If you look at a Modern day Army as a "thing" yes, there's no chance at all.. They will mop the floor with us.
However, if you look at the army as a collection of people then you are expecting them to shoot their mothers and kick in their own doors.
I don't think they will do that. And in such a conflict, small arms might just prove to be the edge.
That's the problem with the Left...they left their minds wide open, and their brains leaked out.
I'll give you a history lesson. Michigan's old gun laws go back to the 1920's. It was the Ku Klux Klan that lobbied for them. Dr. Ossian Sweet was a black man that moved in a white middle class area of Detroit. He was not wanted there, and his life was threatened. His brother used a gun to defend his family. He was taken to court and found not guilty.
The Klan pushed for gun laws and lobbied Lansing. Being the 1920's, they didn't want none of 'them' with guns.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to debate the role of firearms in society WITHOUT also discussing the relevant Constitutional Amendment which legalizes them, but very well, then.
Some points, in the interest of debate:
1. Privately owned firearms are used, annually, to thwart over two million crimes. This is a "win", by any account.
2. Of military-styled firearms, which we are discussing, only one half of one percent are ever used in any crimes. This is, to most, scant reason for their confiscation. Or else, all cars, knives, ropes, and ciggarette lighters must also be confiscated. They are used in more crimes, after all.
3. The most important point: the Bad Guys have guns already, and always will. Denying them to the Good Guys only renders the Good Guys helpless. Far from increasing "peace", prohibition of firearms would result in a bloodbath, as those villains the courts have seen fit to set upon us in their "wisdom" would have even less deterrent than they now do.
"gun tracking in the interest of law enforcement and crime prevention might be defeted by a reasoned argument."
Allow me: The tracking of firearms by means of registration has an absolutely DISMAL record of "solving crimes", as most criminally-used firearms are beyond the reach of any registration, by one means or another.
Besides, the purpose of registration, as you alluded to earlier, is most certainly NOT "crime control", as if the Left ever really cared about that. No, every recent registration scheme in every state and nation it has been implemented in has led directly to confiscation, as it always will. You stated that we were easy to "rile up". TRUE, and no mea culpas at all. After all, you propose the confiscation of our chattel property, by force, with absolutely NO real reasons beyond your, and others', FEAR of inanimate objects. The vast, overwhelming majority of firearm owners commit NO crimes at all. They should NOT be made to pay for the actions of a few criminals (who should have been locked up anyway) with their rights.
"I wanted to see how long it would take: Less than 100 posts! Congratulations to you open minded freepers!"
If you are going to exhalt in your self-assumed greatness, please tell us so we can don our sunglasses, that we might be shielded from the Light of all that is you. /sarcasm
I'm guess I'm surprised you haven't been engaged on this point, yet. That premise is weak from the outset, and the NY Times speculation that "nearly every household has a gun" in Iraq is *precisely* that.
Of course civilian gun ownership has a deterrent effect. Realizing this does not require obstinance, but familiarity with both modern military operations, and the nature of guerilla warfare.
Americans are resourceful and independent by nature. Combine that with the availability of firearms and ammunition, a daunting level of skill for the most part, vast amounts of unpatrolled real estate, and an innate, visceral hatred of tyranny, and you've made the job of any invading enemy - foreign or domestic - exceedingly costly.
(Sound of crickets chirping.)
***
Now to the issue of whether an armed citizenry can prevent the imposition of a totalitarian regime: most certainly. It is virtually impossibe for such a takeover to succeed in a nation where there are ten million (minimum) scoped deer rifles capable of hitting a person at 400-1000 yards. It is not possible to put POTUS level security around an entire dictatorial regime. Not possible.
***
But can some arms be tolerated in Ba'athist Party hands in Iraq? Certainly. The level of repression already in place is such that husbands do not whisper their true thoughts even to their wives. The secret police run constant loyalty tests, and the price of "failure" is death by torture.
The secret police order some poor schmuck to whisper disloyal words to a dear friend. He is not sure that his dear friend is not already under secret police orders to inform on HIM if he fails to whisper the disloyal words. So he does so whisper.
The friend then MUST report his whispering friend to the sectret police. If he fails to do so, the secret police, who set the entire thing up, will know that he heard disloyal words and did not report it. Punishment: death by torture.
In such a society, with a harshness that Stalin would have envied, a few guns don't matter. They pose no threat to Saddam, he is insulated behind miles of layers of security, and conspiracies are impossible, for the reasoons (constant loyalty testing) that I outlined. Hell, if a sniper could get Saddam, SAS, Delta or SEALs would have gotten him years ago.
***
If a president of the USA tried to overthrow the constitution and become a dictator, he would have to do so quite alone. All of his henchmen would get their heads blown off from 600 yards every time they left their bunkers.
