The soldiers are trained to kill people without remorse.
If you want an example check out how soldiers can easily slaughter civilians in other countries like Iraq.
Waco itself also was only a massacre since everything was done to specifically kill the people, when it wasn't supposed to.
But Waco's also a fine example of how the military can easily take out a rebellious group.


And who's to say that they won't just say that the people don't want to rebel to create freedom, but rather due to "Ties with Terrorist Organizations like the Al-Qaeda"?
A lot of people automatically go: "Dang those people are bad" when they hear that.

"Vietnam was unable to be defeated due to the fact that they were capable of using the terrain unbelievably well. On top of that, Americans were not prepared for combat in that type of situation, nor were they prepared for the morale loss that would occur.
And of course there was the "Make love not war" gathering throng back in America, that undermined the very government itself in it's actions, forcing politicians to think about going against the war in order to gain votes.
I also believe that at one point America was kicking butt in Vietnam..."

I fail to see how this is much different than what I said. Knowing the land goes hand in hand with knowing how to use it well. As for the make love not war protests, you don't think there'd be protests many times larger than that if America decided to fire on it's own people?

"Now what will happen if there is a rebellion in America?
Well, let's say that we have "Assault weapons". Hell, we'll expand assault weapons to things like assault rifles(Which would make sense..yeah?).
Now, let's be nice and even limit it to a place like the rural area of my hometown, making it so the entire town is against the country. We'll move in an equal number of soldiers, including an equal number of firepower."

This isn't worth responding to, obviously this situation will never occure, and trying to argue it would be frivilous.

"Who will win? The soldiers. They have the training, they have the supplies, they have the assistance from outside the area such as information. Soldiers are trained, ordinary people are not. So what will happen if everyone in my hometown has an Assault Rifle? Well...some will shoot themselves, others will shoot friends and a few lucky buggers will actually do good until they get slaughtered by the soldiers."

I feel sorry that you're surrounded by morons. I can deffinately see how this would damped your outlook on guns. But at this point I'd like to shoot back up to the top of the post. The soldiers may have the training, the supplies, and the intel (stuff I already mentioned they had in nam), but also like in nam any good rebellion in the US would know how to use IT's terrain better than it's government does. I'd also like to point out that the average citizen in my (redneck) hometown knows how to use a gun much better than most people in the military.

"Now let's make it realistic, in that the soldiers would come with far better equipment and reinforcements. Do you really think the ordinary o' people have a chance? No, they don't."

Depends on who's leading them. I'd say that with modern conveniences around people have deffinately been softened up a good bit, it used to be the general populace was physically in better shape and mentally prepared to fight more because of worse abuse. There's little reason for a rebellion to arise right now, but if someone feels strongly enough about something they'd start one. Obviously, they'd be in a desperate situation, whatever small following they could mustar against the US, but desperation breeds determination.

Ah yes, the Waco incident, a bunch of religious extremists start an unorganized, inpromptu semi-rebellion against the government. In spite of their lack of training, lack of planning or any real objective, and what appeared to be a lack of any real education as well, they stood what was essentially a seige for 51 days. Seiges are never something you want to try and deal with, especially not since the creation of the cannon, but Waco wasn't a rebellion trying to be won purely through militant means. I also think the incident speaks of the ineptitude of our own nation's military, you're telling me that they could capture Saddam Hussein alive in a foreign country, but Vernon Howell had to get torched on native soil?

Ultimately, though, it does come down to what Synikul said. It sounds extremist, but those not willing to die for their freedom are undeserving of it. As unsound as it was strategically, I bow to the Davidians as masters of their own destiny, people who were willing to give their lives for something they beleived in. They're more free than any of us right now. It might sound like fluff but it's true.

You seem to be presenting as fact what are in fact serious leaps of imagination. Firstly, you seem to think that the Meiji were some kind of benign dictators when they were first in power, because the people had weapons. Balls, in a nutshell. Also, you seem to ignore the fact that the general Japanese population supported WWII. Weapons would have made no difference in that instance.

Knowing the land does NOT go hand in hand with knowing how to use it well. I know the surrounding land, hell I could probably run about in the fields with minimal trouble, but I'll be damned if I can use it well. I don't know how to live off of the land, nor do I know how to lay down ambushes. On top of that, the Vietnam area was a jungle. Now how many jungles are in America..?
Oh that's right..none.
As for firing on it's own people...well, let's look at a few things.
First off we have the Civil War, where two gatherings of people occured and waged battle against each other. Then we can also look at how currently next to nobody realizes that a large amount of Iraqi's were placed into jails in Iraq by American soldiers for untold reasons, and not even allowed to converse with their families.
In the case of a rebellion martial law might be put into place, which might also freeze the capabilities of the news to hand out what is going on.
No shock really, since if you allow panic to spread it'll merely cause more trouble.

Basically: "Holy hell I said we might need the stuff for a rebellion but when that idea is presented it isn't worth responding to!"

What terrain would they be using? Again, Vietnam was a dense jungle area. Average town USA is a TOWN, with maybe surrounding grassy plains and that's about it. I can, from where I am, see a total of 2 gatherings of trees...each gathering being thin overall, and of course a field of high weeds...which doesn't help seeing as during the winter they all fall over dead.
Basically, you can easily set up ambushing and such in a jungle.
You can't in the average area of North America.
And I also highly doubt that the "Average citizen in my hometown knows how to use a gun much better than most people in the military".
Why? Because the military have access to some of the best training programs in the world, access to a variety of weapons that the average citizen can't acquire, and of course also have that underlying base education they had before joining the military.

If there's little reason for a rebellion to arise right now, then why would we need weapons in order to conduct rebellions?

Do you know why they managed to do the siege for so long? Because the soldiers and police did not enter the building. They didn't even have to enter the building, since at any time they could have easily killed off everyone in that building without trouble. So if a rebellion occurs and people hang out in a house like that they'll be stomped. The fact that the soldiers held back for so long was merely due to public relations, which of course still didn't work out well since the soldiers were firing directly into the house, a tank ran over someone and incendiary devices were used to generate flames.

Dying to preserve your freedom is dying for idiocy. Currently you have freedom within limited boundaries. That freedom itself is an intelligent kind, seeing as it's a cross between an almost anarchist lifestyle and something like...say...dictatorship with how people can do what they want, live where they want and work where they want, but they also need to make certain to follow laws and rules so that they don't ruin the world.

If you believe you are lacking freedom you'll have to explain what freedoms you are lacking, and why you are lacking them.

If you can't do that then shut up.

If you got an armed population, then they can be trained by ex soldiers/soldiers who turn against the government. Basically you'd have to wipe out most of the population if they resist, and that's easier said than done.

Iraq had a trained army, knew the lay of the land, and their army was decimated by 100,000 American soldiers.
Who didn't even do as well as they most probably could have.
And after Afghanistan was decimated to boot.


Do you really think an "armed population" will stand a chance?

In response to Arty...

Nice of you to say it flat out without any supporting argument. But while we’re on the subject, yes, I do think that. But whether or not they were benign, they were dictators, and whether or not a dictator is good, kind of just there, or bad, they’re still a dictator. Even if they’re good, there’s no stopping what the next dictator in line will do (like getting your ass nuked). And yes, the Meiji government was in power because THEY had the weapons and not the people.

First off, that’s no where near correct. Over half the country was against ANY form of expansionism which, admit it or not, was the Japanese primary reason for every war it started after the turn of the century. A good portion of the nation was duped into believing that the American’s were trying to invade, and that thusly it was only right to go to war with them, a false belief that, had they had control of their government and not vice versa, they would have known was indeed false.

