Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Jan 15, 2013.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
It's already been asked but what exactly do you honestly think you could do against the US Army/Air Force/Navy with your weapons if they decided to wipe you off the face of the Earth short of maybe taking a couple of troops with you? The idea that if only Soviet farmers (and every other abused and murdered people on that video) had all been armed with rifles they would have been magically able to fight off the whole Red Army is laughable if not intellectually embarrassing.
The idea that gun ownership keeps the government in check is an old fashioned argument. Not only that, but I'm currently in the Midwest USA and the main proponents of said argument appear to lack the rest of the tools necessary to fight any sort of campaign - physical fitness, emotional stability, intellectual capability.
Obviously that's not the case in JJH's case, but I'd wager he's the exception rather than the rule.
The Internet is a far more effective barrier against totalitarian oppression and yet, weirdly, protests against Internet censorship are much quieter.
In my mind's eye, I see several British generals (Gage et al.) having a similar conversation about upstart rebels on the same continent where I live but several centuries earlier. Just sayin.'
Without addressing your first point as I think it too general, as to your second, the interweb is hardly a bulwark against oppression as shown by the Chinese and other governments that control its content and if necessary, access to it. Our own Masters with His Highness leading the way have realized the potential that you suggest and in recent years have taken steps to facilitate total control of the populace through effectively "turning off the switch" to the internet. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57469950-93/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-control/
And how effective were those citizen's militia's? If they were so great how come the French did most of the fighting?
My first point probably wasn't 100% clear. It was that to be an effective check against the government, you require competent people and some form of organisation. Without that, given the firepower disparity, guns are as much use as tits on a fish.
Your second point is bang on. Similar things are afoot in the UK. The Internet is an extremely powerful tool in both the free flow of information and in giving people the ability to organise themselves. It also affords a degree of anonymity. It is an effective check on government.
That *is* being controlled on very weak arguments, yet very little appears to be being said about it.
Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
I of course cannot purport to speak for all Americans, but within my various "circles" of friends, colleagues and others the stereotype of a loud-mouthed ignorant (generally and specifically as to things military) red neck type is just about 180 degrees off the mark.
If that constitutes even a small representation of the approximate 150 million Americans who do not agree with substantial parts or all of our Masters' (and again please do not waste my time with petty partisan attributions etc. as many of the disaffected are nonpartisan in their justifiable suspicion of their federal government) ultra vires actions that have been and continue to be taken by the Executive branch of the federal government whether Democrat or Republican then I earnestly hope it never comes to a blatant show down as it will be a bloody thing to behold.
Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
The US armed forces, assuming that they followed such orders and did not change sides, would certainly be the ultimate victors in any clash with an armed population. The question is, would an armed population be capable of inflicting sufficient cost to make such a clash non-cost-effective for a government to consider?
After all, the US could have prevailed in South Vietnam, had the forces been quadrupled and all restraint abandoned: Stalinesque measures will always succeed if applied with sufficient vigour, as the North Koreans have amply proved. Whether or not the US govt would like to head a pariah state whose wealth is largely channelled into running the engines of domestic repression, is an issue quite separate from its practical ability to imitate the Kims.
Except of course that Afghan farmers with rifles gave the Red Army a good run for their money in the 80's and are doing the same to us now.
Isn't this 'tool against oppression' just a mantra?
It justifies a load of gun nuts* packing heat and having a jolly down the range, after watching Red Dawn.
* with some exceptions.
The idea of private weapons and of militias to defend freedom, was not initially to defend yourself against your own freely elected democratic government (whatever were your ancestors thinking of) it was, as in the English bill of rights, to allow you to kill "naughty persons i.e. stroppy Catholics!
Its bullshit its was bullshit in 1766 the continental army wasnt a milita and to pretend it was is bullshit.
It was embarrasing bullshit in 1812.
america didnt fall into tyranny during the 30s or the 50s its not going to now. Comprehensive healthcare is not tyranny.
As reasons to own firearms I need rifles to fight off the UN black helicopters that want to take my precious guns away is mad.
Just dont have any then the un wont have to kick your door down. Problem solved.
The classic socialist - if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear
Strikes me as a romantic fantasy to key in with American exceptionalism. Although I'd acknowledge it's a myth with real psychological and political value, the probable real outcome, should the bluff ever be called, would be more like the Balkans, only 10 times bigger.
Separate names with a comma.