I've always wanted a lever action .44 Magnum, but the price of those cartridges is outrageous these days.
Haven't bought any in about a decade, I guess. But last time I used it for work, it turned 50% of a small woodchuck into mist.
The .50 Beowulf is pretty much a hot loaded 45-70 that's a bit less expensive to shoot. Plus you can use standard AR mags, though a mag that will hold 30 rounds of 5.56 will only hold 10-11 rounds of the .50, but that's just an upper swap away if you want to go plinking with the 5.56, or 6.5 grendel, or 300 AAC Blackout, or...
A British Army still using formation on the battlefield and lacking airpower or mobile artillery. There's a whole heap a' shit we've invented since to make the life of infantry harder. Hide in the backwoods nowadays and you're just asking to get a fuel-air bomb on your head. As for 'Nam, the US government was beaten primarily by public opinion back home and the logistics of an overseas theatre. At no point was it close to a military defeat - the Tet Offensive was actually a massive military success given the ratio of US/allied deaths to NVA/Vietcong was 1 in 10 - but the political fallout of that offensive caused public backing for the war to fall away. In a US government vs US citizenry situation, the only real hope you have is that enough of the military/National Guard/cops side with you.
I have to say I have little confidence in the ability of American gun owners to thwart a government bent on tyranny -- because in that situation they and their guns would be supporting the tyrant. This is because their one and only metric of government tyranny is if they get to keep their guns. Everybody else can go to hell, it's all good as long as the White Man still has his guns.
Apropos of the question of who might be on the government's side if they did become tyrannical, Sessions has just dismissed the reports on systemic issues in the Chicago and Ferguson Police Departments as "largely anecdotal".
No need to throw racism and sexism in there. We want everyone to enjoy their freedoms regardless of ethnicity or gender.
Did civilian gun owners end slavery, or prevent the extermination of natives? Did they stand up for the rights of freed blacks, or put an end to segregation? I don't oppose your freedom, I just don't think the "resisting government tyranny" argument holds water.
Yes. Why are you under the impression that they did not? You literally just said "Republicans, Republicans, Republicans, Republicans". Fun fact: The earliest gun laws were racist. They are meant to disarm blacks. Fun fact: Modern gun laws are also racist. I want to arm all of the black / Native / Asian / Hispanic / etc. people.
I'm sure some did. The point is, there was no serious coordinated armed resistance to any of those examples of tyranny, and plenty of armed action by civilians in support of said tyranny.
That's nice, but I'm not arguing in favor of gun control, just against the notion that gun ownership is some kind of bulwark against tyranny, at least any kind of tyranny that doesn't threaten to take away guns.
I was waiting for someone to bring that up! Certainly a dramatic story… exceptional in a number of ways. It does show what people will do when their rights and their interests are directly threatened. Which is what I'm getting at: no dictatorship can survive if they oppress everybody. They need the support of a significant portion of the population who reap the benefits of their policies. I have no doubt gun owners would rise up to defend their rights and their interests if threatened. I just see a huge blind spot where people think as long as they don't come after my guns, everything is fine, who cares what happens to minority group X, never liked them much anyway.
During the Civil War, at least in the early stages, many units were raised and equipped by individuals. On both sides.