Support for Gun Control in US at its Lowest Level in More than 50 Years

[Kagemusha]

You see, by relying on so many assumptions (many of which are little more than poorly reasoned stereotypes), you've already eliminated any certainty in your analysis. There are so many factors that would play in to any such scenario, definitive statements about how it would play out are impossible to make without more specific information.

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

[Beskar]

Higher chance for a Militarist Coup then a 'Revolution' in America where the 'People' overthrow the government.

Based on common social trends and political views alone, nevermind the 'Hardware' involved.

[PanzerJaeger]

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

The success or failure of any insurgency is based on a rather large array of factors, such as popular support, size and scope, geographic distribution, resources, money and/or economic situation, political organization and alignment, foreign support, production capacity, and literally thousands more – and those apply to both the insurgent forces and the government. Without outlining a scenario that at least attempts to address some of those specifics, it is rather foolish to make a definitive statement about the success or failure of a hypothetical insurgency.

Further, basing such an assessment purely on the (unsupported) notion that Americans are too fat, lazy, and/or comfortable to mount such a insurgency in comparison to Afghanis reveals a dearth of critical thinking, not only about the potential advantages Americans might enjoy over Afghanis in such a conflict, but about the nature of insurgency itself.

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

There was one before that.

@Panzer, how exactly do you imagine a revolution playing out that does not involve immediate win for the feds?

I have no idea. I don't spend much time thinking about the subject as I see it as such a remote possibility. My support for gun rights is based primarily on my belief in personal freedom and my enjoyment of shooting as a hobby and more distantly on the fact that I live in a city with a large, impoverished, and restive black population that very much resembles that which plunged Los Angeles into chaos in 1992. I do not fear government, but a lack of government - and it is good to know that I have options for my and my family's security apart from reliance on the government in case of a breakdown in social order.

A successful insurgency in the United States would likely conform to the conditions laid out in the 2010 RAND study on the subject. There would have to be significant popular support, international sponsorship, availible sanctuary, and a weakening of the federal government. None of these are out of the realm of possibility, especially considering that for a sizable insurgency to even develop, the US would likely have to undergo a signficant transition toward tyranny - one which would alarm the US populace and the international community.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I refuse to believe you guys really imagine a revolt against a tyrannical gov't to look like you are describing it. Heck, there just was one in libya, which clearly involved defecting military units, captured military units, and support from other countries. You don't believe it any more than you believe the 2nd amendment allows nukes, it's just one of the talking points you pull out when you don't want to make an actual argument about gun control

[Proletariat]

Fire arms bring conflict down to wits, ignoring physique and brawn. When I served, it was the combat units that had the lousiest physical training scores. The hospital, admin, supply units etc had all the time to get high two mile run and push up scores. The line units often look out of shape in comparison.

Even if Americans being poorly endowed, fatsos was a halfway worthwhile argument I still can't understand why anyone would give up the right to bear arms just because the military has an even higher level of tech. To me that's all the more reason.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of?

[CrossLOPER]

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of?

You think that the military cannot be turned against "domestic insurgents"?

[Major Robert Dump]

What a stupid conversation this thread had degraded to


People's support of gun ownership is going to increase in uncertain financial times for a whole host of reasons. In case some of you have been sleeping, the US Government is an abject failure that has failed to stave off even the most basic of problems they were warned about 20, 30, 40 years ago. Considering human nature, beuaracracy, entitlement attitudes of the have-nots and the big picture as a whole, anyone who trusts in the American government to protect them 100% from crime is living on another planet.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Major: it doesn't help that the USA clings on to a “stupid” constitution, or rather a particularly “stupid” amendment. As has been pointed out before, that amendment and its sentiments are on practical considerations alone completely irrelevant, outmoded and outdated in the modern world -- just like required longbow practice.

You are of course quite right that nobody is seriously expecting people lined up at the walls any day now. Equally, though, the real problem which you highlight might reduce to a failure to keep various services going such as infrastructure and the root cause for that is not necessarily the politicians alone.

[Crazed Rabbit]

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.

Also noteworthy - in those articles PJ linked about Afghan marksmanship (or lack thereof), the rifles being used to hit the most American soldiers aren't AKs but WWII era rifles that are both more accurate and more powerful. A modern hunting rifle is an improvement over those guns, and is used by many American hunters with even better marksmanship.

CR

[Montmorency]

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.
CR

So if terrorists systematically attack federal agents, the federal legislature and most state legislatures will unanimously agree to the demands of said terrorists?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I refuse to believe you guys really imagine a revolt against a tyrannical gov't to look like you are describing it. Heck, there just was one in libya, which clearly involved defecting military units, captured military units, and support from other countries. You don't believe it any more than you believe the 2nd amendment allows nukes, it's just one of the talking points you pull out when you don't want to make an actual argument about gun control

Not really, it was basically the US military that toppled Gaddafi, and his military couldn't compete against the American one, who would bale you guys out? Canada and Mexico? Even assuming the UK and France wanted to help you, rather than back the government, how would we get our gear there? We have one rusty carrier between us and I seriously doubt we could put together a battlegroup around the De Gaulle capable of protecting her from American Carrier groups, subs and land-based air assetts.

More than anything else though, we Europeans (who generally have tighter gun controls and less polarised politcs) can't really imagine that any "rebellion" would be worthwile supporting from an ethical, logistical or political standpoint.

Fire arms bring conflict down to wits, ignoring physique and brawn. When I served, it was the combat units that had the lousiest physical training scores. The hospital, admin, supply units etc had all the time to get high two mile run and push up scores. The line units often look out of shape in comparison.

Even if Americans being poorly endowed, fatsos was a halfway worthwhile argument I still can't understand why anyone would give up the right to bear arms just because the military has an even higher level of tech. To me that's all the more reason.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of?

Really? I wouldn't know, about that, but I remember that British mechanised infantry used to think of US LI as pretty unfit in compariseon to themselves. That could just be international rivalry though, and I don't know if your experience is repeated accross nations generally. I also don't know where you're from, come to that.

Also noteworthy - in those articles PJ linked about Afghan marksmanship (or lack thereof), the rifles being used to hit the most American soldiers aren't AKs but WWII era rifles that are both more accurate and more powerful. A modern hunting rifle is an improvement over those guns, and is used by many American hunters with even better marksmanship.

CR

This is pretty well known, hence Royal Marines being issued 7.62 calibre rifles without full auto capability to replace SA80II. A bigger bullet perfomrs better over longer ranges than a smaller, lighter, one.