Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Trump is President right now

[Spider-Dan]

Does that mean you think that requiring ID to buy a firearm is a burden?

Nope, since I believe the right to keep and bear arms without infringement is limited solely to members of a well-regulated militia.

A self proclaimed "radical" calling other people "nutjobs".

The difference is that self-described "radical conservatives" essentially don't exist.  Every one of you, no matter how radical, delusionally thinks you represent the silent majority.

So you're proposing that (hypothetically) the citizens of an evil government like one of the ones I mentioned earlier, should just get in line to the gas chamber or firing squad?

Well, first of all, the American colonists didn't need a guarantee of their right to bear arms to secede from the most powerful government on the planet.

But if we're talking about today: unless your government guarantees you the right to keep and bear tanks and rockets, it won't make a difference.  Ask any Palestinian how much difference a semi-automatic rifle makes in securing their freedom.

[pondwater]

Let's be honest here Pond, if you think you can compare what would happen during an insurrection now with the Revolutionary War you are mistaken. Just ask the people involved in Ruby Ridge and Waco how much chance they stood. This is coming from someone who used to think they had a shot too. The federal government is even taking it easy in those instances.

Apples and Oranges. If any sizable amount of US citizens were involved in such a situation it would be more akin to one of the many never ending civil war type situations around the world since WWII. A sizeable well armed civilian force is harder to beat than an army. And the US has (maybe) the biggest and best armed civilian populations in the world. Kind of funny that US government and military is always intervening in other peoples civil wars and would probably have to beg for help in their own civil war

[Spider-Dan]

If any sizable amount of US citizens were involved in such a situation it would be more akin to one of the many never ending civil war type situations around the world since WWII.

As we can see from the internment of lawful Japanese-American citizens, the 1985 MOVE bombing, Waco, etc.: if you are the wrong kind of people, the number of guns you have won't make a difference, and the general public will applaud the government's use of force.

As we can see from Malheur Wildlife Refuge and the Capitol invasion: if you are the right kind of people, you can invade and take over without firing a single shot.

It's not about firearms, it's about political power.

[pondwater]

Nope, since I believe the right to keep and bear arms without infringement is limited solely to members of a well-regulated militia.

The point is that requiring an ID to buy a firearm disproportionately disenfranchises minorities. You know, since IDs for black people are so hard to get. Don't black people equally deserve to exercise their constitutional 2A right?  You know, just like voting? If your views on people's rights and equality were congruent, the same argument would apply. My view to is either require ID for both or don't require ID for either either one. You just want to pick and choose like a little kid.

The difference is that self-described "radical conservatives" essentially don't exist.  Every one of you, no matter how radical, delusionally thinks you represent the silent majority.
Well, first of all, the American colonists didn't need a guarantee of their right to bear arms to secede from the most powerful government on the planet.

I would assume that people who advertise themselves as a self proclaimed "radicals" would have more problems due to lack of numbers. You're an abnormal bunch.

But if we're talking about today: unless your government guarantees you the right to keep and bear tanks and rockets, it won't make a difference.  Ask any Palestinian how much difference a semi-automatic rifle makes in securing their freedom.

Is it over? Is the US intervening? Do those people hate each other? Whole different type situation. 

[pondwater]

As we can see from the internment of lawful Japanese-American citizens, the 1985 MOVE bombing, Waco, etc.: if you are the wrong kind of people, the number of guns you have won't make a difference, and the general public will applaud the government's use of force.

As we can see from Malheur Wildlife Refuge and the Capitol invasion: if you are the right kind of people, you can invade and take over without firing a single shot.

It's not about firearms, it's about political power.

Political power, I totally agree. In my opinion, the best strategy in a hypothetical civil war. The capital would probably be taken from within by a majority of politicians of either side or both sides of the aisle . At that point every citizen would have to pick a side.

[Phishfan]

Apples and Oranges. If any sizable amount of US citizens were involved in such a situation it would be more akin to one of the many never ending civil war type situations around the world since WWII. A sizeable well armed civilian force is harder to beat than an army. And the US has (maybe) the biggest and best armed civilian populations in the world. Kind of funny that US government and military is always intervening in other peoples civil wars and would probably have to beg for help in their own civil war

That thought process is delusional. I'm just sorry.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Political power, I totally agree. In my opinion, the best strategy in a hypothetical civil war. The capital would probably be taken from within by a majority of politicians of either side or both sides of the aisle . At that point every citizen would have to pick a side.

