What good can a handgun do against an Army?


PDA






funnybone
July 7, 2008, 06:02 PM
United States Flag - God Bless America What good can a handgun do against an Army?
Saturday, July 5, 2008
What good can a handgun do against an Army?
By Mike Vanderboegh



A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed:


"If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)"



If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership told me once:

"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." - Aaron Zelman, JPFO


Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question.

Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh65/66calcalater/WWIILiberatorPistolcal45ACP.jpg


WWII Liberator Pistol cal. 45ACP


The theory and practice of it was this:

First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half- hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.

Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)

Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)


They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all.

Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas- present fashion out in the middle of the desert.

"A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money." --Everett Dirksen

Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million-- that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility-- everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes.

Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its relatives' backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question).

But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed."

The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gunowners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?" Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes.

READ THE REST AT:

http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-good-can-handgun-do-against-army.html

If you enjoyed reading about "What good can a handgun do against an Army?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
divemedic
July 7, 2008, 06:14 PM
There are an estimated 90 million gun owners in this country and the own at least 200 million firearms. If only 1 percent of gun owners take to the street and each of the resisters manage to kill 2 soldiers on average before being gunned down, that is 1.8 million dead invaders.

Think that is unrealistic? The Vietnamese, Mogadishu, the Iraqi resistance, and the Warsaw ghetto all show what relatively poorly equipped and organized militia forces can do against modern conventional military forces.

Rachen
July 7, 2008, 06:15 PM
Kudos to Mike Vanderboegh!!!:D:D:D

shevrock
July 7, 2008, 06:18 PM
wow, i like this article.

Bowman140
July 7, 2008, 06:29 PM
Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

Rachen
July 7, 2008, 06:33 PM
Also, read "Unintended Consequences: Waco Rules vs. Romanian Rules"

Also written by Mr. Vanderboegh.

bnkrazy
July 7, 2008, 06:35 PM
Thanks for posting! A very nice read.

funnybone
July 7, 2008, 06:42 PM
THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS!

Should be required reading in every elementary school, high school and college.

Sam Adams
July 7, 2008, 07:01 PM
This is an old article, but nonetheless very relevant. The more people who read it, the better.

shdwfx
July 7, 2008, 07:03 PM
Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million-- that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined.

It would be a lot harder to wage a successful insurgency in modern America than it is in Afghanistan or Iraq. For the most part, we're soft and enslaved to our automated lifestyle.

The key missing element is command and control to mobilize those 14 million (or the fraction that would even be willing to mobilize).

How many of us personally know even 10 people that would...

1) have the equipment
2) have the skills
3) have the mentality and desire

...to form a resistance squad should our Constitution be suspended? I don't.

Add in the possibility that common mediums of personal communication (internet, cell phones) are rendered inert or dangerous for coordination. How many know how to compensate for that scenario and effectively set up local command/control? I don't.

Reality is that most of us are held hostage to our technologically advanced lifestyle. Most of us can't even maintain our cars and mobility without access to a dealership network that maintains a monopoly on computer-related repairs. Our social and family lives are geographically spread out and most lack friends and family within sufficient biking/walking distance to support each other.

Our current dependent state is pretty sad.

elrod
July 7, 2008, 07:07 PM
Thank you for your post. Of course, this is not a far-fetched idea, given the candidates for POTUS and the current make up of our congress. But let me not be the one who drifts to politics. I suppose the main question posed in Mr Vanderboeghs' article is if the American gun owners could muster enough courage and organization to combat a nationwide Katrina-like effort to disarm us. Not out of the question.

robert garner
July 7, 2008, 07:36 PM
Shadowfax "How many of us personally know even 10 people that would..."All you need to know is one.The leaders dont need to know who they are, for the followers will recognize him and fall in line. You will know him as you step into the fray
Funnybone Thanks, folks need a reminder that armies arent made of corps battallions or squads, but of men.
robert

amprecon
July 7, 2008, 08:03 PM
If you think that's neat, just imagine the number of Americans that hunt with a scoped rifle. I would venture to say that at the very least there are 1 million active hunters in this country that hunt with a scoped rifle and most are very proficient with them.

As the sniper is the most feared soldier on the battlefield it's hard to deny the possibilities.

I remember reading a story about the Wehrmacht invading one of the Nordic countries during WWII and members of a rifle club stayed their advance for awhile.......if I could only recall that story more precisely.

Have faith those that distrust their government, they're way over-rated, whomever becomes president, they're irrelevant to our existence and to the effects of our daily lives.

gallo
July 7, 2008, 08:22 PM
In order to avoid tyranny, a country must defend its liberties at all costs. Even when those liberties speak contrary to our own beliefs. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom of expression and religion. That applies to all expression, provided it is not conducive to criminal activity, and to to all religions, even those we may not like.

The six amendment guarantees a due process. Again, this applies even to enemy combatants. For if we deny them this right, we stand to lose it ourselves. What's to stop the government from engaging in a witch hunt against those it deems enemies of the state?

The 2nd amendment may hold tyrants at bay and may even serve America to defend itself one day. But to prevent our government form getting to that extreme, we must fight harder for all the other liberties guranteed by the bill of rights as it applies to all races and religions. If it gets to the point where our only hope is the 2nd ammendment, then the battle may be won but at a muh higher cost.

.cheese.
July 7, 2008, 08:32 PM
great. Now I have to shoot anybody who asks me for a light. :what:

amprecon
July 7, 2008, 08:39 PM
Enemies of freedom deserve no due process, that "right" is only granted to American citizens not our enemies.
If they want legal protection under the United States Constitution, legally become an American, otherwise, attack us and get killed.
For them, a quick end is our best defense.

Why the h*ll are people wanting to protect the enemy under the U.S. Constitution as if they're Americans? :confused:

Shoot 'em already!!!!!

A/C Guy
July 7, 2008, 08:40 PM
During WWII, 4 pistols in a Polish town held the Germany army at bay for 7 weeks.

The Germans did know know how many people were armed; the 4 armed persons were very effective against a trained military machine.

You really should have paid attention in history class ;)

jakemccoy
July 7, 2008, 08:59 PM
The psychological and political problems of an army going against its own populace that is armed will likely prevent such tyranny from the outset. In other words, the mere idea of every other household regularly going to shoot sporting clays would prevent the army invasion, not because the army couldn't invade but rather because any result would be undesirable for all parties involved. Every household should own and be skilled with at least one firearm. Let's face it: Our forefathers got it right with the Second Amendment.

EDIT: The term "army invasion" may not seem right with the issue at hand. However, a tax payers' army that invades its own tax payers is definitely an invader.

rainbowbob
July 7, 2008, 09:03 PM
great. Now I have to shoot anybody who asks me for a light.

You mean you haven't been? I wondered who was letting all those unequipped smokers get past the perimeter.

SoCalShooter
July 7, 2008, 09:07 PM
The six amendment guarantees a due process. Again, this applies even to enemy combatants. For if we deny them this right, we stand to lose it ourselves.

You have to be a citizen for the amendment to apply to you, if your not a citizen then you have no rights.

Kalashnikov
July 7, 2008, 09:11 PM
The whole reason for resistance in the first place is because of disorganization. If we were organized and ready to fight, we would not need to fear too much. Walk softly and carry a big stick after all.

F4GIB
July 7, 2008, 09:17 PM
Rachen posted today:
Also, read "Unintended Consequences: Waco Rules vs. Romanian Rules"
Also written by Mr. Vanderboegh.

WHERE does one find this? Please cite the URL.

Rachen
July 7, 2008, 09:22 PM
WHERE does one find this? Please cite the URL.



http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/05/guest-editorial-resistance-is-futile.html

It is an EXCELLENT article. Anyone who is a patriot must read this. Like what Charlton Heston said, this nation is quickly becoming a nation of cowards who refuse to speak up for themselves out of fear.

