I'm going to take this gun control argument

[Ma'ake]

My sense is a truly tyrannical government - or, conversely, a government determined to put down internal terrorists - would do whatever it takes to get the job done, using counter-insurgency methods to sqash the uprising.

I'm not a military expert, but it seems to me anti-insurgency operations require the kind of hardware proscribed for civilian use by current law that are devastatingly effective against insurgents who value life. (Don't anti-insurgency operations involve helicopter gunships & precise-strike fighter jets? The helicopters would potentially be at risk for a mass of hunters bringing them down, but what about F-16s and F-18s?)

In the case of a limited, illegitimate insurection (eg, aryan nations types in Idaho start an insurgency to topple the State government) it would be precisely the superiority in government firepower most of us would welcome to put down internal terrorists, I would think. Indeed, the disparity in firepower would certainly deter an uprising. I'd bet the majority of informed military experts would consider the notion that citizens could topple the US government to be a quaint & romatic idea from 230 years ago, not applicable today.

Then you have the inevitable grey areas created by complex conflict. One man's tyranny = another man's protector.

All of which makes the whole point of having the rights to sufficient individual firepower to topple a government moot, IMO.

[TripletDaddy]

So just to make sure I understand, one of the reasons some on this site own guns is to protect themselves in the event our government turns on us and starts to reign in tyranny and oppression?

Good luck with that.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

My sense is a truly tyrannical government - or, conversely, a government determined to put down internal terrorists - would do whatever it takes to get the job done, using counter-insurgency methods to sqash the uprising.

I'm not a military expert, but it seems to me anti-insurgency operations require the kind of hardware proscribed for civilian use by current law that are devastatingly effective against insurgents who value life. (Don't anti-insurgency operations involve helicopter gunships & precise-strike fighter jets? The helicopters would potentially be at risk for a mass of hunters bringing them down, but what about F-16s and F-18s?)

In the case of a limited, illegitimate insurection (eg, aryan nations types in Idaho start an insurgency to topple the State government) it would be precisely the superiority in government firepower most of us would welcome to put down internal terrorists, I would think. Indeed, the disparity in firepower would certainly deter an uprising. I'd bet the majority of informed military experts would consider the notion that citizens could topple the US government to be a quaint & romatic idea from 230 years ago, not applicable today.

Then you have the inevitable grey areas created by complex conflict. One man's tyranny = another man's protector.

All of which makes the whole point of having the rights to sufficient individual firepower to topple a government moot, IMO.

You may be a student of day to day politics, but sir, you are no student of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

[Ma'ake]

Amigo, I'm very familiar with assymetric warfare.

I've read the gun theories that patriots could (potentially) break into an armory with their deer rifles & get more firepower with which to wage the insurgency. I understand that line of reasoning & have taken it into account in my earlier posts.

My point is for American insurgents / patriots to think they can take down a government that has the vast military resources the US does, with deer rifles, is really hoping against hope. We have a military budget that surpasses all the nations in the rest of the world, *combined*. Counter-insurgency technologies & tactics have been finely honed (the military has spent a great deal of time & resources addressing the issue of assymetric warfare). The "spectre" of an AC-130 Spectre gunship spraying enormous quantities of 20mm and 30mm ordinance down onto an area of suspected patriot activity is something the founding fathers could never have imagined.

I'm just saying the patriots-with-deer-rifles scenario is extraordinarily unlikely, practically impossible, really. The only real hope for defeating a tyrannical government is to split the military & get the factions to arrive at a Mexican standoff of sorts.

It's far more likely that a "Tiannemen Sqare moment", where some innocent, unarmed civilian stands out (physically) to advancing armor, on TV, to inspire a military split than is a band of insurgents. Any hint of the patriots being viewed as terrorists dooms their cause.

Like I alluded to earlier, if you want to have any shot (pun) at a military chance to bring down the tyranny you need access to much heavier weapons today, when training can be done, weapons & ammunition is concealable, etc. At the least, shoulder-fired missiles, mass quantities of explosives, probably some electronics warfare equipment... definitely a whole lot more than lots of 30.06s.

The founding fathers were very wise, but they could never have imagined the reality of today.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Amigo, I'm very familiar with assymetric warfare.

