How would you respond to this:

[Aeroneous]

What they had to say about a nuclear strike was that the ruins left behind give you great places to hide and continue the fight.

Was he referring to using that same landscape decades later? I can't imagine an area of nuclear radiation being a great place to hide.

 

[Acala]

Was he referring to using that same landscape decades later? I can't imagine an area of nuclear radiation being a great place to hide.

I don't think the site of a nuclear explosion is dangerous for decades afterwards. But I really don't know. Time for some research.

edit: A quick read suggests that if it is a large fission weapon and you are far enough away to survive the thermal and shock wave effects, the instant radiation blast will not be a factor. The irradiation of the soil and buildings from the neutron blast will be local to ground zero, and at low levels. The particulate residue of unspent fissionable material and fission products (fallout) is blown high into the atmosphere and will be a persistent problem in the blast area only if it falls immediately back to earth due to weather conditions.

So, there is a good chance that you could "safely" occupy a nuclear blast site pretty quickly, depending on fallout conditions. And the fallout could just as easily drop on you a great distance from the blast site.

This was based on a quick read. Experts should correct me.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Okay, since I've argued with gun-control advocates on a strictly logical basis, here's my response to nuclear weapons (and bombs, grenades, et al). Feel free to tweak it for your own personal use, or to disagree. It's worked well for my purposes.

Establishing Self-Defense:
#1) I own myself.
#2) Ownership of myself necessitates primary responsibility for my general welfare.
#3) Self-defense is a rational pursuit in securing my general welfare.
#4) Efficient means of self-defense most capably ensure my general welfare.
#5) Guns are an efficient means of securing self-defense.

On Self-Defense Applicability:
#1) I own myself.
#2) You own yourself.
#3) Attempts to assert ownership over other individuals via aggression is invalid.
#4) Self-defense is viable against those that would subvert your self-ownership.
#5) Only valid for self-defense are means that have the ability to focus on the aggressors.
#6) Guns, due to the nature of their usage, do not implicitly destroy innocent life or property.
#7) Self-defense that damages innocent life or property qualifies as aggression.
#8) Means of self-defense that implicitly damage innocent life or property are not valid.
#9) Nuclear, biological, chemical weapons implicitly damage innocent life or property, and are therefore invalid due to their inherent aggression.
#10) Social regulation of aggressive weaponry does not logically eliminate all forms of weaponry.

This allows for logical discontinuation of private ownership of aggressive weapons. However, it retains the right to ownership of all weapons good for self-defense. This brings up the next point - the existence of these aggressive weapons, and the principle of their supposed ownership.

#1) The individual is not allowed to own those weapons.
#2) The inability of the collective to legitimately own these weapons stems from the individual.
#3) The State, as a representative of the collective, is not allowed to own these weapons.
#4) The weapons should be effectively treated as unowned and unownable, removing the primacy of any individual or collective to their usage.

On the practical matters:

#1) There is no use for aggressive weapons during times of peace.
#2) Usage of these weapons depends on a state of war.
#3) A state of war implicates the entire collective, and therefore the individual.
#4) The individual would be in equal right to use such aggressive weaponry in a time of war.

On the United States:
#1) The militia is the people.
#2) The militia negates the need for a standing army in times of peace.
#3) The militia would be the standing army in the event of war.

**********

Cliff-notes: The State shouldn't have special access to weaponry denied the people, but neither should the people be allowed to own nukes. We have to eliminate the class warfare generated by the State possessing special privileges denied to the individual. What's good for one is good for the other.

 

[PitViper]

.

You dont need to point a gun at a nuclear warhead, merely the person that gives the order to push the button.

^^^ Nice Going to add that!

I also added this to my response:

"What comes to my mind now in light of this interaction, is when germany was retreating from russia outnumbered 22:1 and having 90% of their supply chain failed, with no air support being that the air force was called back to protect central germany, (so practically a severely ill supplied non-mechanized infantry) against a fully supported mechanized army 22 times their size... they still managed an attrition rate of 12 russians: 1 german... for some reason I do not think they would have done so well without firearms."