It is time these articles are broadcasted for EVERYONE to read. Parents should make sure their child reads patriotic and positive literature like this once they start to read. It is the only way AMERICA becomes AMERICAN again!

TexasSkyhawk
July 7, 2008, 09:39 PM
How many of us personally know even 10 people that would...

1) have the equipment
2) have the skills
3) have the mentality and desire

...to form a resistance squad should our Constitution be suspended? I don't.

Our counterparts in the U.S. Army used to teach insurgents exactly how to do what the original posts asks in the title. There is a method, simplistic as it may be, and several have already touched upon the fringes of it.

As it was taught to us, in its most basic form, you use a small gun to acquire a bigger gun. You use the bigger gun to acquire yet an even larger, more powerful gun, of which you use to acquire many more guns of all sizes so that your insurgents may repeat the process exponentially.

It all comes down to #3 above, "have the mentality and desire"

Many of us right here would be surprised at those who do, and those who don't. My army friends who were regular infantry told us tales how they saw it time and time again. The big talkers, but who'd seen no action, had to be shoved out of the choppers at the LZ. The quiet ones, who looked scared poop-less, still got out reluctantly, but trusted in their training and combat buddy and forged ahead.

Fortunately, in the harder units (I don't like the term "elite"--ANYONE who voluntarily dons this nation's uniform is elite in my world), we were able to weed out the BS-ers through qualifying schools. Occasionally we would see hesitance now and then with new members, but it was rare and the hesitation only lasted mere seconds, if that. Too much pride, too much focus, too much training--it all takes over during the apex of the critical moment.

Speaking just for me, a middle-aged gent comfortable with his lot in life, I automatically discount the phenomenon known as "the armchair commando" as being of any value to me and those like me in a bad, all-out situation.

The only use they will provide will be the abundance of fancy weapons and ammo I'll immediately take from them after they either screw up or give you a hundred different reasons why this suddenly "isn't their fight."

In uniform, we call the situation described in the original post "firing on the flag." It is the most distasteful act imaginable to the professional warrior and those who've defended honor and freedom by bearing arms against our enemies.

The mere thought of having to fire on my own fellow citizens makes me nauseous. The unimaginable thought of having to purposefully take a soldier or sailor or airman or Marine's life who wears the same uniform I once wore is the second worst kind of Hell I can conjure up in even the darkest, most remote corners of my mind.

Those who secretly fantasize about it or contemplate it have never been there, and their opinions on the matter mean absolutely jack---- to me.

Jeff

makarovnik
July 7, 2008, 09:46 PM
You'd be surprised what you can do if you're tricky, sneaky and well prepared. First guy you sneak up on and shoot (or blow up, that seems to work well) you take all his goodies. Ever see 'Falling Down? I love it. First he started out with a stick or a hammer or something. Then he took a knife away from a gangsta, then he obtained a bag o' guns. Kill, take and work your way up to grenades, rocket launchers then heavy artillery. The sky's the limit.

lions
July 7, 2008, 09:49 PM
What good can a handgun do against an Army?

The simple answer is very little.

A better question is "What good can millions of handguns do against an Army?"

I like the answer to that one a little better.

yakkingallover
July 7, 2008, 10:50 PM
Original post reminds me of an article I read about villagers in Peru. The army used to supply them with cheap single shot shotguns and cases of buckshot and slugs. If I remember correctly every fifth man or so got a gun. The idea was you would shoot the rebels and get an AK the you would pass off your shotgun and so on. Who knows one day it may come down to liberty being defended by keltec p-32's and NEF single shots.

siglite
July 7, 2008, 11:17 PM
I'm going to avoid seditious discussion in this thread. I'm also going to avoid discussing tactics which could be construed as providing "material aid, support, or training" to terrorists.

There's a lot to be learned from history. And there's a lot to be learned from the present as well. I'd ask that you consider war from Sun Tzu's perspective. War is about cost. And if you look at it from a cost perspective, we are getting our asses handed to us by a small, under-equipped, under-trained, but highly determined force.

This statement is not intended to disparage the efforts of our troops over there. Fine men and women are fighting the good fight. And, in the sense of attrition, they are kicking ass and taking names. But if Sun Tzu were to look at that war, and if we step back and analyze the conflict from the bigger picture, (cost) we are losing. Badly. But we knew that would happen going in.

Again, this is not to disparage our troops, or even our policies. But my point is to apply that analytical train of thought to insurgency in general. A war against a determined insurgency is un-winnable by traditional means. The application of the principles utilized in the Warsaw Ghetto, and expanded upon by the Viet Cong, and utilized by the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents is without question the most effective combat methodology on the planet today. It costs so little to do so much. Think about it in terms of lives and dollars.

Now imagine the sort of insurgency that could be formed in the United States against enemies, foreign or domestic. Think about the scale if one in a hundred are truly dedicated to the fight. If one in a thousand even. That would be three hundred thousand insurgent fighters building upon the lessons of Warsaw, Southeast Asia, and the Middle east. This is a force no government wants to tangle with. Even our own.

Zedicus
July 8, 2008, 12:04 AM
nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors

This part seems to be forgetting the 46 questions asked of 60 US Marines at Twentynine Palms in oct 1994.

siglite
July 8, 2008, 12:10 AM
This part seems to be forgetting the 46 questions asked of 60 US Marines at Twentynine Palms in oct 1994.

I've seen the internet version of that "survey" and it in no way jives with my memory, having taken it personally. Regardless, if you read my post just above yours, the results of that survey are rendered moot.

Sebastian the Ibis
July 8, 2008, 12:16 AM
What good can a handgun do against an Army?

Decapitate it's leadership.

strambo
July 8, 2008, 12:17 AM
It would be a lot harder to wage a successful insurgency in modern America than it is in Afghanistan or Iraq. For the most part, we're soft and enslaved to our automated lifestyle.
No, it's the opposite. Because we have such a good standard of living, we have the most to lose, therefore life isn't cheap like in the middle east. Sooo...if there were an insurgency in the US it would be a full-scale revolution because people with a lot to lose don't just up 'n start to fight (which is why I doubt it will happen in my, or my children's, lifetime).

Now, that being said, Americans are the most intelligent and resourceful people in the world. There is no comparison between the capabilities of the incompetent bafoons in Iraq and A-stan and what Americans would be capable of. Just look at all the knowledge and armament contained within the 30,000 members here.

As far as the OP question, it is moot. Modern US infantry soldiers shoot almost exclusively on semi-auto with fire suppression from 2 Saws per squad and 2-3 machine guns per PLT. There are millions of semi-auto carbines in private hands. Not more than a few machine guns and any machinist could mass-produce sears and other necessary fire control parts for full-auto fire.

As far as "losing" an insurgency like in Iraq...we can only lose if we quit and leave like a bunch of weak sissies. Our casualties are nothing compared to any real "war" like WWII, Korea or even Vietnam. The insurgents only keep at it because our media and pathetically weak knee'd politicians (as well as recent "quitter" history in Somalia) tell them if they don't quit, we will.

As for the "peace lovers" why do they never care about the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives lost as a consequence of us pulling out of a conflict like Vietnam or Somalia? They just go on to the next protest not giving a hoot about all the dead as a direct result of our actions. Sad, tragic, hypocritical, selfish and avoidable.

The illiterate, inbred, loser terrorists who blow themselves up more often than not, do not enjoy mass support in either country. The only reason the civilians don't fight back more and tend to sit on the fence is because they think we will quit and if they were supportive of the current Iraqi (or Afghan govt) and making a better lives for themselves, thus buying into our promise of a better life, and we pull out, they know they will get slaughtered 1st.

Both countries can be stabilized slowly but surely as the civilians realize we aren't leaving and they get a better standard of living (something to lose) and want to protect what they now enjoy. It is already happening in both countries. Neighborhoods taking up arms and driving out the terrorists hanging out there. Every news report about us quitting (we can't win, boo-hoo), every whining politician sets us two steps back and tells those people to remain on the sidelines.

They don't share our cultural values...and quite honestly neither did we until after we won our revolution. Our revolution established our values with the blood of the few who waged it, not the many who supported Britain and/or sat on the sidelines.

Halo is for Kids
July 8, 2008, 12:21 AM
Enemies of freedom deserve no due process, that "right" is only granted to American citizens not our enemies.
If they want legal protection under the United States Constitution, legally become an American, otherwise, attack us and get killed.
For them, a quick end is our best defense.

Why the h*ll are people wanting to protect the enemy under the U.S. Constitution as if they're Americans?

Shoot 'em already!!!!!
You have to be a citizen for the amendment to apply to you, if your not a citizen then you have no rights.
I thought the rights enumerated in the BOR were inalienable, that they apply to every man.

BTW, by posting in this thread, you've become an enemy of the state and are now an enemy combatant. (Just because I said it doesn't make it true, but what if the right person said it???)

Zedicus
July 8, 2008, 12:25 AM
if you read my post just above yours, the results of that survey are rendered moot.

Oh I realized that, I was only pointing out that that had seemingly been overlooked.

Don Lu
July 8, 2008, 12:31 AM
great read...thanks.

mordechaianiliewicz
July 8, 2008, 01:00 AM
I remember this essay, and it is one of the best essays ever written in modern times about the 2nd Amendment. I need not expound, that's already been done ad nauseam.

I just have one more thing to say. This is to those of you who think that the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act only can be used on foreigners. You are wrong. Read those laws (it'll take a while and require lots of reference material). No where is "enemy combatant" defined as "non-U.S. citizen" and so far, only George Bush or his agents (in DHS, or DoD) have "declared" certain people enemy combatants.

No where is it written that you or me, or any other person cannot be declared an enemy combatant, and tortured days on end simply for being declared an "enemy combatant." No proof, no chance at a "day in court" in fact, it would be likely no one would know there's a problem.

So far, U.S. citizens have been threatened several times to comply with DHS or they would be locked away forever.

To think the next administration will just hand this power back isn't just naive, it's foolish. I am a 4th generation American, from the latest arriving imigrant ('cause we go back to the founding of the country), I was born in the middle of country, and I have proof of those things, but that wouldn't help me in the least if a government agent decided I have to go.

The same applies to everyone here.

Those of you who call yourselves Republicans, and Conservatives need to get your head out of the sand. Even if Bush is just defending the country (and he's most definetely not), one day a President will arive who will not. Think of your families, and the type of life you want your kids to have before you throw blind support behind a law which strips us of the 4th and 5th Amendments, and makes us just as bad as the nations we are now fighting.

loneviking
July 8, 2008, 01:05 AM
I don't have too much faith in the will of the American people to fight back. Look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina with the forcible gun grabs, executed by police backed up by National Guard. Not only did that local government get away with this, they have so far (by and large) refused to even return the guns that were grabbed!

Another example is of the Philadelphia mayor and chief of police who passed 5 laws which were in contradiction to the states' laws and who were quite open about refusing to abide by the law of the state of Pennsylvania. The NRA won an injunction, which these officials don't seem to honor, but these individuals are still in office.

Or, the administrator of the Georgia airport who declared the airport a 'gun-free' zone and vowed to arrest anyone carrying---in spite of a new law that clearly says that such an arrest would be legal. No one has fired this clown, only a lawsuit has been filed.

I have a hard time envisioning, based on recent events, anything that would cause even a minority of gun owners to physically take up arms. I wish it were otherwise, but I just don't see it.

Ragnar Danneskjold
July 8, 2008, 01:06 AM
Anyone who says an insurgency armed with old rifles and home-made weapons can't fight a modern army needs to as any 20 year old Iraq vet about that. And the Iraqi insurgency is infinitesimal in comparison to American gun owners.

RP88
July 8, 2008, 01:13 AM
all it takes is an idea. You don't even need weapons to start out with; having a gun to start out with just gives you a decent head-start. Unfortunately, you see how apathetic we are...

LightningJoe
July 8, 2008, 01:20 AM
What could he do against an army? He could bog it down, he could make it sit there and and spend a lot of money occupying a territory it didn't control, he could then wait for it to leave. That's what George Washington did against the British. It's what the Vietnamese did against the Americans. And it's what Al Qaida are trying to do right now. It has worked many times.

arthurcw
July 8, 2008, 01:27 AM
You have to be a citizen for the amendment to apply to you, if your not a citizen then you have no rights.

I have to disagree. The BoR only recognizes the rights that ALL MEN HAVE.

Now those rights may be temporarily and/or severely modified due to lack of citizenship, lack of age of majority, or unwillingness to obey the law, but they don't just go away.

If you are not a citizen, you are not playing on the same field and therefore it is right for the state to limit your ability to exercise some or all of your rights. Just as a convict may not have freedom since he has proven that he is incapable of lawful actions; a non-citizen may not be allowed to exercise many rights since he has not proven his intent toward peaceable actions. The state may assume that lack of citizenship constitutes a preexisting desire NOT to live by the laws of the state.

However, at NO TIME do a person’s rights simply disappear. They are always there but may be denied for good cause.

The State should never use the assumption of preexisting intent to not follow the law on a citizen since, by claiming his citizenship, a citizen states implicitly (if by birth) or explicitly (if by naturalization) that he WILL follow the laws.

A citizen should never be disarmed (have his right to keep and bear arms severely modified) by the state since it is by that force of arms that the citizen can keep the state free. This assumption that there is a preexisting desire to follow the laws and protect them is a basic definition of a citizen and cuts to the heart of the investment a citizen has in his state and the state in her citizens.

So circling back to the OP; A handgun’s effectiveness is more than strategic or tactical, it is the symbol that the state both trusts and is trusted by its citizens.

RP88
July 8, 2008, 01:39 AM
that high standard of living is what is going to be the death of us, especially with how the government spends the money they take from us. It's a long fall once you get to the top, but you wake up once you smash into the ground. That is when the problems will start, and when we hope that the fed doesnt try to screw us over. My opinion? thats impossible for them to not do. FDR created programs and agencies to fix the problems back in the 1930s. Now, the agencies and programs themselves are the problem. How do you get a government to clean up its own mess the way it should be done? I mean, if the privately controlled people would not do it in order to preserve their own interests, what makes you think the fed won't think the same way? Think about it. We're gonna hit a crossroads very soon.

U.S.SFC_RET
July 8, 2008, 01:39 AM
An army should never let you ever get close enough to pull off what you describe nowadays.
As far as pistols. I consider a pistol one of the last pieces of ordnance I will ever rely on when it comes to an army. Whenever I deployed I always felt pity on whoever had to carry one.

P.S. IEDs ring a bell?

My personal thoughts.

MT GUNNY
July 8, 2008, 01:52 AM
shdwfx

I would have to respectfully disagree with you.
I think alot of citizens of the US would take comand perse.
Plus the number of prior Military is staggering, Im shure that Retired officers would come out of the woodworks and take charge.
IMHO

justin 561
July 8, 2008, 02:01 AM
I don't think the American people will resist, or try a insurgency. The reason it is going so great in Iraq and Afghanistan is the simple fact that they are willing to die for their cause. Think of how the war is going, and if you notice they're crying about the amount of troops that have died. Around 4400. This number is TINY compared to Vietnam, WW2, Korea, and WW1.

On the other hand, think about those American soldiers who will defect or help the resistance. I'm sure some will steal supplies, and give it out to the resistance. I'm sure there will be a "higher up" that will defect and get his troops to as well. Our soldiers are not as stupid or brainwashed as you think. The local soldiers wont like their families being slaughtered or thrown into camps.

Will the normal people be in trouble? YES.
Will some of us form a militia to defend our homestead? YES
Can we expect millions to resist? NO, but a decent resistance force WILL RISE.

TexasSkyhawk
July 8, 2008, 02:17 AM
Whenever I deployed I always felt pity on whoever had to carry one.

