Simple - and serious - question - why is anything other than a handgun, shotgun or rifle needed?

[thucythucy]

181. Let's see, you start off by accusing me

of being disingenuous and using "half truths" but then follow up with this lovely straw man argument: "If we ever need to struggle against tyrannical oppression, it is certainly your individual right to roll over and die, or welcome your new masters. Just submit, if that's all you feel you are capable of, or what is most comfortable and convenient for you."

Yeah, right, anyone who disagrees with you that automatic weapons need to be legal and easily obtainable is a coward who loves tyranny. Like those famous gun-haters Mohandas K. Gandhi and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.-- who BTW were among the most successful social activists in human history (and who somehow didn't make your who's who of successful struggles against tyranny and oppression). Gandhi didn't see a need to walk around with grenades, Dr. King never owned a machine gun, so they both obviously loved tyranny and did "what is most comfortable and convenient."

"And as for your apparent insult to American Indians, yes, please, go ahead and point out the obvious to us."

"The obvious" in the context of your post about the effectiveness of small arms against artillery and other heavy ordnance is that the American Indians lost. Understand? They put up a spirited, sometimes tactically brilliant "guerilla" war that went on for several centuries, and yet were defeated militarily and their sovereignty limited to "reservations." You don't know this?

The rest of your post avoids all the points I make. Yes, the Vietnamese drove out the French and then the Americans. They had heavy artillery at Dien Bien Phu, against the Americans they had rocket propelled grenades, anti-aircraft cannon, SAMs, and the final push on Saigan was done in tanks. TANKS. Surely you've seen the films.

And I'm not disputing people's right to resist an imperialist power. I AM saying that the argument that semi-automatic or automatic weapons being legal and easily obtainable in the context of a post industrial society can be justified by such a right is absurd. Not unless you're willing to also declare that private ownership of SAMs, tanks, flamethrowers, IEDs, RPGs, Stinger missiles, etc. should also be legal and easily attainable by most anyone in pursuit of the same right. That was the point of the OP, with which I agree, which I guess makes us both lovers of "tyranny." That's what this discussion was about, not mental illness, vegetarianism, city slickers telling country folk what to do, and all the rest of what you throw up.

Not to mention, in support of your position that we should all arm ourselves to the teeth to resist the coming tyranny, you link to a site on the Danish resistance of 1940-45, which was noted for its nonviolence. Talk about "disengenuous" and "half truths."

As for the rest of it, I'm not trying to limit your right to hunt for food, own a "deer rifle," eat meat or not eat meat, kill insects or not kill insects, or all the rest of it. And I have no idea what American Beauty Reality is, nor do I particularly care. Diversions, personal invective, and straw man arguments all. And while I might be tempted to agree about the evils of consumerism and the corporate state (a part of which is the gun industry and corporate gun lobby), you have no idea what kind of progressive work I do or don't do, and know nothing about what kind of "cred" I have or don't have.

BTW: pointing out that a large percentage of Americans have what some see as significant mental health issues is not exactly a winning argument for why everyone should have the right to own a fully automatic rifle. Just saying.