US Gun Laws

[N35t0r]

So there we go...

A small number of lightly-armed revolutionaries with the general support of the population overthrew a nation's government and defeated its military equipped with tanks and aircraft in the late 50's.

Isn't that the example Elok was looking for?

I don't know. I just saw an opinion and argumented about it

But yeah, I think it's a clear proof that you don't need universal gun ownership for a successful revolution, you just need the support of the poeple.

[Docfeelgood]

I think it depends which action movie you consult. Ah-nuld survived Predator, and that sucker was nuclear.

lol

[The Mad Monk]

Fair enough. In conclusion, you need legally sold small arms to start a successful revolution because...?

You already own them and know them. "Importing" is more expensive, and riskier. Why not take the cheaper, safer route?

[Elok]

You already own them and know them. "Importing" is more expensive, and riskier. Why not take the cheaper, safer route?

Because you're going to need better equipment anyway, and not everybody on your side is going to own a useful weapon, or indeed any weapon at all. You're also going to need to acquire ammunition, which is a lot easier when everybody's got uniform equipment. You don't need to worry about so many cases of 9mm, so many of .45, and so on, you can just get yourself some 7.whatever the AK-47 uses. That thing's used all over the world for a reason, it's cheap, reliable and strong. Anyway, you should not be resorting to gun violence until such time as you have a reliable militia, and a reliable militia is not armed with whatever crap they happened to have at home to blast squirrels off the bird feeder. Those might be of some use in situations I'm just not thinking of, but they're not going to be decisive.

[Hauldren Collider]

Waco shows you how pointless firearms are in protection from the government.

That whole rationale for the right to bear arms is defunct in modern times.

False, an actual popular revolt would be on a much larger scale than Waco and therefore incomparable.

The fact that about 30 or 40 crazed cult members can't overthrow the government is both good and not a disproof of the 2nd Amendment principal.

[Hauldren Collider]

Who would be surprised that he military is inept at defense?

Who would be surprised that a huge army occasionally loses a rifle or two?

[Al B. Sure!]

Who would be surprised that a huge army occasionally loses a rifle or two?

Army? Well, actually, it usually seems like it's the Air Force. They had a few incidents lately too, as well, where they didn't know where nuclear weapons were, and they were unattended to for several hours. I'm trying to google it but I can't find it. It was pretty recent.

[Asher]

Who would be surprised that a huge army occasionally loses a rifle or two?

Or a tank...

[Hauldren Collider]

Or a tank...

Once every few decades is infrequently enough for me.

[Al B. Sure!]

But how many people are really trying?

[Asher]

Once every few decades is infrequently enough for me.

SAN DIEGO

[Felch]

Because you're going to need better equipment anyway, and not everybody on your side is going to own a useful weapon, or indeed any weapon at all. You're also going to need to acquire ammunition, which is a lot easier when everybody's got uniform equipment. You don't need to worry about so many cases of 9mm, so many of .45, and so on, you can just get yourself some 7.whatever the AK-47 uses. That thing's used all over the world for a reason, it's cheap, reliable and strong. Anyway, you should not be resorting to gun violence until such time as you have a reliable militia, and a reliable militia is not armed with whatever crap they happened to have at home to blast squirrels off the bird feeder. Those might be of some use in situations I'm just not thinking of, but they're not going to be decisive.

Mixing up weapons in an army leads to logistical difficulties, and there are a **** ton of different types of ammo, but most guns are chambered in a few common types of ammunition. A militia of people showing up with hunting rifles is generally going to have plenty of firepower, since hunting ammo tends to be heavier than military ammo. Hell, until recently military snipers were issued modified Remington 700s, and those are just upscale hunting rifles.

In any event, serious gun owners either stockpile plenty of ammunition (buying in bulk to save money), or they reload their brass.

[Elok]

Mixing up weapons in an army leads to logistical difficulties, and there are a **** ton of different types of ammo, but most guns are chambered in a few common types of ammunition. A militia of people showing up with hunting rifles is generally going to have plenty of firepower, since hunting ammo tends to be heavier than military ammo. Hell, until recently military snipers were issued modified Remington 700s, and those are just upscale hunting rifles.

In any event, serious gun owners either stockpile plenty of ammunition (buying in bulk to save money), or they reload their brass.

And how many gun owners are "serious" gun owners? You can't expect to liberate more than 300 million people with stockpiled ammo from a relative few enthusiasts, even if you manage to get it to them as they need it. I'm not sure about guys with hunting rifles going up against burst-fire M-16s either (even if they all have semiautomatic rifles; around here, deer hunting can only be done with bow, shotgun or muzzle-loader AFAIK, so there's no sense having a fancy carbine), but I'm sure you know better than I. Rather than relying on the luck of the draw in that manner, I'd arrange for some to "disappear" from military stores.

By the way, if you're going to go with widespread terrorism like you suggested (radicalizing everything by killing moderates, sympathizers, and capitalist yankee running dogs or whatever), the Second Amendment is actually your enemy. Sure, it's easier for your thugs to get guns, but it also drastically increases the odds of their intended victims feeding them some buckshot. Especially the families of soldiers. In fact, this whole defense-against-tyranny angle seems to rest on the assumption that most, if not all, of the people with guns are going to be against the government.

[Al B. Sure!]

Doing some googling, it appears that semi-automatic versions of assault rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 can be had for between $300 and $1200. Rounds are about 20 cents a piece. It can appear to be a bit pricey to arm a few hundred men, but not really. If your terrorist organization can get a hold of a few hundred thousand dollars, through whatever means, you can easily and legally arm a respectable militia that would overpower even a large city police force and with guerilla tactics could give headaches to a military, especially a military hesitant to use much force in civilian areas.

I think it would be a lot harder to organize those few hundred angry men than it would be to get a hold of the equipment.

[Hauldren Collider]

But could you do it without getting caught by the FBI first? Doubt it.