I own a handgun -- will Obama take it from me?

First of all the use of roadside bombs is not protected by the second amendment is currently illegal.

Putting that aside... The less urban environment is a double edged sword. It makes it possible to organize attacks without being detected much easier there than in the U.S. Planting the roadside bombs there is much easier than here without being observed, reported, or stopped.

The U.S. military has already shown a willingness to inflict a certain amount of collateral damage when striking at targets that attack the US military.

Furthermore the certainty that the military is even striking the correct target used to be 90%. Thanks to GW bush it's now only even odds. They only need to have 50% certainty when using military strikes now.

To believe that you can strike at the U.S. military on U.S. soil with small arms and have a decent chance at surviving and getting away with that long enough to win is closer to a dumb idea IMHO than the idea that you'd be wiped out which is what I maintain.

 

Let's roll this back a little. I am disagreeing with the idea that an armed citizenry could never fight a modern army, but the context is important. We have seen it in Iraq and Afghanistan first hand. In Iraq the attacks slowed when the US could protect people, and a large percentage trusted the government. In the US if what you called a tyrannical government took over, that majority of the citizenry would be outraged. Just look how 40% feel about Obama.

Now assuming a vast majority of the people hate the government and it is truly tyrannical, the majority will help the resistance. Unlike Iraq, Americans are not used to much oppression, and would not tolerate it.

Now to respond to your points directly:
Bombs can be made from many readily available materials, unlike firearms and ammunition.

The military could not have collateral damage if striking their own people, they would lose moral and loyalty of service.

Where did you get your number of 50% from? Our strikes are WAY more accurate with GPS guided bombs. Even from the laser guided bombs, collateral damage has dropped, not increased.

Believe whatever you want, about how long would survive. I don't use this scenario as justification for gun ownership. I don't fantasize about it or believe this could in a billion years. I just know for a fact millions of american gun owners could/would cause massive problems for an occupying army. They could be over run by a scorched earth, kill everything death squad, but that isn't the current reality.

 

I hate these discussion because it makes me look like I am scared or dream about fighting an army or something. Pretty sure I would die quickly so that isn't true.

I just see what is happening in Iraq and know it would be much worse in the USA.

 

50% is the certainty to call in the strike on a person, not the accuracy of the strike.

Prior to Bush there had to be a 90% certainty that the military was strike was going to hit a target that was a valid target. IE not a wedding party, but actual military targets.

Bush changed it to even odds.

But yes a lot of this is hypothetical. I was believing that if the govt. of the U.S. was tyrannical enough to cause armed rebellion by a significant portion of the people, they'd be willing to inflict a high amount of collateral damage especially if they thought they could demoralize the resistance into giving up.

 

Do you have any link to that? It sounds like BS and arbitrary. Each strike has it's own intelligence and situation. for instance, they told Obama all of the info on Osama's hideout, they didn't just give a number. People are not computers, even combat commanders. They know more than a number.

 

Yeah, I think I posted it before. But I'll try and see if I can find it later in the day after I get home when I'm able to look at video.

 

It has the opposite effect. I don't think you have really looked into it because the more people you kill, the more relatives and friends you enrage.

If the killers are fighting their own people, you lose morality and support.

 

That's fine, but like I said, all intelligence will have a report with details, not a sheet a paper that says 51%. These decisions about cruise missiles and strikes need very high clearance. That is one of the major problems our air support is having with ground troops calling in strikes. Even when there are guys in radio contract with a F18 pilot asking for help, and the pilot can clearly see the problem, they still need clearance.

 

Here's something on it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/21/664692/-Presidents-Kill-People-Especially-Bush

 

That is entirely concerning Pakistan. I don't think it really makes your point at all.

 

It shows a willingness to inflict collateral damage half the time the military engages.

 

No it had nothing to do with collateral damage. It was dealing with how much are we willing to piss off Pakistan.

 

If you're willing to kill the wrong innocent people half the time, it shows a willingness to inflict collateral damage.

 

In Pakistan, which again has nothing to do with how they operated in Iraq or in the hypothetical.

 

That instance may have been Pakistan but a willingness to kill innocents is a willingness to kill innocents.

 

Great, it has increased under Obama in Pakistan.

They are willing to kill people, I understand that. They will never send in air strikes for guys who pop a few rounds at a patrol.

 

And popping a few rounds at a patrol won't be too effective in stopping the tyranny.

Also if the insurgence is more widespread as you claim it would be, it isn't a stretch to think they'd be willing. Afterall, in Philly back in 1985 they bombed a neighborhood and let the whole neighborhood burn down.

 

I chuckled, repped.