(02-09-2015 12:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 12:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 12:43 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  There is no Freedom of Speech either it seems so what's your point, turn in your weapons or just get rid of #2?

I strongly support the 2nd amendment. But given what it was meant to be by our founders, what is our recourse?

If it ever came to it, 1,000,000 people marching on Washington with firearms and then making their way to the White House or Capitol would be just as effective as in 1776. That would overwhelm any police force and the military isn't going to drop bombs on 1,000,000 people in the middle of Washington DC. Look at what was pulled off in Ukraine. It is very much so still a deterrent.

You watch too many movies...

(02-09-2015 01:28 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Miko,
More telling would be, could YOU aid such an effort? Have you adhered to the 2nd Amendment and do you bear arms?

Yes, but I only have 2 now. I used to have 5. Need a 12 gauge pump that can hold 6 or more rounds of '00' buckshot - maybe 20 gauge instead. That's for another discussion though.

(02-09-2015 01:28 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Miko,
More telling would be, could YOU aid such an effort? Have you adhered to the 2nd Amendment and do you bear arms?

just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean they're some loon who wants to overthrow the govt.

(02-09-2015 01:30 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:28 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Miko,
More telling would be, could YOU aid such an effort? Have you adhered to the 2nd Amendment and do you bear arms?

just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean they're some loon who wants to overthrow the govt.

No one is advocating overthrowing the gov't. However, the 2nd amendment has been speculated as being a deterrent against gov't overreach. Just like the first amendment has the free press as THE deterrent against gov't excess when it comes to free speech, the 2nd amendment was designed to protect property from the gov't and to revolt if need be. That's why I think the founders - or a majority of them - did view the 2nd amendment as deterrent since that was the intent of the first plus a free press linked to the 1st. The founders were huge fans of checks and balances, so a deterrent against the gov't is very logical and likely IMHO.

(02-09-2015 12:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  This thread was inspired by Kaplony's quote from George Mason in his signature.

I don't think the 2nd amendment keeps the state or federal gov'ts in check anymore.

When the constitution was first written, the citizens had muskets/rifles and the army had the same. Also, people had access to the same quick land transportation for fighting like the army did - horses. And, private citizens had access to clippers that would largely be not terribly inferior to the larger frigates that the navy had.

Today, we have semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. You can make some rifles full auto if you violate the law. Our armed forces have tanks, bombers, fighter jets, machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers, etc. etc. We don't have access to these munitions and equipment. So how is the 2nd ammendment a deterrent anymore?

Disclosure, I strongly support the 2nd amendment.

I say yes. Now is the playing field level? Of course not. Like someone else said, an armed populace marching against the government in numbers is still an effective check on power. While largely symbolic compared to it's original intent, the second amendment still provides the necessary check on government by simply allowing gun ownership.

(02-09-2015 01:35 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 12:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  This thread was inspired by Kaplony's quote from George Mason in his signature.

I don't think the 2nd amendment keeps the state or federal gov'ts in check anymore.

When the constitution was first written, the citizens had muskets/rifles and the army had the same. Also, people had access to the same quick land transportation for fighting like the army did - horses. And, private citizens had access to clippers that would largely be not terribly inferior to the larger frigates that the navy had.

Today, we have semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. You can make some rifles full auto if you violate the law. Our armed forces have tanks, bombers, fighter jets, machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers, etc. etc. We don't have access to these munitions and equipment. So how is the 2nd ammendment a deterrent anymore?

Disclosure, I strongly support the 2nd amendment.

I say yes. Now is the playing field level? Of course not. Like someone else said, an armed populace marching against the government in numbers is still an effective check on power. While largely symbolic compared to it's original intent, the second amendment still provides the necessary check on government by simply allowing gun ownership.

Yup.

What's one of the first things a dictator does when he takes over?

Disarms the populace.

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...gest-army/

This has floated around the internet for years and is extremely broad in nature, but puts things in perspective

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...5jmsg.dpuf

Quote:Thoughts on Hunters, this is an interesting slant on things. The world’s largest army; America’s hunters! I had never thought about this, but a blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000. Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world: more men in arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men and women deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting, it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security. That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain, what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens? For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

I would say no, the government is not held in check by people having guns. Right now the government does pretty much whatever it wants.

(02-09-2015 01:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:35 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 12:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  This thread was inspired by Kaplony's quote from George Mason in his signature.

I don't think the 2nd amendment keeps the state or federal gov'ts in check anymore.

When the constitution was first written, the citizens had muskets/rifles and the army had the same. Also, people had access to the same quick land transportation for fighting like the army did - horses. And, private citizens had access to clippers that would largely be not terribly inferior to the larger frigates that the navy had.

Today, we have semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. You can make some rifles full auto if you violate the law. Our armed forces have tanks, bombers, fighter jets, machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers, etc. etc. We don't have access to these munitions and equipment. So how is the 2nd ammendment a deterrent anymore?

Disclosure, I strongly support the 2nd amendment.

I say yes. Now is the playing field level? Of course not. Like someone else said, an armed populace marching against the government in numbers is still an effective check on power. While largely symbolic compared to it's original intent, the second amendment still provides the necessary check on government by simply allowing gun ownership.

Yup.

What's one of the first things a dictator does when he takes over?

Disarms the populace.

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...gest-army/

This has floated around the internet for years and is extremely broad in nature, but puts things in perspective

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...5jmsg.dpuf

Quote:Thoughts on Hunters, this is an interesting slant on things. The world’s largest army; America’s hunters! I had never thought about this, but a blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000. Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world: more men in arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men and women deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting, it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security. That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain, what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens? For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

Even without all that, who would invade the U.S.? The Navy would tear to shreds any significant force that tried to land, or at the very least, prevent them from being reinforced or re-supplied. The whole escapade would be hopeless.

We don't have a 2 million man Military, I do not believe.

(02-09-2015 02:05 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  We don't have a 2 million man Military, I do not believe.

It's right around 2 million counting the reserves.

The military will not turn on its people, hell ones like Bergdahl good luck.

(02-09-2015 02:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:35 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 12:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  This thread was inspired by Kaplony's quote from George Mason in his signature.

I don't think the 2nd amendment keeps the state or federal gov'ts in check anymore.

When the constitution was first written, the citizens had muskets/rifles and the army had the same. Also, people had access to the same quick land transportation for fighting like the army did - horses. And, private citizens had access to clippers that would largely be not terribly inferior to the larger frigates that the navy had.

Today, we have semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. You can make some rifles full auto if you violate the law. Our armed forces have tanks, bombers, fighter jets, machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers, etc. etc. We don't have access to these munitions and equipment. So how is the 2nd ammendment a deterrent anymore?

Disclosure, I strongly support the 2nd amendment.

I say yes. Now is the playing field level? Of course not. Like someone else said, an armed populace marching against the government in numbers is still an effective check on power. While largely symbolic compared to it's original intent, the second amendment still provides the necessary check on government by simply allowing gun ownership.

Yup.

What's one of the first things a dictator does when he takes over?

Disarms the populace.

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...gest-army/

This has floated around the internet for years and is extremely broad in nature, but puts things in perspective

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...5jmsg.dpuf

Quote:Thoughts on Hunters, this is an interesting slant on things. The world’s largest army; America’s hunters! I had never thought about this, but a blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000. Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world: more men in arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men and women deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting, it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security. That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain, what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens? For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

Even without all that, who would invade the U.S.? The Navy would tear to shreds any significant force that tried to land, or at the very least, prevent them from being reinforced or re-supplied. The whole escapade would be hopeless.

Good points. Though some enemies may be domestic in nature, there's no reason to suspect that the military would not ultimately side with the civilians in a conflict with an oppressive government. (Though this may change as many of the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold War era brass are retiring or being forced out.)

The armed populace would come into play more after the devastation of the military chain of command after something like a nuclear war. The remaining civilian population would still be heavily armed due to the sheer number of gun owners.

(02-09-2015 02:21 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:35 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 12:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  This thread was inspired by Kaplony's quote from George Mason in his signature.

I don't think the 2nd amendment keeps the state or federal gov'ts in check anymore.

