Have gun nuts (especially the militia and minutemen) ever considered this?

Question

They think that they need automatic and assault weapons. Their rational is that if martial law was ever declared, and they had to fight the US army, that they would be ready.

This is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Do they really think they would be able to defeat the most powerful army the world has ever seen with some UZI's and AK 47's?

And they wonder why they are stereotyped as delusional nuts.

Answer 1

The automatic weapon is good for overwealming numbers in the open, but on a regular basis, it is not needed. The US Military has switched most of its new contracts to burst- 3 rounds then stops, so that you can get rounds out, but then re-aquire the targets. Special units are going with automatic where they will anticipate large crowds or need many rounds at a time to be down range. For the cost (in the US) the semi-auto is the best deal. Abroad, the full-automatic is easier to make and cheaper, so it is chosen as the norm. Plus most extremists like one would find with an AK or Uzi as you reference are not that well of a shot, so they have a better chance of hitting something with that many shots...
The extremists are not always rational...

Answer 2

Just a reality check, the militants in Iraq are using AK-47s, Uzis, and homemade explosives to engage the United States Army in a drawn out conflict and seem to be doing a pretty good job of preventing an outright U.S. victory. Beware the gun-totting nut armed with an AK.

Answer 3

What exactly is an "assault" weapon anyway? If I was shot with any sort of lethal-force gun, I'd damn sure consider that assault. Having said that, I don't see the need for civilians to possess military weapons. A shotgun, rifle, or handgun, yes, but an automatic? I don't see the necessity. But that's just me - I'm weird like that.

Benminer: Again, maybe it's just me, but I have this crazy idea that cars, houses, and jewelry don't quite fit into the same category as weapons that can kill large numbers of people. I don't recall saying that they should be outlawed, just that I can't imagine what use a civilian would have for them.

Answer 4

We will probably never have to use guns against our own government. But if it ever did come to that, wouldn't you want the best weapons you could have? I don't think we'll ever have to use nukes, but it makes sense to have them in case we ever do need them.

Another point: if we ever did have to use guns against our own government, it is likely that the military would be as split as the rest of the country. Therefore, it would not be all the tanks on one side, and all the guys with hand guns on the other. Both sides would have tanks, airplanes, etc. and both would have infantry. The vast majority of fighters would be infantry, and it makes sense to have the best weapons available.

Another point: you don't have to destroy an entire army to defeat it. Look at the success of guerilla warfare in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. If you do enough damage, and you can win by eroding support for the other side. Again, in this situation, it makes sense to have the best weapons available.

See, there are plenty of rational reasons for responsible citizens to own powerful firearms.

Answer 5

Remember the revolutionary war? Hunting rifles prevailed then. And rifles would work much better than knives which is all they have left in England. Also, the U.S. army would splinter and half off the troops would join the citizens and a civil war would ensue. Hitler was one of the most famous gun control activists. He took the guns away from the people so he could send them to concentration camps.

Answer 6

No. The rational is the same with abortion, privacy, arts, stem cell rights. Our government chips away at our freedoms til they can exterminate them completely.
These people have chosen their freedom to protect, just as factions of the Democratic Party have chosen theirs.
If you are a true liberal wouldn't you support any group that fights the government in its effort to limit the rights of private citizens?

Really, no less crazy than pro-lifers that believe a 15 year old girl has a "right" to an abortion without the consent of a parent yet can not even legally get her ears pierced.

Answer 7

I would remind anybody who thinks that a group of semi-organized dedicated civilians could not possibly stand up to an army to go look up a place called Iraq.

Chris S – Since when do you “need” to own something in order to be allowed to own it? People don’t need cars with 500 horsepower engines, or houses with 15 bathrooms, or expensive jewelry. Should they be banned then? This “need test” of yours violates one of the basis tenants of a free society, which is that the burden of proof if on the party seeking to restrict a freedom, not on the party seeking to exercise it. If you want to outlaw something it’s up to you to justify why, and simply saying “well you don’t need it” isn’t good enough.

Answer 8

well, the Iraqis have proven you can be quite effective against "the most powerful army the world has ever seen" with homemade bombs and single shot rifles. Maybe if we give them AK47 & UZIs they will be easier to handle genuis.

Answer 9

You are the one who is fooling himself into believeing that tyranny cannot come about in America. Dream on, and by all means, stay unarmed, you have law enforcement and the military to protect you. I live in New Orleans, and during Hurricane Katrina , I have seen the likes of the NOPD and military tactics , and it isn't pretty.

Answer 10

I have no desire to fight the US military. I do have the desire to protect my family. Just because I own a gun, I have to be a nut? Sounds pretty narrow minded and bigoted to me. But that can't be right, you don't sound conservative.

Read the Constitution, you might learn something.