Supreme Court gun ruling comment

[Ayiekie]

DHBirr wrote:

---

I's called "asymmetric warfare" if you're too hung up on Pentagonese to like the good old term "guerrilla war." Yes, when facing
the might of the U.S. military (of which I was a member for 23 years), only idiots and the armies of big nations fight stand-up.
But the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents have reminded everybody how the superpower can be taken on. And if you think Muslim guerrillas
are sons-of-bitches, wait'll you have to deal with rednecks.

Of course, I'm not at all disputing a counter-insurgency is going to benefit from having arms. However, the thing is, that would never
overthrow the American government that is supported by the military. It will never win, any more than Iraqis killing a
couple US soldiers a day has evicted them from Iraq by force of arms or overthrown the American-propped government (both of which would be a vastly easier task
than defeating the US military on home soil). I do not consider the dubious satisfaction of killing a few more people in a scenario as unlikely as
"popular armed rebellion against a US government that still controls the majority of the armed forces" to be worth the known, quantifiable risks of
letting civilians have military-grade weaponry. You do have to draw a line somewhere; and nobody needs an M-16 for home defence unless the Zombie Apocalypse
has happened without my noticing.

True. We soldiers were not good Germans (my ancestors were from Bavaria, so I can use ethnic slurs against Germans with impunity,
just like rappers using the "N-word") and that's the real reason the martial law idea being bandied about the water
coolers was so out-of-touch. If the President tried to impose martial law as a "covert" coup d'etat, a substantial part of the military would
refuse to obey. He would, in fact, then be a domestic enemy of the Constitution, which we swore to defend when we enlisted. I don't think Cheney is
stupid enough to pull that. Hell, Clinton wasn't quite stupid enough for that one. I'm less certain about Shrub, but I
think he'll still follow Cheney's lead.




(Admittedly, if the civilians were from Dixie, I'd've fired on them with positive pleasure. I'm the only Northerner I
know who's still bitter about the Civil War.)

I admit to some curiosity as to why you think Clinton was likely to declare martial law as a coup d'etat, but it's not really germaine to
this discussion. As I pointed out above, the whole notion of a scenario where American civilians needed military weapons to make a doomed last stand against a
tyrannical US government is so far removed from reality as to be ludicrous.

Bluntly, the conditions of the 18th century do not apply anymore. A time when armies still had a legitimate use for swords versus a time of supersonic jet
fighters.

By the way, Ayiekie, that's an adorably scowling avatar you've got there.

Heh. Thank you, I'm very fond of Unhappy Link myself.