what can one armed civilian do vs an army?

BurtonRW said:

I always get hit with the "how are you and your gun nut friends going to take down the army" BS, so I run through the numbers. If there are roughly 250M adults in the US and about 25% of that number own firearms, that's 62.5M gun owners in the US. Let's be conservative and assume that only 1% are willing or capable of fighting in any capacity.

That's over 6 million guerrilla fighters with varying, but generally liberal, access to small arms. Now factor in the number of police and military who would be included in those ranks and bring with them other goodies like crew-served weapons, explosives, armored vehicles, etc.

If the shit truly hit the fan, I don't think it would go the way these nitwit gun grabbers think it would.

May God forbid it, either way.

-Rob

Click to expand...

BurtonRW said:

I always get hit with the "how are you and your gun nut friends going to take down the army" BS, so I run through the numbers. If there are roughly 250M adults in the US and about 25% of that number own firearms, that's 62.5M gun owners in the US. Let's be conservative and assume that only 1% are willing or capable of fighting in any capacity.

Click to expand...

rascal said:

i would just invert the question and ask: "can you fight the army with your rolled up copy of the Washington Post? dos that mean the First Amendment has no deterrence to tyranny?"

Click to expand...

rascal said:

It is not even taking down the entire army, or some kind of widespread civil war or whatever the left accuses gun owners of "plotting."

We already have, in modern times, second half of the 20th century, evidence of the Second Amendments effectiveness at deterring tyrannical acts by governing entities: Civil rights marches that included armed civil rights activists were in fact demonstrably less likely to be attacked by police.

The idea that the second amendment utility is only relevant in some kind of wholesale uprising is not serious and not an argument we should get into. Even scenarios of: "there are this many gun owners, and that many army personnel" helps the other side since it raises the specter of mass violence and makes the person giving the calculations seem like a promoter of sedition.

The fact is the entire bill of rights, especially with the backing up provided by the Second Amendment, can be argued to already have deterred tyrannical acts, and probably over and over.

i would just invert the question and ask: "can you fight the army with your rolled up copy of the Washington Post? dos that mean the First Amendment has no deterrence to tyranny?"

Click to expand...