Another Good News Story: The NRA has now granted permission to the U.S. Govt to perform its duties

g8golfer

@JohnInCarolina if you seriously think that the top democratic leaders aren’t accepting money from company’s then you are nuts. Both sides do it. It’s done at the lowest level of politics. Just because a politician tells you they are good doesn’t mean you believe them. Look at Maxine Waters in CA. Her salary is 175K a year and lives in 4.3 million home. The list goes on and on. Same thing with Obama. Talks all bad about big banks and the first thing he does is give speeches for them for millions. His salary is $400,000 a year being president but somehow him and his wife net worth is 25 million. 

NPHuskerFL

The accuracy is crap on them anyways. 
https://youtu.be/wj90gBDX1ro

This guy better watch out Feinstein is gonna get her sights on this action. 
https://youtu.be/GrJRSf55zsE

JohnInCarolina

g8golfer said:

@JohnInCarolina if you seriously think that the top democratic leaders aren’t accepting money from company’s then you are nuts. Both sides do it. It’s done at the lowest level of politics. Just because a politician tells you they are good doesn’t mean you believe them. Look at Maxine Waters in CA. Her salary is 175K a year and lives in 4.3 million home. The list goes on and on. Same thing with Obama. Talks all bad about big banks and the first thing he does is give speeches for them for millions. His salary is $400,000 a year being president but somehow him and his wife net worth is 25 million. 

Sounds like you've really put some thought into this.

g8golfer

Not really just common since. I still like you though John even if your a fruit cake. Most are off the wall crazy but you are a smart cat. 

phil28

Came hear for a recipe and stumbled into this discussion. Surprised at how civil the discouse is, even though there are differing opinions. My take is that there are some things that can be done to reduce the deaths. I saw a list above from one member showing gun deaths way down the list, but most causes in the list were health related. Very misleading. Clearly gun deaths are higher per capita in the US than most any other country. Common sense laws my not guarantee to solve all the problems, as the politicians use as an excuse, but it's a matter of statistics. Provide reasonable background checks, eliminate guns for those on no fly lists and with mental issues, and monitor those that buy dozens of guns. It should not be easier to get a gun than to by Sudafed or a prescription drug. The point is that by enacting these laws you'll have a reduction just based on statistics and common sense. Perhaps if the politicians were not funded by the NRA and could communicate as well as we can on this board, we'd make some progress.

nolaegghead

Well said.  I usually don't participate in these, but if i did, that's what I'd say.

TheToast

I love these kind of debates on this board. We all have a love of grilled meat, but politically are very diverse. Socially people tend to stick to people with the same views as them, so this place is a chance to discuss stuff outside our bubble. 

PS. Guns are bad and Trump sucks at golf 

g8golfer

@Toast I’d rather live in the US and carry my gun and take my chances on a mass shooting happening rather the live in the UK and worry about not having a way to defend myself against a Muslim terrorist refugee roaming the street trying to blow me up. I guess you can throw rocks at the terrorist if you had to. 

PS: people that use guns the wrong way are bad it’s not the gun that is pulling the trigger 

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

HeavyG

g8golfer said:

@Toast I’d rather live in the US and carry my gun and take my chances on a mass shooting happening rather the live in the UK and worry about not having a way to defend myself against a Muslim terrorist refugee roaming the street trying to blow me up. I guess you can throw rocks at the terrorist if you had to. 

PS: people that use guns the wrong way are bad it’s not the gun that is pulling the trigger 

Funny thing is, you are far more likely to be killed in a mass shooting or random act of gun violence than you are by a Muslim terrorist.

Actually you are far more likely to be killed in a car crash.

P.S.:

HeavyG

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

I really think then that we should all be able to buy the sort of weapons that would allow the civilian populace to really fight back and destroy - M1 tanks, F-16/F15/F35 aircraft. Some claymores would be nice to have as would some SAW's. Oh...I'd like to have a CIWS gun so I could mount it on the back of a Toyota pickup and make me a technical. Scratch that - those are way too big to mount on a Toyota.

The best weapon we all have to fight against government tyranny is the ballot box. We should all use it more often.

Legume

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

stlcharcoal

Legume said:

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

There have been two mall shooters stopped by CCW'ers.  One in Oregon, and I believe the other was in TX?  Then the church shooter just a few months ago.  Not sure how you define "terrorist", but these "mass shooters" were stopped by your so called "johnny-on-the-street" good guy.

CCW screenings usually go under the exact same background check system a gun buyer would go through......NICS check.  In fact, in some states, if you have a valid/current CCW permit, you can bypass the background check for buying a firearm since you already went through it recently.

There are a few states that require more checks or use their own system (IL is one of them.)  But in most states now, if you can legally possess a gun, the issuing authority SHALL issue you a permit to carry concealed.  And that's if your state even requires a permit to carry concealed anymore--more and more states have gotten away from that.  Missouri passed permitless carry years ago--nothing has changed.  The newspaper freaked out, and just like when CCW originally passed 14 yrs ago, you haven't heard much about it since.

pgprescott

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

Just wondering, is my statement incorrect?  Again, I am not nor never have been a gun owner. 

Legume

No, not incorrect to my understanding @pgprescott, but that's the contextual challenge of when that language was created.  The threat at the time was governmental tyranny, I don't think that's the threat of our time (some disagree I'm sure).  Also, as has been pointed out, the kinds of weapons we can legally possess now are not really up to the task vs what an army would have.

Someone also pointed out the states' rights to form a militia - I'm not well read on all of this, but I suppose that's part of the argument.

I just don't think it's an argument that is terribly valid for not addressing gun control in some way.  I am not an advocate of take away all guns, but I think an all or nothing argument isn't particularly an honest one.  Compromises have to be made somewhere along the way.

HeavyG

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

Just wondering, is my statement incorrect?  Again, I am not nor never have been a gun owner. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

pgprescott

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

Just wondering, is my statement incorrect?  Again, I am not nor never have been a gun owner. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

Who said threaten the Government. My statement is one of defensive posture.

HeavyG

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

Just wondering, is my statement incorrect?  Again, I am not nor never have been a gun owner. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

Who said threaten the Government. My statement is one of defensive posture.

Did you actually read the entire article or just stop at the title??

I'm guessing the latter.

pgprescott

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

Just wondering, is my statement incorrect?  Again, I am not nor never have been a gun owner. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

Who said threaten the Government. My statement is one of defensive posture.

Did you actually read the entire article or just stop at the title??

I'm guessing the latter.

I have zero interest in reading that article. Thanks though. I'll stand by my statement. Author is a blatant partisan hack.

g8golfer

@HeavyG I love how no matter what the conversation is you always send a link to the Washington Post or New York Times, or Huffington Post. No $hit they all are liberal news media and you know they are going to write a left stance on issues. 

Legume

@stlcharcoal

stlcharcoal said:

There have been two mall shooters stopped by CCW'ers.  One in Oregon, and I believe the other was in TX?  Then the church shooter just a few months ago.  Not sure how you define "terrorist", but these "mass shooters" were stopped by your so called "johnny-on-the-street" good guy.

The terrorist comment was mostly a response to the comment someone made about UK vs US and terrorism, was thinking more busses and trains being blown up.  I do see the good citizen with a gun stops a crime stories and love those.  I'm not against concealed carry at all.  More suggesting if it works, then how can that benefit be expanded.  But...

CCW screenings usually go under the exact same background check system a gun buyer would go through......NICS check.  In fact, in some states, if you have a valid/current CCW permit, you can bypass the background check for buying a firearm since you already went through it recently.

There are a few states that require more checks or use their own system (IL is one of them.)  But in most states now, if you can legally possess a gun, the issuing authority SHALL issue you a permit to carry concealed.  And that's if your state even requires a permit to carry concealed anymore--more and more states have gotten away from that.  Missouri passed permitless carry years ago--nothing has changed.  The newspaper freaked out, and just like when CCW originally passed 14 yrs ago, you haven't heard much about it since.

...if the concealed carry screening isn't any different than purchasing a gun, then that won't help.  I believe it's different in Tx, you need 8 hours or something of training.  I'm not sure if that includes the ability for someone to deny or escalate for additional screening or if it's just pass/fail of a test.

HeavyG

g8golfer said:

@HeavyG I love how no matter what the conversation is you always send a link to the Washington Post or New York Times, or Huffington Post. No $hit they all are liberal news media and you know they are going to write a left stance on issues. 

I'm sure you didn't read the article cuz you couldn't even read the link correctly.

HeavyG

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

Just wondering, is my statement incorrect?  Again, I am not nor never have been a gun owner. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

Who said threaten the Government. My statement is one of defensive posture.

Did you actually read the entire article or just stop at the title??

I'm guessing the latter.

I have zero interest in reading that article. Thanks though. I'll stand by my statement. Author is a blatant partisan hack.

I have no doubt you are well versed on the oeuvre of the author, Garrett Epps, and thus qualified to make such a statement as - "Author is a blatant partisan hack."

pgprescott

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

Just wondering, is my statement incorrect?  Again, I am not nor never have been a gun owner. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

Who said threaten the Government. My statement is one of defensive posture.

Did you actually read the entire article or just stop at the title??

I'm guessing the latter.

I have zero interest in reading that article. Thanks though. I'll stand by my statement. Author is a blatant partisan hack.

I have no doubt you are well versed on the oeuvre of the author, Garrett Epps, and thus qualified to make such a statement as - "Author is a blatant partisan hack."