 

[osan]

Well - first, as sailingaway mentions, its not JUST about a civil war situation, but also for personal defense.

That said, your question was specific to guns fighting tyranny and this is 2 fold.

1 - Especially at a local level, the potential threat of retribution can help keep individuals from overstepping their authority. Look at the Battle of Athens thread as an example of this. While not perfect or flawless, its better than nothing from keeping tyranny from coming in the first place.

Precisely. Would you rather fight and die like men or lay down like whores for the master? In the fight there remains hope whereas the whore holds to naught but despair.

People who ask the sorts of questions posed in the OP are unfortunate cowards because they prize mere existence (vis-a-vis life) above freedom and the dignity it brings. These people are the most dangerous of them all because they will turn you in without hesitation if they feel it will improve their prospects, all others be damned.

2 - If it actually came to needing to raise arms against the federal government and its nukes and tanks, you ahve to remember this would not be a conventional fight. It wouldnt be the red coats lining up in a field and us lining up in a field firing back and forth. It would be a gorilla insurgency that takes Iraq/Afghanistan to a whole new level. The feds could not use their nukes, because they would be nuking themselves and a bunch of innocent people in the process. It would be the fistful of sand analogy, where the tighter they came down, the more they would lose the hearts/minds of regular people and their own ranks. Would all the military go along with firing on civilians? Would they go along with drone strikes of residential areas? Some would, but a lot wouldnt.

The use of nukes could not be supported even by the likes of Obama. For one thing, there is no guarantee that the silo crew would turn the keys. Would YOU risk evaporating your home town and everyone you know there? The nuclear option is SO freakishly insane that Obama would risk instantaneous and summary execution by someone close to him. The implications of using nuclear warheads are broad and deep and I daresay that 99.9% of Americans are not prepared to do that extrapolation in a complete, accurate, and circumspect manner.

Think about this...

There were an estimated 5000-7000 insurgents in Iraq and they gave the US Military a pretty good run for their money over 10 years. There are 80 million people with guns in the US, if .1% of them are willing to fight for their freedom that means there is 10 times as many insurgents in the US.

The land area of Iraq is 169,000 sq. miles vs. 3.8 million sq. miles of the US. So you have 10 times the number of insurgents, in over 20 times the space.

With all the men and equipment in relatively tiny Iraq our combined armed forces along with those of umpteen other nations could barely cope. Imagine the same forces attempting to kill their own people. The added psychological factor could be a real problem for them. I don't think they could pull it off.

Consider that such a conflict would HAVE to be concluded very quickly by the elites. Time would not be on their side in ope conflict. The longer the duration, the more likely defections are to occur. And stress is another factor. Once individuals either rotate out or go AWOL whence the replacements? Other nations? That would go over like a lead balloon.

Open conflict would likely be loser for "them" unless they are willing to reduce the entire nation to a glow-in-the-dark parking lot, an option that promises to backfire on them wildly.

 

[torchbearer]

"They'll be more helpful than a naive trust in the government and an air of self-congratulatory superiority will.
The people coming to take your firearms won't be in a tank or using nuclear weapons....IDIOT.
Now go home and tweet why you don't think you are responsible for repaying your student loans"....

#winning

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's like this.



You see?

And remember who you are. That's important. Well...when among grasshoppers, that is. They'll certainly try to squash you before you do. You know?

 

[PitViper]

.
Wow! Thanks for all the feedback friends! Awesome responses! I always regain faith in humanity here when I see just how many people that are left who actually have properly functioning minds! Being surrounded by knuckleheads sometimes gets me doubting my own cognitive abilities, like I am the only one marching in step then I come here and realize...nope, I am in perfect step with an invisible army!

 

[pacelli]

Tanks? Burn baby burn...

Cut off their resupply lines and they are sitting ducks.

 

[tod evans]

Lead your detractors to the local federal government offices and instruct them to converse with the first 2/3 federally approved gun-toters..

After they've spoken with them ask the simple question;

"Is this who you want defending your families rights?"

 

[osan]

Tanks? Burn baby burn...

