did you read past the quote block? where they say that the stats they used for that were not conclusive, and just paint a small part of the picture? and then in the rest of the article how they go on to question the validity of the law? or was that little tidbit you quoted good enough for you?
There might be a general sentiment of support among other countries, but there wouldn't be a stream of weapons flowing from foreign governments that would be on par with what the US government had.
Drones would be the only issue. Tanks, and Bombers would be practically useless against a gerilla insurrection. Not to mention, you are wildly overestimating how much armament we actually have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft We actually have far more cargo aircraft than weaponized.
It's pretty funny to think that the common person in 2013 would stand any chance against the US Military.
I love when people refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a militant rebellion and accept whatever controls the government chooses to impose on them. It's cute. The reason I offered some details was to try and open some closed minds. Obviously it's just my imagination at work. I believed my mother when she told me nothing was impossible.
I am pretty "in the middle" on this issue. Yet i find it quite silly when people think it is impossible for this country to find itself in open rebellion only a little more than 200 years past the last rebellion. "War is just a shot away"
It's not failing to acknowledge the possibility. I just laugh when people start getting their Call of Duty hardon and map out strategies. Really, though, for all the problems this country might have, they pale in comparison to the problems seen in other countries where there is armed revolution; the standard of living is too high, the democratic process - while flawed - is in place and offers (usually poor) choices, and the population is too apathetic about these types of things. "Can't fight tonight. Mad Men is on." Unless you are talking about taking up arms tomorrow, I find it nothing more than semi-amusing bluster.
There are many common people within the US military and in this age of somewhat free information on the internet, it's pretty funny to think that every one of them, or even the majority, would remain loyal if a government as "safe" as the US could drive their own people into revolution. Our government has gotten too big to even govern their own military. That may be why Clinton's administration began wholesale closure of bases, sliced re-enlistment money to ribbons, and made a movement toward a very cell-contained deployment strategy that involved a huge number of reserves, instead of taxing the active duty personnel the way the system had been designed. Maybe understanding the structure of the US military is your first step to not thinking that the US military is this faceless force that would crush it's own people in rebellion. Many of our military members would undoubtedly be part of such a rebellion. They are not robots, and the government has been struggling to figure out ways to maintain morale and obedience, all the while trying to wage military action everywhere for a decade.
Someone asked for, "..at least one example of non-white defendants who were acquitted in FL under SYG.", the article, while it does not give specific examples it does compare white on black SYG cases as well as black on white SYG cases. The stats were more than conclusive enough for showing that this is not all about whites getting off for shooting blacks while all blacks that shoot whites go to jail. If you want to put all 200 SYG cases under a microscope then go right ahead and get back to us with your findings. Might I ask you where your outrage was when a white person shot another white person and claimed SYG, how about when a black person shot a black person and claimed SYG?
80 million households posess, over 300 million guns. Cappys liberal sensibilities not withstanding its not Call of Duty, its basic history which apparently he has failed to grasp The US military, with, devilonthetownhallroofs Nuclear weapons.(thats my favorite argument) couldnt secure victory in Viet Nam. Insurrection, is like a virus, with no antibiotic. All I did was merely point out, that the number of armaments, is not quite what the woefully uninformed think it is. And, they are generally based in large groups, secured by mg: chain link fence. :rofl2:
I most certainly grasp basic history. If you did as well, you'd understand how ridiculous this hypothetical scenario is. Look, if you get off on planning your rebellion, get on with it. More power to you. Make sure you clean up after yourself. Could an armed rebellion happen? Sure. Is it even remotely likely to happen? No way. Not in the foreseeable future. It's not the validity of your opinion than amuses me... it's that you bother trying to move these hypothetical chess pieces around in the first place. You're having the Superman vs. Mighty Mouse argument and you're the one saying, "You idiot, Mighty Mouse isn't real!" Laughable.
Interesting corollary to the "arming yourself against the government" argument. Can you imagine what a hard time an occupying enemy force would have in America given the amount of private arms out there? Not that I consider that a valid reason for no gun control, just an observation.
I guess you missed the entire premise of the discussion which was arguing whether or not a civilian rebellion defeating the US military would be possible. Any discussion of strategy within that context is obviously hypothetical and being used as context to argue how civilians could possibly stand a chance. Maybe reread and understand before you start mocking something that isn't even being discussed. That makes you look silly. No one thinks they're mapping out actual details of a rebellion. And yes, obviously things would need to be much worse before anything like this ever occurred. That has also already been acknowledged. Reminds me of an alleged unsubstantiated quote from WWII During the World War II, a Japanese General was asked by one of his men why the Japanese military was not going to invade America. The Japanese General replied: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”.
Just going to point out that pound for pound Mighty Mouse kicks Superman's butt. The reason Japan never contemplated an invasion of the US is that we had three thousand miles of strategic depth with which to exhaust them and they had no prayer of Germany opening up a two front war against us because England never fell. The Russians were never in real danger of national annihilation because the Caucasus and Urals gave them strong defensive depth from which to reorganize and fight. The Cascades and the Rockies would have done the same for the US even if the Japanese had somehow managed to mount a successful invasion of the West Coast.
