RE: Firearms
April 1, 2013 at 9:22 pm
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2013 at 9:25 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(April 1, 2013 at 8:08 pm)festive1 Wrote: Touché, Tiberious.
I don't think war is necessary to change a democracy. I think the chances for outbreak of civil war in the US or other post-industrial country is very small. I believe the democratic system can work if the people demand it and make it so.
But as you point out it is necessary to own these types of guns in other places.
However, I don't see people in the US ready to stand their ground against the government except for some wacko fringe groups. I think in the US's case, these weapons pose a more serious threat of danger to the public than helping to support people's rights to overthrow their government.
"I could never happen here, not to me". I don't think that many governments (or their citizens) think -beforehand- that John Q might be willing to stand his ground (the thought might give them pause....). History tells a different tale. It's not really -necessary- to own any specific type of weapon at all, or even a weapon in general, that doesn't mean that ownership of a specific weapon or a weapon in general doesn't have it's benefits. To be honest, you can do much more "rebellious" things by attacking the gears of war - rather than shooting at soldiers. It's a bit like a whack-a-mole game. You could spend your time trying to hit the little fuckers with a rubber mallet -or- you could take of the rubber sheathing and go to work on the damned game console. Soldiers shooting at each other (or just people, soldiers/civilians) is more an issue of taking or holding ground. Oddly enough, that's another reason that a large standing army with better guns doesn;t translate directly into being able to fend off a popular rebellion. You already own the ground, the smart rebel isn't trying to take any ground. Your advantage (in firepower) is removed. That being said, having some sort of firearm does make the task of getting to - and away- from the place where you set your charge a little easier. Sure, you could just slaughter the populace wholesale - but at best that's counterproductive (remember, they grow your food, they build your weapons, they run the utilities, they manage the comms network) - at worst it swells your enemies ranks - possibly with former allies and as Tib noted- soldiers themselves.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!