So with the gun control debates raging, one of the things I hear the most is that the greatest weapon we have against tyranny is the right to arms.
For me, I put that at about 3 or 4 if not less. I place education, voting, forming groups, a free media, the right to openly voice opinions and other such things at a higher place for keeping tyranny at bay than firearms. Basically, the first amendment being first for a reason.
What about you?
Well said, armed rebellion or revolt should be the last choice. Those currently touting revolution are, for the most part, anarchists who wouldn't be happy with any sort of government other than themselves in charge, which would end up being a tyranny.
To be fair there are a number on the right who advocate rebellion or succession of Texas for just about any "injustice." These are for the most part under educated over emotional red neck hick types, not anarchists.
-Rick Perry is the greatest cause he got an "R" by his name.
Maybe it would be good if they did revolt so we could clean out the gene pool.
Yes all of those things are more helpful at keeping away tyranny. Those things can easily be taken away in an instant if the government chooses to do so. The second amendment was intended to maintain the right to have a free media, freedom of speech and all the other freedoms and rights that you put ahead of the second amendment.
It is like the pane of glass in your window or the deadbolt and the thin strip of pine in your door frame are more important in keeping out burglars. Yes it does a good job but anyone who really wants to get in can do so easily so you need something to reinforce those things that can easily be outdone by people who would do you harm. For some people it's a dog for others it's a gun, bat or security system. To say that since you have your glass windows closed and your deadbolt locked you will not be robbed is just asking for trouble.
I agree. The right to bear arms may have been a valuable weapon against tyranny 200 years ago. But if our government were inclined to impose a police state on the civilian population in 2013, all of the AR-15s in world aren't going to make any difference against an M1 Abrams and an MQ-9 Reaper armed with hellfire missiles.
And yet, Al Quaeda in Iraq and the Taliban still seem to be chugging along just fine without armor or air support.
150-million people with small arms can make a big dent in even the best military. Especially considering the segment of that 150-million that is bound to be the Abrams drivers and Reaper pilots the government would be depending on. It wouldn't be pretty, but I wouldn't bet against a motivated population ... conventional wisdom in the 1770s was that we couldn't beat the Brits.
A gun behind every blade of grass.
And, in your world, the majority of our military turns on its own parents, brothers, sisters, and children, in abeyance of a clearly illegal order?
I read, a while back, that American soldiers are some of the only soldiers in the world, when given an order, to ask why.
Take a look at what the local sheriffs are *already* doing as a reaction to the criminals in our government. I expect that a lot of our law-enforcement and even military would simply turn on their heels and say, clearly, and with a unified voice, no.
If the population, or even a segment of the population, actually rose up against the government how long do you think it would take before someone in the Middle East started funneling in arms? I think about a pico-second. Further you'd be suprised on how effective IEDs can be against armored vehicles. Then you have numerous alternative weapons that can be used against both armor and personnel.
I would think Mexico or the evil canadians long before the middle east. It is one thing for them to funnel to neighboring countries and something totally different all the way to us. I could be wrong though.
Those dang Canadians!!!!
I don't think it would be very hard to funnell weapons or supplies or money directly to the US. Don't we have one of the largest Port Systems in the world? Oil Tankers come directly from the Middle East, container ships come directly from foreign ports such as Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and other Third World countries.
But you may be correct in saying Central America may be first in line, either them or Cuba although not sure how they'd fund anything.
I would think a stable economy should be #1.
When it comes to shooting, it's gone too far already. I too would put freedom of speech first, and freedom of assembly. But I'm happy to have all these things honored. It'd be a shame if we kept only a few of the most important ones, and found out we needed one more!