Why does the government want your guns?

[xShane]

YOUTUBE: "Breitbart - We Have Guns, We Outnumber Liberals"

[chown33]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

I'd recommend that anyone spouting information about the hypothetical actions of the US military read the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Specifically 892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION. An order to attack unarmed citizens would become unlawful and thus require a soldier to disobey.

What does 892. ART. 92 say about armed opposition?

The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms. Presumably, anyone who is armed and opposing the state-sanctioned armed forces would be deemed a combatant or a guerrilla. Logic alone suggests that anyone bearing arms is unequivocally, not an unarmed citizen.


The truly unarmed would, of course, be completely safe.
/s

[Blue Velvet]

I have a question for all those who think that the most important factor in bearing firearms will protect them from tyranny:

At what point will you personally start a gunfight with the cops or any federal agency like the ATF, let alone attack a military base?

Thanks.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by glocke12

1. Al-Qaeda
2. Afghan Mujahideen
3. Iraqi Insurgency

Keep in mind that Al-Qaeda was functionally annihilated by American arms in Afghanistan, where rugged terrain and a sympathetic population (and money) allowed the members to survive. But, casualties were high for AQ fighters and their target was primarily the unarmed civilian population. Unlike a local force, the AQ and Taliban have to fight until the west tires of the engagement, but this tactic doesn't work for internal struggles.

The Afghan mujahideen needed outside help, including US made Stingers, to actually be effective. A civilian army cannot take on Hind-Ds (much less something like the MQ-9 Reaper drone).

And, the Iraqi insurgency had access to the military's stockpiles of mortar and artillery rounds, as well as Iranian shaped charges. But, the Iraqi insurgency was content to turn into a sectarian horror-show. The Battle of Fallujah illustrates just how ugly a battle of soldiers with modern arms can do against even highly-entrenched civilians: there were a lot of bodies and Fallujah was shattered.

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

I'd recommend that anyone spouting information about the hypothetical actions of the US military read the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Specifically 892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION. An order to attack unarmed citizens would become unlawful and thus require a soldier to disobey.

Which tells us that the dude with the AR-15 yammering about his guns is less important to the survival of our democracy than the thousands of 18-year olds who join the military and take their oath seriously.

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

I have a question for all those who think that the most important factor in bearing firearms will protect them from tyranny:

At what point will you personally start a gunfight with the cops or any federal agency like the ATF, let alone attack a military base?

Thanks.

Yeah, the Fort Sumter of this future war is going to look like the Koresh compound. Surrounded by federal agents using a law-and-order doctrine and tear gas. And, government officials are going to argue that the next George Washington is a dangerous criminal. Imagine what the British Empire could have done with modern surveillance technology and a big-money PR campaign.

The next freedom fighters will be tazed while shopping for milk and quietly shipped off to Guantanamo Bay on a C-130. Or, they'll die like Bonnie and Clyde, in a hail of heavy-fire with their faces on wanted posters.

If we end up with the kind of tyranny, we've already lost.

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by hulugu

The next freedom fighters will be tazed while shopping for milk...

Nice.

Can't help but feel that for many, 'tyranny' means losing a democratic election.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

Nice.

Can't help but feel that for many, 'tyranny' means losing a democratic election.

To a man of colour.