If you are familiar with him, then you know he has never written anything except criticism of conservatism. You know it’s true. Well, maybe you don’t ? 

stlcharcoal

Legume said:

CCW screenings usually go under the exact same background check system a gun buyer would go through......NICS check.  In fact, in some states, if you have a valid/current CCW permit, you can bypass the background check for buying a firearm since you already went through it recently.

There are a few states that require more checks or use their own system (IL is one of them.)  But in most states now, if you can legally possess a gun, the issuing authority SHALL issue you a permit to carry concealed.  And that's if your state even requires a permit to carry concealed anymore--more and more states have gotten away from that.  Missouri passed permitless carry years ago--nothing has changed.  The newspaper freaked out, and just like when CCW originally passed 14 yrs ago, you haven't heard much about it since.

...if the concealed carry screening isn't any different than purchasing a gun, then that won't help.  I believe it's different in Tx, you need 8 hours or something of training.  I'm not sure if that includes the ability for someone to deny or escalate for additional screening or if it's just pass/fail of a test.

Most states require some sort of training to obtain their state issued permit.  A lot of times it can be hunter's safety, any NRA approved course, a course taught by an NRA instructor, military training, or evidence of another state's CCW training course.

I'm still an instructor for MO and IL.  Each course is required and unique to the state's permit.  They both cover firearm safety and operation for revolvers & semi-automatics, marksmanship, federal laws, state laws, etc.  Then there's a live fire session.  It's changed over the years, but when I was active you had to hit 15 out of 20 rounds inside the silhouette of a B-27 target at 7 yards.....pretty easy.  Now that MO doesn't require permits to CCW, and you can take the info portion of the basic course online, not many people do the 8hr course.  MO also honors anyone else permit, so you can get a AZ, UT, FL, or any state's permit as a non-resident and it's valid in MO.  IL requires you have their non-resident permit, but there's only a handful of states they'll do it for--Missouri residents can't get it, but Hawaii residents can!

Training isn't going to weed out the bad guys though......they're not going to take it in the first place; and if they do, chances are they can shoot.

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

Legume said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

It’s a designed check on central government tyranny . No? A lesson learned in the run up and execution of the Revolutionary War, no? 

The only people that I've seen make the argument that their guns are to protect against the government are usually squatting on some government land and are hours to days from getting their compound set on fire for being criminal asses.

If you believe that evolving and adding laws to keep pace with the evolution of society and the challenges of keeping it civil to be tyranny, then a gun isn't the right tool anyway, your voter registration is.

I'm not sure how many terrorist acts have been diffused by johnny-on-the-street with a gun, I think that's a fallacy.  If people with concealed carry permits are not committing crimes with their guns, then maybe there's a good screening model there for legal gun ownership in general.

Just wondering, is my statement incorrect?  Again, I am not nor never have been a gun owner. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

Who said threaten the Government. My statement is one of defensive posture.

Did you actually read the entire article or just stop at the title??

I'm guessing the latter.

I have zero interest in reading that article. Thanks though. I'll stand by my statement. Author is a blatant partisan hack.

LMAO.  Never change, Pete!

dsleight

According to this data, it only takes $3.2 million to buy the US law makers.  You know, since the NRA controls the government and all.   Surely there are some rich people in this country that could pull their money and out bid the NRA........


https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000000082

JohnInCarolina

dsleight said:

According to this data, it only takes $3.2 million to buy the US law makers.  You know, since the NRA controls the government and all.   Surely there are some rich people in this country that could pull their money and out bid the NRA........


https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000000082

The NRA has an annual operating budget of about $250M.  They do a lot more than donate to individual members of Congress.  Their real power is in how well they organize their members.

Dobie

For those who do not think an armed citizenry couldnt prevent a government bent on tyranny you're mistaken. Do you think if the majority of the population took up arms against the government that it couldn't be effective? LOL some guys with AK's and pick up trucks wreaked havoc and that was in another country. The JV team wasn't destroyed, still survives. Now your superior weapons that the US would use in a major conflict, do you think they can turn that on the general population without destroying our own country in the process? It would be the end of the USA as you know it. I'm mean all the rebels aren't going to consolidate to some state you dislike and let the gubberment drop a bomb on them cleanly. It's urban warfare on a house by house level, they're ain't no win for tyranny there. 

JohnInCarolina

Dobie said:

For those who do not think an armed citizenry couldnt prevent a government bent on tyranny you're mistaken. Do you think if the majority of the population took up arms against the government that it couldn't be effective? LOL some guys with AK's and pick up trucks wreaked havoc and that was in another country. The JV team wasn't destroyed, still survives. Now your superior weapons that the US would use in a major conflict, do you think they can turn that on the general population without destroying our own country in the process? It would be the end of the USA as you know it. I'm mean all the rebels aren't going to consolidate to some state you dislike and let the gubberment drop a bomb on them cleanly. It's urban warfare on a house by house level, they're ain't no win for tyranny there. 

Sounds like you're really on the fence yourself on this topic lmao.