In response to John Preston...
Again, I’m sorry you’re surrounded by morons, and even more sorry that you seem to share some vices with them, but please don’t presume to include myself or all American’s in this. I’ll even go as far to admit that yes, the majority of the population is with you on this part. It’s funny that this comes up now, seeing as how if you checked another post on Darkforums where everyone is bitching at that new guy Freerk, you’ll see that I left about a day ago to go get lost in the woods (Why not longer? I do got a job, ya know.). I do know how to live off of the land, as does my father and a good portion of my friends, and should the time ever come I would teach those skills to others that needed them. Laying down ambushes? I participate in competitive combat simulations, air soft to medieval combat. Yes, here it comes, “But Craz, those are only simulations, far different from real combat.“. First off, shut up. The majority of Navy SEALS spend their entire careers training and never seeing combat. The ones that do see combat are never the first choices to teach the next generation, rather they take former SEALS who quit because they never saw any action. It’s strange, I know, but it’s true, and it speaks volumes about the value of simulated combat. And what jungles in the US? Urban jungles, forests, deserts, it doesn’t matter what the land is as long as you know how to use it (rewind to beginning of post).

Ah, what a great example of a good rebellion. Result? Southern states enjoy more freedom than northern ones on average, and still have less crime on average as well. I think Maryland’s a good microcosm for this. The further away from the capital you get, the less of a stranglehold there is on people’s freedoms with things like, oh, say, gun laws. And yet the crime rate as you move away from the capital drops dramatically as well. Coincidence? I really don’t think so. Police funding is much higher in D.C. than it is in the rest of Maryland, so don’t even think about turning to that.
Yeah, next to nobody except for… hmm, everybody.

Does this mean you’re actually advocating martial law? You’re tip toeing on fascism there, buddy.

Basically: “Holy hell, this guy brought up a totally fictional scenario and expected me to start what would have been and entirely new but much more useless argument!”

Do you really want to argue whether or not a handful of US citizen militia could beat a handful of US Army Infantry of the same number and all using the same weapons? I think that they stand a chance, as I said, I know more people that are experts with guns and land survival outside of the military than inside. But again, do you REALLY want to argue this totally fictional scenario? It’s just going to deviate from the topic at hand.

Have you ever even HEARD of urban warfare? Our own military is willing to admit it’s far more dangerous and difficult to fight than open combat. Look it up, seriously, don’t just respond aimlessly, look it up and tell me what you’ve found.

In programs specifically designed for marksmanship, I totally agree, but those are few and far between. The general infantry man is not given the best training or equipped with the best equipment. If he was, our troops wouldn’t be packing 9mm’s as side arms. He is taught what he needs to know to interact with other infantry men. Bottom line is most of our infantry doesn’t train with guns outside what the military makes them do, which is not a lot. And that’s just our infantry, never mind the fact that we have so many guys working MOS’s that have no direct combat application. Ya know my recruiting officer hasn’t fired off a single round in over a year? It’s not an isolated incident, either.

..for rebellions in the future? I really hate to sound like a school child, but “Duh!”. You’ve already shown you have little concept of how the past effects the present, I’m surprised you’re actually now showing signs that you have little concept of how the present will effect the future.

They did enter the building with an arrest warrant, 4 FBI agents went down, 6 Davidians. Again, this standoff was not well planned for, it happened pretty spur of the moment. You’re right, they had all physical means to level the place without entering the building, tanks and aircraft to bomb the place back to holy hell. But they didn’t. And why? Politics. War is an extension of politics, it can’t just be acted upon as an entity unto itself. One thing I can say about Howell is that he knew he would be protected by America’s citizens since he couldn’t rely on it’s government (Which is really my whole point, that the people are/should be greater than the government.). Unfortunately that protection only lasted so long before the government won it’s little game of chicken, the Davidians weakest point was that a lot of people just didn’t get their reason for doing all of this, and a lot wouldn’t have agreed with them if they had known. This came down to a fight of freedom of the citizen vs. power of the government, but the citizen’s side didn’t have enough substance at it’s core. Not that time.

Dying for your freedom is idiocy? I guess I’ve got the demeanor of an idiot, then. You’re right, we’re at a pretty good point right now, the right wing is taking back power, and in 20 years it’ll probably have shifted back to the left. But if it goes too far in either direction, then the people have to do something about it. Checks and balances, it doesn’t just apply to the legislative, executive and judicial. The secretary of the military has to by law be a citizen, he cannot be part of the military. States incorporate police departments to keep the citizens in check. Many others like these, and I believe the people were meant to and should keep it’s government in line as well as it’s military. Both were created to serve the PEOPLE, not the other way around.

Oooh, touchy.

I’m not about to shut up, you just gave me room to run. And keep in mind, you ASKED me to explain what I was lacking, so don’t tell me not to bitch about my personal problems.
10th grade of high school, I’m targeted by school security because they consider me dangerous in spite of the school guidance counselor’s differing opinion. This results in my being arrested for possession of a math compass (deadly weapon) and assault (with a pencil pouch). The school tells the police that the teacher has declined to make comment, and opt to make comment for her. They do this because she had no qualm with me, she thought I was being sent to the office for a detention which I admittedly deserved. The schools convinces the arresting officer to press charges FOR the teacher. Does this strike anyone else as unconstitutional? Cause it did me. They did not have her side of the story, they did not see the situation, all they went on was a negative reputation. I got to spend time in a holding cell for that and deal with many months of court dates and alternative placing at a school full of arsonists, thieves and other much worse offenders.

Two years later, me saying “I hope the motherfucker drops dead.” to someone online results in my being questioned by the homicide department. The majority of people on this forum write moth threatening things than that as a fucking pastime.

This past Monday, I was dodging bullets when I went to hang out with a friend in D.C. The fuckers who dropped on us had guns, none of us did. Neither of those guys had permits to have guns, or had passed background checks to obtain them but they still had them, and if guns were outlawed completely I‘ll guarantee you those fuckers would still have them as well. You take away guns from the public, you’re only disarming the law abiders and making them victim to the criminals. If I had been legally allowed to carry along with the rest of my friends, the two guys who came after us would have thought twice, I’m sure, since they were one, outnumbered, and two, aware that they had just as much of a chance of getting shot as us. A well armed society is a polite society.

We didn’t keep our government in check, now it’s jumping down our throats. Since they’re only isolated incidents, I can’t complain too much, even being on the shit end of the stick. Like I said, I think we’re at a somewhat reasonable middle ground. But just because you personally haven’t been taken advantage of by the government, don’t assume it’s not happening to other people.

Of course intending to die is idiocy, but is there nothing you consider to be worth RISKING death for? Is there anything you consider to be bigger and more important than yourself? If there is nothing you think to be worth fighting for, then you aren't going to have much of a life.

You are now officially cool in my opinion. It's free, so take it for what it's worth.

I'm going to have to ask you to prove this.
The only reason someone is arrested due to possession of a math compass, which would of course normally be handed out to students during the average course of a school year, is due to the fact that they actually used said compass for a violent action.

As for everything else you said:
Reread what I posted, think for a moment and then try again.

I'm also amazed that nobody has commented on how Iraqi civilians have proven rebellious thus far and not been squashed, and they aren't overtly organized nor are they well armed.
If you want to prove a point start looking for something to back your beliefs and statements.

And..of course..as for this:
Incorrect.
As has been demonstrated in England the removal of firearms has not truly removed said firearms, but merely made it so that the only reason to have a firearm when outside of your house is either due to a gun show, or due to the fact that you are going hunting or some variation therein.
To have the right to carry around a gun in the middle of a street day after day really doesn't help at all, nor would it. If someone is going to kill you you'll be dead before you can even realize what happened, unless if they're a totally idiotic fool.

Now before you start pulling out "pity me I was arrested" stuff, once again go about proving that all of that shit happened to you.
Because believe me an idiot for a lawyer could have ripped it all apart from what you've told thus far.

No, after the violent action has been done, anything on you can be turned into a weapon. Ever heard of someone kicking another person while wearing steel toed boots, then in addition to assault having assault with a weapon tacked on cause of the steel toes? It happens. All the police need these days is an excuse to get in somewhere and motivation to come up with charges (whether it be because you actually did something or because they just don't like you.) and they can do it. The officer in my case had a school office filling his ears with lies and was being kept away from anyone who would tell him otherwise.

