View Single Post
Old 12-28-2012, 03:38 PM   #210
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
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?).
Parity between the US civilian population and the US military is only part of the equation.

When one is considering taking on a fight, whether one will win or lose is only part of the consideration. Even if one is sure they'll win, how much of a beating they'll take on the way to victory is also worth thinking about.

So even if the US civilian population can't "win" a "war" against the US military (which is far from certain, anyway), the potential resistance the civilians would offer can by itself deter the govt from starting that fight.

You've certainly seen police "ending" peaceful, sit-in style protests, where the protesters calmly allow themselves to be handcuffed and loaded into the paddy wagon. And you've seen protests where the opposite is true and there's combat between the police and the protesters with injuries and property damage and lots of exciting video for the 10 o'clock news. Which do you think a govt boss (mayor, governor, president) would order more quickly and with less worry?
We will not tolerate intolerance.
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote