Wildalaska
Moderator
While it seemed clear enough to me, I added the italicized portions to help you out...
Italicized or not it still makes no sense.
I gots to shoot tonight., someone needs to do a properly crafted poll.
WildsohotAlaska
While it seemed clear enough to me, I added the italicized portions to help you out...
Italicized or not it still makes no sense.
A guerrilla resistance on one's own soil would not require any of those things. All it would take would be enough lone wolves who were willing to pick off the enemy (e.g., by sniping) until being killed themselves.MacGille said:If the reason for the 2nd Amendment was to secure our right to have the means to resist tyranny from our own government or from without; then it has already failed. We would have to have the capability to combat air assault, armor, and combined operations. It would also include communications and detection. Obviously beyond the individuals capabilities.
I generally agree with the above with the exception of machine guns, which in my opinion are no more deadly than semi-auto weapons (though full-auto can be useful at very close ranges). Someone who quickly but carefully aims each of 30 shots from a magazine is likely to kill more people than someone who sprays 30 rounds into a crowd (hitting lots of arms and legs in addition to some vital areas). Look at what Cho did at Virginia Tech. Heck, even bolt-action weapons can be used to commit massacres (e.g., Charles Whitman). But we still have the right to own these weapons because America wasn't founded on the principle of absolute safety, and there's no such thing anyway. Freedom has risks.Restrictions on the sale or possession of explosives, weapons of mass destruction (machine guns), gas, bio weapons, armed warplanes, cannon etc are reasonable if one wants to live in a stable and reasonably safe world. Hey, wait a minute, we already have those restrictions. Thank God.
Modern "gun control" is the same mindset and it has been just as miserable a failure and spawned just as much, or more, crime.
Reasonable to me means the sum of a collective intelligence of the society at large.
I generally agree with the above with the exception of machine guns, which in my opinion are no more deadly than semi-auto weapons (though full-auto can be useful at very close ranges). [/
Of course not. Drug laws and gun laws are responsible for most gang activity.
jselvy, if you can put a finite definition on the word "reasonable," then you need to quit your job and go teach law school. We've dedicated whole days of class time to sitting around asking each other, "What is 'reasonable'?" It can't be answered.
I think Abraham Lincoln once said: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time".
I haven't heard of any credible evidence presented that indicates Syria and/or Iran are officially arming or training Iraqi insurgents. (No offense to you, but I suspect that claim has roots in neocon propaganda designed to drum up public support for spreading the war into those other countries.) I don't doubt, however, that some of the insurgents have snuck across borders to fight in Iraq. Everything I've seen tells me that most insurgent are Iraqis who are fighting to expel the US. And of course many of them are fighting each other for religious reasons (Sunni vs. Shiite and so forth).As far as guerrilla warfare, any observer can see the trouble the VC caused in Viet Nam, and the destruction in Baghdad. However, these "insurgents" are not even Iraqi for the most part, and they are armed trained and supplied by a foreign nation (Syria and Iran). So they are irregular troops of a foreign nation and not guerrillas. Also the conquest of Viet Nam was by the NVA not the VC. Even so, The citizens of this nation could cause a lot of trouble for an oppressing army. But, they could not win, and the eventual result would be tyranny.
Please note that I'm not advocating overthrowing the government; I'm just saying that if enough of the population in the future decided it was necessary to do so, it would likely be possible. And even if it didn't succeed, it's better to die than to live as a slave anyway. If I were an armed resident of Nazi Germany or Bolshevik Russia and the JBTs were coming for me, I'd resign myself to the fact that I was going to die one day anyway, so I might as well take some bad guys with me first.The sheer numbers of firearms of all kinds in the hands of the American public would have made the American commanders in Vietnam quake in their boots. We’re not talking junk equipment here, either. Even the average deer hunter with a .270 or .308 could give an entire platoon of regular troops more grief than they want. There was a special on the tube recently about military armaments on sale in the black market (including Stinger missiles).
The population base from which revolutionaries could be recruited is massive – 250 million.
There are literally millions of well-trained men who, having served as officers and NCOs in foreign engagements such as Vietnam, have learned face-to-face how guerrilla warfare works. They haven’t forgotten it, either.
There are millions of young men out there with military training and experience with weapons of every conceivable kind who would make top-quality guerrilla troops.
Every one of the 100 counties in the state of North Carolina could field at least one full company that would be formidable in capability. If one assumes that North Carolina is no more capable than other states, that could amount to 180 divisions. These potential troops would be fast-moving light infantry with the capability of melting into the general population when necessary.
American military leaders would be in the position of having an inventory of high-tech weapons that they would depend on your son or nephew to use against you. There would be no enemy states in which you could say that any weapon could be used against the guerillas. They would be from each and every state and major city.
By the same token, there would be no sanctuary for the federal troops anywhere in the land. No matter where they were stationed, they would be subject to attack and harassment. The infrastructure on which the federal government depends would be rather easily disrupted by those who live there. Airfields and major lines of communications could be shut down and kept down for days at a time. Disruption of supplies to major bases and to centers of government would be simple. You don’t have to cut them off, just keep them hungry.
The federal government would be denied the use of all their major weaponry because they would still “own” the cities and villages. How do you justify bombing your own city just because there is a rebel company in it? One bombing would be the biggest recruiting drive ever for the rebel forces.
Now just how powerful do those 12 Army divisions and those three Marine divisions really look to you? Just how scary is the Air Force against America? What will the Navy do, shell all coastal cities? I don’t think so.
One of these days a truly charismatic individual is going to walk out of the heartland of America and point out that the Declaration of Independence has never been repealed and that it requires all citizens to rise up against an oppressive government. With the current attitude toward our government and the people who populate it, a massive groundswell of support for throwing the current crop to the dogs and starting over again might not be so difficult.
As for the ability of the American citizens to successfully wage a guerrilla war on their own government, the likes of which this world has never seen nor contemplated before, I am absolutely convinced that it could be done, and a lot more swiftly than many might believe possible. How many highly-capable long-range snipers can your county put together?
Reprinted in “The Bullet Trap” by permission from Bill Bridgewater, “Alliance Voice”, August 1994
Actually, drug laws DO cause gang violence. Look at all the violence that was associated with alcohol prohibition. Then alcohol prohibition was repealed. How often today do we hear about people killing each other over alcohol profits?laws are responsible for crime and gang activity? Where do you come from? As far as history shows, there have always been some who want to do whatever they want, to anyone available. Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Franks, whomever! Every society has had criminals who violate society's laws. Does disease cause germs or do germs cause disease? The human condition causes crime, not the laws designed to protect the members from criminals.Of course not. Drug laws and gun laws are responsible for most gang activity.