That is just even more of a reason to fight.

Even if others see it as a narrow minded waste.

The way I see things, it is far better to die on our feet fighting them every step of the way than for us to give an inch and live the rest of our lives on our knees.

It wouldn't be a siding against the states. It would be a matter of the people vs. the government. If that time came many would side still with the government but I bet a deceptive number of people would provide intel or at least some form of support.

If there were to be another war it would be handled very different. When the Americans fought the British they were appalled that we didn't line up and fight. We're clever and were going to use that to break the rules of warfare so it works in our favor. You'd be surprised how effective a group of "nighttime militia" can do. That is they are perfect law abiding citizens by day but by night they use subterfuge and heavy explosives to take out targets. This worked in France against the Nazis. It worked in Vietnam against us and its working in Iraq. After wearing them away long enough it could tip the scales.

Yeah but it would be one bloody drawn out street by street, house to house,and hilltop to hilltop Brawl.

Also my next and final Personal Weapon Purchase.

Puma Rifle's Reproduction of the Winchester Model 1892.

It has a large loop lever (I always thought the rifleman kicked ass).

It is a .357 Magnum Carbine (Well it does make good sense to have a longer ranged firearm in the same caliber as your sidearm,simplifies the hell out of any supply problems)

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/48624

Night time militia, aka insurgent army. Which, as I already said, can't function without the support of the local populace. You used the insurgents in Iraq for example so I'll use your example to prove my point. Anbar province was an insurgent hotbed until the local Sunni population, same sectarian group as the insurgents as well, got tired of their crap started going against them. The area wasn't a hotbed for insurgent activity for much longer.

That is a better term. If it actually comes down to the point of revolution it is presumable that there will be more than just a few for the idea. The Iraqis are doing a really shitty job of fighting off the US because they are killing off many of their citizens in the process. That's not a very good way to be getting supporters. It does show that even an unpopular rebellion can get their opinions felt. It would draw a lot more attention in America though, because Americans only really care about whats happening in America and what influences America. Vietnam was a better example of what that kind of insurgency can accomplish. America never really won that battle.

It isn't that we never really won that battle, we lost. Anyway, Vietnam or Iraq, both are not very good comparisons. In both cases we're talking about a foreign occupying power vs local insurgent population. Civil war is almost better, as that was an uprising against the government. Problem is that, during the Civil War, the Confederates were pretty far from an insurgent army and much closer to a standing army. There for, the fight was more like two nations clashing. It just so happens that one of the nations rose up from within the other. Still, the fledgling Confederacy rose up in the south, which had a population that shared their views of the Union's actions and a good chunk of, if not the majority of, the citizens supported them with material aid, comfort and shelter. That's when they didn't outright join them.

In the modern day it would be like if the fledgling confederacy would have tried to form in the heart of a northern city. In which case the would be rebels would never have had a chance to form into the Confederacy as they would have been put down quick. This is also failing to take into account modern surveillance technology.

As for your "night time militia" of goodies by day, insurgents by night. It wouldn't last long as the cover of being a goodie two shoes by day would be quickly blown. There's sophisticated software out there, first developed in Las Vegas to catch cheats and crooked dealers, that finds even obscure connections between people. With the government and private databases out there to draw from, it wouldn't take more than to catch a few before the government knows where to watch to find the rest of the militia.

Anyway, if you want to dispel any illusions you may hold of just how the vast majority of the population would react to an uprising, google phrases like police taser abuse or police protester abuse and find sites with comments. You'll see just how the vast majority of our fellow citizens feel about those who go against authority. I've found that, on most sites at least, for every person saying the police were out of line, in cases where they clearly over reacted, there's 10 that say things like "the idiot should have just done what the cop said" or "I would have tased them too!".

That's how you can tell friend from foe.

Then a vast majority of the population are foe. Which begs an interesting question. If the vast majority of the population want to live under an authoritarian police state in which they are not allowed to own most guns, isn't it pretty authoritarian of you to decide to rise up and force them to live in a free society where someone can own any gun they so choose?

If taken to the same extent.

But I'm not going to force anyone to live my way.

They have their own lives and their own way of doing things.

And those that like doing as they want with their lives will make that choice on their own.

Live under their own Control or be allowed to Exist under the Control of someone else.