When the constitution was first written, the citizens had muskets/rifles and the army had the same. Also, people had access to the same quick land transportation for fighting like the army did - horses. And, private citizens had access to clippers that would largely be not terribly inferior to the larger frigates that the navy had.

Today, we have semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. You can make some rifles full auto if you violate the law. Our armed forces have tanks, bombers, fighter jets, machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers, etc. etc. We don't have access to these munitions and equipment. So how is the 2nd ammendment a deterrent anymore?

Disclosure, I strongly support the 2nd amendment.

I say yes. Now is the playing field level? Of course not. Like someone else said, an armed populace marching against the government in numbers is still an effective check on power. While largely symbolic compared to it's original intent, the second amendment still provides the necessary check on government by simply allowing gun ownership.

Yup.

What's one of the first things a dictator does when he takes over?

Disarms the populace.

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...gest-army/

This has floated around the internet for years and is extremely broad in nature, but puts things in perspective

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...5jmsg.dpuf

Quote:Thoughts on Hunters, this is an interesting slant on things. The world’s largest army; America’s hunters! I had never thought about this, but a blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000. Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world: more men in arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men and women deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting, it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security. That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain, what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens? For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

Even without all that, who would invade the U.S.? The Navy would tear to shreds any significant force that tried to land, or at the very least, prevent them from being reinforced or re-supplied. The whole escapade would be hopeless.

Good points. Though some enemies may be domestic in nature, there's no reason to suspect that the military would not ultimately side with the civilians in a conflict with an oppressive government. (Though this may change as many of the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold War era brass are retiring or being forced out.)

The armed populace would come into play more after the devastation of the military chain of command after something like a nuclear war. The remaining civilian population would still be heavily armed due to the sheer number of gun owners.

I don't think that would happen. Inevitably people would disagree about what constitutes "oppressive". The military would side with the government as long as the government wasn't obviously going off the deep end. Soldiers aren't trained to question orders, and they've been sent to all corners of the world to fight in the name of various issues interpreted as "national security".

(02-09-2015 02:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:21 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:35 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I say yes. Now is the playing field level? Of course not. Like someone else said, an armed populace marching against the government in numbers is still an effective check on power. While largely symbolic compared to it's original intent, the second amendment still provides the necessary check on government by simply allowing gun ownership.

Yup.

What's one of the first things a dictator does when he takes over?

Disarms the populace.

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...gest-army/

This has floated around the internet for years and is extremely broad in nature, but puts things in perspective

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...5jmsg.dpuf

Quote:Thoughts on Hunters, this is an interesting slant on things. The world’s largest army; America’s hunters! I had never thought about this, but a blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000. Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world: more men in arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men and women deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting, it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security. That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain, what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens? For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

Even without all that, who would invade the U.S.? The Navy would tear to shreds any significant force that tried to land, or at the very least, prevent them from being reinforced or re-supplied. The whole escapade would be hopeless.

Good points. Though some enemies may be domestic in nature, there's no reason to suspect that the military would not ultimately side with the civilians in a conflict with an oppressive government. (Though this may change as many of the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold War era brass are retiring or being forced out.)

The armed populace would come into play more after the devastation of the military chain of command after something like a nuclear war. The remaining civilian population would still be heavily armed due to the sheer number of gun owners.

I don't think that would happen. Inevitably people would disagree about what constitutes "oppressive". The military would side with the government as long as the government wasn't obviously going off the deep end. Soldiers aren't trained to question orders, and they've been sent to all corners of the world to fight in the name of various issues interpreted as "national security".

By oppressive I meant 'off the deep end' in the sense of rounding up certain citizens, restricting movements, revoking rights, and firing on the public.

(02-09-2015 02:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:21 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Yup.

What's one of the first things a dictator does when he takes over?

Disarms the populace.

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...gest-army/

This has floated around the internet for years and is extremely broad in nature, but puts things in perspective

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...5jmsg.dpuf

Even without all that, who would invade the U.S.? The Navy would tear to shreds any significant force that tried to land, or at the very least, prevent them from being reinforced or re-supplied. The whole escapade would be hopeless.

