I sure hate America Bashers..... Arghhh.:mad:

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Right, but don't you think this undermines much of what pro-RKBAers often say? Size is a very big problem for guerrilla movements. They need to have the support of the population. The conventional army/totalitarian government can seek to undermine this in a number of ways, which is the point of state terror like that which we've seen under many Communist regimes. The only kinds of people who tend to endure in the face of that challenge are those who are very tough and who are willing to put their lives on the line for the guerrillas and not cooperate, no matter what kind of terror the regime uses to coerce them into giving up the rebels' location. That is how these kinds of regimes keep themselves in power - they offer material incentives (usually subsidies on consumer goods) to ensure that the people depend on them for their well-being, and they use state terror to punish anyone who steps out of line or who is perceived as anti-regime.

As for outside assistance, you are correct about this. Most insurgencies either are state-supported, or they have ways of generating funding so that they can buy material on the black market. But this undermines the notion that gun control is part of a plot to disarm the population so that the Democrats can impose a Marxist government on us, or that the 2nd Amendment is really such a valuable "reset" button on the Constitution. If there really were a civil war in the U.S., or an invading army, it's pretty likely that somebody would be quick to capitalize upon the demand for arms by the rebels. In which case, the prior ownership of guns by civilians is pretty much irrelevant, one way or the other.

I think it's also worth remembering that the availability of small arms is almost never correlated with democracy or totalitarianism. There are a lot of AKs and RPGs floating around Iran right now. Many of them are in the hands of the Basji, the local civilian militias that are loyal to the Mullahs. But plenty are also in the hands of the various separatist groups that exist in the country, as well as the leftist MEK (the biggest of the anti-regime insurgent groups). Obviously, the proliferation of guns in the hands of Iranian civilians doesn't seem to have much of an effect on the regime's ability to run its Shi'te theocratic style of governance.

Whew Lots to think about. But I'll try. Incidentally I'm a member of the NRA and a cop and an Army veteran. So I'm sort of on both sides of the fence I guess.

I think having an armed populace (like the United States) can be a two edged sword. It could be argued that an armed civilian populace makes for a population that is more agressive and willing to stand up to the goverment (peacefully) because it makes them feel stronger. Regardless of how effective those small arms might be in an extended and costly conflict. So if nothing else the 2nd Amendment helps to give the other amendments teeth - so to speak.

Also many cops, soldiers, saliors, airmen, firefighters and even federal agents belong to the so called "American gun-culture". That includes me. What does this mean? Well I guess it's hard to say, but I would imagine that if some type of political doomsday scenario occurred and gun ownership became ilegal in the U.S. it might make things harder for the goverment to carry it out. I will leave it to the novelists in the group to work out that scenario.

Now, right now, the "goverment" be it local, state or federal might be in danger of swamping us with taxes (remember goverment employees also pay taxes), but I don't see a totalitarian regime emerging. You know the majority of the population just wants to live their lives and get by. They're too busy (or lazy) to do other things outside their field of interest.

That's human nature. That's why there are police departments, fire departments, paramedics etc. I know that this will piss off Liberterians, but most folks are too busy with life to run their own snow plows, operate an emergency clinic etc. Modern society is specialized for a reason.

I am a cop in city with apprximately 45,000 residents. There are sixty-three officers in my department. Now this is Idaho so you can be assured that at least 33% to 50% of the city's residents have some type of firearm. You do the math. 33% of 45,000 people means my department is outnumbered and out-gunned. But that isn't an issue. Those folks want us there and (most) are glad we are out there. If for no other reason than that they are busy (like I stated earlier) and don't have to time to be neighborhood constables. The idea of us trying to impose some type of tyranny is silly and I for one would take issue with some idiot trying to throw out the constitution.

I think where private firearms really come into play is for self-defense and the occassional civil emergency. I would much rather be armed in a post-Katrina situation than be depending on the principles of pacificsm. I don't think we can ever know how many people's lives might have been saved in New Orleans after Katrina because they were armed. As a cop there are days when it's all I can do to keep up with my little patrol area in my moderately sized city and my fellow officers are frequently in the same spot. Even in an emergency it make take us five to ten minutes to reach you. Trust me five minutes in a life and death situation is a lifetime. If things really go to hell then I can guarantee that we will be focused on trying to hold things together on the big scale. We simply won't have the time or resources to be helping individuals or individual families. That's where RKBA is important - IMHO.

Okay that was a long winded response and I could write more, but hopefully I covered some of the bigger issues. Did I make sense?