I lost count of the number of missions I was assigned in which I only had my sidearm and two spare magazines.

Also lost count of the number of times I came back to base camp from those same missions with a lot more weaponry than I left with.

I don't have too much faith in the will of the American people to fight back.

If you had written this to read, " I don't have too much faith in the will of the American people living in the major cities to fight back." I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

But I'm from out in West Texas, originally. Farm and ranch country. Folks out there still have rifles in their gun racks and walk into the town square banks, cafe and feed mills with six-guns strapped on their belts.

And nobody blinks an eye, 'cept for maybe some Yankee city-slicker who got lost and is passing through.

You know the type of folks I'm talking about as well as the type of towns. You'll find them all over the U.S., coast to coast and north to south.

They're still the backbone and moral conscience of our nation.

Jeff

leadcounsel
July 8, 2008, 02:45 AM
Let's not forget about the PSYCHOLOGICAL part.

Imagine two scenarios:

1) Corrupt US government disarms the people and then orders martial law and marches troops and tanks into the streets of America. Defenseless Americans' by-and-large surrender 'peacefully' because of lack of adequate resistance. Very little bloodshed and JOE Soldier has to arrest fellow Americans and has to kill very few 'insurgents.' Takeover occurs overnight with little violence, few US Military casualties, Troop morale is high, and Americans are easily enslaved.

2) Corrupt US government DOES NOT disarm the people. Orders martial law and marches troops and tanks through the streets. Armed Americans fight back with close range handguns in 50% of homes and hunting rifles from rooftops that penetrate individual body armor. Millions of gun owners kill tens of thousands of troops. Civilian and troops losses are signficant. The fight is drawn out over years. Soon, new recruits stop. Soldiers who are ordered to kill civilians begin to question it; morale in the ranks is low. Dissent in the ranks turns tanks and jets against the Commander from within.

So, yes, simple weapons owned by the masses can turn the tide even against large modern armies. We've seen it in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (the Afghans defeated a HUGE Russian Bear of an army through an unpopular war of attrition that lasted 10 bloody years).

Tarvis
July 8, 2008, 02:53 AM
I haven't read all of the first post, but in the theory of fighting a rebellion, you have to consider that the "oppressors" are leading an army of people just like you and me, with families and consciences. If hundreds of people had stood behind the cult at Waco in the face of tyranny, the government would have had to think twice about smoking them out. I realize that instance was more complex than that, but take this example: if the government decided to start rounding up guns and came to my house to take mine, only to find 30-40 of my friends and neighbors standing outside guns in hand telling them to turn around, it makes more of a point than me saying no and them kicking in the door.

It's just an idea, not a motto or a strategy, but it's a start.

jakemccoy
July 8, 2008, 02:55 AM
Are there any books out analyzing a possible U.S. insurgency? There may be a "fictional" book, for example?

The comparison to the Iraqi insurgency reveals not only leaning points, but also huge differences. For example, who would be funding the U.S. armed forces? Would it be other countries? Eventually, their funding dries up otherwise, right? I'm not quite understanding how that works. Say, for example, a U.S. insurgency becomes "official" at some point. Would Americans collectively agree to stop paying taxes? How long could the U.S. military remain who they are? I imagine mass chaos rather quickly. A U.S. insurgency is weird because, from an economic perspective, we're not talking about a civil war where each side is funding itself. Anyway, my thoughts on this are not coherent because I admittedly don't understand how the military would sustain itself.

Would the U.S. military attacking the populace be like a parasite killing its host (i.e., bad for the parasite)? After all, the parasite depends on the host to stay alive.

rainbowbob
July 8, 2008, 03:04 AM
Are there any books out analyzing a possible U.S. insurgency? There may be a "fictional" book, for example?

If there isn't - there ought to be. I'd be interested in reading something like that (assuming it was decently written).

RedLion
July 8, 2008, 03:53 AM
Now, that being said, Americans are the most intelligent and resourceful people in the world. There is no comparison between the capabilities of the incompetent bafoons in Iraq and A-stan and what Americans would be capable of. Just look at all the knowledge and armament contained within the 30,000 members here.

Strambo, I hope your joking. I can't see why you would believe that a human from one part of the world is any "smarter" than a human from another.

I do think it is interesting that rebellions naturally gravitate toward the unconventional type of warfare almost without any effort. This article talking about the use of pistols in a war fought with planes, tanks, and machine guns. And in Vietnam with booby traps and tunnel systems where jets and bombers were favorited. And now Iraq and Afghanistan with IEDs and RPGs where smart-bombs and satellites are the main attractions. Maybe the future insurgencies will be fought over computer networks where space planes are the new military wonder.

gallo
July 8, 2008, 01:16 PM
You have to be a citizen for the amendment to apply to you, if your not a citizen then you have no rights.


There is a thing called the Geneva Convention. Of course, Bush and cronies circumvented it by calling POWs enemy combatants. The Supreme Court and a federal court have declared the indefinite imprisonment of enemy combatants unconstitutional.

Our system of checks and balances is precisely for this purpose: To prevent any one government branch from over stepping their authority.

You may not like the decision, but you can't assume a person is guilty without due process. This implicitly applies to prisoners, foreign or domestic, considered enemies of the state. How else would you know? Gut feel? The islamo-fascist governments donít believe in due processes. The US is above that.

tmajors
July 8, 2008, 02:27 PM
You have to be a citizen for the amendment to apply to you, if your not a citizen then you have no rights.

Incorrect. You do not have to be a citizen for amendments to apply to you. You do however have to be at least on United States soil (national, territorial, or provincial). You can even be here illegally and the Bill of Rights still applies to you.

The only Right truly reserved to citizens only is the Right to Vote.

230RN
July 8, 2008, 02:30 PM
I suspect a .22LR rifle would be better in the premised application than any pistol.

Right?

Wrong?

ProficientRifleman
July 8, 2008, 02:54 PM
Amprecon said:

I would venture to say that at the very least there are 1 million active hunters in this country that hunt with a scoped rifle and most are very proficient with them.

I would tend to agree!! :D

MakAttak
July 8, 2008, 03:09 PM
There is a thing called the Geneva Convention. Of course, Bush and cronies circumvented it by calling POWs enemy combatants. The Supreme Court and a federal court have declared the indefinite imprisonment of enemy combatants unconstitutional.

Actually they didn't (cirumvent it).

The Geneva convention applies to regular army members. Terrorists are not. They have no protections under the Geneva convention, and, as they are fighting in civilian clothes, they can be shot summarily (under the Geneva convention).

You can argue about the morality of holding these prisoners, but you cannot claim legal protections that do not exist.

22-rimfire
July 8, 2008, 03:19 PM
Americans would have to feel desperate and most do not now to fight against an army, any army. That could change pretty quickly when a couple nuclear warheads hit a few cities.

I'd say there are a lot more than 1 million active hunters in the USA based on license sales. Few buy a license that don't own or have access to a firearm.

gallo
July 8, 2008, 04:48 PM
The Geneva convention applies to regular army members. Terrorists are not.

How do you know they are terrorist without due process? For all we know, a Blackwater team of jarheads rounded up a bunch of pesants and shipped them to Guantanamo.

makarovnik
July 8, 2008, 05:10 PM
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Owen
July 8, 2008, 05:44 PM
Quote:
The six amendment guarantees a due process. Again, this applies even to enemy combatants. For if we deny them this right, we stand to lose it ourselves.

You have to be a citizen for the amendment to apply to you, if your not a citizen then you have no rights.


How is it that only US citizens receive God-given rights?

Fast_Ed
July 8, 2008, 05:51 PM
More than a million licensed hunters??

There are more than 600,000 DEER HUNTERS in Wisconsin alone! 600,000 armed men and women with at least a minimal comfort level with a centerfire rifle just in the state of Wisconsin. Add in Texas and Pennsylvania which fill out the top three deer hunting states, and you have more than 2,000,000, in just three states. This isn't counting Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, the rest of the bread belt and the mountain states, or the south.

