View Single Post
Old 12-28-2012, 11:46 AM   #206
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 103
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
Explain how fighting the government is useless and futile to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mention it to the successful revolution in Libya, and the ongoing one in Syria.

I'm sure they'll get a kick out of it and gladly trade everything in for bolt-action small caliber varmint rifles.
Kind of getting apples and oranges here, but anyway:

The governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are ostensibly constitutional democracies (yes, debatable ... another thread though) we instituted and support. Given that they still are standing and functioning (more or less) despite various insurgencies would seem to indicate some level of futility on the insurgent's parts, even if they don't see it that way.

As for the successful revolutions in Libya and ongoing one in Syria, these were/are against unconstitutional non-democratic autocracies. The success (current and hoped for) of these revolutions relied on far more than the personal fire arms typical of our Second Amendment discussions. Heavy duty NATO armed support was required in Libya and only an increasing level of heavier duty arms well beyond guns and rifles, along with other forms of external support, are what is turning the tide in Syria.

Again though, I think these examples are at best tangential to our own Second Amendment discussions and don't inform them directly. I think this just sort of feeds into the romanticized, mythical ideal of the individual armed minuteman standing athwart of some malevolent external force with his musket, errr, M-16, though that "external" force is often defined as our own, Constitutionally-based government elected by us (irony?).
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote