Summations Only

Its an example of an armed citizen militia trying to resist a modern military.It didn't work out so well for them. Effectively, yes. America-supported governments now control both nations. The resistance did not put Al Qaeda or the Taliban into power, nor did they stop the US from doing whatever it wanted. You dont have to kill them all to make their threat minimal - and that's what they are. A minimal threat. They can plant some bombs and shoot some people, but they cannot achieve any sort of political change...meaning their armed resistance did nothing except contribute to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani dead, and add a few thousand American deaths. Provide an example of a "subtle way" to prosecute"tyranny" that would be successful against an unarmed populace, but which could be effectively prevented with an armed populace.

Then your previous reply is meaningless. Which is it?

It worked out fine for them until another country invaded. But it required just the sort of thing that the US government would not do to its own people. That makes my point. Large scale search and seizure.

I've shown you, from the best sources I can find, that the burglary rate is the same for both the UK and the USA - I'm happy to go through them again if you like and I'm happy to look at whatever statistics you have. (Which are?)On the face of it though, it does seem that the proportion of burglaries in the UK that happen whilst someone is home is about twice as high in the UK as in the US. But it's also a fact that when a US burglar meets a home owner 12% of them have guns - that just doesn't happen in the Uk to any statistical significance.Some facts about murder statistics. These numbers are generally very good. The thing about death is that it's absolute - no-one can second guess or what-if it. (Even you.) Then we have the fact that murder is regarded as a serious crime - the most serious crime - so it tends to get recorded properly and in detail. And finally, in most countries it's relatively rare so it's not a big effort to collect them. So just saying you can't trust them doesn't cut it - you have to say why.Finally, you seem to be terribly confused about the great British Bobby. Yer actual British Rozzer, Plod, is not armed. They don't want to be armed and we don't want them to be armed. Both we and they are proud not to be armed.But that doesn't mean they are never armed. When we need armed police, those trained for it are armed to the teeth. But because the general public is not armed it's not routine and it's rarely necessary to use them. Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

I'd rather not have to shoot your kid at all. Keep your kid away from my car and there's no problem. Tell him I have a gun, that should work.

I believe I already answered you: SOME ability to resist is better than none. It's still about resisting tyranny and simple weapons can go a long way.

No, it didn't. Al Qaeda was not in charge of Iraq; Saddam Hussein was - a secular dictator. The Taliban was a government friendly to Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda had nothing to fear from them.But as soon as the terrorist groups were faced with a modern military...their acts of resistance amounted to little more than throwing away lives, both their own and their neighbors, to make a pittance of casualties (relatively speaking) for the US and its allies.Again - the point is that a citizen militia can do little to nothing to prevent a government backed by a modern military from enforcing its desires, tyrannical or otherwise. Whether the military is foreign or domestic makes no difference at all except in whether the people choose to resist in the first place.If the US government would not do that to its own people, why do we need guns to prevent it? How, precisely, would guns prevent that? You think you can hold off a SWAT team with your pistols and rifles? If the Powers That Be decide to search your home, it will be searched. Your only defense against such a thing is through political action, words and debate and voting; your guns mean nothing. If some day the Fourth Amendment were abolished and the police wanted to search every home in your city, they could just send SWAT door-to-door, and your guns would do nothing except get you killed.Oddly enough, the reason your guns would not prevent such a form of tyranny is the same reason that legitimate search warrants can be carried out. The threat of force and the option for illegal resistance is always there. For some reason, even when they encounter armed resistance...the police still get to conduct a search. Whether the resident is alive and uninjured is the only questionable factor.

I'm still curious if you think tyranny is forcing people into government-run camps.

That sheet of statistics you supplied had every kind of crime jumbled up in one number and when I referred to it as evidence that crime had risen everybody jumped on me for the imprecision of YOUR statistic. That's not exactly reporting murder with precision.The video that interviewed the UK citizens whose guns had been stolen from them showed that home invasions had increased as a result. I'm not interested in comparisons between the UK and the US, I'm interested in the fact that the gun ban caused crime to go up in the UK.

I haven't said anything about camps. I think you're talking about Kofh. That WOULD cdertainly be tyranny though. Duh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Does that work where you come from Faith? Honestly now, tell the truth.. does that work?
Because where I come from, lots of people have guns. Lots of people have concealed weapons with permits so they can carry those guns. Cars get stolen. Homes get broken in to. People get robbed.Seems like it DOESN'T work. Huh, go figure.

No, I asked you twice if you consider that tyranny. Duh.So you would support armed resistance in the case of the government rounding up folks & placing them in detention centers, yes?

Simple weapons like spears and bows? I thought you had some kind of clear idea about your position on this.We need guns to protect ourselves against the government (YOUR position BTW, I can and have quoted you saying so), in which case private citizens need access to better guns, or the whole point of them is moot. If you only need SOME little bit of resistance, then a pistol or a shotgun is more or less as effective against them as a spear or a bow.Edited by PsychMJC, : Extra thoughts brought to you by Miller..Edited by PsychMJC, : No reason given.

Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

I haven't contested that point. Its not what the militia can do, its what their presence does: increases the cost of the enforcement. The people having guns ups the ante; now there's a big cost to enforcing tyrannical desires. Without them having guns its a cakewalk. No, they wouldn't even try because it be so costly. Exaclty, and because the government has a vested interested in keeping their poeple alive, they wouldn't go door-to-door with SWAT teams against an armed cilivian population because it would just be too costly. Well sure, against one house. But a whole city? The larger the scale the bigger the problem becomes for them, as long as the people remain armed. Without arms, there's nothing stopping them.That's a way that the people having guns can help against a tryannical government; not that the people would win the battle, but that the government wouldn't start it.ABE2: Look, you're saying the having an armed population doesn't help because the government could just drive in with tanks and kill everyone. I'm saying that because that is their option, then they wouldn't do it. Therefore the guns are helping prevent it.ABE: did you see Message 612?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.