Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
and yet there are guerrilla forces fighting, and usually defeating, our tanks right now. IED's can be a wonderful thing as well.
|
They sure can. And if we get to the point where we need to fight the government, I'm sure you won't feel the need to ask Congress' permission to build a few of them, will you? And I'm sure you'll agree than an IED is not a machine gun, won't you, and is therefore not germaine to this conversation.
If we get to the point where we can, and do, start blowing up tanks, then we can get hold of automatic weaponry, too. If nothing else, snatch it off of the guys in the tank you just killed.
Quote:
|
I'm not saying that if 'revolution' were to ever start that we should go toe to toe like we did with the british. hit and run attacks, sniping, IED's, and the like would be a long slow road of attrition.
|
I agree. Hit and run attacks wouldn't work very well unless you were hitting them with something better than a gun. Sniping would be better accomplished with a scoped deer rifle than with a machine gun. IED's as we have established have nothing whatsoever to do with machine guns. You still haven't explained what you're gonna do with that machine gun - the one that, while we're waiting around for dksuddeth to begin his revolution, is being played with by some idiot that might just decide to shoot me.
Quote:
|
In reference to the other portion of your statement, since the government HAS used military vehicles against it's own population in the past, there is nothing to say it won't be used again in the future, do you still believe that it's beneficial to society to deny military weapons to the public because bad people will use them also?
|
If the military weapons that the public is capable of getting hold of are incapable of carrying out the objective for which we are getting hold of them, then yes. A machine gun is not capable of stopping a tyrannical government. So there isn't any point in having one for that purpose.