A little mature discussion in the P&R board? Say it isn't so.

[bzbatl]

^^ the "slippery slope" of government power

They can have my guns when they rip them from my cold, dead fingers.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

My point is that you're neither lucky or unlucky because of the right to bear arms. If the need to overthrow the government ever arose, you'd be sorely outgunned.

As to my interpretation of the Second Amendment, asked and answered.

In theory, one wouldnt need to be levely gunned.

A well placed group of snipers could easily put this country on a permanent hault.

Contrary to your belief Jim, I have a seriously hard time believing that the majority of our soldiers would go to war with civilians. I would bet that the rift caused would benefit the revolters

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by bzbatl

^^ the "slippery slope" of government power

They can have my guns when they rip them from my cold, dead fingers.

Here you go mang.

[EEfz6]

^^ That pic rocks.

[bzbatl]

Bet you'd still have a hard time pulling the gun out from that hand

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by hybrid

Contrary to your belief Jim,

Don't be an ass.

Originally Posted by hybrid

I have a seriously hard time believing that the majority of our soldiers would go to war with civilians. I would bet that the rift caused would benefit the revolters

I absolutely agree. Soldier-ethics would go a lot further toward ensuring your safety (and mine) than your gun. But once you fired on our soldiers, this advantage is instantly gone. At that point, your weapon becomes a disadvantage, I think, and you are obliterated in pretty short order.

[bzbatl]

So do you think it's good or bad that we have so many soldiers abroad?

[EEfz6]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

I absolutely agree. Soldier-ethics would go a lot further toward ensuring your safety (and mine) than your gun. But once you fired on our soldiers, this advantage is instantly gone. At that point, your weapon becomes a disadvantage, I think, and you are obliterated in pretty short order.

Except that the soldiers would most likely fight on a side. If they would not fight against the civilians, they most likely fight with the civilians. The gun would not be a disadvantage, it would make you able to fight with those who have sided with you.

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by EEfz6

Except that the soldiers would most likely fight on a side. If they would not fight against the civilians, they most likely fight with the civilians. The gun would not be a disadvantage, it would make you able to fight with those who have sided with you.

This is an overly simplistic view which assumes there would be a moment or a day when everyone picks a side.

If there ever was a popular insurgency in the US, it would start small and build gradually. During that time they would be branded as terrorists and hunted down. For a very long time, soldiers who sympathized with the insurgency would express that sympathy by failing to pull the trigger, not by desertion.

If it ever became an issue of survival, sides would be picked by where everyone currently was, and it would work exactly as I've described.

[hybrid]

I think youre correct in your assumptions Jim but I have to believe that with the right people in the right places.........those called "terrorists" would be strong enough to prevail.

The beauty of the Internet and electronic communication is that its very hard to wipe out.

Taggers posting websites for free information to why the standoff started.

Underground movements seem to be trendy things..............if used correctly, you wouldnt have to worry about the government trying to burn you out.

If waco went as long as it did, people not crazy could run it long enough to draw loyalists. or PATRIOTS if you will.

[BusaDave]

Remember Kent State?

[hybrid]

No actually I dont..................please tell us all. Seriously.

[toyotapower]

we are a country of checks and balances (pretty sure this is the term, please correct me if i'm wrong) it means that there are three powers, all equally balanced to keep eachother in check: the president, congress and the supreme court. if another "revolution" were to start up, do you really think there'd be a disagreement amongst these three powers to crush it? not only no but hell no. would there be a split amongst the troops fighting this revolution? yes. would it be enough to stop our armed services from winning? no. best point made so far was the well placed sniper comment. to answer the original question, yes i would fight to protect the freedom of future generations, i would not however join the military and fight against other countries because i believe our country is wrong in believing that we are the world police.

[bush]

Originally Posted by sexybikerpimp

we are a country of checks and balances (pretty sure this is the term, please correct me if i'm wrong) it means that there are three powers, all equally balanced to keep eachother in check: the president, congress and the supreme court. if another "revolution" were to start up, do you really think there'd be a disagreement amongst these three powers to crush it? not only no but hell no. would there be a split amongst the troops fighting this revolution? yes. would it be enough to stop our armed services from winning? no. best point made so far was the well placed sniper comment. to answer the original question, yes i would fight to protect the freedom of future generations, i would not however join the military and fight against other countries because i believe our country is wrong in believing that we are the world police.

The problem with the current checks-and-balances system is that it leaves the people in the dark to a lot of what goes on. How many people could name off the top of their heads 10 major bills that were passed into law in the last 12 months?

Sure, we have the power to vote our president and representatives into office, but what good does that do us when a lot of what goes on in government happens behind closed doors, for special interests, and often against the will of the people?