I've never said I regard you as any of the above mentioned.;)
I still don't see you win this with rifles.

It is not just rifles.. never mind improvised weapons and explosives made out of stuff that is available in every supermarket. ;)

If you read the Declaration of Arms - it makes it clear that in 1775 the hope was to reconcile differences between the governed and the government. So yes, GR is right, insurrection was the last resort.

Also - Thomen - well thought out point there. Every army goes on its belly, and when an army relies on the civilian population to allow that, it cannot turn against that same population without having its supplies strangled.

oh i know you werent calling anyone stupid.

Im just sayin' :salute:

nope... not going to win with just rifles.

its like i told some guys once when we were debating this very same scenario.

the question was "What happens when you run out of ammo, or you run short of equipment?"

my comment was "If your running your fight correctly, there should be plenty if military grade equipment you can pick up off the ground."

I hate to say it but it would take a real fool to think that al quada for example - doesnt have a sh*t ton of US Military equipment in their caves.

Is it normal to have this kind of detailed discussion about civil warfare?
Seems a little weird from where I sit.

On a related note, the Irish Civil War started 88 years ago yesterday. Maybe in another 88 we'll have heard the end if it :O:

loose interpretations of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution as it was originally framed by a society emerging from post-revolution kind of steered the conversation in that direction i think.

personally, i think the right to defend one's self with lethal force - when justified - is a right that cannot be infringed upon by the state, firearms just happen to be the tool for such defense... thats more or less the point of the topic.

that and the classic oldie "guns dont kill people... people kill people."

our society is facing a lot of more pressing issues i think than anything relating to guns. and those more pressing issues should be dealt with.

in the mean time there are those who would demonize or criminalize gun owners... lumping gun owners and Christians into a basket of "weirdos" nut jobs and criminals or domestic terrorists... which is pretty far from the case

Tchocky - is it normal?

Hmmm - I think that there has always been a discussion like this somewhere..... after all - there are always those who disagree with the direction the country is going. Doesn't matter which side your one politically, your not always going to be happy. Insurrection, revolution, whatever you want to call it, is a integral part of our national identity, its ingrained in who we are as a society to question our government and consider ways to make it conform to the wishes of the governed.

However, its important to note that we are talking not about actually doing anything - and in fact I think all of those who state that such action is legitimate ONLY under certain circumstances have made it clear that the criteria for such action has NOT been met - THANK GOD!

However, just as the founders had to consider the reality that their government would fail to address or resolve their grievances and what that would mean, patriots today must consider what the repercussions would be IF the government goes outside its legally defined role and turns on its society.

And don't forget the fact that they maintained that hope right up to the point where the British tried to confiscate one of their armories (complete with cannons) and also shot first.

Just our of curiosity..
I was under the impression that nobody can say for sure who shot first? :hmmm:

Doesnt really matter at this point.

I'm just glad the differences were settled and the two nations had grown to enjoy a lasting peace with one another. :up:

The irony there being that Nazi Germany eased the restrictive gun laws of the Republic which had already eased the severe gun laws from after WWI and Germany had an increase in firearm ownership under both changes of law yet still it was a murderous dictatorship.

Don't be silly, every year its "no more civil war politics"...then every election the muppets trot out ther same old tired crap and numbskulls lap it up like they always will.

To put something else on the plate. A new Supreme Court Judge is being looked at.

Which could change how the Court looks at things.

Food for thought.

True, but the troops were sent to confiscate the armory and Concorde. The minutemen refused to let them pass. The shooting started.

The preceding twelve years had resulted in some violence, but this was the first time the army was actually called out to forcefully violate the citizen's rights. My point is that it didn't start with the people going and attacking the troops.

Oh save the drama! The courts have TIME and TIME again ruled against the Anti-Gun crowd. Yet ANY mention of ANY ruling or law has gun nuts coming out of the woodwork.

Rabid Anti-Gun was an 80s thing. Move on. Every nut has guns these days.

A centralist that might rule even MORE activist right wing than the one she replaces. I think there is little to worry about on the gun front.