I've read the gun theories that patriots could (potentially) break into an armory with their deer rifles & get more firepower with which to wage the insurgency. I understand that line of reasoning & have taken it into account in my earlier posts.

My point is for American insurgents / patriots to think they can take down a government that has the vast military resources the US does, with deer rifles, is really hoping against hope. We have a military budget that surpasses all the nations in the rest of the world, *combined*. Counter-insurgency technologies & tactics have been finely honed (the military has spent a great deal of time & resources addressing the issue of assymetric warfare). The "spectre" of an AC-130 Spectre gunship spraying enormous quantities of 20mm and 30mm ordinance down onto an area of suspected patriot activity is something the founding fathers could never have imagined.

I'm just saying the patriots-with-deer-rifles scenario is extraordinarily unlikely, practically impossible, really. The only real hope for defeating a tyrannical government is to split the military & get the factions to arrive at a Mexican standoff of sorts.

It's far more likely that a "Tiannemen Sqare moment", where some innocent, unarmed civilian stands out (physically) to advancing armor, on TV, to inspire a military split than is a band of insurgents. Any hint of the patriots being viewed as terrorists dooms their cause.

Like I alluded to earlier, if you want to have any shot (pun) at a military chance to bring down the tyranny you need access to much heavier weapons today, when training can be done, weapons & ammunition is concealable, etc. At the least, shoulder-fired missiles, mass quantities of explosives, probably some electronics warfare equipment... definitely a whole lot more than lots of 30.06s.

The founding fathers were very wise, but they could never have imagined the reality of today.

LOL. We don't have enough troops to take control of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet somehow we can control a population of 300 million people over a huge geographical area, with 260 million guns in circulation?

Wow, you really do have a lot of faith in the military. Of course, the reality is, that it would be impossible for our military to accomplish that mission.

[MikeWaters]

Btw, I should add that the USA has only 25 AC-130 gunships.

Tell me again, where will these 25 planes be deployed?

You are seriously out of your league. I would stop now.

[SeattleUte]

Let me see if I understand this new gun control argument: Civilization and wealth have turned Americans into such wusses that guns would be useless to prevent a militaristic/totalitarian take-over, so this argument against gun control is irrelevant. Did I state it correctly?

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Let me see if I understand this new gun control argument: Civilization and wealth have turned Americans into such wusses that guns would be useless to prevent a militaristic/totalitarian take-over, so this argument against gun control is irrelevant. Did I state it correctly?

I was talking about deer rifles taking out F-16s, don't know where the rest of your summary came from.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Btw, I should add that the USA has only 25 AC-130 gunships.

Tell me again, where will these 25 planes be deployed?

You are seriously out of your league. I would stop now.

You're presuming a unified uprising of 300 million? In the media age, how likely is this? (Who is out of their league?)

OK, let's throw out the AC-130s... how about the A-10 Warthogs? (The same aircraft the Air Force earlier retired...well... because they had to justify spending more money on newer planes). The A10 came out of retirement as a devastating tank-killer with a 30mm gatling gun up front.

After the A10s, let's talk about the Apaches, then the F18s, then the F16s. You get the point, it's a lot more hardware than 25 aerial gunships.

My sense is if an insurgency / civil war erupted on US soil, the gloves would come off much more quickly, the insurrection would be put down quickly. It's one thing to be fighting off in a foreign land, when your own soil & nation are at stake, the intensity gets turned up a few notches, me thinks.

In Iraq & Afghanistan we're not just fighting ruthless & crazy jihadists, we're trying to win the "hearts and minds" of a Billion people. (If we sought a purely military victory, it would have been done & over by now... with lots & lots of dead people.) In the case of a "terrorist" uprising here on American soil, a central (tyrannical) government would be much more focused on a comprehensive military victory and complete demoralization of the "enemy".

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

My sense is if an insurgency / civil war erupted on US soil, the gloves would come off much more quickly, the insurrection would be put down quickly. It's one thing to be fighting off in a foreign land, when your own soil & nation are at stake, the intensity gets turned up a few notches, me thinks.

I don't know. I think the average U.S. soldier would be a little more hesitant to brutally put down a rebellion of his own people.