That's why the nightmare scenario won't happen. Too high a cost to the oppressors. Armed, forceable oppression won't happen. And why should it? They are doing a bang-up job just by one little cut at a time. Death by a thousand cuts. Boiling a frog. The analogies are the same and it is exactly how it is happening right now.

Figure out how to stop it now, or be prepared to look out one day and wonder how the hell it happened.

Fast Ed

gallo
July 8, 2008, 06:42 PM
Exactly Fast Ed,

If every 2nd amendment supporter fought as adamantly for the rest of the bill of right, this country would be in better shape. If society turns a blind eye to the government abusing the rights of certain groups because it disagrees with their religious belief, then it's only a matter of time before we end up in the McCarthyism days. I have absolutely no sympathy for alleged terrorist, but I'd dare not turn a blind eye their 6 amendment rights lest the state may start a witch hunt inquisition.

shdwfx
July 8, 2008, 06:52 PM
(sorry, please delete. I was replying to the off-topic discussion on foreign combatants. I'd rather not contribute to getting this thread locked.)

lazyeye
July 8, 2008, 07:14 PM
The question isn't whether or not the weapons and tactics work, or if there are enough people.

At the risk of crossing that invisible line...

The question is: what is the triggering mechanism?
At what point do you take these actions? When its something you hear about on the radio? When its something thats happening in your state? What about when your neighbor has his confiscated?
Do you WAIT until the men in black are knocking on YOUR door before you do something about it?

Think about it. Each man has to know his own answer.

joop
July 8, 2008, 07:31 PM
i'd like to chip in one more thing about the guy who said:

You have to be a citizen for the amendment to apply to you, if your not a citizen then you have no rights.

Said person should take a look at the Bill of Rights:
Amendment 14, Section 1:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

yokel
July 8, 2008, 07:40 PM
The fact that the same Gang of Four criminal usurpers and traitors masquerading as "justices" who dissented in District of Columbia v. Heller also comprised the majority in Boumediene v. Bush is no coincidence.

No treaty and no American practice in any previous war have ever extended rights of due process to captured enemy prisoners.


Anyone who says an insurgency armed with old rifles and home-made weapons can't fight a modern army needs to as any 20 year old Iraq vet about that. And the Iraqi insurgency is infinitesimal in comparison to American gun owners.

Our adversary appears to be doing better in the armament dept. than your typical American gun owner:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Al_Anbar_2004.jpg
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/images3/2004_war_photos_12/homemade_rocket_launche_2r.jpe
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/images3/2004_war_photos_12/machine_gun_long.jpe

burningsquirrels
July 8, 2008, 07:58 PM
sorry i haven't read the rest of that thread, but the written article in the OP is a very excellently written piece. :)

joop
July 8, 2008, 08:11 PM
wish i knew how to quote

yokel:
the BILL OF RIGHTS specifically says that ANYONE UNDER U.S. JURISDICTION must be given EQUAL PROTECTION.

read Amendment 14, Section 1.

nutty7462
July 8, 2008, 08:19 PM
Enemies of freedom deserve no due process, that "right" is only granted to American citizens not our enemies.
If they want legal protection under the United States Constitution, legally become an American, otherwise, attack us and get killed.
For them, a quick end is our best defense.

Why the h*ll are people wanting to protect the enemy under the U.S. Constitution as if they're Americans?

Shoot 'em already!!!!!

The Consitution of the United States does not grant rights to citizens. It is a pronouncement of the innate rights of men- ALL men (and women). To deny some men their innate rights is to deny liberty herself. Principles cannot be selectively applied.

yokel
July 8, 2008, 08:38 PM
If we are at war, then the rules of warfare permit us to capture enemy prisoners, such as al Qaeda, a foreign terrorist organization that seeks to replace American allies in the Middle East with radical fundamentalist Islamic regimes, and to hold them until the end of the conflict. Detention removes enemies from the fight and permits their interrogation for information. It is not a punishment, so the laws of war have never required lawyers or judicial review for enemy prisoners.

Pilgrim
July 8, 2008, 09:12 PM
Quote:
What good can a handgun do against an Army?
Decapitate it's leadership.

The Army's logistic base is not armed and hardened.

Pilgrim

MAKster
July 8, 2008, 09:27 PM
I think a lot of people are living in fantasy land if they think there is going to be a rebellion in the U.S. If - and I repeat if - the U.S. Government became an authoritative regime it would happen with the CONSENT of the MAJORITY of Americans. Authoritative leaders come to power as populists. Over time crises be they economic, terrorist, foreign war, or the result of corruption lead the government to declare "special emergency powers" to overcome these temporary situations. The overwhelming majority of people will support this because they want to be safe and continue their comfortable lives. The middle class will continue to enjoy prosperous lives and will look the other way or be totally oblivious to the problems and abuses. The U.S. is far to properous for people to take up arms against the government. Even the poorest people in the U.S. accept their fate and try to make the best of it. If you want to head into the jungle like FARC and lead a 40 year guerrilla war you be in the tiny minority.

TexasSkyhawk
July 8, 2008, 09:43 PM
You may not like the decision, but you can't assume a person is guilty without due process. This implicitly applies to prisoners, foreign or domestic, considered enemies of the state.

How do you know they are terrorist without due process? For all we know, a Blackwater team of jarheads rounded up a bunch of pesants and shipped them to Guantanamo.



Gallo,

I'm really, really trying to restrain myself since I've been there and you obviously haven't.

By your faulty logic, every enemy I dispatched during my time in uniform was denied due process--even though some of them were wearing clothing made by DuPont (whom we used to call "not-so-smart bombs).

Were the nice chaps who flew into our World Trade Center terrorists, or just misunderstood? According to your flawed logic, we'll never know because they never received due process.

But then again, neither did 3,000+ innocent men, women and children, including those held hostage on the doomed airliners.

I would also respectfully ask that you display a little respect for those Marines you refer to as "Blackwater team of jarheads."

If you wish to spit on a soldier, it would be preferable for you to spit directly in their face so that they can return the favor.

The Taliban and Al-Queda are examples of insurgency replete with effective organization and tactics. A long time ago, I fought against the Sandanistas in Central America. Cuban and Russian trained, these folks were pussycats compared to the terrorists our men and women are fighting today.

For a pistol to succeed against an Army, one must know the tactics of the Army one is aiming at, and use those tactics against them--more ferociously and mercilessly than that which is being employed against they who hold the pistol.

Jeff

joop
July 8, 2008, 09:59 PM
I agree with Makster--there will never be armed rebellion in the US because of the whole "bread and circuses" junk. Hopefully, politicans will stop pissing on the Constitution and stand up to corporations and do what's right.

Also, in regard to handguns vs army, just look at any case of guerilla warfare against a conventional army.

gallo
July 9, 2008, 02:08 AM
TexasSkyhawk,

By your faulty logic, every enemy I dispatched during my time in uniform was denied due process--even though some of them were wearing clothing made by DuPont (whom we used to call "not-so-smart bombs).

That is not my logic. Remember, my argument is regarding the 6th amendment, so it only applies to those enemy combatants that are imprisoned. The government needs to present charges accompanied by evidence against them or release them back to their country.

Were the nice chaps who flew into our World Trade Center terrorists, or just misunderstood? According to your flawed logic, we'll never know because they never received due process.

Again, if any had survived, I'm sure the government would have pressed charges and a court would have decided their sentence. The master minds are currently under trial.

I would also respectfully ask that you display a little respect for those Marines you refer to as "Blackwater team of jarheads."

If you wish to spit on a soldier, it would be preferable for you to spit directly in their face so that they can return the favor.


It has never been my intention to diminish the role of our fine soldiers. I was not aware that the term jarhead was offensive to marines since they are the ones who coined it. Blackwater personnel are often ex-mariness (emphasis on EX), so I don't see how my comment would be offensive to a current marine. In any case, my apologies to the honorable men and women of our armed forces if they find my comment offensive.

I find it ironic that when I express a legitimate concern about not turning a blind eye to the 6th amendment, even when it has to be applied to unlikeable alleged terrorist, you have to exercise restrain. Yet you fought for the liberty of this country as it is embodied by the Bill of Rights.

H088
July 9, 2008, 02:11 AM
Torturing and denying enemy combatants rights is all good until you become one of them :rolleyes:

junyo
July 9, 2008, 02:54 AM
Most of the enemy combatants captured on the battlefield were in no uniform and were members of no organized regular army. To have Geneva convention protections they would need to meet a number of criteria that most of them failed, simple stuff like wearing a uniform so that they can be clearly differentiated from noncombatants. By not doing so, most of them should actually be classified mercenaries or brigands, neither of which categories have very much protections under the Convention.

And yes, while rights are inalienable, the only government required to protect your rights is your own. The US has no more responsibility to protect the rights of unlawful enemy combatants than they do to prosecute civil rights violations in France. Furthermore, the military isn't police, and the circumstances under which they detain people is fairly often not conducive to evident collection or witness interviews. If the combatants want their rights protected they should seek redress from their respective governments. Tellingly, most of the people detained are not wanted back by their home countries. Also tellingly, most of the people that complain about the violated rights of a few thousand people seem to overlook the fact that the US actions have given self determination and universal suffrage to millions of people and that most of those detained have the removal of those rights and the building of a repressive state as the goal that they were carrying arms for.

The point the article is missing is the will in mass is required for successful insurgency. This is the most lacking aspect in the US today. For all the talk of restraining an out of control government, the last 8 years have shown that we can't even rally against a common enemy for more than 6 months after a direct attack. If I were running a repressive government in the US, I'm fairly certain I could find a few bright boys to run divide and conquer games against nascent groups and keep critical numbers from coalescing for a good long time.

Orange_Magnum
July 9, 2008, 12:31 PM
In Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, Detroit, L.A., Atlantic City, places where the American Democrats govern, things have gone wrong. People are poor, afraid, stripped of dignity, all because of what leftwing politics do to people, no matter where in the world it pops up. People are mad at what their politicians have done to them and their cities. Of course the politicians there are worried and seek to disarm the angry mass.

Now, if only the nuts who vote on those politicians would start to think... and stop voting on them. Because if not, soon they will have nothing.

joop
July 9, 2008, 06:03 PM
Orange magnum: it's not just leftwing politics, it's ALL politics.

Zoogster
July 9, 2008, 06:47 PM
Most of the enemy combatants captured on the battlefield were in no uniform and were members of no organized regular army. To have Geneva convention protections they would need to meet a number of criteria that most of them failed, simple stuff like wearing a uniform so that they can be clearly differentiated from noncombatants. By not doing so, most of them should actually be classified mercenaries or brigands, neither of which categories have very much protections under the Convention.

the BILL OF RIGHTS specifically says that ANYONE UNDER U.S. JURISDICTION must be given EQUAL PROTECTION.

Nope they are not protected under the laws designed by and for the benefit of militaries of powerful nations. Laws like those of the Geneva Conventions.

That has little to do with protection under our constitution.

While I don't like the idea of our rights going to people that fight against us, if you were in another nation shouldn't you at least be protected by the rights in thier own system?
Or should you be subject to special foriegner justice?
I think we should set a good example.


Don't worry though if you don't want them to have rights. They will just start sending more of them to places like Egypt, like they do already for special extra cruel torture during interogation. The type our military is not supposed to use.




The Original Post is excellent. A traditional handgun really is an assassination tool rather than a combat arm against a military.

Though one could be setup in a submachinegun role with projectiles designed to defeat soft armor.
That would give it close to the same roles as arms used for that purpose, some created specificly for that role.
Most military sidearms are not setup for that role because they are merely a backup weapon, not a primary weapon.
Full auto and 2-3 round burst handguns exist, and most can be converted. Projectiles still useful on a modern battlefield can also be employed instead of standard ammunition.

TexasSkyhawk
July 9, 2008, 08:51 PM
These posts from folks never in the military or active combat units about military matters and situations really crack me up.

A traditional handgun really is an assassination tool rather than a combat arm against a military.

I rest my case.

While I certainly would not want to go up against an entire brigade armed with only my old Gov't 1911, there is a reason that handguns are still a standard part of today's military--and probably always will be.

Jeff

Zoogster
July 9, 2008, 08:59 PM
These posts from folks never in the military or active combat units about military matters and situations really crack me up. A traditional handgun really is an assassination tool rather than a combat arm against a military.
I rest my case.



You presume to know more than you do.


You obviously did not read the original post that comment goes with.


Most modern militaries in the world now use body armor, body armor that defeats traditional handguns (and several rifle calibers in various spots with plates).
It might not be the most noticable thing when you are tackling insurgents and dirt poor adversaries, but if you take on regular troops, as this thread is dealing with then it is important.

The only places a traditional handgun would effectively down a soldier in modern armor wearing adequate helmets is in a tiny portion of the head, and the spine of the neck. Even then only very small portion of the exposed head, not most of the exposed face which can be just a superficial wound.
That requires one to be quite close.
You are not going to get that close engaged in a fire fight with troops using rifles, and while being shot at with those rifles at close range and have a good chance of delivering rounds to that limited area.

So against modern troops a traditional handgun is worthless for killing unless you get right up close and kill them while they are not attacking you. That is called assassination.

Yes assassination, just like I said.

While I certainly would not want to go up against an entire brigade armed with only my old Gov't 1911, there is a reason that handguns are still a standard part of today's military--and probably always will be.
Your "Gov't 1911" .45 ACP would not do any damage to a soldier in body armor with plates designed for rifle rounds.
Lets give an example. The Tyler Texas Courthouse shooting. Where Mark Allen Wilson, a CCW holder armed with coincidentaly a .45 , fired at the subject not even shooting at him, a target without any head protection on. The rounds merely impacted his body armor, Arroyo the shooter armed with a rifle, turned his attention on the CCW holder, and proceeded to execute him after chasing him around a pickup truck.

That was one target not expecting to be shot, and without head protection like most soldiers have.
.45 ACP is one of the absolute worst defensive cartridges against body armor because its low energy and wide diameter spreads that limited energy over a wide area already. The area it is spread over is increased even further in expanding ammo. The armor then spreads it over an even wider area.


If we went into a large scale, long term, extensive war against modern forces with a modern military, most traditional handguns would be phased out of service. Replaced by something more adequate for defeating at least pistol rated armor.
Of course we would likely use nuclear weapons in such a conflict, so how long it would last is questionable, perhaps not long enough for improvements.

Yes the military is often slow to upgrade pistols because they are a secondary arm. What is issued does not impact the outcome or performance of the soldier that much as a secondary arm, and currently our military is fighting enemies that do not have standard issue body armor. So outdated weapons, in either .45ACP or the 9mm that makes NATO happy is just fine.

strambo
July 9, 2008, 11:09 PM
While I don't like the idea of our rights going to people that fight against us, if you were in another nation shouldn't you at least be protected by the rights in thier own system?A system I was trying to violently overthrow?:scrutiny: Umm...no, I wouldn't expect to receive the same treatment that citizens of the government I was trying to destroy enjoy. I would hope for a miserable, but torture free ("real" torture free not what some whiny Americans consider "torture") captivity and a speedy trial in a kangaroo court and a swift execution.

An indefinite stay at Gitmo with the luxuries they enjoy is a huge bonus for them, especially since they could have been killed on the battlefield.

shdwfx
July 9, 2008, 11:57 PM
my argument is regarding the 6th amendment, so it only applies to those enemy combatants that are imprisoned.

POWs have never had access to our court system as a venue for release.

Please explain why these terrorists, unprotected by Geneva, should receive more consideration and privileges than legitimate POWs?

danweasel
July 9, 2008, 11:59 PM
The theory doesn't work against the overwelming tech advantage and training of the US military.

How many Iraqi rebels are attacking us with US weapons?

I didn't see any. I have heard about it. Sort of. Maybe.

Che Guevara and a bunch of other people have said that the opening campaign of any armed insurgency is to make small attacks to gain more weapons and ammo. Yes, but they and all other successful rebels fought only hand me down equipped, not exactly the best trained armies. Doesn't mean you can't win. It just means you have to win politically. Ala Vietnam, Iraq, Ireland and such.

If the army came to your door to drag your @$$ to Guantanamo and you shot a few of em and took their rifles you better live near a big deep swamp, go in and never come out again. If you think you are going to win that one without an organized, massive, and physical/mentally prepared force (hard to organnize with the senate passing the phone tap bill), well, I'm going to disagree.

Just my uneducated opinion. Feel free to bitch me out/make me look dumb-I can take it.

Dan

TexasRifleman
July 10, 2008, 12:01 AM
The theory doesn't work against the overwelming tech advantage and training of the US military.

How many Iraqi rebels are attacking us with US weapons?

Oh it would most certainly work. Just because the Iraqi insurgents are not using US weapons doesn't mean the tactic is unsound it's simply that Iraqi insurgents are being provided plenty of arms from other sources.

If you think you are going to win that one without an organized, massive, and physical/mentally prepared force (hard to organnize with the senate passing the phone tap bill), well, I'm going to disagree.

If you are alone you are right. If 4 million other armed Americans are shooting back at the same time, things change.

It just means you have to win politically.

If US troops start kicking in doors of US citizens en masse a political victory would be quite easy.

danweasel
July 10, 2008, 12:09 AM
I am not trying to start a personal argument on this thread but..

Even if somehow 4 million people care to band together (remember this is the government {good at shaping mass opinion} they are forming up against and you are a "terrorist" or a "rebel" or something like that right?) I think that a few Raptors, some Apaches or AC-130s with IR and big accurate weapons (not your M-4s and 30-30 lever guns) and a bunch of satelites and unmanned, hellfire shooting predators, uhhhhh... Abrams tanks, Strykers, Bradleys and other such things... Yeah I think you're pretty screwed.

Im just saying...

TexasRifleman
July 10, 2008, 12:24 AM
Yeah I think you're pretty screwed.

You assume these 4 million are all standing together in a field somewhere.

They historically are not grouped together in this manner.

All the AC130's will do is kill innocents, helping gain the political victory sooner.

Look at the uproar today when the US military has an accidental killing of non-combatants.

What if the building being razed by the AC130 is a school outside Denver for example, because someone targeted the wrong thing. Happens every day in combat to one extent or another.

The idea that the US Army, or any army, has the sophistication to surgically remove millions of citizens is ludicrous. If it were possible to do what you describe we would have been done and out of Iraq many years ago.

How do these sophisticated armys detect who the badguys are in a shopping mall, in a grocery store? Historically it's been almost impossible, including the action in which we are currently engaged.

joop
July 10, 2008, 12:27 AM
zoogster:
the Geneva conventions only deal with protections given to POWs in conflict.
Our own Constitution describes rights of men, which are never to be infringed.

Question is, does the Constitution only apply to US Citizens? I don't think so. We should uphold the Constitution to everyone we have jurisdiction over (like it says) instead of finding slimy ways to have unscrupulous allies torture them for us.

We should be a light unto the world, a shining beacon of democracy and freedom.
(sorry if it sounded a little corny at the end)

TexasSkyhawk
July 10, 2008, 12:32 AM
The only places a traditional handgun would effectively down a soldier in modern armor wearing adequate helmets is in a tiny portion of the head, and the spine of the neck. Even then only very small portion of the exposed head, not most of the exposed face which can be just a superficial wound.

Let me guess. . . you read this in a book somewhere or on the internet, right?

Because you sure haven't seen in it in person while you had a gun in your hand and the guy trying to kill you a few paces away had a gun in his hand.

So against modern troops a traditional handgun is worthless for killing unless you get right up close and kill them while they are not attacking you. That is called assassination.

Yes assassination, just like I said.

You should go teach at the JFK school at Bragg. . . .

If we went into a large scale, long term, extensive war against modern forces with a modern military, most traditional handguns would be phased out of service. Replaced by something more adequate for defeating at least pistol rated armor.
Of course we would likely use nuclear weapons in such a conflict, so how long it would last is questionable, perhaps not long enough for improvements.

Soon as I go clean the bovine excrement off my Tony Lamas, and then forward this pearl of wisdom to my buddies in our VFW post, I'm adding you to my Ignore list.

There's a difference between opinion, opinion based uopn experience, and flat-out misinformation based upon prejudicial interpretations arrived at from watching too much Military Channel replete with retired generals who hadn't seen action since their O-1 days.

Not all armys are "modern" as you envision. In fact, most are not. In many climates, the body armor you describe is a hindrance and can end up being detrimental to your well-being--so it is not worn.

Additionally, it was kinda hard for us to wear all that body armor you describe under our wetsuits (even harder under the occasional dry suit) on the way out to an oil rig or rogue ocean-going vessel. Guess we shoulda considered it, but those damn rigs and vessels were hard enough to board as it was.

But with the price on the other end being that the bad guys could only kill me by shooting me in a minute, remote area of my spine. . . hell, it might've been worth wearing.

If it didn't drown me first.

Jeff

gallo
July 10, 2008, 12:42 AM
POWs have never had access to our court system as a venue for release.

Please explain why these terrorists, unprotected by Geneva, should receive more consideration and privileges than legitimate POWs?

No all armies wear conventional uniforms. This not withstanding, the Supreme Court already ruled unconstitutional to hold enemy combatants without due process.

I don't know what other explanation you need.

Wes Janson
July 10, 2008, 12:48 AM
Who said the line "You can hide some of the politicians all of the time, or all of the politicians some of the time"?

Zoogster
July 10, 2008, 12:57 AM
You obviously take everything out of context. TexasSkyhawk.
The post is about handguns, and thier use against professional soldiers.

Let me guess. . . you read this in a book somewhere or on the internet, right?
No, it is fairly obvious as the most unprotected vital locations on a soldier in modern body armor.
I didn't say they were easy targets, which is exactly why I said a traditional handgun is a poor weapon for anything except an assassination against a modern soldier in body armor.

Not all armys are "modern" as you envision. In fact, most are not.
Yet the Germans as mentioned in the OPs story were the most modern military in the world, it would be the equal of taking on the US military today.
Many militaries of the world are equiped with body armor standard, including most of the first and second world. Even some of the third world.

Yet you would highlight just the third world armies, which have little to do with standard issued gear a more modern military will have as it relates to handguns, the focus of this thread?
The forces put into contact with civilians on a regular basis from a modern military will be so equiped.

But with the price on the other end being that the bad guys could only kill me by shooting me in a minute, remote area of my spine. . . hell, it might've been worth wearing.
The thread is about handguns. Traditional handguns are poor performers against body armor, especialy armor designed to provide some protection against rifles.
Yes I am sure you can find many examples where the armor is a burden, but you are going for the extreme. Scuba diving, maritime interdictions, I mean come on. We are talking about forces most civilians are coming into contact with on dry land. Not the exceptions.

Those forces will be wearing body armor over most of thier torsos and helmets that defeat most pistol rounds. Not exiting the water in wetsuits, or boarding the civilian's private yacht.

You had a problem with:
Of course we would likely use nuclear weapons in such a conflict, so how long it would last is questionable, perhaps not long enough for improvements.

