Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand

[iamtheoneneo]

What about wars/battles of revolution.
Obviously, a civilian population isn't going to theoretically beat a standing army on paper, but no government has that much real loyalty/control over their armed forces. They splinter off, rebel against their orders, or just damn right ignore them, Armies are built from civilians.

The 2nd Amendment is total bs nowadays anyway, given that governments have tanks, helicopters and warships that can pinpoint an individual from miles away. No basic fire power of the people will ever compete with that if there ever was another civil war/revolution.

If there was a military coup there would be little need for untrained civilians anyway.

 

[Sankari]

What about wars/battles of revolution.

Nope. The only successful revolutionary wars are the ones involving one or both of the following factors:

(a) support from foreign governments
(b) the government's own army turned against it

For example:

* American Civil War (foreign involvement)
* French Revolution (foreign involvement)
* Russian Revolution/Civil War (foreign involvement + Russian soldiers turned against the Tsar and supported the Soviets)

Obviously, a civilian population isn't going to theoretically beat a standing army on paper

Not on paper, and not in real life either.

but no government has that much real loyalty/control over their armed forces. They splinter off, rebel against their orders, or just damn right ignore them, Armies are built from civilians.

The moment an army turns against its government and supports the uprising, that uprising is no longer a civilian uprising; it's a military revolution/coup. Which is an entirely different matter.

 

[Rroff]

Absolute nonsense. In the entire history of the human species, there has not been one single case of an armed civilian uprising waging a successful civil war against the armed forces of its own government.

The German Peasants' War involved 300,000 peasants (and some mercenaries) against imperial forces numbering just 8,000. The peasants were utterly slaughtered; they lost ~100,000 people, and surrendered.



Wrong again. The wars in the Middle East drag on because they involve multiple combatants from different countries, with different aims, sponsored by more powerful nations for their own ends. These combatants are not civilians; they are either trained and well armed militia, or well trained and well armed government forces.

Completely different scenario.



Not a chance. The US war machine has total field dominance, and enough manpower and supplies to utterly devastate a civilian uprising within days.



What exactly is extreme about it? They're banning some semi-automatic weapons (but not all of them). Did you think it was 'extreme' when car seat belts became law?

Nonsense there have been armed revolutions and coops throughout history that have gone both ways. I also never said anything about winning - it just isn't as simple as modern military > lightly armed civilians results in an easy win or even a win at all it could drag out to a messy stalemate easily. (One thing that makes things somewhat complicated there is that it is often attributed to a military coup in situations where the military has changed sides once the tide has turned - there aren't many cases of a pure civilian uprising where the military has been overthrown as generally once it hits a critical point the larger number are on the side of the civilians anyhow).

Second bit it doesn't change the fact that a lot of war in the middle east is significantly asymmetrical and having modern capabilities doesn't result in decisive or quick campaigns - in many cases a relatively small number armed with little more than AK47s have frustrated national armies for months, years or decades with sporadic external help and there are no guarantees in some theoretical uprising in a modern country who and where they would or wouldn't get help from.

Not even sure what your point about seat belts is it seems like more nonsense.

EDIT: Your post goes back to the same old fallacy of seeing the military as if in a state without the country in disarray versus civilians - the reality can be very different especially if the uprising is significant enough the military has to solidify its capabilities into tactical hardpoints losing control of some or all manufacturing so have to use their resources for external trade to replace munitions, etc.

 

[Sankari]

Nonsense there have been armed revolutions and coops throughout history that have gone both ways.

Give me six examples of a civilian uprising that successfully defeated a government army, and overthrew the government.

I also never said anything about winning

Then you're not addressing the point.

in many cases a relatively small number armed with little more than AK47s have frustrated national armies for months, years or decades with sporadic external help

Give six examples. The only militia successfully resisting national armies anywhere in the world are those which have been well armed (often with heavy weapons) and consistently supported by foreign governments. 'Little more than AK47s'? No. Never.

Not even sure what your point about seat belts is it seems like more nonsense.

Please tell me which part is giving you trouble.

 

[Roar87]

The 2nd Amendment is total bs nowadays anyway, given that governments have tanks, helicopters and warships that can pinpoint an individual from miles away. No basic fire power of the people will ever compete with that if there ever was another civil war/revolution.

If there was a military coup there would be little need for untrained civilians anyway.

I like how you're typing this while fully aware of what happened in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria; wars where professional armies were/are unable to win against mostly untrained civilians using guerrilla warfare tactics. And you're typing ******** like they can "pinpoint individuals", dude, they don't even know who to shoot because one minute he's carrying a spade and the next he's getting his AK from under the floor boards.

 

[ianh]

It is, but only if you're careful enough to hit a vital spot. With a .223, almost anywhere qualifies as a vital spot because the damage is so much greater.

In my 20+ years shooting 5.56mm (.223 Remington) in the military I've heard some whoppers about the terminal performance of the round but what a load of rubbish - it's not a .50cal

 

[Sankari]

In my 20+ years shooting 5.56mm (.223 Remington) in the military I've heard some whoppers about the terminal performance of the round but what a load of rubbish - it's not a .50cal

OK, some exaggeration there, but my point is that it's a lot more powerful than a .22.

 

[Rroff]

what a load of rubbish - it's not a .50cal

LOL.

I've heard more moaning when it comes to .223 - a lot of older soldiers like the stopping power of 7.62mm.

I like how you're typing this while fully aware of what happened in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria; wars where professional armies were/are unable to win against mostly untrained civilians using guerrilla warfare tactics. And you're typing ******** like they can "pinpoint individuals", dude, they don't even know who to shoot because one minute he's carrying a spade and the next he's getting his AK from under the floor boards.

Problem is people envision it as if a modern military with all the capabilities of stable times - in a large scale uprising it is not a good war of attrition when you are taking out pickup trucks with multi-million dollar missiles you have limited numbers of and not the people and facilities to replace them easily and/or having to buy replacements in from abroad.

 

[Efour]

Nope. The only successful revolutionary wars are the ones involving one or both of the following factors:

I see your points, I see Rroff's.
Both interesting.

 

[Rroff]

I see your points, I see Rroff's.
Both interesting.

End of the day we've not really had a scenario like a large scale uprising against a government with a high level of civilian modern firearm ownership versus a government with modern high end military capabilities - those that are close approximations have been very messy affairs that eventually lead to government military victory or the military switching sides. I don't think that can be taken as any guarantee as to what might happen in the future.

 

[Efour]

End of the day we've not really had a scenario like a large scale uprising against a government with a high level of civilian modern firearm ownership versus a government with modern high end military capabilities - those that are close approximations have been very messy affairs that eventually lead to government military victory or the military switching sides. I don't think that can be taken as any guarantee as to what might happen in the future.

you summed up better than I did what I was trying to get at earlier.

 

[Jumper118]

The terrorist put in his manifesto that one of his aims was to get semi-automatic rifles banned in New Zealand?

yes getting firearms banned was in there. havent you read it?

 

[Rroff]

you summed up better than I did what I was trying to get at earlier.

Problem is often someone has stepped in - lots of cases in the 80s and 90s of huge force disparity but NATO has stepped in on one side or the other and/or it has been against the backdrop of bigger stuff like some of the uprisings in Poland around the end of the 19th/start of the 20th century where things like WW1 came at an advantageous time for the rebel side.

 

[Semple]

This swift reaction makes america look even more stupid than it usually does.

The problem with America is that any mention of curbing gun rights is met with "look at the second amendment of the constitution - the right to bear arms". Until they change the amendment, which is apparently very very difficult to do, most Americans will continue to see it as a constitutional right to own a firearm.

 

[Rroff]

Give me six examples of a civilian uprising that successfully defeated a government army, and overthrew the government.



Then you're not addressing the point.



Give six examples. The only militia successfully resisting national armies anywhere in the world are those which have been well armed (often with heavy weapons) and consistently supported by foreign governments. 'Little more than AK47s'? No. Never.



Please tell me which part is giving you trouble.

Can't be bothered playing your game - there is a vast list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions with many different outcomes some supporting your point and some not.

 

[Yas786]

Well done NZ, hey America take note and maybe learn something from a country far smaller than you.

But nah thoughts and prayers are the best form of prevention

 

[VincentHanna]

yes getting firearms banned was in there. havent you read it?

Nope, why would I be interested in the dribblings of some psychopath?

Do you read Islamic terrorists manifestos when they blow people up?

 

[stuman]

The whole 2nd amendment argument is BS. It doesn't specify which types of guns that should be allowed. When it was created the only guns around were old musket or flint lock jobs. They could easily just ban assault rifles and similar without completely stopping people from owning a different kind of gun instead

The amendment doesn’t say its ok to own guns.

It say you can own weapons to defend against a tyrannical government. To defend against the government, you’d need a nuke. I can tell you now tho, they aint’ allowed.

 

[Deluxe1]

Jordan Petersons 12 Rules For Life has been removed from a well known NZ book store (Whitcoulls) because of links to the shooting yet they still have Hitlers Mein Kampf on their shelves.

Censorship knows no bounds...

 

[iamtheoneneo]

I like how you're typing this while fully aware of what happened in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria; wars where professional armies were/are unable to win against mostly untrained civilians using guerrilla warfare tactics. And you're typing ******** like they can "pinpoint individuals", dude, they don't even know who to shoot because one minute he's carrying a spade and the next he's getting his AK from under the floor boards.

I like how your fudging history in an attempt to back up your agenda.
Untrained civilians? Really is that what you are going with?