What good are citizens w/guns against government tanks?

[7SFCW4]

Best read ever (scroll down to bottom of page) on the topis, the Battle of Grozny, every man a sniper. Sniper flash card website, Battle of Grozny.

 

[I-Shoot]

The most interesting thing to me about the <broken link removed> , is that liberal college students and hardened war vets worked side by side. Apparently the Ukraine does not have a well tuned media machine polarizing their populace around artificial divides. Keep so-called liberals hating so-called conservatives (and vice versa), and the population can never coalesce and face the real problem...

 

[Xader]

I believe the VC, Mujaheddin and Taliban can answer that.

All three outlasted the will of the most fearsome armies on the planet.

 

[Stomper]

While eating rat meat, rice, and dirt.

 

[Xader]

While eating rat meat, rice, and dirt.

Nobody said a revolution or resistance was fun...

 

[Stomper]

Nobody said a revolution or resistance was fun...

Wasn't a complaint, was a testament to their resolve and grit.

 

[Xader]

Wasn't a complaint, was a testament to their resolve and grit.

Well then, no arguments here. They're tough SOBs, gotta give 'em that.

 

[Stomper]

Well then, no arguments here. They're tough SOBs, gotta give 'em that.

That's because they BELIEVE in their "cause". I know a I believe in mine, concerning the context of this thread.

 

[Suge206]

The government is just made up people that need a job...


I do think that a few thousand people with ARs scares the shiz out of them. I think an armed group could overrun an out of control group like the nsa. That's why we should have and train with arms.

 

[cookie]

You hide from the tanks. Get them later. They have families , know who they are.

 

[Bacchus]

Even if I had no chance, at least I could go down fighting and not a slave to the overlords.

"Better dead than red."

 

[The Heretic]

Even if I had no chance, at least I could go down fighting and not a slave to the overlords.

"Better dead than red."

It is better to fight another day when you do have a chance to make a difference than to throw away your life in a futile gesture of resistance. They have to come out of the tank sometime.

 

[Bacchus]

It is better to fight another day when you do have a chance to make a difference than to throw away your life in a futile gesture of resistance. They have to come out of the tank sometime.

There's a lot of validity to your comment; it's essentially George Washington's strategy in the early years of the Revolutionary War, as I understand it.

But ultimately, when you say "when you do have a chance to make a difference", we're talking about being armed. Once I turn in the guns my chance of getting armed later is much smaller. Look how adept the Chinese and Soviets were at keeping their people under control for decades. The Soviets weren't overthrown until a huge majority of people supported it.

 

[mbs.matthew]

Where in the Second Amendment does it talk about guns?

It talks about "arms" not guns.

What are "arms"?

Tanks, cannon, grenades, rockets and yes, firearms.

The Second Amendment is not limited to firearms.

arms also include comm equipment, radar and electronics equipment, drones of any variety that are useful for defense or military purposes, infrastructure items for all the above. even a private system that surveils the surveilance class...

Depriving the people of all arms but guns... or only allowing a selected list of items that are taxed (tracked)... while we are arming radicals against our allies in Europe and the middle east with hi tech... seems to be giving terrorists abroad and at home via transfer, capacities to do we the people great harm. the bad guys get man pads.... while we drool over a simple semi automatic small arms purchase.

where can one buy an a10 these days???

 

[Heywood]

Only problem is that is the way it will stop. If it got that bad you would have to show the people doing the shooting/bombing that we will not put up with it.
Taking out the soldiers that are killing citizens will be the only choice. Then other soldiers will understand they are wrong following orders.

The point is to start doing it before it gets that far. I do not think the military or police will just start killing civilians (if ever) You will see the powers that be pave the way long before we have to walk down that road.

 

[The Heretic]

The point is to start doing it before it gets that far. I do not think the military or police will just start killing civilians (if ever) You will see the powers that be pave the way long before we have to walk down that road.

If you look at the militarization of law enforcement, the gradual but sure encroachment on our rights (surveillance, no knock warrants, secret courts, secret warrants with gag orders, secret police, our government kidnapping people and sending them to secret prisons to be tortured, drones killing people overseas and then the gov wanting to have drones here too, the sure but slow disarmament of the populace, and on and on), you can see what appears to be the PTB paving that road right up to your doorstep.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

If a law is immoral it is our DUTY to dissobey it. Especially a civil rights issue.

Article 1, Section 16 of the Oregon Constitution agrees with you and recognizes your right to do something about it... as a juror. See below:

"Section 16. Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.—In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases."

Article 1 in the Oregon Constitution is Oregon's Bill of Rights. Notice here how you have a "right" to "determine the law" as well as the facts. Judges don't tell us about that part do they? But there it is. So how many We The People types have been deprived of their life, liberty or property without the protection of "due process" that only an informed and empowered jury can provide...?

By the way, the bolding emphasis in the last three lines is not mine. That's how it is on the ORS website itself and it's the only place in Article 1, where main body text is emphasized.

 

[The Heretic]

"under the direction of the Court as to the law"

If you want to nullify a law, then lobby against it and have it repealed.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

"under the direction of the Court as to the law"

If you want to nullify a law, then lobby against it and have it repealed.

I notice that your quote focuses on the language that the website reviser wants you to focus on. Funny thing is, is that the part that says the jury has the "right to determine the law" still says very plainly that the jury will "determine the law", regardless of how much someone wants to evade it or distract away from it.

There's more than one way to skin a cat so they say (who skins cats anyway?), and lobbying has its place... but not if you're a wrongly-charged citizen who needs the cavalry to come to the rescue NOW. If you were a wrongly-charged citizen, would you prefer to have the jury fix your predicament ON THE SPOT, or would you prefer to get railroaded into prison with a bunch of people who DO deserve their convictions and cross your fingers that your family and friends have the resources and time necessary to spend however many years it might take to fight for your cause as lobbyists until the law you get convicted of gets repealed? What if the law is just fine as it is when applied as intended, but in one particular citizen's case is being blatantly misapplied, maybe even to support unconstitutional agendas? Only a jury can fix that problem through acquittal. Don't be afraid of your own rights as a juror.

 

[The Heretic]

Of course I would want the jury to nullify the law if I am innocent or charged with a crime that is bogus and unconstitutional (possession of firearms, drugs, etc.).

But on the other hand, I don't want a jury to convict me of a crime I am innocent of when the judge directs the jury to find me innocent because the law says I am.

In other words, "nullification" works both ways and I am less sure about the ability of a jury of my "peers" to make unbiased decisions than I am of the ability of someone (a judge) who is trained and experienced and knowledgeable in making relatively unbiased decisions. Juries are have an infamous reputation for being biased and easily swayed by those biases and emotional arguments by either the prosecution or defense - this is why the entity that has the better lawyer/legal team on their side often gets better results in a court of law.

As to what the website says, everyone can read and decide for themselves - but I would bet more than 50% will conclude that it says what they want it to say, not what it actually says, which goes to support my assertions about bias.