Diogenes wrote:williatw wrote:Skipjack wrote: An increase in personal arms would make no difference in an armed conflict with another country. You would not get very far fighting an army with a handgun. So that argument is pointless.
I remains to be seen I will concede whether 90 million armed Americans vs. the US military would be a waste of time....and many citizens have considerably more than mere handguns. In any case look at the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, they were armed with little more than small arms and IED. They have fought the US military in Afghanistan for more than a decade, causing the US commander to scream for reinforcements back in 2009, saying that we were on the verge of losing the whole thing without them. In any case my point was that disarmed and subsequently conquered, more than once, is hardly an argument in favor of being disarmed; even if you can't prove it would have made a difference in the conquering (and the even more important occupation afterwards).
At this juncture, an American resistance would make Iraq and Falluja look like a kindergarten party.
Plus most of the American military is conservative and would refuse orders to attack US citizens during most kinds of possible uprising/revolution. If there were a revolution based on POTUS declaring the Constitution suspended and instituting Martial Law, you can be assured the military would bail and join the people. It is guns that keep us safe from this kind of takeover, whether they get used or not.