Who needs a gun?

[hatidua]

The article is much as would be expected to be published by the NYT. However, it's the comments that are truly scary:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/who-needs-a-gun/?_r=0

[DOC]

Wow. If I would as stupid as some of those people in the comments section I would take their uninformed emotional "run and hide" solutions as a good idea and make it my own.

[TFOGGER]

"Finally, there’s the idea that citizens need guns so they can, if need be, oppose the force of a repressive government. Those who think there are current (or likely future) government actions in this country that would require armed resistance are living a paranoid fantasy. The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy."

I guess they havent been following the war in Afghanistan. We are better trained, better equipped, smarter, cleaner and dont fuck goats. If they can fight our military and the Soviet military for a decade each, Im sure American citizens could.

Plus Afghanistan is not quite 2 1/2 larger than Colorado. Think about how large the theater of operations would be if it encompassed the entire US.

also Im guessing nobody would be paying taxes into the machine if that happened. where would all the money come from?

these stupid academics have no clue.

Exactly. A few thousand goat lovers, equipped with mostly pre-WW I technology and a fierce will to eject foreigners so that they can go back to killing each other have fought the 2 most powerful militaries in history to a standstill, winning a war of attrition. All of our efforts at nation building will collapse as soon as we leave, putting that shithole right back where it was 20,50,100 years ago. Anyone that thinks that the technology possessed by the US military will overcome the determination of the American people is the one that suffers from delusions...

[merl]

It is interesting watching which outlets publish obvious hit pieces and which aren't.

[<MADDOG>]

An opinion piece from the same great state/city that also determined its citizens didn't "need" 64oz sodas...Insert shocked face here.

[Circuits]

The further fallacy is that if it came to a fight against our own military, half or more wouldn't defect to the "rebel" side, taking their advanced training, arms and equipment with them. If the government somehow got the full and enthusiastic cooperation of the US Military, or came up with its own brownshirt corps of private troops equipped and trained to the same standard, resistance would, for the most part, be futile.

There'd still be some fighters even so, and it'd go on for years or decades - whether or not the citizenry were ever armed, until everyone who'd ever heard of liberty was dead or working for the oppressors.

[wctriumph]

In answer to his question: YES!

[DOC]

In the words of Quick from Harlem Nights, "Its not how many guns you have. Its who you shoot." This has nothing to do with what you are talking about. I just liked that saying.

[ZERO THEORY]

Anyone that thinks that the technology possessed by the US military will overcome the determination of the American people is the one that suffers from delusions...

I would agree with this if we still lived in a time of accountability and discipline. As it happens now, I'm not as optimistic as you about Americans having a backbone. Seems to me that from California to New York, the American people are willing to bend over and take it almost uncontested. Our recalls are the first serious stand I've seen. Granted, some states have signed legislation stating that they will not obey unconstitutional laws, but they were red states that hadn't really faced any opposition anyway. Other than that, it feels like Americans are just folding their cards the minute some bureaucrat tells them to do so.