What if: Terrorists vs Armed US civilians

With the whole right to bear arms thing [US Constitution etc]...let's say terrorists attacked, right? I always wondered this: Say some civilians are carrying when an attack happens, and they decide to defend the unarmed civilians against IS, whomever...

Do the cops/army turn up and start taking out civilians because they can't tell who's who? Because I always wondered that. And I always thought that made the gun thing possibly a moot point if you get my meaning. 👍

NOTE; I actually love the idea of people doing this to protect other human beings, it's kind of beautiful. I just wonder if all hell wouldn't break loose for whatever reason. I also would like to believe this could be an example of facial recognition used for a GOOD purpose by perhaps pre-empting - and therefore avoiding - shooting domestic, armed protectors from external terrorist types. You have to believe that they have discussed this as a possible scenario in Counter-Terrorism circles, right? [i]Right...?[/i]

[b]EDIT:[/b] Thanks for the downvote, pal! Whoever you are. 👠👠 Some choice footwear for you. My way of saying thanks.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Pfuzylogic · M

With todays politics there are diverse definitions of terrorists particularly domestic ones. We just had two court cases that varied in political interpretation with the trial in Kenosha and the one in Georgia. Vigilantism must be defined because we can’t agree on that from state to state.

SW-User

@Pfuzylogic Your first point was right on the tip of my tongue but I didn't want to bog down my post and make it too cumbersome. But yeah agreed that definitely is perhaps a more immediate concern now unfortunately, and it definitely muddies the waters.

Plus there are the Orwellian language games. Forgetting that for a moment though. this is a scenario hypothetical:

Let's say IS or someone attacked, as is really the essence of my question. You don't suppose it could be a case of successful application of the right to bear arms finally being proven to be a viable, y'know...[i]thing?[/i] On a more significant level - like [i]defending the country[/i] level?

Ah yeah the whole 50 countries in one country thing also complicates it. Well fuck me...that is a pretty complicated problem you got there as a country, my friend. Hmm.

What are your two cents if IS or some similar thing attacked a state like say, New York? Just your thoughts on it, spitballing. Even one of any number of possible scenarios. I am genuinely interested. ✌️

Pfuzylogic · M

@SW-User
Australia outlawed semi and automatic weapons and it worked for them. I say force everyone to turn in their firearms that are semi automatic and above. That way you don’t get punky 17 year olds taking the law in their own hands when the police refuse to do their jo when they stand down because they don’t know how to handle suspects that aren’t white.

SW-User

@Pfuzylogic See I think that is a perfectly reasonable and sensible compromise. It isn't a blanket ban on ALL weapons - just the types mentioned. That automatically means far less guns on the streets and not as many automatics [some would undoubtedly cite the black market having them as the ultimate reason not to ban them but I feel that is a separate issue/post/debate altogether].

Do you think that would be better or worse than just banning all guns? Again simply spitballing because I've been thinking/wondering about that recently too. If it would do some good and maybe clean up/stop a sizeable percentage of the crime/violence there.

Pfuzylogic · M

@SW-User
It worked for Australia after a mass murder of 30. They drew the political will. Maybe Australia has a black market if you want to explore that hypothetical. We first need police committed to serve and protect.
We in the military can’t back down from a fight. Why is an exception made for police after they screw things up?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment