• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it Ok to "Gear Up" in Case Your Government Need to be Fought Against?

Is it Ok to "Gear Up" in Case You Need to Fight Your Government?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 43 69.4%

  • No.

    Votes: 8 12.9%

  • It depends on...(Explain).

    Votes: 11 17.7%

  • My Government coul NEVER be corrupt...or other silliness.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    62
VanceMack said:
Why go to the 'Onion' when you have had an example recently? Not taking sides...but that IS an example of an armed citizenry disagreeing with the federal government and taking a stand. And I know liberals love to hate the Bundy's (except Kelly...she was ditzy but she was hot). But at what point would YOU take a stand? Is there anything you believe in? See...I dont know how this all plays out in the end...but would you have imagined 2 years ago that we would go from shock and outrage at the concept of the US government spying on its citizens and using warrant-less wiretaps to now mewing silently in acceptance while the US government collects every bit of electronic and digital data that is placed on the web? We've literally gone from **** off...you dont have a right to search my car to well...if you dont have anything to hide you dont have anything to fear. Do you trust the government today? 20 years ago would you have imagined we would be OK with this?
Click to expand...

I LOVE the Bundys and yes Kelly is hot. Yeah who would have thought a GOP president and the PUBs in Congress would back an invasive set of Laws like the so-called Patriot Act??? (but some of we suspect the NSA had been collecting that data for decades- just not telling us) but the comfort is in the very volume the NSA sweeps up.

Now when it comes to searching your car... back in the 'good old days' if you refused the search the cop just adjusted your head space and timing- no dash cams, no cell phones, no judge ever believing your side of the story...

After Vietnam, Watergate, Iran Contra I'd say if just now you are wondering about believing your government you are a bit late to the party.

But do you think we 'fix' this by armed revolt?
 
Cardinal said:
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I walked into the middle of a militaman's revolutionary wet dream.
Click to expand...

It happens whenever a Democrat is president. Nobody talked much about "tooling up for the big fight against the gubberm't" when W was president.
 
WCH said:
Yah..it's better to be helpless, pathetic...

Sheep.jpg
Click to expand...

I didn't say to not own a gun for self protection. I just said that you shouldn't be retarded. If you take that as a slight against yourself that's not what was intended. Misunderstandings happen.
 
Cardinal said:
If you have a knife, they have a gun. If you get a semiautomatic, they have a flamethrower. If you get a rocket launcher, they have a tank. If you get an anti-tank missile, they'll flatten your ass with a cruise missile. It's not an arms race you're really going to win.
Click to expand...

all that goes out the window in irregular warfare.

I have a lot of weapons ( none are "stockpiled" for some oddball impending insurrection)... and to be honest, if it came down to us versus the government, i'll only grab 2 weapons... my '61 Win model 70, and my 1911.
those 2 are more than enough.
 
DaveFagan said:
Holy mackeral bucko, somebody forgot to tell the Vietnamese that, and the Afghanis/Taliban.
Click to expand...

Ahhh a master historian you are! Problem with that scenario is you leave out why the VC/Taliwhackers succeeded and why the South didn't. Distance to the conflict and willingness to see the battle through. Making Vietnam or Afghanistan safe for corporate America just wasn't a huge priority for many Americans. Kicking the Brits out of the Colonies and preserving the Union was a much higher priority. We didn't have to go half way around the world to fight Lee- and in 1776 it was the Brits who were the visiting team.

For that matter the Nazis had lots of heavy combat weaponry and they failed- a case where massive productivity, determination, and a massive male population overload won.

So the real question is which side will have the most and more motivated armed force, which side can sustain it's field forces, which side can garner international support, which side can protect the non combatants...

Oh and if you think all the VC/Taliwhackers had were AKs ya need to go sit down... :peace
 
Cardinal said:
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I walked into the middle of a militaman's revolutionary wet dream.
Click to expand...
Congratulations for making the silliest response of the day. Real events are not wet dreams, IMHO.
Perhaps you are battling imaginary enemies.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
As such a model would fail in the courts, its quite unreasonable actually. Australia doesn't have a second amendment.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, that constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms which makes the gun laws the same in CT and VT. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Ah yes, that constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms which makes the gun laws the same in CT and VT. ;)
Click to expand...

While SCOTUS has allowed for some variation of gun laws at the state and local level, regardless of which state you are in you still enjoy some of the most permissive gun laws of any developed country on earth.

Moreover, even if somehow the constitution was changed and gun rights became much more restrictive, its absurd to think that Joe Blow is going to be able to defeat the US government. If a truly totalitarian government faced an armed household that was resisting it, that government would just blow up that house with everyone in it and move on to the next one. The notion that a government would fear an armed citizenry is a product of a much different time.

Besides, the founders wanted an armed citizenry not because they thought that citizenry would defeat the governments armies should that government become corrupt. Instead, they wanted an armed citizenry because they did not want the government to have a permanent standing army. Thus the government would always have to depend upon the citizen militias to defend the nation. Thus the government could not become totalitarian because it would always be beholden to the citizens for national defense.

For that notion of the 2nd Amendment to be relevant today, we would have to completely do away will are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
 
DaveFagan said:
Holy mackeral bucko, somebody forgot to tell the Vietnamese that, and the Afghanis/Taliban.
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't noticed, but we actually have a functional government?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
While SCOTUS has allowed for some variation of gun laws at the state and local level, regardless of which state you are in you still enjoy some of the most permissive gun laws of any developed country on earth.

Moreover, even if somehow the constitution was changed and gun rights became much more restrictive, its absurd to think that Joe Blow is going to be able to defeat the US government. If a truly totalitarian government faced an armed household that was resisting it, that government would just blow up that house with everyone in it and move on to the next one. The notion that a government would fear an armed citizenry is a product of a much different time.

Besides, the founders wanted an armed citizenry not because they thought that citizenry would defeat the governments armies should that government become corrupt. Instead, they wanted an armed citizenry because they did not want the government to have a permanent standing army. Thus the government would always have to depend upon the citizen militias to defend the nation. Thus the government could not become totalitarian because it would always be beholden to the citizens for national defense.

For that notion of the 2nd Amendment to be relevant today, we would have to completely do away will are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
Click to expand...

All of those are government jobs...totally voluntary. As well is the national guard. [also might want to throw in all the ABC agencies that have their own armies]

Regardless the 'supposed] overwhelming power of the FedGov over it's citizens, those people who are employed by said government would have to have the will to kill or maim their fellow brothers and sisters. I don't think many would follow that order. Not again.
 
Thrilla said:
all that goes out the window in irregular warfare. I have a lot of weapons ( none are "stockpiled" for some oddball impending insurrection)... and to be honest, if it came down to us versus the government, i'll only grab 2 weapons... my '61 Win model 70, and my 1911. those 2 are more than enough.
Click to expand...

Actually no it doesn't all go out the window. It is a popular misconception irregulars have some magic ninja powers. Some huge advantages lie with a well trained and armed force vs a collection of guys with bolt guns. (I'm VERY fond of the old CRF wins but I ain't taking one to a firefight with the Gubmint.)

The training and fitness level of any sort of combat is intense. Coordination and cooperation will be a painful, costly learning curve. (people tend to overlook guerrillas have impressive losses in their learning curve)

If we are talking Urban combat, technology has changed that battlefield- everything from shutting down huge swaths of the power grid to all those security cameras- the Soviets used the photographs taken during the early stages of the Czech and Hungarian rebellions to round up rebel leaders. The Gubmint forces will condone and search the cities block by block- unless there are thousands of rebels willing to die the sweeps will soon strip the cities of military aged men and quite a few weapons.

