I’m not particularly liberal (I’m a pretty staunch pro-lifer). I just don’t hold to this silly idea that a semi-automatic military-style rifle will somehow protect me from an entity that has tanks, copters, nukes, subs, aircraft, ect. ect.
Liberals truly are ignorant of history, and really human nature. Military and former military members are far more likely to be supportive of the 2nd amendment than New York City and San Francisco liberals. It seems rather optimistic to assume that they would fight on the side of the “gun grabbers” rather than against them.
Not a “gun grabber”.Boatswain2PA:
Liberals truly are ignorant of history, and really human nature. Military and former military members are far more likely to be supportive of the 2nd amendment than New York City and San Francisco liberals. It seems rather optimistic to assume that they would fight on the side of the “gun grabbers”.
If you want a semi-accurate representation of how a true rebellion could occur against a tyrannical modern government watch the movie Valkyrie.
The American revolution was not a peasant revolt. If we have another revolution it wouldn’t be a peasant revolt either.
There were no few Chekists killed as well in the course of it, despite the fact that the Chekists had guns and the peasants didn’t. And the OUN even had its own border crossings out of the Soviet Union for years despite the fact that it was massively outnumbered and outgunned.
The American Revolution succeeded primarily because of 1.) French support (a la “proxy war”) and 2.) the enormous logistical lag between England and the American colonies circa 1770. The advent of the jet engine pretty well counters #2 in favor of the government.Vonsalza:
The American revolution was not a peasant revolt. If we have another revolution it wouldn’t be a peasant revolt either.
My impression is that it was multifactorial. Among other disadvantages the Brits had was the fact that the “frontier” was endless. People lived out in the hinterland than they didn’t know about and couldn’t control, but who could strike from their territories. Another was money. Parliament at the time was very money-conscious, and the American Revolution was a significant money loser from their standpoint, but without there being all that great a seeming reward at the end. The 13 colonies were not a treasure trove of gold, jewels and valuable spices like India.
So you’re figuring, Texas, for example, would call out their National Guard to disarm their citizens, and the National Guard would do it? Okay.
I think the fact that over the next century they developed an Empire over which “the sun never sets” would be something you should include in the analysis.Vonsalza:
My impression is that it was multifactorial. Among other disadvantages the Brits had was the fact that the “frontier” was endless. People lived out in the hinterland than they didn’t know about and couldn’t control, but who could strike from their territories. Another was money. Parliament at the time was very money-conscious, and the American Revolution was a significant money loser from their standpoint, but without there being all that great a seeming reward at the end. The 13 colonies were not a treasure trove of gold, jewels and valuable spices like India.
Even if the Brits had “won”, they would have lost eventually, because they couldn’t devote enough soldiers or resources to keeping an ever-expanding frontier with an ever-growing population pacified. There was no end to it.
Nope. They need not do something so aggressive.
Most current Pew result for “Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?” is 48%
I don’t support a 2nd amendment repeal…
That’s easier said than done. There’s not one nationwide food depository where all the nation’s food is stored and distributed, and the President just flips a switch and food deliveries to the states stop. Texas, a place where resistance would be likely to start, has it’s own ports, and highway and air connections with other countries. It’s also where quite a lot of oil is produced and refined, without which these fabulous tanks and helicopters are little more than rusting hulks. In any case, talk of it is ridiculous because it’s not going to happen.
If that poll were accurate, more than a 1/3 of Florida legislators would have voted to pass the Assault Weapons Ban less than a week after the Parkland shooting. They didn’t.
No, it’s pretty easily done. Close the ports and interstates.
They just get it from North Dakota, Alaska, California or 100 nations selling it on the open market…
I totally agree. Any would-be rebel with a 10% functioning brain would foresee his inevitable defeat before he fired the first shot - further making assault-style weapons fairly useless to own (unless the coyotes learn how to use pistols…)
So you’re assuming that Florida legislators accurately represent the country at-large on the issue of assault weapons ban???
My statement is more along the lines that even if the media don’t report it, it will get out on the Internet. Because of the nature of most criminal courts in Common Law jurisdictions (I can’t speak to other places), when someone is charged with a crime, that information is public knowledge (all part of the notion of an open and accountable court system). So if the news networks abstained, I still think you’d end up with the name out there. I understand the underlying concept of trying not to advertise the names of criminals in murder spree and terrorist attacks, but in the Internet Age, I just don’t know if it is feasible.
I don’t discount anything you said. But I don’t think France’s aid was a sine qua non for a successful American revolution. Look at the U.S. today. Militarily we’re massively more powerful than the Taliban. We could wipe them from the face of the earth with a concerted effort, and we would have helpers in the task from other tribes.
I think a concerted effort would be successful most of the time. But even if a shooter’s name got out onto the internet or whatever, it would not necessarily result in the days-long “wallow” that we always get from the media when one of these things happens. I guarantee that tonight on the news, every single network will lead off with this event unless Russia attacks China. Every one.
If France’s direct and indirect aid had not been offered, I think the Continental Army’s chances would have been a lot lower. Could they still have won? I suppose they could have, but it would have been immensely more difficult, and let’s also remember that the War of Independence was in a way Britain’s Vietnam War, in that as much as any particular military defeat, there was growing unpopularity with the way Lord North’s ministry was conducting the war. In even a semi-democratic state like Britain in the late 18th century, unpopularity at home can be as devastating to the war effort as any particular set of defeats.
Oh man, you said it. If not for Russia’s defeats in Japan and the Finnish Civil War, the October Revolution may have never happened/been successful.