[QUOTE If the vast majority of the population want to live under an authoritarian police state in which they are not allowed to own most guns, isn't it pretty authoritarian of you to decide to rise up and force them to live in a free society where someone can own any gun they so choose?[/quote]

That leads me to ask you the following questions.

Since I would be in the minority and only wanted outside their cities of controlled masses,wouldn't they be forcing me to accept their way "Life"?

And in that same breath wouldn't they be seen as the aggressors?

Because I would be tending to my own matters of raising a garden,raising cattle and other animals for food,Building a house and starting a family with my sweet little Cassy.

But if forced to defend what I have and the future of my family,I pity the aggressors because of what I will do to them.

You guys are missing the bloody point. It's not an issue of weather a people's militia would win against a better armed US military, it's an issue of realizing what the abolition of the second amendment costs and that cost is blood.

Those wanting to abolish the second amendment either doesn't realize what that cost is or is perfectly fine with even 100s of Americans being killed because the rules all of a sudden changed and those Americans were all of a sudden the bad guys.

Shit, I don't even own a gun and if there were even a small handful of Americans who wouldn't cleave to what the government wanted them to do with the second amendment, I seriously wouldn't blame them in the least bit.

Even if these tend to be the type of people that declare their RVs a separate country and use the confederacy flag as the flag of their trailer nation?

Who are you referring to in your last post Jillian?

Kontan said he wouldn't blame a "handful of Americans who wouldn't cleave to what the government wanted them to do with the second amendment"
These generally aren't activists that want to make the world a better place in spite of the government. They tend to be rednecks that feel the second amendment is more important than the first.

What about the Handful like me that only want to live their lives peacefully?

All rights protect the Second Amendment,and in turn the Second Amendment Protects all rights.

One right is not more important than the other,they are equal.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Obviously, it would just be SO much better if the American people handed in their arms to the government and soldiered on smartly.

Jillian, if you think that's the only people that would protest with force... Nah, man. You're smarter than that. Also, I would say it again, I wouldn't blame them. I can't help if that doesn't sit well with you.

The anarchist is telling you that you guys are too blindly obsessed with the possibility of forceful resistance to the government.
That should tell you something.

Alright. How about for the lulz we go ahead and abolish the second amendment. Just to see what happens. I'm simply saying it'd be a bad idea. But I'm more than willing to have my assumptions proven wrong.

What you are complaining about is the federal legality to own guns for the purpose of defending yourself from the federal authority that validates this legality. You don't see how stupid that is?

The Federal Government has nothing to do with the Constitution,the Federal Government would've thrown the Constitution out long ago because to them it is a dead document.

I see the constitution as a living document that applies to any and all United States Citizens.

And I recognize that. However, some people really DO believe that the bill of rights is something that can't be compromised. It's almost like a belief beyond what a federal organization may say is otherwise true. I would say this is just as applicable to any of the other amendments in the bill of rights, not just the second.

What I'm saying is that it's a terrible idea for anyone to change any of the bill of rights amendments cold turkey. Americans are very likely to do the exact opposite of what an authority says they can't do.

For example, it's VERY common to see people challenge censorship in America. It's also very common to see Americans talk of defending one's right to say hate speech despite it going against what they believe. In fact, I saw that today as a bus driver told some teens that they weren't allowed to witness their faith to another passenger on the bus. Those boys actually apologized for excersizing their right to free speech to the driver despite the fact that the one being witnessed to did not complain about it and neither did anyone else on the bus.

Jillian- I offer my view of the US right to bear arms, speaking purely as an outside observer with no direct experience of your actual laws and democratic process but a reasonable amount of vicarious experience through friends in the US.

The right to own and carry arms is surely the equivalent of a safeword.
Let's use a dodgy sex analogy here.
The government is a quite aggressive top, and the populace is a relatively submissive but unsure bottom. The top will play, taunt, tease and abuse, but the bottom has a safeword just in case it gets to be too much and the bottom can't stand it any longer.

The ability to own weapons to react against your government is your safeword, your means of getting out of the chains and back onto equal footing. It is assumed that the population is willing to take part in these things, that it is an actual and active part of all proceedings. For when it stops being these things and is simply being abused against its will, it has safewords and the right to an armed revolution.

Though I daresay any actual top involved in kinky sex would be rather more respectful of the bottom's wishes than the government generally is.

Please also bear in mind that I am thoroughly sleep deprived.

That's basically the point, Delk.

The Federal Government does have a good record for fucking the citizens over.

Nice analogy.