Oh sure, prove it, I can do that... use your head, man, how in the hell can I prove it? You asked, I told. Even if I could show you arrest documentation, I couldn't very well prove to you that they were all false charges. If you weren't prepared to take my word for it, you shouldn't have asked as if you were going to. Same thing with your freggin "pity me because I was arrested" comment, I already said as the first thing before I went into my experiences that YOU ASKED, so don't tell me not to bitch about it when all I'm doing is explaining to you a question that, I reitate, YOU ASKED. You seriously have to be the most dense person I've ever talked with for missing this.
Why's that? So you can decide that you still can't make a decent arguement and tell me to try one more time?

Wouldn't help? Would you like to tell that to the bullet wound on my left shoulder, cause I don't think it'll make the thing dissapear. If someone's going to try and down me in a country of armed citizens, they don't just have to worry about me. I have a friend from the suburbs of Philly, PA, he's used his concealed carry permit to stop 3 muggings when he was in the city, 3 muggings happening to other people. They didn't think they had to worry about someone helping their victims, but if you got the weapons, why not?

As for criminals being totally idiotic fools.. yeah, I'd say that about sums them up. You ever seen a drive by? In spite of 5 seperate guns spittin at a target, 1 fully automatic, they still don't hit what they were going for. I'd say inept is a good word to describe them.

As we go further and further into this, it occurs to me that a great deal of what you beleive is because you haven't experienced otherwise. This is unfortunate. I'll say something now that may be surprising to you: I hate guns. I despise them. If there was a way to do away with them and make them never come back, I'd go along with it. But I know that's not a viable solution. Guns are here and they're not about to go away because of a law. Even with England and Canada and other disarmed countries, the people still packing guns are criminals, and extortion crimes in those countries are amazingly high. I don't beleive guns are the only solution, I think a balance of knowing how to keep yourself out of those situations, and how to defend yourself should you ever fall into one unarmed or armed is most important. But guns are a part of this. Because it is the weaponry that an enemy will be using, you have to know it and how to use it, and if you want to be on the same playing field as your would be aggresor, you should carry one as well. You don't want to? That's fine, just don't tell me that I can't.

No? REALLY?! HOLY SHIT I NEVER KNEW THAT!

Oh wait..I did.

The next time you want to tell me something, make certain it's either intelligent or actually gives me information that I don't already have.
Like: Why exactly did they consider the compass a deadly weapon?

What the hell have you been doing to people?
And even if you have gotten into fights in school that doesn't mean you're going to be automatically arrested for having the compass. They'd need to prove you had enough of a reason to use it in order for that to work, not to mention for them not to get in trouble for arresting a person for no valid reason.
There ARE regulations set up to stop people from abusing their "I'm a cop and I arresty peoples!" status.

How should I know what information you do or don't have? Half the things I thought were commonplace you're severely lacking in.

Why did they consider it a weapon? Because it was one of those metal ones you put a pencil it, not a flat plastic curved ones you trace with. I was lightly carving things into my paper inside my binder with it, no not pointing it at anyone, no not aggresively shredding through several peices of paper with it, lightly tracing a picture with it on my paper in my binder so that there was no possible way I was damaging school property. But because the teacher had included this in her description to the office when she was advising that they give me detention, they turned it into something more aggressive sounding when the police got there. Look, it's long, complicated, if you're not going to take my sword for it, fine, but you shouldn't have asked in the first place. If you are going to, then beleive me, I did nothing to warrent this. I didn't get in fights at school, this was the first time I had ever been sent to the office. I smashed my head against lockers, sat in the corner at lunch (not in a seat, actually in the corner.) and showed up at school with cuts, bruises and burns all over me on Monday mornings from backyard wrestling over the weekend. They were scared of me, but I never did anything wrong. I mouthed off to the teacher that one morning, something I admit I should have gotten detention for, and I got arrested for it. Police officer never even read me my rights. I'm aware this is legal ground for dismisal of charges, but as I've been trying to say, police's word vs. yours, they take the officer's. Plus he had most of the front office of the school who had called him there in the first place to back up whatever he wanted to say... but anyways, I'm rambling now.

Yes, there are regulations in place to prevent cops from acting like this. Unfortunately, they don't always work, and you're less likely to have anyone care about those regulations if you're not a minority .