Rural warfare could be even worse- far more difficult to maintain field forces in the woods- technology has made hiding from view a lot harder than the Viet Cong days. Thermal imaging on aerial platforms, night sights on Gubmint weapons means most likely you'll never engage in aimed fire before the cold, dead hands thing.

Now perhaps a rebellion could survive in the deepest parts of the Rockies, but that won't be a huge bother to 90% of the population- and just how the rebellion keeps ammo for their hunting rifles would be interesting.

But I agree, those two weapons will be more than enough if you wish to join a rebellion. Doesn't matter what they pry out of your cold, dead hands... :peace
 
Cephus said:
Maybe you haven't noticed, but we actually have a functional government?
Click to expand...

Although it be a corrupt one which very few trust that is extremely in debt. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
 
WCH said:
Although it be a corrupt one which very few trust that is extremely in debt. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

Doesn't stop it from being functional.
 
notquiteright said:
Actually no it doesn't all go out the window. It is a popular misconception irregulars have some magic ninja powers. Some huge advantages lie with a well trained and armed force vs a collection of guys with bolt guns. (I'm VERY fond of the old CRF wins but I ain't taking one to a firefight with the Gubmint.)

The training and fitness level of any sort of combat is intense. Coordination and cooperation will be a painful, costly learning curve. (people tend to overlook guerrillas have impressive losses in their learning curve)

If we are talking Urban combat, technology has changed that battlefield- everything from shutting down huge swaths of the power grid to all those security cameras- the Soviets used the photographs taken during the early stages of the Czech and Hungarian rebellions to round up rebel leaders. The Gubmint forces will condone and search the cities block by block- unless there are thousands of rebels willing to die the sweeps will soon strip the cities of military aged men and quite a few weapons.

Rural warfare could be even worse- far more difficult to maintain field forces in the woods- technology has made hiding from view a lot harder than the Viet Cong days. Thermal imaging on aerial platforms, night sights on Gubmint weapons means most likely you'll never engage in aimed fire before the cold, dead hands thing.

Now perhaps a rebellion could survive in the deepest parts of the Rockies, but that won't be a huge bother to 90% of the population- and just how the rebellion keeps ammo for their hunting rifles would be interesting.

But I agree, those two weapons will be more than enough if you wish to join a rebellion. Doesn't matter what they pry out of your cold, dead hands... :peace
Click to expand...

You're running on the presumption that employees [not necessarily loyalist] of the FedGov will follow orders to attack their fellow citizenry. I happen to know a few active military that won't.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
While SCOTUS has allowed for some variation of gun laws at the state and local level, regardless of which state you are in you still enjoy some of the most permissive gun laws of any developed country on earth.
Click to expand...
that's generally true.

Moreover, even if somehow the constitution was changed and gun rights became much more restrictive, its absurd to think that Joe Blow is going to be able to defeat the US government. If a truly totalitarian government faced an armed household that was resisting it, that government would just blow up that house with everyone in it and move on to the next one. The notion that a government would fear an armed citizenry is a product of a much different time.
Click to expand...
a single household stands no chance against a tyrannical government..... but a a tyrannical government stands no chance against a sizable portion of a civilian population ( 5 to 10% is plenty)
this is especially true for the united states.

Besides, the founders wanted an armed citizenry not because they thought that citizenry would defeat the governments armies should that government become corrupt. Instead, they wanted an armed citizenry because they did not want the government to have a permanent standing army. Thus the government would always have to depend upon the citizen militias to defend the nation. Thus the government could not become totalitarian because it would always be beholden to the citizens for national defense.
Click to expand...
there's a little truth in here.. and a little falsehood.
some of our founders did address an armed populace throwing off our own government, should the need arise.
of course , that's exactly what they just got done doing, so it make sense they would address the very scenario they just went through.

technically/legally speaking, we don't have a standing army ... though in practical terms we do... the US army is reauthorized every 2 years by legislation ( more accurately, as the Constitution specifically address appropriating funds, funds are allocated every 2 years)
it's entirely possible for the Army to be out of business, provided Congress fails to allocate funds.
the Navy, however, is under no such constitutional constraints.

