cliche bingo

[StCapps]

I'm referring to her supporting gun control.

[BjornP]

Ah, then according to what I could google about her gun laws, no. To me the regulations we already have in place in Denmark are just fine. Certainly way more restrictive than the US', but also more lax than the British. I do support some gun control, but it's an issue that's at the way lowest point of things I care about politically. I care more about the right to self-defense and how that is politically and legally handled. Just like I don't think the US spree killings are caused by high rate of gun ownership, I don't see a need for a high rate of gun ownership to provide neccesary self-defense against other citizens.

And in the case of self-defense against government... it would be ridiculous to need, in writing, a government permission slip to own guns for the purpose of violent overthrow of government. Every country throughout history has never bothered having a written right to arm themselves in order for them to rise up in arms against the government. Want to get some guns and overthrow government? Get some guns and overthrow government. People didn't even need to own their own guns for that to happen historically.

[StCapps]

Ah, then according to what I could google about her gun laws, no. To me the regulations we already have in place in Denmark are just fine. Certainly way more restrictive than the US', but also more lax than the British. I do support some gun control, but it's an issue that's at the way lowest point of things I care about politically. I care more about the right to self-defense and how that is politically and legally handled. Just like I don't think the US spree killings are caused by high rate of gun ownership, I don't see a need for a high rate of gun ownership to provide neccesary self-defense against other citizens.

And in the case of self-defense against government... it would be ridiculous to need, in writing, a government permission slip to own guns for the purpose of violent overthrow of government. Every country throughout history has never bothered having a written right to arm themselves in order for them to rise up in arms against the government. Want to get some guns and overthrow government? Get some guns and overthrow government. People didn't even need to own their own guns for that to happen historically.

Yeah, but having a written right to arm themselves makes it easier to defend themselves. Those people who didn't even need their own guns for that to happen would have had an easier time if they had a constitutional right that made it easier to arm themselves in the first place, instead of having to do it the hard way.

Also it is not a permission slip from the government, it is the government choosing to acknowledge their inalienable right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and if the government starts grabbing guns in contravention of that inalienable right, that's where fighting back with guns you still have come in, as it did when the Brits were grabbing guns in the 1770's, which was the main spark that lit the American revolution.

When Paul Revere is on his midnight ride, warning people that "The British are coming", he's doing that because they are coming to confiscate guns.

Americans do not take kindly to governments trying to grab their guns, who knew?

[BjornP]

I assume most US gun owners simply own guns for home defense. You need more than lots of guns to beat a professional, modern army.

A government that declares it won't ever threaten constitutional right, is simply lying. If your constitutional rights are under threat, you go Ceaucescu on the government's ass... and their familes.

[Speaker to Animals]

You need more than lots of guns to beat a professional, modern army.

I grow tired of this silly opinion, especially from people claiming to be historians. Most conflicts since Algeria's independence have shown this to be dead wrong.

All this expensive kit is good for defeating other modern armies, not insurgencies.

[StCapps]

I assume most US gun owners simply own guns for home defense. You need more than lots of guns to beat a professional, modern army.

A government that declares it won't ever threaten constitutional right, is simply lying. If your constitutional rights are under threat, you go Ceaucescu on the government's ass... and their familes.

Insurgencies kick professional modern armies asses all the time, that's how America was born in the first place. It's a lot harder to take those guns from Americans now than it was in 1776, because there is more guns, and more people who own guns than back then.

[BjornP]

You need more than lots of guns to beat a professional, modern army.

I grow tired of this silly opinion, especially from people claiming to be historians. Most conflicts since Algeria's independence have shown this to be dead wrong.

All this expensive kit is good for defeating other modern armies, not insurgencies.

I wasn't referring to kit or equipment. You need discipline, resilience, efficient tactical leaders and instructors, and ability to organize and coordinate an efficient insurgency. You also need a degree of popular support in order to hide from government troops and agents.

And you need for people to feel desperate enough that they feel taking up arms against government is the best alternative.

Most people in modern, western countries generally have it too good, imo, to feel they have cause to fight government. It can, and historically has, changed of course, but right now there isn't a revolutionary spirit anywhere (no matter the sort of revolution).

You can btw add Taliban to your point about efficient insurgency fighters who defeated modern militaries without things like their own air force. The US government is in peace talks with them now.

[BjornP]

I assume most US gun owners simply own guns for home defense. You need more than lots of guns to beat a professional, modern army.

A government that declares it won't ever threaten constitutional right, is simply lying. If your constitutional rights are under threat, you go Ceaucescu on the government's ass... and their familes.

Insurgencies kick professional modern armies asses all the time, that's how America was born in the first place. It's a lot harder to take those guns from Americans now than it was in 1776, because there is more guns, and more people who own guns than back then.

It is no guarentee that gun owners will want to join an insurrection. Government might, as has been done in Syria simply call for willing pro-government militias.

[StCapps]

I assume most US gun owners simply own guns for home defense. You need more than lots of guns to beat a professional, modern army.

A government that declares it won't ever threaten constitutional right, is simply lying. If your constitutional rights are under threat, you go Ceaucescu on the government's ass... and their familes.

Insurgencies kick professional modern armies asses all the time, that's how America was born in the first place. It's a lot harder to take those guns from Americans now than it was in 1776, because there is more guns, and more people who own guns than back then.

It is no guarentee that gun owners will want to join an insurrection. Government might, as has been done in Syria simply call for willing pro-government militias.

It worked pretty well at rallying gun owners to want to join the insurrection when Britain did it, Americans love to overthrow gun grabbers. Nothing is guaranteed, but that doesn't mean the right to keep and bear arms doesn't put the gun owners in better position to fight the government than if they didn't have it, which in turn helps deter the government from attempting to grab their guns in the first place.

[BjornP]

...which was a couple centuries ago and not a rich society like present day America.