Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques...

[lilpixieofterror]

The South Korean situation was rather different because you had a military at the time that was accustomed to brutalizing its own people. I don't think the United States military, at least not as a whole, would have the stomach for an all out war against US citizens.

I’ve heard more than a few military endorsed and officers saying as much. The US military isn’t trained to blindly follow orders.

[rogue06]

It's generally not the military acting autonomously but at the behest of a political party.

A lot are simply military coups with the ranking officer in the coup taking over.

[Amidoingit]

Which would simply tell you that as of now, it isn’t needed, but it might be at some point in time. Again, the argument of your opponents isn’t what you seem to be making it out to be. Revolt exist as a final option when the pen and ballot box has failed.

I understand that. Like Sparko said I’m probably very naive but I can’t see a possible situation in a developed nation where it would come to that.

[Mountain Man]

A lot are simply military coups with the ranking officer in the coup taking over.

That's generally in countries with a small, centralized military. That would be very difficult to pull off in the US.

[Tassman]

I understand that. Like Sparko said I’m probably very naive but I can’t see a possible situation in a developed nation where it would come to that.

Indeed. It is not worth the cost of endless gun violence in the US, because of an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario arising.

[rogue06]

That's generally in countries with a small, centralized military. That would be very difficult to pull off in the US.

That describes the majority of countries throughout history. And even in empires like the Roman one coups were often engineered by and for a specific general.

[Sparko]

Indeed. It is not worth the cost of endless gun violence in the US, because of an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario arising.

Yeah because taking guns away from people who DON'T use them for violence is the solution.

Please turn in your automobile immediately to prevent drunk driving.

[Mountain Man]

That describes the majority of countries throughout history. And even in empires like the Roman one coups were often engineered by and for a specific general.

Perhaps, but we're specifically talking about whether or not it could happen in the US.

[oxmixmudd]

For one thing, I'm not convinced, if it ever came down to it, that 100% of the military would necessarily side with the government against the people.

I tend to think you are right on that. For there to be an uprising that would even invoke any possible benefit of the 2nd amendment, things would need to have gone horribly wrong, wrong enough that 100% loyalty in the military itself would be doubtful.

Secondly, resistance fighters throughout history have been able to use crude methods with surprising success against technologically superior foes.

They are also able to get the guns (and other much more powerful weapons) they need though other channels.

But like I said, I wouldn't see it getting to that point unless the system had entirely broken down, and we seem to be a long way from that.

I agree.

Jim

[tabibito]

I read somewhere (many years ago) that the easiest way to engineer that kind of thing (in the early stages) is to destroy all the capable public figures with innuendo and rumour.

[oxmixmudd]

Indeed. It is not worth the cost of endless gun violence in the US, because of an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario arising.

And I think that is where this debate typically crashes. Although I don't know how many people are being just entirely selfish in terms of just wanting to be able to own more powerful weapons, the debate can't get past the possibility of an invasion where an armed public would make it more difficult, or an uprising against an oppressive government. Both scenarios seem so unlikely to me. Only China or Russia would have the power or motivation to invade, and if that was their choice - heaven help us all because it would likely go Thermo-nuclear. And guns can't help much against h-bombs. I'm not even sure they can help much in Nuclear-war aftermath where you have marauding bands of starving people looking for food unless you are willing to kill such people or kill for food. The Oppressive government deal just seemed so absolutely unlikely until recently. But things are getting very squirrelly right now - on both sides. The chances of both scenarios seem higher to me this decade than last, but I'm still not sure it is worth the gun related murders we see day in and day out here.

Though the harsh reality is, I don't know how you could actually change that without some way to remove the guns already out there. Limiting what people can buy or own in the future would take a long time to show any benefit given the number of legal and illegal guns already out there.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

I read somewhere (many years ago) that the easiest way to engineer that kind of thing (in the early stages) is to destroy all the capable public figures with innuendo and rumour.

Attacking a nation from the inside tends to be easier and more effective than attacking it from the outside.

[Charles]

Attacking a nation from the inside tends to be easier and more effective than attacking it from the outside.

Correct. Unfortunately that is what has happened to your country.

[Sparko]

Correct. Unfortunately that is what has happened to your country.

Good thing we have guns then!

[Charles]

Good thing we have guns then!

They did not help you. In fact they only made it worse.