|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Why people support higher capacity magazines (1/15/2013 1:44:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: papassion
The intent of the founding fathers wiith the 2nd amendment was so the people could defend themselves against an oppressive government. The government at that time had muskets and the people had muskets.
Now the government has has high capacity weapons, thus the people need high capacity weapons to defend themselves from an oppressive government.
What chance would the general population have against the government forces? First, Let me tell you a story about how a small group of fighters with old ak-47s and homemade ordinance have been holding back the mightyist army in the world in Iraq and ahganistan, for what, 13 YEARS now? Ever heard of the taliban? or other SMALL groups? They kicked the Russian's mighty military ass too!
and second, half or more of the soldiers in the military would not follow orders to shoot civilians and would, in fact, sabatoge military communications, etc. The military could NOT, repeat, NOT ever win against the people. And they KNOW it!
You reasoning has some gaps.
If you need military grade weaponry to defend yourself against an oppressive government then you are implying that you believe the military will attack civilians otherwise what is the need for the weapons? However since you do not call for the private ownership of tanks and heavy weapons you are implictly relying on the failure of the military to obey orders to attack the civilian populace which contradicts your underlying assumption.
BTW the taliban has only just managed to avoid complete annihilation over the last decade. They are not holding anyone else, especially the US Army, back. They have not been able to hold territory and the only reason they still exist is W's decision to ignore that war for 6 years.
When will this fantasy that people armed with low grade military arms be able to stop an oppresive goverment able to field Apache gunships, warships and tactical strike aircraft end?
There is a fundamental difference between the Taliban fighting our soldiers and American Civilians fighting our soldiers. As Gaddhafi found (not sure if Assad has as well), there will be defections from the military who bring with them whatever munition/equipment they are in. And, since you can poke a guy's eyes out with a finger, why would anyone need a gun at all, right? Even if you're military and decked for a fight, who would you rather go after, a Civilian that might have a rifle, but not as big as yours, or a Civilian that might have a rifle very similar to your own?
And, regarding tanks, Apache choppers and heavy weapons... I've watched several documentaries showing a group of 4 or 5 guys being able to deck out their van and win a firefight against military units. It was amazing, really. I still can't figure out why people think Murdock is "Howling Mad."
|
|
|
|