As you see, there is no similarity between the situation in Iraq and the USA regarding firearms.
But nice try, and thanks for provoking a stimulating discussion.
***
Now, please post your own list of founding fathers' anti RKBA quotes. I'll wait. Since you are a teacher, I know you can find them quickly, say in one hour or less.
If you continue to post to this thread without posting your list of our founding fathers' anti RKBA quotes, then we will all have certain proof that you are just another gutless liberal liar, and we will know to simply scroll past your lies in the future.
One hour. We are waiting.
While difficult for the liberal mind to grasp, criminals do not follow rules, or obey laws...thus...
Laws are for people who have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them..thus
Following a paper trail of legally registered firearms is, by definition, futile. Legal guns don't get used in crimes, because they are maintained by the law abiding. Thus....
Your best bet is to ask all the criminals to come forward with their firearms presented for registration. That should work LIKE A CHARM.
Well, I see you ignored #93. It says, along with several other posts, that sodom controls the ammo. Sodom's butt boys know who has the guns and they weren't issued to some dangerous folks that might get uppity. IOWs sodom has gun registration. The purpose of registration is so the authorities can control those who might get uppity. Folks have known this for all of history. That's why the 2nd Amendment was penned.
As far as registration having a crime preventative benefit, it does not. Criminals will not register their guns and they don't need much ammo to violate the rights of their victims. Ammo is only needed to protect the condition of Freedom from the big time rights violators that wield the power of armies.
" Sadly this has degenerated into a 2nd ammendment debate where, rather than engage an argument about the societal benefits of guns, the pro side simply assert a right to close the debate."
The societal benefit is Freedom. That's it in a nutshell. The other considerations are all details contained within the concepts of Freedom, individual rights and the protection of those.
"I hoped to have a debate regading the veracity--in light of evidence--that an armed citizenry could protect its liberty from a determined tyrant. It seems in the face of a modern army that it could not (only the most obstinant will refute this point).
What is the face of a modern army and what is it's soul. What is the nature of the will in command of this army and what is it trying to force. If it's intent is the destruction of Freedom and the subjugation of individuals to some form of authoritarian will, those of us obstinate bastards who love Freedom more than the life of a well kept slave, will assuredly destroy it. So, all those that desire the Free to bow should ask themselves, "DO THEY FEEL LUCKY?" Are you afraid of these folks that proclaim their arms are none of your friggin' business? Of course you are, that's why you're takin' it one small step at a time. You're a coniving bunch.
MOLON LABE!
Not valid reasoning.
What actually is of issue is whether or not Americans can keep themselves free while armed against the US Military. Other examples in geography and history aren't relevant.
Could we defeat an invading army as powerful as our military, without having heavy weapons? Maybe. Ask the Afghans and the Russians about that one....
One rifle in the hands of a skilled shooter can get you lots of other neat toys like anti-tank weaponry....
The other part of the argument would be : Could the citizens of the US stop the US military if used against them.
Your whole premise is faulty, because it presupposes many things such as :
1. That no domestic military would revolt and fight with the populace, taking weapons with them.
2. That citizen combatants would stand in a field and engage the US military head to head. And so, rifles would be useless.
This is the main weakness of your argument. The tactics used internally in revolt would be of attrition, sniping, etc designed to gain weaponry and support, while demoralizing (the immoral at this point in our scenario) military that would be fighting the people.
Additionally if such a conflict were ever to occur, at some point we'd be using hmm...how can I say this... assymmetric tactics against things of value to those supporting the corrupt regieme that is target of overthrow. So those supporting the regieme would end up having everyone and anything they cared about in bunkered positions, seperated from the populace...
In short, the weapons allow us to obtain a political victory.
There is no need to argue about the societal benefits. It is a guaranteed Constitutional Right, most stingently worded than any other in the document... or did you want to move on to arguments about the societal value of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion?
Rightly so, Pitchfork. Inalienable rights are not subject to debates on societal benefits.
If we could prove that it would benefit society to enslave a certain sect of the population, would that be open for debate?
How about killing babies with know defects? That would surely cut down the cost of medical care. That would benefit society. Is that open for debate?
ROFLMAO!!! You're a government teacher, and you don't know that the colonial farmers were taking on the world's foremost professional army with a determined tyrant (try reading the Declaration of Independence to witness his determination)... FYI, they were successful at securing their liberty, just in case you didn't know.
In 1775, the entire planet (with the sole exception of Switzerland) was ruled by a monach-type of ruler. Because of that single great act of defiance, dozens of nations began ruling themselves within a generation.
Gee, I guess history is "obstinant" as well! LOL!
Your lack of education on the topic is astounding.