Guns Are Needed To Defend Against Tyrannical Governments

I agree with my opponent argument that a popular tyrant cannot be countered with armed citizens. On External Threat: Assumption: The external threat is great enough that the regular army is insufficient to combat such threat. If there is a weapon shortage: such weapon must be distributed to the most able hand - an organized and trained militia corps is far better than armed citizens - the difference in training alone is enough to justify the usage of a militia corp. If there is a man power shortage: the extra weapon can be distributed to citizen at the moment of emergency. Heavy weaponry like RPG and explosive require special handling and storage, and mishandling of any such weaponry will have disastrous consequences. In all cases, an organized and disciplined militia corps made of all able body males and voluntary females, with necessary weapon training, under the chain of command and with sufficient support in term of fuel, ammunition, weapon, medicine, food, shelter and clothing, is far more effective than pocket private citizen resistance without training, without support, and cannot be effectively controlled. Citizen resistance is usually the last resort, only used when the chain of command and supply route was completely broken, the territory was overrun and occupied, and the regular army was defeated or retreated (such as occupied France in WW2 for example). Citizen resistance usually can only harass the enemy at great cost and for limited duration - due to being cut off from supply and command. Citizen resistance cannot succeed on its own, and can only support external forces to liberate the region. . http://en.wikipedia.org... On Internal Threat: A quick correction: Total US armed force as of Jan 31, 2013 Active personnel: 1,429,995 [1] Reserve personnel: 850,880 [2] Stationing as of Dec 2009: CONUS : 941,629 [3] US Territories: 1,137,568 [3] Oversea: 284,100 [3] Thus, around 3/4 of US active personnel station on US territories. [1] siadapp. dmdc. osd. mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0912. pdf [2] . http://www.govtrack.us... [3] . http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil... On external support against the tyrant: The military and economic strength of the US is so great that if it suddenly decided to become tyrannical, no other country would dare to intervened or provide support for the rebel. The rebel would quickly be branded "domestic terrorists", and internationally condemned. No one would question the US because its record as long time champion of human rights. But the true reason is no country can find the incentive to support the rebels to justify the cost associated. On cost: The sole purpose of a tyrannical government is its existence - a RSTG will do everything it can to defend it. No cost can be deemed too costly in such cases - the government of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Civil War is one such example. That is to the contrary to a foreign occupation - if the occupation is too costly, the occupier may withdraw to conserve its strength. Further, the US government, if ever decided to become tyrannical, possess enormous resources both in term of military and economic, far more than any private citizen. And in the age that most people's possession is in his bank account, it can quickly confiscate all possession of the rebels to support its own war effort to suppress the rebellion [4]. Any rebellion would quickly find itself at a disadvantage against a truly tyrannous US Government. [4] . http://www.guardian.co.uk... On how would a tyrannical US responds to a rebellion: In the previous round I had argued that a direct confrontation would end with disastrous result for the rebel. Casualty may not be too severe, however moral is likely completely broken, since moral of an unorganized rebel mob can be broken much easier than organized military. All US historical rebellions responded in a similar way after a direct confrontation with regular US army. Shay's rebellion collapsed after four Shayite was killed out of a 4000+ force by cannon fire. Dorr Rebellion collapsed before any confrontation between the rebel and the militia. Whiskey Rebellion collapsed when the army marched into Pennsylvania. Needless to say, whenever there was a direct confrontation between armed citizen and regular army, moral of the armed mob can be destroyed rather quickly depending on the effectiveness of the display of force. Then, a broken mob can be rounded up easily by the tyrant. [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... I would like to dedicate a small section to a small US military manual on suppressing a mock up domestic rebellion scenario. It is a nice read. [8] . http://smallwarsjournal.com...