Forums.NitroExpress.com

A discussion or debate.

Firearms for self defence in the home or elsewhere, against burglars, I think pretty much is, whatever is close at hand. A shotgun is very effective, quick and doesn't need much aiming. Also devastating at short range. And safer when it comes to others in other rooms. A handgun is good for close quarters. A semi auto, sure, but if it penetrates walls, very dangerous for others. Quick follow up shots are an advantage.

BUT this discussion is more about a discussion more relevant to the US Second Amendment. The US Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with arming oneself against burglars. Or shooting ducks. It is about the right of cilivians to be armed against a hostile or oppressive state, ie one's own government if it starts to act oppressively and illegally hostile to its population. At least that is what many have interpreted it as.

So some of the firearms pof choice include thos available to the US civilian populace. Sporting semi auto firearms, as well as military style semi auto firearms, AR15s, SLRs, SKKs, SKSs, M1 carbines and all sorts of similar firearms.

Now the objective of this discussion is -

If there is ever a hostile and oppressive gov't where a modern military, army, airforce, or military type force is used to subject a civilian population to oppressive actions, how EFFECTIVE are civilians armed with eg AR15's and little else when it comes to modern military gear and military unit equipment and supplies?

The reason I ask this, is many times I have seen these sorts of comments, and when true blue well experienced Aussies soldiers, often still serving or retired in recent years actually comment, they think the civlian armed force against a modern military force is a bit of a joke.

Don't know. Interested in comments. Thanks.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras