It is a common misconception...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...that laws are meant to control the common people and limit aberrant behavior. Laws are the standards by which the justice system, without malice or prejudice, convicts those whose behavior is harmfully, anti-social.

Laws that control people are themselves anti-social in that they work, not to enlighten nor to protect the peoples' freedoms, to advance a type of limited slavery. We have protection from prior restraint. Would not the same principle apply to many basic freedoms?


From Noah Webster, linguist:

(During 1787) The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.

From his cousin Daniel Webster, Senator and Secretary of State:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority…the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

Find the spirit to discern and vote against such candidates.

[Warpy]

1. Unfortunately, military technology has progressed

and those popguns will be of little use against tanks, bombers, and fighter planes.

I find the "opposition to tyranny" argument ludicrous.

That being said, I live in bear, coyote and cougar country. People outside town need their firearms around here.

I already vote against a candidate who says the freedom of "some" people needs to be limited. Those candidates are generally Republicans.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Mistaking an argument of small arms being useful against...

...occupation for an argument that they would useful against annihilation is setting up a straw-man.


Would not a governor mean to govern over more than just casualties?

[krispos42]

3. Military technology is also of limited usefulness i in a civil insurrection.

It was hard enough in Iraq and Afghanistan, when we had secure supply lines and our base of supplies was on our own soil; and when the people we were targeting were of a very different culture, language, religion, and ethnic group.

If America was dissolving into civil insurrection, what would happen to the places that produced the tanks, bombers, and fighters? How would food and fuel flow across this country? And how would the military split when mass slaughters of innocents started?

Who do you bomb? How would a conservative, southern government get Sikorsky or Pratt & Whitney or Lockheed to keep the supplies of spares and new products flowing?

How would the massive oil supplies that this country needs to run get through a fragmented infrastructure? How would food move from the interior farm country to the populated coastlines? How would coal and natural gas flow from the mines and the field and the ports to the power plants?

Damned if I know, but I know it would be chaos! The longer the chaos goes on, the more the high-tech gizmos will fall into disrepair. The military will become more like "Saving Private Ryan" and less like "Act of Valor"... men with guns, poor communication, poor transportation, depending on eyes and ears instead of radar and drones and infrared.

[Clames]

4. Your technical ignorance is showing.

In fact, even with all that technology, tanks have been defeated by very rudimentary IED's that are within the manufacturing capacity of anyone with some scrap metal and a hammer. In case you haven't been paying attention the last 10 years, we've been fighting a war against people armed with old Russia and Chinese popguns.

[gejohnston]

5. tell you what

you show up in your $20 million dollar tank, and I'll show up with my $800-$1400 disposable rocket launcher. Oh yeah, some of my pals just blew up the supply line, and a tank's fuel efficiency is measured by gallons per mile.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. I hear...

...the LA cops just bought for cheap.

[PavePusher]

7. "asymetrical warfare" is the phrase you're missing.

Please go brief the Afghans that their cause is doomed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Which cause?

The one opposing the Russians???

[gejohnston]

9. or British?

or, fill in the blank.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. Why would the Brits be a problem?

They don't believe in guns.

[PavePusher]

11. Iskandar.

Those western guys were a real pain in the ass...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Not to be a pain in the ass but...

...which one?

[PavePusher]

13. The Great one, of course.

Be sure not to miss the double entendre.

I'm here all week....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. I'm here all week....

You certainly are, as am I.

[Callisto32]

15. Don't fight a tank...

fight the people IN the tank.

[DanM]

16. Wrong.

Small arms are of little use against tanks, bombers, and fighter planes?

How do you explain the Soviets' failure to dominate Afghanistan in the 80's?

How do you explain our failure to dominate Iraqi and Afghani insurgents?

History contains numerous examples of people with inferior firepower defeating or holding off those with superior firepower, to include our own forefathers against the might of the British Empire.

What's the secret? You adapt your tactics and strategy accordingly to use your asymmetrical firepower in asymmetrical ways against a more well-equipped enemy.