Good points. Though some enemies may be domestic in nature, there's no reason to suspect that the military would not ultimately side with the civilians in a conflict with an oppressive government. (Though this may change as many of the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold War era brass are retiring or being forced out.)

The armed populace would come into play more after the devastation of the military chain of command after something like a nuclear war. The remaining civilian population would still be heavily armed due to the sheer number of gun owners.

I don't think that would happen. Inevitably people would disagree about what constitutes "oppressive". The military would side with the government as long as the government wasn't obviously going off the deep end. Soldiers aren't trained to question orders, and they've been sent to all corners of the world to fight in the name of various issues interpreted as "national security".

By oppressive I meant 'off the deep end' in the sense of rounding up certain citizens, restricting movements, revoking rights, and firing on the public.

I'm not sure even that would do it, depending on whether those actions were limited in scope somehow.

(02-09-2015 02:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:21 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:35 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I say yes. Now is the playing field level? Of course not. Like someone else said, an armed populace marching against the government in numbers is still an effective check on power. While largely symbolic compared to it's original intent, the second amendment still provides the necessary check on government by simply allowing gun ownership.

Yup.

What's one of the first things a dictator does when he takes over?

Disarms the populace.

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...gest-army/

This has floated around the internet for years and is extremely broad in nature, but puts things in perspective

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...5jmsg.dpuf

Quote:Thoughts on Hunters, this is an interesting slant on things. The world’s largest army; America’s hunters! I had never thought about this, but a blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000. Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world: more men in arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men and women deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting, it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security. That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain, what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens? For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

Even without all that, who would invade the U.S.? The Navy would tear to shreds any significant force that tried to land, or at the very least, prevent them from being reinforced or re-supplied. The whole escapade would be hopeless.

Good points. Though some enemies may be domestic in nature, there's no reason to suspect that the military would not ultimately side with the civilians in a conflict with an oppressive government. (Though this may change as many of the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold War era brass are retiring or being forced out.)

The armed populace would come into play more after the devastation of the military chain of command after something like a nuclear war. The remaining civilian population would still be heavily armed due to the sheer number of gun owners.

I don't think that would happen. Inevitably people would disagree about what constitutes "oppressive". The military would side with the government as long as the government wasn't obviously going off the deep end. Soldiers aren't trained to question orders, and they've been sent to all corners of the world to fight in the name of various issues interpreted as "national security".

There is such a thing as an unlawful order. Despite what John Kerry may think, our military members aren't the dumb, mindless trigger-pullers some think they are.

(02-09-2015 04:39 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:21 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Yup.

What's one of the first things a dictator does when he takes over?

Disarms the populace.

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...gest-army/

This has floated around the internet for years and is extremely broad in nature, but puts things in perspective

http://www.bearmilleroutdoors.com/2013/1...5jmsg.dpuf

Even without all that, who would invade the U.S.? The Navy would tear to shreds any significant force that tried to land, or at the very least, prevent them from being reinforced or re-supplied. The whole escapade would be hopeless.

Good points. Though some enemies may be domestic in nature, there's no reason to suspect that the military would not ultimately side with the civilians in a conflict with an oppressive government. (Though this may change as many of the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold War era brass are retiring or being forced out.)

The armed populace would come into play more after the devastation of the military chain of command after something like a nuclear war. The remaining civilian population would still be heavily armed due to the sheer number of gun owners.

I don't think that would happen. Inevitably people would disagree about what constitutes "oppressive". The military would side with the government as long as the government wasn't obviously going off the deep end. Soldiers aren't trained to question orders, and they've been sent to all corners of the world to fight in the name of various issues interpreted as "national security".

There is such a thing as an unlawful order. Despite what John Kerry may think, our military members aren't the dumb, mindless trigger-pullers some think they are.

Indeed. This is how a number of German military leaders middle level leaders/beaurocrats were charged with war crimes. Their defence in most cases was "I had no choice. I was following orders". Nuremberg trial judges had none of that.

(02-09-2015 02:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Soldiers aren't trained to question orders

(02-09-2015 04:51 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Soldiers aren't trained to question orders

Okay that's 2. Or maybe 1.

There were probably hundreds of those. Your premise was valid in Nazi Germany, but I don't think it is today.