Cut off their resupply lines and they are sitting ducks.

This is one of many important things of which to be aware. Large armies such as our own have evolved in terms of strategies, tactics, and weaponry to face other such armies. They are not well fixed to fight these so-called "urban" wars and this is well borne out by the examples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., despite having trained and operated extensively in such environments with a mind specifically set to develop the right tactics for such circumstances.

What has been the result? For the most part the apparent lesson has been that the only consistently effective means of operation in such environments is that of nearly unmitigated viciousness - wipe 'em all out, which is pretty much what our troops do when on missions to air-out "insurgents". Therefore, as I mentioned in another post, an actual physical battle with the American people would be an all-or-nothing deal for "them" and they would have to destroy us in a matter of mere weeks in order to hold a reasonable hope of prevailing. It must be borne in mind that we are the source of their material power. Endeavoring to destroy us sufficiently to subdue us stands to end up a self defeating affair. The best chance "they" have of pulling it off would be with very serious foreign military and logistical commitments.

The bottom line is this: despite the gross flaws of our Constitution it contains ALL the mechanisms for defeating tyrants. The problem is not the Constitution, it is the people. Simple withdrawal of consent, when conducted on a sufficiently broad basis, is almost certainly enough to defeat the crooks we have steering this ship. Living under tyranny always requires consent.

We need to turn our backs to these jokers. Render them irrelevant and ridiculous. They can try their military antics and adventures here at home all they want, but how long can it be maintained before the cost outstrips the benefit?

 

[Occam's Banana]

A person just asked me this question because I support the 2nd amendment for protection against tyranny. He asked:

"if you feel the 2nd amendment is important in protecting you from tyranny, what makes you think personal firearms will do any good against tanks and nuclear weapons?"

Here's a thread from last November that might have some useful material for you: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395333-Obama-Calls-for-Renewal-of-Assault-Weapons-Ban

Below is my (lightly edited) response to a comment in that thread about "tanks and jets" (rather than "tanks and nukes"). The principle is the same, though.

What the person you are talking about fails to understand is that it's NOT just about the military ramifications of the government using "tanks & nukes" to supress an uprising or insurgency - it's even more about the political ramifications of doing so. It is not nearly as simple as the "tanks and jets" people think. The government bombing or nuking American citizens - even ones in armed rebellion - is NOT going to win it many friends. In fact, it might very well do just the opposite ...

Either way, from my understanding, assault weapons aren't of much use against tanks and jets.

Actually, in the context of American citizens owning assault weapons as a means of defending themselves against a tyrannical government, this gets things backwards. Tanks and jets might not be much use against assault weapons. Think about it. What do they expect armed citizens to do? Stand at the center of a bullseye in the middle of a big empty field, with no (other) people, homes, commercial buildings, etc. anywhere nearby? Suppose I own one of these assault weapons. Suppose that the government decides that people like me need to be dealt with. What are they going to do? Have the Air Force bomb or napalm my entire apartment complex? Are they going to send a tank down Mainstreet USA to pump mortar rounds into my house? What might the other people in my neighborhood - or my city - or across the country - think or do about it if they did?

The issue isn't *nearly* as simple as a "rock breaks scissors, I win" scenario. That's why the government wants an assault weapons ban. It's why governments have *always* wanted weapons bans. ESPECIALLY when it comes to things like assault weapons, which would be so problematic for the government to deal with. It's to protect *themselves* - not innocent civilians.

Things like .22s they can handle without having to resort to a "jets-and-tanks" scenario. Assault weapons, though? Not so much.

I don't think a ban is the answer. I never said that. I don't know what the answer is. I'm just not entirely sure it's allowing the general populous to acquire all forms of weapons of war.

Not all forms. Just the ones that the general population can easily learn to use & effectively employ against the government that tries to tyrannize them.

Assault weapons fill that bill quite nicely (there's a reason that the insurgent's weapon of choice has often been the AK-47).

IOW: if the only weapons that are allowed are ones that don't scare the government, then the 2nd amendment is DEFINITELY being violated