The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (2 Viewers)

[Senator111]

yes I guess you're right!!!!11!!!!oneone1!11one!11!!1`@11!! you should be running for the senate1!!11!11!1! I will vote 4 u Senator111!!11!!one11!!!

I'm sure that was sarcastic but anyway, my view is my view! good ol' democarcy!

I'm sure I will never be a Senator but 'tis my dream!

 

[abbeyroad]

no 4 real I will vote 4 u1!!11!!!!111111.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

forget the guns man how about the laaazzzeeerrrrss!!!!!!!!!

Doctor Octogonopus!!!

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Afghanistan also had a well-armed populace...

Citation definitely needed. I tried to find the stats on rates of gun ownership in Afghanistan but obviously its going to be hard to get any reliable data from that region.

However, I would suspect that the vast majority of poor Afgans would not have access to guns at all and that it was always a tiny minority that had all the guns in Afganistan (exactly what we are against). Remember the Taliban was funded and given weapons by the US. They had no reason to give ordinary peasants guns. Your claim is quite extraordinary, I doubt the average Afgan could even afford a gun.

While an armed populace can engage in insurgency they are simply no match for a modern military force. They can not stop attacks or invasions. They can make occupations an incredibly bloody affair and eventually after a great deal of time they may force an occupying force to withdraw.

Well obviously if the people are extremely poor and don't have access to powerful guns that is true. But in Australia people could easily afford military grade weapons if it was legal. Once again, Afganistan is a weak example.

Armies have certain advantages, but the locals who know the area also have a huge advantage. Look at the Vietnam war where the most powerful army in the world was defeated.

This however is an exceedingly poor justification for an armed populace because it is far more preferable to actually repulse on attack than get slaughtered in an insurgency for 10 years.

Well you can't repulse an attack without guns. You can't do anything.

There is a good chance that at least having a well armed populace will be enough to repulse an attack.

Obviously having guns does not make you invincible though. Many countries could be invaded by the US army no matter how many guns they had, purely because of the size disparity.

The point is that having a well armed populace massively increases the cost to an invading army of occupying the territory and subjugating the people, and therefore reduces the likelihood that it will happen.

You make years of insurgency sound so bad, but you fail to compare it to the alternative which is simply being enslaved and slaughtered. At least being an insurgent you have a chance of winning. Also you make it sound like its not a choice. I'm totally against conscription. People can choose to flee instead. To say having the chance to choose to fight for your freedom rather than simply being at the mercy of your invaders is a pretty foolish suggestion.

And of course the other consideration is that we (and indeed the rest of the developed world) have 0% risk of being invaded let alone occupied - for now at least those days are past.For example we might invade/occupy states/areas in the developing world but they aren't going to invade us developed countries have neither the motive nor the means to do it either.

It's not the developing countries that I'm worried about. Its our own government, and the US government.

A slow shift towards totalitarianism in the west can already be observed. I don't have a crystal ball, it could get better, it could get worse. But its naive to say that there is no chance that it won't get a whole lot fucking worse.

Unfortunately tyrants generally don't have rational motives for their despicable actions. Often power itself is the motive. Do I really need to list examples here?

 

[SnowFox]

e.

Armies have certain advantages, but the locals who know the area also have a huge advantage. Look at the Vietnam war where the most powerful army in the world was defeated.

That was because the Americans decided training in desert locations was better then training is wetlands.


Explains why Australia faired better in Vietnam.


As for your comment about the publics ability to buy military grade weaponry, A US M1 Abrams tank costs US$6.21 million. A US made AUG A3 Semi-Auto goes for $1950.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

That was because the Americans decided training in desert locations was better then training is wetlands.


Explains why Australia faired better in Vietnam.

I'm sure poor training was part of the reason the US lost. But it was not the only reason. As I said, having local knowledge is also a significant advantage. Citing other contributing factors does not refute this.

As for your comment about the publics ability to buy military grade weaponry, A US M1 Abrams tank costs US$6.21 million. A US made AUG A3 Semi-Auto goes for $1950.

Yes but a rocket launcher capable of firing an anti tank missile costs only a few thousand.

However, as I conceded: "having guns does not make you invincible though. Many countries could be invaded by the US army no matter how many guns they had, purely because of the size disparity.

The point is that having a well armed populace massively increases the cost to an invading army of occupying the territory and subjugating the people, and therefore reduces the likelihood that it will happen."

You have failed to refute this.

 

[SnowFox]

I dont know why i read that as "any armed group can invade the US due to its size disparity"

Fuck i must be tired or something.

 

[loquasagacious]

Citation definitely needed. I tried to find the stats on rates of gun ownership in Afghanistan but obviously its going to be hard to get any reliable data from that region.

However, I would suspect that the vast majority of poor Afgans would not have access to guns at all and that it was always a tiny minority that had all the guns in Afganistan (exactly what we are against). Remember the Taliban was funded and given weapons by the US. They had no reason to give ordinary peasants guns. Your claim is quite extraordinary, I doubt the average Afgan could even afford a gun.

I also couldn't find hard stats. However I am basing my statement on a couple of key drivers for high gun ownership:
- The US was flooding the country with guns not that long ago
- The Soviets probably left a lot of guns behind when they withdrew - also not that long ago
- The Taliban forces had guns
- The Northern Alliance had guns
- The dominance of warlords following the invasion indicates that they most likely had guns before the invasion

Well obviously if the people are extremely poor and don't have access to powerful guns that is true. But in Australia people could easily afford military grade weapons if it was legal. Once again, Afganistan is a weak example.

While in the past the main weapon in war were personal arms that is no longer the case. While ordinary citizens may be able to afford military rifles and perhaps even a missile launcher of some sort this does not place them in a position to effectively oppose a modern army.

A modern army is bringing guns and launchers - but they are also bringing fighters, bombers, artillery, tanks, ships, helicopters, UAVs, etc etc. The prevalence of missiles might increase their tank/helicopter costs but they can shell or bomb a city with impunity.

Crucially a modern army also has logistics. Militias will run out of food and ammunition, the modern army has supply chains replenishing it's stores and it's numbers.

Armies have certain advantages, but the locals who know the area also have a huge advantage. Look at the Vietnam war where the most powerful army in the world was defeated.

The North Vietnamese fought an insurgency war not a conventional war, it took them 16 years and they sustained ~1million more deaths than the South/allied foreign forces.

And of course there is the argument that the Vietnam war was lost in the New York Times not Vietnam. Their attempt to fight conventionally in the Tet offensive over-extended them and they were broken. The public perception however was of a resilient North and the will of the American public was broken.

Well you can't repulse an attack without guns. You can't do anything.

There is a good chance that at least having a well armed populace will be enough to repulse an attack.

Being unarmed is hardly optimal but see above a militia will not generally be able to repulse an attack. At best a militia can reinforce an army and following the defeat of an army they can form an insurgency to fight the long war against occupation.

The point is that having a well armed populace massively increases the cost to an invading army of occupying the territory and subjugating the people, and therefore reduces the likelihood that it will happen.

Reducing the chance of occupation is great. Except it doesn't really happen. As much as the socialist alternative might accuse the developed world of being colonial we don't have colonies. We also don't invade each other.

We are far far more likely to use 'surgical strikes' and bomb key installations from high altitude/UAVs or insert Special Forces or even nuke people than to actually invade and occupy.

For example the only major land wars which has threatened over the last 50 years was in Europe and along the USSR-China border. In Europe there were militias of sorts through the national service/guns in the home arrangements. The war though would have been fought between the Red Army and the armed forces of US, UK, Germany and France. It would have been bloody and would have rapidly gone nuclear. Militias would not have been involved.

You make years of insurgency sound so bad, but you fail to compare it to the alternative which is simply being enslaved and slaughtered. At least being an insurgent you have a chance of winning. Also you make it sound like its not a choice. I'm totally against conscription. People can choose to flee instead. To say having the chance to choose to fight for your freedom rather than simply being at the mercy of your invaders is a pretty foolish suggestion.

Insurgency sure beats enslavement but that's not my point. My point is that a militia is not a substitute for an army. Not that they are a bad thing in themselves - just that they don't live up to the marketing hype that you are giving them.

It's not the developing countries that I'm worried about. Its our own government, and the US government.

It seems somewhat disingenuous then to discuss the ability (or lack thereof) of a militia to oppose an invasion. Under your concept we are already occupied.

 

[Planck]

Misquoting Yamamoto | FactCheck.org

I knew it was mis-attributed/mis-quoted but the point is still valid.

It provides a huge defense against nation-state aggression.

 

[Iron]

I would think that an armed populace would be more likely to trigger nation-state aggression...

 

[SnowFox]

I would think that an armed populace would be more likely to trigger nation-state aggression...

Nah, no one shot George Bush.

 

[0bs3n3]

Armies have certain advantages, but the locals who know the area also have a huge advantage. Look at the Vietnam war where the most powerful army in the world was defeated.

Agreed with almost everything but this. Extremely contentious point. The US Army withdrew, yes, but were they defeated? I would make the point that the war was lost on the US homefront (which is were most of the fallout from the Tet Offensive fell).

 

[David Spade]

imo vietnam would have been a military victory if it wasnt for the times and shit lol 50k killed vs a few million

 

[Fish Tank]

I say background checks, compulsory military training and psychological assessment of all gun holders if they want anything more than a handgun.

 

[David Spade]

why handguns are more of a danger due to concealability you gimp

 

[David Spade]

mate thats what i just said

handguns are more dangerous

because they are more easily concealable

 

[SnowFox]

Agreed with almost everything but this. Extremely contentious point. The US Army withdrew, yes, but were they defeated? I would make the point that the war was lost on the US homefront (which is were most of the fallout from the Tet Offensive fell).

They lost, they were forced to pull out and no amount of "Tactical Advance" Or "Tactical Withdrawal" is going to cover the fact up.

They were ill equipped and ill trained.

 

[David Spade]

disagree lol

 

[SnowFox]

How so? US troops trained in desert locations and used weaponry prone to jamming.

 

[David Spade]

i agree with him on the war being lost on the home front
militarily the us were winning lol look at the numbers

they adapted to jungle warfare, not as well as australia and south vietnam etc because we had dedicated jungle warfare training and stuff but still you learn something after 8yrs somewhere