I catch some of them, but this particular one eluded me.
Effective at what exactly? In each case, the rebel force loses. Furthermore, as has been explained many times, if there is an invading force and the only thing left is armed citizens, that means the vast majority of the US military has either been destroyed or failed, in which case, even this “resistance” will not mean very much.
They were effective at fighting off vastly larger armies for extended periods. Even if they did lose, it was because these were *very small* fighting forces. In the US, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of armed people. The population of Chechnya is a bit over 1 million. The fighting forces in Iraq numbered tens of thousands. These were much smaller geographical areas as well.
And your assumption is not necessarily correct. It’s possible that the US military could become relatively less effective in years to come, such that an armed populace becomes more important. It is also possible, that if we’re talking about a domestic force (arising from, say, a government that suspends the Constitution), that the military could bifurcate. This is exactly what happened in the US Civil War. Lincoln suspended the Constitution and Southern soldiers remained with the South.
All righty.
Any scenario where the US is successfully invaded is pretty far fetched right now, but you’re assuming the invading force would be relatively unscathed in its battle with the US military, which is even more far fetched. In the very unlikely event that another nation, or collection of nations, chose to invade the US and actually succeeded, their remaining forces would more closely resemble that of a 3rd world country and they would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fight off a couple hundred million armed citizens. Of course at that point they have nothing to lose, so they can just nuke us.
Do you have insurance to protect from alien invasion too? To actually expend capital on such insanely far tail risks is completely irrational. If these are your actual reasons for owning firearms, then you’re crazy.
/raises hand
If such a military collapse happens, the opposing nation is more likely to rebuild its military for a few years before launching a land, air and sea-based invasion. If they are in poor shape, then they will simply not attempt to invade and take over the US as it will be difficult to maintain the supply lines, if they have any supplies left.
In addition, the US military can simply start handing out guns to citizens if it ever came to that, I believe the US military is one of the biggest, if not the largest owner of AK-47’s in the world.
Finally, if they do decide the nuclear option, then the point is still moot.
-
I don’t own a gun because my wife would shoot me. I’m simply defending broad gun ownership.
-
Insurance doesn’t cover damage due to acts of War (which would include alien invasion).
-
History has not ended, despite proclamations to the contrary. The possibility of a civil war in the United States or another Word War is probably much higher today than 15 years ago. Who knows what it will be like in another ten.
I should note that I do not buy into the “protect the nation” argument. While there are a small number of whackos who actually believe they need their guns to protect liberty, I believe the vast majority of gun owners in the US own guns because they like guns, just like the vast majority of SUV owners own SUV’s because they like SUV’s, not because they need to drive across the untamed wilderness. Although I am not a gun owner and likely never will be, I have gone trap shooting a few times and it’s a shitload of fun. I’ve never fired a fully automatic rifle, but I bet that’s a shitload of fun too.
This is ridiculous (as it pertains to a civil war in the US), just stop.
What civil war? Are we talking about a hipster insurgency in NY?
Who said anything about there being a civil war?
**
You bet right. I’ve fired 5.56m, 7.62m, and .50 cal fully-automatics. They get progressively more fun.
I’ve fired a fully-automatic grenade launcher, too. It was a shitload of fun.
Yes, I didn’t say that there was a civil war or that one is iminent. I said the probability of one is probably higher today than 15 years ago (because the US is increasingly politically divided and regionally so). Nor did I imply that there would be one in ten years or that the probability of one would be higher then. But that is a possibility.
If a civil war were to occur at some point, an armed population would be very important to the outcome.
My point is that broad-based gun ownership serves as a very important deterrent to any enemy, foreign or domestic. And that was the point of it being in the Constitution to begin with.
The first intelligent thing this poster has said.
Stuff is gonna happen, it will be stuff you guys said “could never happen”, or some stuff you never thought of…
Why can’t non americans stop caring about USA?
But… what are you saying? There are many that might happen that could affect society in a negative way. Many of these things have small individual probability, but cumulatively, the probability might be significant. So, if I say randomly say “something unexpected will happen within the next 50 years”, chances are I will be correct.
Chicago is a gun free zone and is leading the US in body count this year…