And even then private firearms would be an almost nonexistent factor.  The support of the joint chiefs of staff would be the deciding factor. 

[pondwater]

And even then private firearms would be an almost nonexistent factor.  The support of the joint chiefs of staff would be the deciding factor. 

Tell that to all the other countries that have been in endless civil wars. Just because you have control of the government doesn't mean you won. As long as a certain percentage of the population doesn't want that government there would be guns involved. It's amusing to see people think that the US is immune to things that happen in the rest of the world. Statistically, a person born in the past 100 years had a better chance getting killed by their own government than in a war against another country.

I'll ask again. Hypothetically, If the US government went down the path of one of the aforementioned evil countries, what would you do? Would people just get in line to the gas chamber or firing squad? Would you?

[CF DolFan]

That thought process is delusional. I'm just sorry.

What's delusional about it? Unless you think our government is too big to fail then it's a reality. History is full of societies and armies that were too big to fail and did just that. The biggest question is many liberals wholeheartedly believe in the 2nd amendment for the same reasons as conservatives so it would be interesting to see which side they landed on if that was in danger of being taken away.

[CF DolFan]

Even Trump admits he didn't win ... He said this yesterday.

We were supposed to win easily, 64 million votes,' said Trump. 'We got 75 million votes, and we didn't win ...

[Phishfan]

What's delusional about it? Unless you think our government is too big to fail then it's a reality. History is full of societies and armies that were too big to fail and did just that. The biggest question is many liberals wholeheartedly believe in the 2nd amendment for the same reasons as conservatives so it would be interesting to see which side they landed on if that was in danger of being taken away.

It just is flat out delusional. No matter how you slice it the two sides would not be playing the same game. The Air Force alone has enough firepower to take care of the problem of an organized armed civilian uprising and they wouldn't even have to put military personnel in the way of harm.

[Dave Gray]

I think there's merit to what CF is saying.  I mean, sure, the Air Force could and would take out any organized units without a problem.

But if it was just random people, operating like insurgents, within a population, it'd be very hard to root it out with traditional bombs.  It would operate like a terrorist force: assassinations, bombings, instability, etc.

There's no way you could rise up like the Confederacy or anything, but if 25% of the country was willing to fire on the opposition from their house and you didn't know who was who, it'd be really hard to root that out.

[pondwater]

It just is flat out delusional. No matter how you slice it the two sides would not be playing the same game. The Air Force alone has enough firepower to take care of the problem of an organized armed civilian uprising and they wouldn't even have to put military personnel in the way of harm.

So you're saying you'll take the gas chamber or firing squad?

[Dolphster]

I think there's merit to what CF is saying.  I mean, sure, the Air Force could and would take out any organized units without a problem.

But if it was just random people, operating like insurgents, within a population, it'd be very hard to root it out with traditional bombs.  It would operate like a terrorist force: assassinations, bombings, instability, etc.

There's no way you could rise up like the Confederacy or anything, but if 25% of the country was willing to fire on the opposition from their house and you didn't know who was who, it'd be really hard to root that out.

I think if the US were to devolve to that point I'd rather be dead than to be around to witness it anyway. 

[Phishfan]

I think there's merit to what CF is saying.  I mean, sure, the Air Force could and would take out any organized units without a problem.

But if it was just random people, operating like insurgents, within a population, it'd be very hard to root it out with traditional bombs.  It would operate like a terrorist force: assassinations, bombings, instability, etc.

There's no way you could rise up like the Confederacy or anything, but if 25% of the country was willing to fire on the opposition from their house and you didn't know who was who, it'd be really hard to root that out.

But Pond isn't talking about pockets.Pond is specifically saying a sizeable amount of civilians in a civil war. I'd be happy to address ground troops overpowering gorilla forces as well. First of all most of them are stupid enough that their electronic footprint would have them monitored and targeted before they even got off the ground. Any such uprising would be so far behind technologically they don't stand a chance. These historical examples they want t bring up consist of people fighting with sticks and stones basically.