But, thing is, the military will be split, as well.

The only faction of the military that will matter is the one that gets the huge 'defense' budget. That will be the one controlled by the gov't; the very thing the gun nuts imagine they will be able to fight against.

A tank without ammo or fuel is just a hunk of metal.

You all say thousands, but the population of America is over 300 million,

We're talking about ratios here, like kill rates in Warlight. A single tank or helicopter gunship is equal to hundreds or perhaps thousands of heavily armed civilian militia. Out of that 300 million, over 1 million are active military. And most of the civilians would not be fighting the gov't. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority supported the dictatorship. And claimed it was all necessary to protect their 'freedoms', too.

You cannot say "Oh, it'd be easy to convince the military to enslave and subjugate people in a manner directly at conflict with their training/conditioning/tenants/ideological purposes"

Sixteen years ago, you might have persuaded me with that line of thinking. But after George W. Bush was not only elected, but *re-elected* by the US voting public, it no longer holds any water in my view. You guys seriously over-rate the general public's ability to distinguish between facts and propaganda. Look at anti-climate-science propaganda, look at the propaganda that caused the US public to support the Iraq War for 'weapons of mass destruction'. The US public is very gullible. Perhaps that may even be true of many/most other countries, it doesn't matter. The point is that the US public *is* gullible.

You know, the fact that Sarah Palin was even a potential candidate for vice president just says so much about the state of mind of the American public. The fact that she wasn't laughed off the podium at the first sign of her utter incompetence and ineptitude is an enduring smirch on the credibility of these arguments that "good ol' average GI Joe would be able to tell who the real good guys were and just do the right thing".

Apparently you guys just haven't learned much about psychology, like the Milgram experiments or the Stanford prison experiments. Apparently you haven't learned the lesson of Nazism. The dictatorship will not 'seize power suddenly'. They will most probably be voted in by the US voting public. (If such a thing would ever happen, which I actually highly doubt. Again, I'm the skeptic in these scenarios. I'm just pointing out the absurdities that gun nuts believe are realistic scenarios.)

Edited 11/19/2015 08:37:30

"the negro"...

#Karltrollbergsback

Reported again

goy?

I completely agree with all of wct's points.

Back in ye olde times, revolutions could happen anywhere because weaponry was so primitive.

Nowadays? It's simple:

America's military has plenty of tanks.
America's general populace does not have tanks.
America's military has plenty of attack helicopters.
America's general populace does not have helicopters.

Again, it wouldn't be just civilians against the US government.

I don't quite understand why people are making the assumption that the military would necessarily side with the people over the government. It seems more likely (in this already unlikely scenario) that the military would just side with itself, overthrow the government and establish a military dictatorship.

Also, it's a little disingenuous to say that "successful" guerrilla campaigns like those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam mean that an armed American people could win a guerrilla fight with the US military. There are two major problems with that:

1: "The people" were not successful in any of those scenarios. All infrastructure and civil order was destroyed, and millions of people died. That's not a victory in my book. You could argue that since the Vietnamese did ultimately expel the Americans, that that was a win, but it's more accurate to say that it was a win for Ho Chi Minh's forces, and of course it took the country decades to recover. Iraq and Afghanistan are measurably less successful examples of a victory for the "people".

2: There is a fundamental difference between expelling an occupying force and defeating a force in their own country. The US military didn't leave Iraq and Vietnam because the guerrillas forced them to, but rather because it didn't seem worth the cost in blood and treasure to stay there. It was the same in the American Revolution. If the US military was occupying its own country, what could prompt them to leave?

@Epicular

Yeah but an Insurgency wouldn't aim to fight the army head on look at other insurgancy's in the past

if any kind of revolution/civil war happened in the US, it wouldn't happen in a bubble. it's hard telling what the arms industry would do in such a scenario, but they are capitalists, so i would assume they would try to sell to both sides. and foreign intervention would be a certainty, if not overtly then secretly. and black market arms dealers would want in on the action too. any group trying to fight the US military would be able to get arms if they wanted them.

i used to be for getting rid of the 2nd amendment entirely, but i now think it is a good thing as long as we are being responsible. i don't get the argument for less gun regulation. if you are a responsible law abiding citizen with a passion for guns you should have no problem registering to own a gun or taking gun safety courses. and if the government uses a gun registry to find you and take away your guns, or arbitrarily using gun ownership requirements to deny you a permit, then we are already too far down the rabbit hole anyway and armed insurrection is probably the only way to restore our rights. in such a scenario you will most likely have ample opportunity to join a rebellion and get arms.

people do have a right to ensure their own safety, but they also have a responsibility to not compromise the safety of others (example: being untrained and engaging with a shooter in a public place). the NRA's agenda seems to be to not give an inch on the rights aspect and to completely ignore the responsibility aspect. and it makes complete sense if you look at who funds the NRA. arms manufacturers have one goal in mind, sell as many guns as possible. this is better achieved by removing any restrictions on who can own a gun, and what kinds of guns they can own. they can't possibly care about the nature of our rights and responsibilities, because doing so would mean less guns sold. and anyone in any business arguing for less profits is going to be shown the door.

I don't understand why people keep bringing up this point:
"Well, in case of a revolution, the military would split..."
If it takes the military splitting for you to succeed in revolution, then what difference do your guns make? The side that the military takes decides what will happen. As I heard earlier in the thread, the most likely scenario would be the military taking its own side and overthrowing the government by themselves.

+1 shyb.

We definitely need to be more responsible with guns. Giving gun owners professional training would go a long way towards destroying gun related problems in this country. It's an intelligent middle ground between, "Assault rifles for everyone!" and "Give all guns to the government!"

The real reason the Founding Fathers wanted us to have guns was so we could rebel against unjust rule...not for hunting or the like. The 2nd amendment is so misunderstood.

We should do the following:
1) Ban assault weapons from public or private use or sale (except for military and police in VERY extreme situations)
2) Increase gun and ammo taxes, making it somewhat harder for a sociopath to get lots of ammunition.
3) Require tests to make sure weapons purchaser is sane.

Switzerland gives every male a gun to serve in the milita. They have one of the lowest murder rates in the world. I think culture plays a large role. Furthermore, most centers of gun violence in America (Chicago, Detroit, etc) have very strong gun restrictions.

I cry every time people say we should limit mags and military grade weapons. The smoothbore flintlock was the best weapon of the 18th century,and if the patriots hadn't had them(if they had had matchlocks instead, which would be fine for hunting) they would have lost. Also, Trump2016, although the military would play a role, insurgent warfare and thousands of armed civilians would be pretty crucial in a civil war. In the revolution, the Continental Army was fine, but guerillas were the main reason we won.

Increasing ammo prices just discourages everyday people. If a sociopath wants to shoot up a school, $40 dollars more is not going to deter him. It just hurts normal people.

I do support sanity tests tho

We should ban cars because they kill more people than guns...everyone should use public transportation



/sarc

similar to vaccinations, restrictions on arms sales would need to be widespread to be effective.

what about background checks? loath as we may be to admit it, some terrorists could easily be sane, just extremely hateful.