For that notion of the 2nd Amendment to be relevant today, we would have to completely do away will are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
Click to expand...
not so much...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
While SCOTUS has allowed for some variation of gun laws at the state and local level, regardless of which state you are in you still enjoy some of the most permissive gun laws of any developed country on earth.

Moreover, even if somehow the constitution was changed and gun rights became much more restrictive, its absurd to think that Joe Blow is going to be able to defeat the US government. If a truly totalitarian government faced an armed household that was resisting it, that government would just blow up that house with everyone in it and move on to the next one. The notion that a government would fear an armed citizenry is a product of a much different time.

Besides, the founders wanted an armed citizenry not because they thought that citizenry would defeat the governments armies should that government become corrupt. Instead, they wanted an armed citizenry because they did not want the government to have a permanent standing army. Thus the government would always have to depend upon the citizen militias to defend the nation. Thus the government could not become totalitarian because it would always be beholden to the citizens for national defense.

For that notion of the 2nd Amendment to be relevant today, we would have to completely do away will are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
Click to expand...

As to that (bolded above) assertion you are contrasting mainly the ratio of regulars to reserves. That standing federal force (the standing U.S.Navy was established in 1775 and AFAIK was never disbanded, the standing U.S. Army was established in 1789, its academy at West Point added in 1802 and still stands today) is still made up of volunteer citizens, occasionally augmented by conscripts. It is not as if these military personnel do not have family and friends in every part of our nation. The people have more to fear from federal, state and local law enforcement that are allowed to engage in asset forfeiture than our standing armed forces - when were they ever allowed to legally keep up plunder?
 
WCH said:
All of those are government jobs...totally voluntary. As well is the national guard. [also might want to throw in all the ABC agencies that have their own armies]

Regardless the 'supposed] overwhelming power of the FedGov over it's citizens, those people who are employed by said government would have to have the will to kill or maim their fellow brothers and sisters. I don't think many would follow that order. Not again.
Click to expand...

Your delusional then. I assure you if some bunch of armed militia types tried to engage in an armed fight with the U.S. government, the vast majority of Americans would see them as dangerous extremists and they would want the government to take them out by any means necessary.

For example, if local law enforcement went in to lawfully arrest these militia types that are occupying that federal wildlife refuge and in response that militia opened fire on those law enforcement officers, I guarantee you a solid majority of Americans would be for the government going in and killing every one of them if that's what it took.

After all, there was not much public sympathy for Timothy McVeigh.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
As to that (bolded above) assertion you are contrasting mainly the ratio of regulars to reserves. That standing federal force (the standing U.S.Navy was established in 1775 and AFAIK was never disbanded, the standing U.S. Army was established in 1789, its academy at West Point added in 1802 and still stands today) is still made up of volunteer citizens, occasionally augmented by conscripts. It is not as if these military personnel do not have family and friends in every part of our nation. The people have more to fear from federal, state and local law enforcement that are allowed to engage in asset forfeiture than our standing armed forces - when were they ever allowed to legally keep up plunder?
Click to expand...

When you say the people you are really talking about small minority of extremists, should they ever rise up, the rest of America will see them as nothing more than dangerous extremists and will support any means necessary to take them out. Domestic terrorists have never enjoyed much public support.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Your delusional then. I assure you if some bunch of armed militia types tried to engage in an armed fight with the U.S. government, the vast majority of Americans would see them as dangerous extremists and they would want the government to take them out by any means necessary.

For example, if local law enforcement went in to lawfully arrest these militia types that are occupying that federal wildlife refuge and in response that militia opened fire on those law enforcement officers, I guarantee you a solid majority of Americans would be for the government going in and killing every one of them if that's what it took.

After all, there was not much public sympathy for Timothy McVeigh.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a few ATF or FBI types raiding a compound. Worked out well in Waco.

