B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
You keep thinking the military would be on the side if the gun grabbers. Some would be, some would not be. That is the chaos of a civil war/revolution.
- Status
L
Luke6_37
Guest
It wasn’t a debate. It was a statement followed by an ad hominem aimed at undermining it.Luke6_37:
FYI, you have to be debating something for a claim of Ad Hominem to have any merit.
He may have slagged off the guy, but it wasn’t an Ad Hominem as you claimed. Study up on your logical fallacies.
N
NickyMaz
Guest
The military would never agree to do this because it’s a violation of the Constitution they swore to uphold. Also, most military members are conservative and pro-gun!
L
Lev
Guest
Jesus issued in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant paved it’s way but essentially Jesus is well known as a new style peacemaker that revealed a better way of relationship.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If the military is on your side then you don’t need unregistered guns to oppose them.LeafByNiggle:
You keep thinking the military would be on the side if the gun grabbers. Some would be, some would not be. That is the chaos of a civil war/revolution.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
I can’t wait to turn in my $2K AR’s for a $100 gift card to applebees!
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
You missed the “some would, some wouldnt”.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Regardless of the proportion of the military that joined in the rebellion, the chances that an unorganized bunch of gun-worshippers making a difference in the outcome is nearly zero. Also the chance of an armed rebellion arising in your lifetime is nearly zero. Also also, the chance that such a rebellion would be justified by the Catechism paragraph 2243 is nearly zero. So all told, your have zero x zero x zero chance that having a gun in case of a rebellion is a good thing.LeafByNiggle:
You missed the “some would, some wouldnt”.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
strawman arguments require dealing in absolutes.
T
Theo520
Guest
A civil war would have more issues behind it than gun rights.
By your logic there never should have been a successful civil war in the history of the world, since the govt always has the military and police on their side. What you are imagining isn’t the real world.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Showing one’s disdain for those who have opposing views is, in my view, a death-blow to an argument that might otherwise be considered seriously. Possibly I’m not the only one who stopped reading after “…organized bunch of gun worshippers…” and I’ll bet I’m not.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Well, no, if it’s a proper civil war, and not an insurrection, then usually you have the military divided between the belligerents. The English and US Civil Wars are good examples of Modern Era civil wars. In both cases you had two armies (well, okay, technically in the English Civil War there was also the Scottish, but I digress), and thus some degree of equality. In other words, both sides could field armies and fight conventional battles for their time.
Assuming the US military stayed loyal to the President, all the gun owners in America would still end up being little more than a very large insurrection, and while it might be able to fight some sort of guerrilla campaign like the Spanish partisans did in the Peninsular War, it would have no hope of any real victory. But warfare and the technology behind it has changed significantly since even the Peninsular War. Then, it was conceivable for even irregular army to have weapons at least somewhat similar to the weapons available to the regular army they were fighting, but modern militaries, particularly the US’s, are so far beyond that, that it’s hard to imagine what you think a bunch of civilians are going to hope to accomplish.
For there to be another US civil war there would need to be some significant portion of the US armed forces splitting from Federal control. All the civilian guns in America would not make a civil war. The Second Amendment, at least so far as it is rooted in the notion that the people might need to battle for their liberty against tyranny, ceased to be plausible scenario even by the mid-19th century. By that time, even the combined might and manpower of the Confederacy, with some pretty talented generals, was unable to defeat the Union.
T
Theo520
Guest
You have built up quite a straw man fantasy. The US Civil war isn’t an example of a modern civil war.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
And even then, a lot the generals of the US army from southern states defected.
I know I personally would fight for Kentucky over the federal government if the two were at odds.
I’m a Kentuckian first, and an American second.
N
niceatheist
Guest
It is a modern era civil war in an industrialized country. Some folks even argue that the US Civil War may actually have been the first modern war. Yes, the weaponry wasn’t as remarkable as available now, but it’s a very good example of how an actual civil war functions; with two proper armies duking it out, and not an irregular militia trying to take on a regular army.niceatheist:
You have built up quite a straw man fantasy. The US Civil war isn’t an example of a modern civil war.
I’d go further than arguing the Civil War was the first modern war. It was probably the first example of fully industrialized total war. The innovations in that war were phenomenal; the use of trains, the telegraph, submarines, iron-clads (the battle between the Virginia and the Monitor literally changed the rules of naval combat). There weren’t airplanes yet, to be sure, but there was the introduction of the Gatling Gun, the granddaddy of automatic weapons.
I don’t know how you can say the US Civil War wasn’t a modern war.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That does not follow. All I am claiming is that there is no justification for a civil war in the foreseeable future. If that changes, then that would be the time to start stockpiling weapons. But to do so on speculation of what might someday be is nonsense.LeafByNiggle:
A civil war would have more issues behind it than gun rights.
By your logic there never should have been a successful civil war in the history of the world, since the govt always has the military and police on their side. What you are imagining isn’t the real world.
Last edited:
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
Si vis pacem para bellum
T
Theo520
Guest
I think a modern uprising would be closer to what we saw in eastern Europe with the fall of communism or the Middle East.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I only use the term “gun-worshippers” with people who have previously used the term “gun-grabbers.” I hope you remembered to chastise them for their disdain for opposing views too.LeafByNiggle:
Showing one’s disdain for those who have opposing views is, in my view, a death-blow to an argument that might otherwise be considered seriously.
- Status