weapons systems become more sophisticated & computerized, it seems to me]

But realistically, against a military with overwhelming capacity, what is the minimum level of weaponry required? It seems to me this is the (honest) level of arms the gun lobby should be advocating for individual ownership.

LOL, typical liberal dunce-icity.

Better question is what kind of military would it take to suppress an American insurrection since the military couldn't do so in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

LOL, typical liberal dunce-icity.

Better question is what kind of military would it take to suppress an American insurrection since the military couldn't do so in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Now wait just a gall dang minute here - we were in 'Nam when we shouldn't have been & didn't know what we were doing, we gave Afghanistan half of an attempt because we were in Iraq, where we shouldn't have been, but everyone can agree our military has become pretty adept at anti-insurgency operations.

Disagree?

(I swear to Thor we've had this conversation before.)

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Now wait just a gall dang minute here - we were in 'Nam when we shouldn't have been & didn't know what we were doing, we gave Afghanistan half of an attempt because we were in Iraq, where we shouldn't have been, but everyone can agree our military has become pretty adept at anti-insurgency operations.

Disagree?

(I swear to Thor we've had this conversation before.)

if you think the relative "peace" right now in Iraq is due to the military's operations, you are a moron.

I know you are actually trolling and just playing Rocky Balboa for the hell of it.