Originally posted by smw6869Three were killed and over 50 injured as it was.
Do you think the military really would have massacred fellow vets? Even more reason for Americans to be armed!
GRANNY.
I support to right to self-defense and the necessary extrapolation that that right includes the requirement that a person have the necessary tools to reasonably exercise that right. But the idea that a better armed citizenry could be a bulwark against the US Armed Forces in the 21st Century is a fantasy.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou may want to tell that to the Viet Cong, and Iraqi militia. Most people think they won. Anywho, it's not just about winning, but being able to defend oneself and have hope for tomorrow. It would certainly be a gorilla thing.
Three were killed and over 50 injured as it was.
I support to right to self-defense and the necessary extrapolation that that right includes the requirement that a person have the necessary tools to reasonably exercise that right. But the idea that a better armed citizenry could be a bulwark against the US Armed Forces in the 21st Century is a fantasy.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869Those were foreign occupation and resistance is based on nationalism. Face it; the American people are limp in the face of authority - look how many times in this Forum right wingers defend police using brutal tactics against the citizenry. The average right winger with a gun would be more likely to support a repressive government than to fight it.
You may want to tell that to the Viet Cong, and Iraqi militia. Most people think they won. Anywho, it's not just about winning, but being able to defend oneself and have hope for tomorrow. It would certainly be a gorilla thing.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by no1marauderAhhh, never thought of it that way. Good point! I, err,ah, rest my case
Those were foreign occupation and resistance is based on nationalism. Face it; the American people are limp in the face of authority - look how many times in this Forum right wingers defend police using brutal tactics against the citizenry. The average right winger with a gun would be more likely to support a repressive government than to fight it.
Your Honor. I plead insanity.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869if people want to fight an oppressive government they will do so. the french didn't have a 2nd amendment but they manage to have their revolution.
You may want to tell that to the Viet Cong, and Iraqi militia. Most people think they won. Anywho, it's not just about winning, but being able to defend oneself and have hope for tomorrow. It would certainly be a gorilla thing.
GRANNY.
all the cases where the population rose against the governments and won were cases where the army fought on their side. if the army joins the population, the population doesn't need to be armed beforehand. if the army doesn't join, all the guns in the world won't make a difference against tanks, aircrafts and satellite surveillance.
bearing guns isn't a fundamental right, it is a responsibility. retarded people have the fundamental right to freedom. should you arm and IQ60 with a gun? or a former convict? and just as we don't allow people with bad eyesight to drive, more so we should be careful who we give guns to.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou keep asking the same questions over and over again. They have all been answered before by others in this thread.
if people want to fight an oppressive government they will do so. the french didn't have a 2nd amendment but they manage to have their revolution.
all the cases where the population rose against the governments and won were cases where the army fought on their side. if the army joins the population, the population doesn't need to be armed beforehand. if ...[text shortened]... allow people with bad eyesight to drive, more so we should be careful who we give guns to.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThough I agree with you on the government needs the support of the millitary to accomplish a NWO, the millitary is still sworn to uphold our Constitution. If those in the millitary knew that the people were fighting for their rights that are set foth in the U.S. Constitution, which is what they are sworn to uphold, then that should be enouph to gain their support. If we are to have an armed revolt, the citizens will not be threatening the security of the nation, but rather protecting it from a tyrant government.
no, i assume that if the government is trying for a "new world order" they would need the support of the army before they do anything. and once they have the support of the army, they will crush any militia, no matter how well armed they are. and they will not act until they have the support of the army.
the revolution in my country started with students ...[text shortened]... ussing, people armed with more than a few shotguns as beta says would no longer be civilians.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey can only do that if they know who to go for. The system we have today will help them find who to go after. That is why I am against registering firearms.
The point is the troops were quite willing to use force, including deadly force, against the Bonus Marchers who were all war veterans. What makes you think that the US military wouldn't use its counter insurgency tactics against a home grown insurgency?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm sure they would, but for how long? The US military is not known for prolonged occupations. Military bases in friendly countries don't count. How many Americans will die, arms in hand, shouting slogans about inalienable rights and the Constitution before there are second thoughts in the military? Every one of those men and women have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. A few of them probably meant it.
The point is the troops were quite willing to use force, including deadly force, against the Bonus Marchers who were all war veterans. What makes you think that the US military wouldn't use its counter insurgency tactics against a home grown insurgency?
You'd need people to be willing to kill and then die to make a political statement of course.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHow do you know the troops were willing to use deadly force? The deaths were caused by police, not military, except one baby who died from tear gas (not normally considered lethal force).
The point is the troops were quite willing to use force, including deadly force, against the Bonus Marchers who were all war veterans. What makes you think that the US military wouldn't use its counter insurgency tactics against a home grown insurgency?