Forget It. You Cannot Win.

I’ve heard several ‘famous’ Youtube atheists state that it is not sensible to think gun owning citizens can fight against the military might of the government here in the USA, so gun ownership is futile as a means of self defense, and in doing so imply that gun control is the only way to a better society. I think they are wrong when they say or imply ‘Forget it, you cannot win. Give up your rights now because it’s futile to think you can resist the military might of the government’ … Just ask this guy:



This video makes the right point, the reason for the second amendment. It is still valid despite the weapons of war that the government has at its disposal.

What do you think? Discuss…

  1. Hello,

    I did blog about this topic specifically; however, while one point I made was that an individual or even a significantly large group of individuals cannot bring down the government by armed assault these days, another point I made was that this does not make fighting tyranny a futile endeavor. Other forms of resistance working together could possibly bring about a revolution. These include non-violent and violent protests, guerrilla warfare, sabotage and media campaigns, among other methods.

    If you’re interested, I blogged about it here:

    • Indeed, the military has an awesome arsenal. The trouble with the thought that they would use it is that it would be son killing father or cousin when it is used. Imagine what it would take to get an army to use those weapons against their family and friends of family? When it comes down to it, it will not be a shotgun militia against the worlds greatest army. It will be that army against itself and citizens against one another with shotguns. The idea that gun control makes us safer because the military has drones is not thought out well.

      This idea would be more useful if the army with drones were from a country on the other side of the planet… in that case semi-automatic rifles would be useless. when it is your cousin or brother that has to push the button for the drone it is a much different matter. Your assertion assumes an army which obeys the government without question.

      If it comes to needing a rifle to defend against government, it will not only be citizens questioning the government. I agree that there are other tactics which should be used first, but I completely disagree on the notion of disarming simply because the army has tanks and bombs etc. There is no reason to think that such a war will be fought that way.

      If such a war is fought that way, I will feel much worse if I don’t have a gun. It will be useful to protect what food supplies I do have while waiting for the war to finish. I think that many have missed many of the most important points. Giving up rights for safety gives you neither safety nor rights.

      Yes, this is a complex issue but any solution that starts with giving up rights is a bad solution and ultimately will be shown to be wrong. It might just be that it is shown wrong with the loss of your life.

      • Hey,
        Two things: first, I never said that all firearms should be banned, so much of what you said doesn’t actually apply to me. Second, your optimism that pitting military against civilian will always bring about serious discord amongst the population so as to backfire and cause revolution is not how history has always played out. Governments have successfully put down revolts with their militaries. Tiannamin Square being one of the most prominent examples.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: