This may have been somewhat true in the 18th and 19th centuries. Today it has no relevance. Your arms will be no match for those of government forces. Education, the internet, and politically active citizens are what is needed to stand against government tyranny today.
Yeah well for now the focus is on changing govt through the ballot box failing that and attempts to push the envelope too far and all bets are off. I have no moral qualms about breaking laws that circumvent or violate "the Bill of Rights".
A well armed militia is just one more check the constituition protects to keep the government in balance. You assume that the militay will use their advanced weapons against their own citizens. I'm not saying they will desert or jump ship, but they may not fight very hard against their mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. It may not be mutually assured destruction, but it would be messy enough that some kind of compromise around a bargaining table would be preferred by both sides.
The thing about advanced weaponry is that it can be non-lethal but very effective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System So would the qualms against using weapons against citizens be diminished? Control is the goal, and lethality may not be necessary.
I don't know who the "you" is in post above, but it might as well be me, because not only do I assume it, I know it to have been true in the past, why would it not be true in the future? U.S. history is littered with countless examples of government forces being turned out to put down citizen uprisings, strikes, etc. and/or enforce the law as interpreted at the moment. Many citizens no matter how well or poorly armed have been killed by government forces, including women and children. In most cases the leaders of these uprisings have been killed, captured and hanged, or thrown into prison. In addition to U.S. military/national guard forces killing citizens, the police kill citizens each year, some of them unarmed and innocent of any wrong doing. The examples are countless, though some do not get included in standard history texts.
well, those are two different issues one is crowd control the other is a government out of control very few in the city have any empathy for those that live out in the woods, where the greatest fear is that there will be trouble in the city and roving gangs will go out to the country to steal what is left the funy thing is, the only thing I can think of offhand that may spark some kind of citizen uprising against the government would be if they ever tried to confiscate weapons.
I'm not advocating insurrection. Let's be clear about that. The argument however that the advanced firepower of the military makes armed resistance futile is silly. The same argument was no doubt made when the original Colonists decided to take on the English. History is full of examples where underarmed resistance forces made life difficult for governments, and in some cases prevailed. Look at our own country now. Armed gangs have made entire sections of big cities "no go" zones for anyone but heavily armed SWAT teams. Vast criminal enterprises are run out of reach of the police. Guerilla hit and run tactics, long range sniper attacks and IEDs can exact a huge toll. Look at Afghanistan.
true, but those are examples of minorties causing trouble for the establishment what if we had a situation like what Egypt is going through right now? We know which side the military would be on, but not which side the soldiers would be on. A well armed citizenry may be all that is needed to either tip the scale or at least keep it more in balance. It was to address your opinion that sophisticated weapons would win over more common weapons. The Afghans figured out how to shoot down a Soviet helicopter with nothing more than an automatic rifle by getting up on a mountain and shooting down on it. Heck, for that matter, the whole U.S. Army is about ready to give up there right now. Protecting shoppers in a mall is one thing. Protecting me from the government is another. And protecting me is so important it's mentioned in the constitution.
Just a thought but maybe there are others that should shoulder some of the blame for these massacres. Perhaps those who raised a monster ? i.e. his parents ? The local kids his age who could have included him in their group activities ? Was he being bullied ? His school teachers should have noticed something was wrong. The garbage put out on TV and films ? Censorship could be introduced. His Mom was a survivalist with stocks of food and weapons. It takes a sick society to produce a killer. etc.