I'm talking about a massive undertaking with the military involved. This isn't like ISIS killing their own mothers.

Watch this video and see how little difference there is between these groups. Many were brothers in arms beforehand.

 
notquiteright said:
Actually no it doesn't all go out the window. It is a popular misconception irregulars have some magic ninja powers. Some huge advantages lie with a well trained and armed force vs a collection of guys with bolt guns. (I'm VERY fond of the old CRF wins but I ain't taking one to a firefight with the Gubmint.)
Click to expand...
no ninja powers needed... irregular/guerrilla warfare isn't about magic... it's about smarts.
yes, regular forces have some advantages.... which is why is takes smarts to negate them.
once you understand the strategy and tactics of regular forces, they are quite easy to counter, as we've seen throughout history.
in our case, we hav a very large veteran population... all of which are trained, and have been trained, in regular US forces tactics.....
The training and fitness level of any sort of combat is intense. Coordination and cooperation will be a painful, costly learning curve. (people tend to overlook guerrillas have impressive losses in their learning curve)
Click to expand...
yes, i'm aware...I have 25 years wearing Marine green.... and yes, guerrillas do suffer losses very often.
the dumb ones have a steep leaning curve ahead of them, unless they have folks in play that can help out in the knowledge department.

If we are talking Urban combat, technology has changed that battlefield- everything from shutting down huge swaths of the power grid to all those security cameras- the Soviets used the photographs taken during the early stages of the Czech and Hungarian rebellions to round up rebel leaders. The Gubmint forces will condone and search the cities block by block- unless there are thousands of rebels willing to die the sweeps will soon strip the cities of military aged men and quite a few weapons.
Click to expand...
you make it sounds so very easy, yet our own forces still, to this day, have a tough time doing any of that.....there's a reason why insurgencies are very protected conflicts.. and it's precisely because it's not easy for regular forces to pull off.

Rural warfare could be even worse- far more difficult to maintain field forces in the woods- technology has made hiding from view a lot harder than the Viet Cong days. Thermal imaging on aerial platforms, night sights on Gubmint weapons means most likely you'll never engage in aimed fire before the cold, dead hands thing.
Click to expand...
personally, i agree... urban AOs are preferable to rural

Now perhaps a rebellion could survive in the deepest parts of the Rockies, but that won't be a huge bother to 90% of the population- and just how the rebellion keeps ammo for their hunting rifles would be interesting.
Click to expand...
a rebellion would perish quickly if it only lends itself to the mountains or rural areas... it would be playing into the strengths of the regular forces, not it's weaknesses.

But I agree, those two weapons will be more than enough if you wish to join a rebellion. Doesn't matter what they pry out of your cold, dead hands... :peace
Click to expand...
well, dying is always a possibility...but the chances of survival get much better with age, experience, and skills though.:cool:

I love my Marine Corps... but i don't give it very good odds against the american population should the occasion arise, for a number of reasons.
 
WCH said:
You're talking about a few ATF or FBI types raiding a compound. Worked out well in Waco.
Click to expand...

The losers in Waco are dead. I'd say it worked out fine.
 
Some of those "losers" were little children.
 
calamity said:
I think it's a suicide mission, but yes. I believe it is quite alright to build up a small weapons armory just in case the government becomes overreaching. I have no plans to do so. But, I definitely understand that concept.
Click to expand...

You are right - it would be a suicide mission. And if it did NOT involve lots of innocent people getting hurt and killed and the tearing away of some of the fabric that holds society together, I almost wish the far right wing fanatics could get their death wish granted and they could trot out all their macho toys and go toe to toe against the government forces and then be shut the hell up forever and ever on.

But my better angels take over and I hope and pray such a right wing day of attempted jubilee never comes to pass. Nor for their sake - but for the rest of us who might get hit in the crossfire and for the government soldiers and police who will have to deal with flushing that particular reeking toilet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom