Regarding the absurdity of private gun ownership vs the US military

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I keep seeing the talking point that having a semi-automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine is absurd because the President could unleash tanks, drones, flying gunships, helicopters, etc. I commenter hear even noted that the president has nuclear weapons at his disposal.

Ummm...

Any president that would unleash bombs, drones, artillery, etc. on American cities *ought* to overthrown in which case semi-automatic weapons and magazines that will hold as many rounds as is practical would probably become a necessity.

Of course I would also hazard a guess that if even the former Soviet army sat-out the collapse of the USSR it would be even harder to get US service members to unleash wholesale slaughter on their fellow Americans.

And that is to their credit.

Those who go around haughtily proclaiming, "These gun nutters won't know what hit 'em!" strike me as little different from the puffed-up neocons who, with equal haught, claim, "Them Ay-rabs won't know what hit 'em." Neither party seems overly eager to enlist to fight their respective cause and in the case of the former it would be the height of self-contradicting hypocrisy.

Perhaps dialing back the rhetoric would be to the benefit of all. One side of this debate -- whether deluded or not -- says that a government eager to confiscate guns and bureaucratically harass law-abiding citizens is up to no good. The other side seems intent on making those delusions real with talk of bans, registration and any other device meant to frustrate people who are by-and-large just everyday, decent people.

If the Arab world could rally tens of thousands to face-off against the US military based on the propaganda that the Americans were bent to waging war against the Islam they hold dear how could Bush waging war across the length and breadth of the Islamic world have done anything except validate their deepest fears?

[Buzz Clik]

1. Sounds like it's time for a weekend at the paintball course.

My dad was convinced it would be droves of people with dark skin pouring out of Chicago to take the crops off his farm. He had quite the array of weapons.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Yeah, I think both sides of that argumetn are equally asinine.

A) presidents bombing/attacing thier own citizens on thier own cities - LOL. I'm sure that's a campaign and public approval winner right there.

B) Small arms alone cannot defeat any modern Armed Forces of any nation, let alone the US Armed forces. I predict a stalemate at the insurgent-level as seen in Afghanistan.

Both sides of the argument are bunk.

[patrice]

3. Remember, you usually don't know *W*H*O* is saying whatever and *W*H*Y* on this board, tweak your

BULLSHIT filter, especially in gun discussions.

I know the posts you're referring to; they've been making me uncomfortable too.

I called someone on a Gitmo comment a bit ago; think I'll step it up a bit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. "think I'll step it up a bit."

By all means; but please remember, embrace peace like you mean it.

[patrice]

6. No personal insults here. I usually just try to ask the right question re whatever someone says.

I prefer hard questions by far, over insults = just not my style.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. "I prefer hard questions..."

I bet that gets you a lot of "Derp! Derp! Derp!" responses.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. I'm absolutely blown away by the way DUers who HATED the military two months ago now cheer

and gleefully post their opinions about how the MILITARY would put down any kind of unrest influenced by the prohibition of guns by flying A-10s with JDAMS into population centers and having AC-130s strafing Senior Centers. They even post PICTURES for goodness sake, the kind of pictures that would have been HIDDEN two months ago as "military porn".

The "anti's" who are now posting cartoons of "gun nutters" who are overweight are more than likely within 5% of the "gun nutters'"body weight, while gleefully posting that the military THEY HATED yesterday will gladly come riding heavy armor and kill their fellow Americans just because they believe their rights GUARANTEED by the Constitution are being infringed upon.

This is a juxtaposition I believe is only possible at Democratic Underground.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. "This is a juxtaposition I believe is only possible at Democratic Underground."

I don't think it is DU so much as it is humanity's capacity for self-serving hypocrisy. I don't say that to be mean or judgmental or snarky but to maybe be blunt enough to make some gain a sense of introspection (I know I'm not perfect but I want to be good enough to learn about my frailties so I can become a better person.).

This delight some have at the idea of war in America in the name of supposedly reducing gun violence by a group that once upon a time said it opposed war simply because it was war, casts their previous demands for peace in a suspect light.

[Lurks Often]

9. Thank you for an intelligent post

and the application of some common sense to this issue.

[lastlib]

10. "the U.S. military will never fire on its own citizens..."

Um, I know it's been a long time since I took that history class back when, but I seem to recall pretty clearly that there were some rather large unpleasantries back around the 1860s when the U.S. military did in fact fire on its own citizens--rather emphatically, as I recall. And if you think that that was the kind of large-scale thing that was unique to those circumstances, and that smaller-scale incidents don't happen, I would only say three things: 1) Shay's Rebellion; 2) Whiskey Rebellion; 3) Kent State University.

"Any president that would unleash bombs, drones, artillery, etc. on American cities *ought* to overthrown..."
including Abraham Lincoln? Ask how many times Ulysses Grant laid siege to a U.S. city. How many times William T. Sherman laid siege to a U.S. city? If the Alex Joneses start their "second revolution" that they're calling for, Bushmaster AR-15s aren't gonna protect them much.....

Jus' sayin'.................

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. In the episodes you mentioned, minus Kent State

someone was actively aggressing. Kent State was a situation that got out of control. But I'm not seeking a debate about history.

But as far as my point is concerned, those who demand a gun ban -- in direct contravention of recent Supreme Court rulings and in full knowledge that such a thing would never pass congress -- are saying they are willing to set-off a firestorm where only massive military intervention would save them. Except I have serious reservations that those who demand unchecked, imbalanced unitary executive action being able to rally the military to their cause. And since those who desire such unilateral dictates seem to express a perverse glee at the prospect of wholesale slaughter they ought to be ignored from the first. They should be disincluded in conversations over gun policy until they set aside their civil-warmongering and come to their better senses.

My one comforting thought is I do not see Obama as the sort who would fulfill these disturbed fantasies and I pray no such person is ever elected as president.