Pitiful. You choose not to think. You only react armed with your half-baked sense of justice, and your goofy emoticons-- which are, incidentally, as substantial as the process of thought underlying them. Go ahead and emote yourself into irrationality, but don't legislate the rest of us into it, Mr. Zero-Sum.
Automaton I see you been patting yourself on the back again .. Listen sweetie , I spend a lot of time on my posts , and the emoticons add flavor & substance , if you don't like them , that's you .. As far making a rational argument , mine make more sense than yours ever have .. mainly because while I apply Lifetime experiences and common sense to my posts , you seem to be hung-up on making BS posts that only you understand.
A lack of understanding on your part does not constitute an argument; rather, it constitutes your inability to parse the English language properly. As far as the substance of your posts goes, even the oldest are unable to apply life experience to macroeconomic issues because the issues dealt with in the subject are beyond the scope of a single person's experience. A broader view is necessary in order to make any meaningful observations, especially observations qua analysis.
Why do people assume that if an armed conflict broke out in the USA between the government and the citizenry, the entirety of the armed forces would remain on the government's side? I am confident there are plenty of people in the armed forces in positions of command, who would not fire on their own citizens. In that case, a citizenry armed with small arms would be hugely beneficial.
Actually you don't even need guns. Know why? Cause guns don't kill people, people kill people. See...you only need highly motivated people to resist, guns contribute nothing.
So let me get this straight....as it pertains to this hypothetical discussion. With nothing changing constitutionally, what legal power or event would allow a tyrant to bring to bear the full might of the US military against an armed citizenry, one that includes drone strikes and tanks and all the gizmos we used against other countries? What individual group of people could coalesce around some sort of leader in a large enough group to elicit the above mentioned response from the government. What Cabinet level secretary or pentagon general would order said full military strike knowing his own family would be at risk, what mid level and low level field commanders would carry out such orders given that their own families could be encapsulated in this imaginary event? How many soldiers would follow said orders? Wouldn't it be wiser to consider that the rebellion against a tyrant would begin at the state level and not the individual level thus matching state level military against federal level military ( as if that would happen either ) Face it you will see state level repercussions to a tyrant trying to force military action way before you would see a citizen level repercussions. The military is made up of soldiers from many states...how fractured do you think the military would become? Now against invaders....the second amendment is very important..........imagine the firepower the civilians could add to the military for defense of the nation.
The ENEMY, both home grown and foreign, is already within our borders. Its just that most of the ruled are either 1) too stupid, 2) purposely blind or, 3) too PC to want to deal with it. Don't expected our elected rulers to deal with it until the situation blows up in their faces.
The military action does not have to be initiated at the top but the result of requests from cities & states who are overwhelmed. And the military action does not have to involve the military at all. The feds now have an extensive domestic "army" at their disposal named "Homeland Security" which is paid by and answers to the feds, not the local govt, local LE, or local population. For example, http://westernrifleshooters.wordpre...-how-americas-cities-may-explode-in-violence/ In this scenario, due to a financial crisis in which the welfare EBT cards fail, the cities erupt in riots which the local city cops cannot handle, the feds step in, martial law is declared, etc. There is a mental aspect as well. People are being conditioned to be compliant to authority. Look at the response to the Boston bombers. In a matter of hours thousands of LE were mustered into Boston and imposed a de facto martial law, including armored car backed squads searching neighborhoods including rousting at gunpoint innocent people from their homes. This police activity did nothing to catch the bombers. And the response of the Boston people? Praise to the LE for treating them like sheep and violating their most fundamental rights. Wanna-be tyrants are very smart particularly about politics and people. They work within the system for a fig leaf of legality but use the system to their own ends until they no longer need to hide their true intentions.
There are so many factions that hate this country both native born and foreign imported that the answer is YES to all of the above. Isn't just workers coming across the order...
So the discussion wavers between a scenario where guns may not be enough (against homeland security types) and another scenario where infiltrators are trying to overthrow us. Either way, if there was shooting, I reserve the right to shoot back. It's better to die on your feet, and all that rot. In my neighborhood, I know that I'm significantly more heavily armed than the majority of my neighbors. Around here, the locals would fall pretty fast.
One man won't last long. Get your neighbors on board while they have time to prepare, or be prepared to help the ones who see the light at the last minute.
Shame but I have to say its the same around here. I would venture a guess that most don't have at least 72 hrs of supplies either. Just let the New Madrid or San Andreas faults cut loose and watch the SHTF.
There are any number of things that can and will eventually go wrong. The super volcano under Yellowstone has the potential to eclipse any eruption in history. It's true that one guy can't last long. Most who have not prepared already will not be convinced of the sense in it. In the event of a disaster, even those who have a giant Hummer and 10,000 rounds of ammo for each guy on board will be mired in traffic. Those who decide to "bug in" had better have enough people involved to stand watch all of the time, and they better be hunkered down in some kind of a citadel. The thing that strikes me as entirely ironic is that if and when this kind of thing comes to a neighborhood near me, I probably won't want to continue living under those circumstances anyway.
Are guns enough? No Are guns enough to make the government think twice before going to war with it's own people, and how it would look to the rest of the world if it had to start a civil war? Probably.
There is no defense against your government bro, having a gun changes nothing. The nr. 1 defense is to choose good leaders and actively observe what they do. Being a smart citizen and not a dumbass also helps a lot, and thinking you can go on a war with your government sounds dumbass enough to me.
Soooo..... female asian athiest resident alien, who is my friend, who is my enemy? Personally, I dont think the trailer-park creationists are any friend to the USA, dragging it down with their regressive anti intellectualism. What makes someone a True Patriot? I want to get with them, as long as they are not like the people in "The Turner Diaries', they'd hang me from a lamp post.
No, guns are NOT enough, but they cover your butt while you destroy the economy (with fire, poison, sabatage, assasination), and THEN how is the tyrant going to pay his thugs, hmm? Do you think that the thugs will risk being shot, for no pay? You should not try to "stand" anywhere, and not tell a SOUL what you are doing. They can't snitch (or be tortured into telling) about that which/whom they do not know!
