Banned in California!

Sorry, I may have missed it: has anyone explained why someone would need a .50 caliber rifle?

Just before the American Revolution, Boston was occupied by British General Thomas Gage's armed troops, but the people harassed them, and harassed them, and burned down the houses of any American who cooperated, and effectively made the troops stationed there completely impotent and ineffective, even according to Gage's letters home.

Unless the dictatorship is willing to shoot down scores of civilians in the streets on a regular basis, there is a lot that the people can do.

Anyway, it's the principle of the thing that counts.

But if a government today would 'turn evil', it would have control over hundreds of thousands of soldiers, over nuclear missiles, over all kind of tanks, ships, troops, whatsoever... I'm not sure if it would make a difference even if everybody owned a .50 caliber rifle.

OE writes

Quote:

But if a government today would 'turn evil', it would have control over hundreds of thousands of soldiers, over nuclear missiles, over all kind of tanks, ships, troops, whatsoever... I'm not sure if it would make a difference even if everybody owned a .50 caliber rifle.

The American military is made up of mostly freedom loving, patriotic American citizens. The weakness in your argument, I think, is an assumption that a coup in the White House would automatically extrapolate into control of the military. Our military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution that stipulates that their Commander in Chief is the constitutionally elected President of the United States. I can't imagine more than a handful of our military of any rank throwing their support to a dictator. So given the loyalty of the military to the Constiution plus a large number of civilians well armed and ready to defend their country, the USA is a more secure place than it might otherwise be.

Foxy, would the result still be the same if the change came slowly, and insidiously, rather than in some flashy coup - if the dictators presented themselves as saving the country from some threat?

CodeBorg,

an oldie indeed... Interesting, but of course a parallel to the Iraq insurgency issue: foreign troops in your own country.

But, the interesting part in the 2. Amendment and the expressed wish of those adding it to the Constitution was 'the right to own and bear arms' as a safeguard against the own government.

Just imagine a situation like in Chile, when Pinochet took over. Was that what the Founding Fathers might have had in mind? I would say that'd be a good guess.

But of course the situation is a little bit different today than it was in 1791...

Brandon9000 wrote:

Just before the American Revolution, Boston was occupied by British General Thomas Gage's armed troops, but the people harassed them, and harassed them, and burned down the houses of any American who cooperated, and effectively made the troops stationed there completely impotent and ineffective, even according to Gage's letters home.

I doubt it very much that one would see a similar situation today. As I said before, I wouldn't recall any successful 'insurgency' of a people against a dictatorship within the last decades.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Unless the dictatorship is willing to shoot down scores of civilians in the streets on a regular basis, there is a lot that the people can do.

True. But that's the whole point, too. I would imagine what the Founding Fathers had in mind was exactly a dictatorship willing to shoot down scores of civilians. In 1791 it might have been a safeguard against such a situation if everybody owned a gun. The military didn't really have a lot more than guns and cannons.

But if a government today would 'turn evil', it would have control over hundreds of thousands of soldiers, over nuclear missiles, over all kind of tanks, ships, troops, whatsoever... I'm not sure if it would make a difference even if everybody owned a .50 caliber rifle.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Anyway, it's the principle of the thing that counts.

Not sure. Because, where's the point in it?

Brandon writes

Quote:

Foxy, would the result still be the same if the change came slowly, and insidiously, rather than in some flashy coup - if the dictators presented themselves as saving the country from some threat?

An excellent question.

joefromchicago wrote:

Sorry, I may have missed it: has anyone explained why someone would need a .50 caliber rifle?

Sure, to resist and overthrow the government if it becomes a dictatorship.

joefromchicago wrote:

Sorry, I may have missed it: has anyone explained why someone would need a .50 caliber rifle?

Sure, to resist and overthrow the government if it becomes a dictatorship.