Theres a lot of conflicting sentiments floating around in lefty land. Heres another one that I think needs better explained. They say that we need not fear gun confiscation because its logistically unrealistic. And I concur. The Govt simply doesnt have the manpower to take all the guns (or even all the semi-auto rifles) away from us by force. But then they also say our semi-auto rifles would be useless in fighting a modern military. They say that drones and bombs and tanks and electronic battlefeilds have rendered our desire to keep tyrannical govt in check with mere rifles obsolete. These cant both be true. Either the govt can disarm us and brute-force us into total compliance, making our fears of confiscation realistic, or it can't, and our resistance to gun control is an effective deterrent to tyrannical govt. It either or, not both. So which is it?
This, after all is said, In the words of Dear Sir Winston Churchill; Never surrender ! We shall fight them on the Ocean, the streets, wherever we shall find them, We shall never surrender ! ************************************ Actual speech: " Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. And if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
OP, both. Gov is powerful and hard to fight, but it can be fought. Guns are the last line of defense for citizens. Never relinquish your power to a corrupt government. Just look at Afghanis and Vietnamese. Russia and USA have tried and failed at beating them. Sure lots of patriots will be killed, but it is better to go down fighting the tyranny that is trying to destroy America. But what would happen if a tyrannical Democratic government declared war on the Republicans? Would it be like the civil war when civilians were enemies and killing each other?
If your rifles are an effective deterrent, Then we do not need an army with all its expensive equipment If we do need the big defense budget, then the rifles are useless Which is it?
Why get lost in Philosophical Symantics ? Rifles are for the general defense, as has been proven many many times by ordinary citizens ...
Is the US government willing to use that big defense budget against its own citizens on its own soil? Are the families of those employed with the big defense budget safe from those rifles?
...and the army is for...what, exactly? Invading other countries and killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens?
An armed citizenry, of course. Militaries are defeated by other militaries all the time throughout history. An armed population never has been befeated by a military.
What relevance has the Army in a discussion about Rifles used by Civilians for personal defense ? None at all. Civilians are not fighting Wars overseas, they are defending themselves from criminals here at home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Lawrence_Carr https://www.americanthinker.com/art...an_who_stood_against_japanese_internment.html The guy who stood against it was a republican actually.
Actually Senator Taft who led the conservative wing of the republican party spoke out about it on the floor of the senate. He was demonized by the dems and the press.
Unquestionably the former. A lot don't recognize how opposed to standing armies the framers were. They sided with Machiavelli - in that a Republic cannot exist if it is not defended by it's citizenry. Even as recently as 1914 Woodrow Wilson was decrying standing armies. Of course, that was right before he lied into WWI and set a precedent for endless global hegemony, but the point stands.
the govt does not have the force to disarm millions of armed people in house to house combat. Its simple math. They would need door to door boots on the ground and they would simply be picked off one by one just by sheer size of the armed populace. Aside from the fact that if they tried they would be traitors and most of the military would never fight against people who they agree with anyways. Its just flat out never ever going to happen. You cant disarm millions of heavily armed people who wish not to be.
It is an interesting topic... that is somewhat removed from the original topic And these days, how one comes down on this topic seems largely a matter of opinion My opinion is that the world has changed quite a bit since the American revolution In the 1700s, army equipment was fairly simple compared to today. Single shot Muskets, cannons, and bayonets. In that circumstance a citizen militia could be very effective. And the framers sort of idolized the role of their heroic militia. But factually speaking, the colonists could not have prevailed without —- French cannons, —-French soldiers. —— the French navy. —-and General Washington’s regular army. The colonial militia simply could not have won by themselves. Today, A militia armed only with rifles could do comparatively little other than mount an annoying guerilla resistance. And, just as The taliban upgraded its equipment, an americans resistance could buy weapons as and when needed... and would not simply stick with what ever they had when the fight began. Anyway... getting back to the framers and their attitude toward the militia Well first, they wanted to have revolutionary hero’s... an the minute men filled that need... recognizing that the French saved our bacon was not sufficiently heroic Next, the founders recognized that they could not afford a large standing army... the militia was an expedient way of addressing that problem. Further, the founders must have been rightly concerned that a large standing army might easily become a tool of some future dictator. Militias would be local could not so easily be abused. So this was another reason to avoid a large standing army But that said, we can AND DO now afford a large standing army...come what may, not having a large standing is no longer an option. And while it is true that a despot could abuse this large standing army... it is also true that our militia provides little deterrent to such abuse. If there was a confrontation between our army and a citizen militia.... the deterrence would not come because the army would be terrified of a militia armed with ar15... the deterrence would come because of the PR nightmare of such a struggle... as in ruby ridge, Waco, or the cattle standoff.... all of which could have been quickly ended by a helicopter gun ship, or an a10, or that cargo plane gunship they have, leaving aside deploying b52s or nuclear bombs.... sorry, but a militia armed with ar15 just ain’t gonna have a chance against a truely ruthless despot. Heck, if we wanted to clear out the taliban... we could quickly turn their homeland into a parking lot. The fact that we have not chosen to do so has nothing to do with our military capability to wipe these guys out virtually instantaneously... our decision not to wipe them out had nothing to do with the terrible effectiveness of their rifles, does it? Realistically the Japanese in wwii were way way way better armed than any indigenous American militia armed with armed ar15s... and yet, for some incomprehensible reason we were able to kick the **** outta them...I guess Hiroshima made an impact that transcended their abundant rifles
Multi-short firearms existed during the aforementioned time period, and were able to be discharged numerous times before ever needing to be reloaded.
Interestingly enough the Battle of Saratoga ended in a victory for the Colonies because of the actions of a sniper with a repeating rifle....
Such weapons are pervasive in todays army. Presumably for good reasons. Were such weapons pervasive in washingtons army? If not pervasive, why not as pervasive as they are in todays army?