You don't think the US would resort to nukes facing a first world military? The type of Military possessed by most of the forces of Europe, China, Russia etc?
I think such escalation would happen fairly soon. In fact we had this whole thing called the Cold War and both sides essentialy promised just that for decades while in an arms race.

zoogster:
the Geneva conventions only deal with protections given to POWs in conflict.
Our own Constitution describes rights of men, which are never to be infringed.
Which is exactly what I said. My post was in agreement with that, but I mentioned it hardly matters because they will just end up in places now without those protections.

frogger42
July 10, 2008, 01:02 AM
A handgun can allow you to kill an enemy soldier and take his rifle... and food... and water... and ammo... and anything else of use.

danweasel
July 10, 2008, 01:05 AM
The whole point is there will not be 4 million. And if there was they would get reduced to about 10,000 in a couple WEEKS. After that it will continue too go down. Since when do civilians matter all that much? Remember the "outrage" after Waco? Insurgencies work by dragging conflicts out. Not by getting shot up by a couple gunships. You are NOT going to blend in here because you will not have the support of the population. Everyone in Amerca these days wants to believe that the government is acting in their best interest and therefore will inform on you, especially for a few thousand bucks. You will not have the advantage of being "oppressed and occupied by the infidel". You will just look like a bunch of "militia nutjobs". Or anarchists. Trust me your message won't get out to the point that you need it to to win politically.

Oh, and a 130 could take you out without civilian casualties even if you are IN the other end of an occupied school building. It can put steel on steel all day long so I doubt it would miss your "hideout". The man (shorter than the government) will see you through walls have a map of your location and you won't even hear it coming. Unless you want to take a few hostages. Winning the populous over I see? What kind of terrorist would take over a school anyways? Any dead kids are going to be on you-not them.

The army is more mobile, better equipped, has more popular support, is better trained, in better shape, has better intelligence than any 10,000 "Homegrown American Insurgents" (this healthy number is based on how many I am thinking would really load up a ruck and head out to the assembly area when the call reaches them, In time to make a difference and without getting caught on the way) could ever hope to in 20 years of battfield accuisition. How many Irishmen were ready to ready to fight a foreign army in there own country, with the (general) support of the population? Do you think they would have won if they took hostages out of the general public? Or occupied schools?

That's what I am giving you. 10,000 at the very most. And a lot of hard times ahead. Basically, if you try to start a full-on armed revolution in the US you will die.

justin 561
July 10, 2008, 01:40 AM
Our adversary appears to be doing better in the armament dept. than your typical American gun owner:

They could have the best weapons in the world, if they're poorly trained, they're going to be slaughtered. Alot of the skirmishes in the Iraq theater are high casualties for resistance due to the lack of training.

shdwfx
July 10, 2008, 01:42 AM
You don't think the US would resort to nukes facing a first world military? The type of Military possessed by most of the forces of Europe, China, Russia etc?

Of course. But nukes aren't going to do a government any good if the people they're trying to off is...their own citizens.

TexasSkyhawk
July 10, 2008, 01:53 AM
We are talking about forces most civilians are coming into contact with on dry land. Not the exceptions.

Let's see. . . thinking back to '79 and Cambodia--didn't see much body armor there, but they sure were scrappy and mean. Then there was Egypt and Libya in '81 . . . El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama . . . then back to Sandland in 90-91, Bosnia. . .

Hell, I haven't met a modern "first world or second world" army yet that we needed to fight, or one that intended to invade us.

What modern armies have you come up against and had to fight that were clad head to toe in nuke-proof armor?

The thread is about handguns. Traditional handguns are poor performers against body armor, especialy armor designed to provide some protection against rifles.

And I never said it wasn't.

What I'm saying is you know exactly zilch about what actually goes on in combat on a battlefield. So your torso is protected. Great.

Your legs ain't. And if you're not mobile, you're dead.

Your arms ain't. And if you can't hold a weapon and fight back or operate a radio, or use your hands to tend to your other wounds, you're dead.

And while you're tending to your wounds, or lying there because I just shot your legs up, I got plenty of time to draw a bead on your little fraction of face (which, I'll guarantee you will NOT be a superficial wound as you so mistakenly stated earlier), after which I'll take your rifle, frags and anything else of use to me.

Then I'm going to go find your buddy and do the same to him, then give HIS rifle and frags and ammo to MY buddy, who's trained like I am and has been there, then we're going to use our newly acquired rifles and go acquire some larger rifles.

Nobody ever talked about using handguns for the duration. Handguns are a tool. You foolishly state they are of no value or use on today's battlefield against the "modern soldier's armor."

I say you're wrong.

Jeff

qwert65
July 10, 2008, 02:15 AM
People seem to think the insurgents will be off in the woods fighting. they would be crushed that way.

However, if they operated like the french resistance normal everyday people by day/freedom fighters by night. How would the goverment track people down?

Zoogster
July 10, 2008, 03:15 AM
What are you talking about Texas Skyhawk?

Let's see. . . thinking back to '79 and Cambodia--didn't see much body armor there, but they sure were scrappy and mean. Then there was Egypt and Libya in '81 . . . El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama . . . then back to Sandland in 90-91, Bosnia. . .
Okay third world nations, before current body armor was even widely fielded.

Has little to do with civilians facing the most modern and powerful military forces that would in fact have modern equipment. This was a comparison of what a handgun was good for against German troops and how that relates to handgun use today.

Not what it can do in some third world undeveloped nation.

Hell, I haven't met a modern "first world or second world" army yet that we needed to fight, or one that intended to invade us.
Yes we have been 'fortunate' that the only people we are willing to engage in war with have been third world nations.

What modern armies have you come up against and had to fight that were clad head to toe in nuke-proof armor? What is with these exagerations? We are talking about body armor as worn by modern militaries and how it relates to traditional handguns.

What I'm saying is you know exactly zilch about what actually goes on in combat on a battlefield. So your torso is protected. Great.

Your legs ain't. And if you're not mobile, you're dead.

Your arms ain't. And if you can't hold a weapon and fight back or operate a radio, or use your hands to tend to your other wounds, you're dead.
From the perspective of the soldier being attacked or doing the attacking yes.
From the perspective of the civilian armed with a handgun against the soldier no.
You are not going to take down soldiers in modern body armor by shooting them in thier legs and arms with a handgun, and do it quickly enough to avoid return fire by him or his buddies stationed with him.
I will refer you to the North Hollywood shootout since it is widely known and taped for all to reference, where police armed with handguns (and shotguns with buckshot) attempted to do exactly that, and the bad guys were not even trained soldiers, or with head protection (though one did have leg protection).
The bad guys were hit several times. They still fired a number of rounds even if it did effect them. Such hits do not end the targets ability to fight or return fire, even if it makes them immobile. It is a pistol wound, and now you are going to advance on someone you merely wounded whos fellow soldiers will be returning fire, armed with a pistol? You have some confidence.

By the time the first one is downed you need to already be downing the next or retreating. That means you need a decisive shot they don't see coming, not numerous rounds in arms and legs.
If you are in a fire fight with a pistol against soldiers you already did something wrong! Your best bet is to retreat and try again later not attempt to hit them all in thier arms and legs.
You are far better off with an improvised explosive or grenade attack than a pistol attack. Use the pistol to finish off the wounded after the explosives do most of the work. These are soldiers, trained to fight, you don't take them on with a pistol. You don't get to engage in prolonged firefights as the insurgent, that is a quick way to lose. Air support, loyal civilians, other infantry, local LEO etc can all come to thier aid in short order in an urban environment.

As a soldier you can wound other soldiers that way, or enemy combatants, and once wounded you gain the upperhand. You can then advance on the wounded with the advantage, or let them bleed out and need medical treatment.
That is not the case for the insurgent armed with a pistol facing soldiers.
You wounded him in the arms or legs with your pistol, now his team is returning fire with rifles, and he is not incapacitated for the duration of the brief fight himself. Yeah real effective.




People seem to think the insurgents will be off in the woods fighting. they would be crushed that way.

However, if they operated like the french resistance normal everyday people by day/freedom fighters by night. How would the goverment track people down?
Yes especialy now with various thermal optics. The days of guerrillas in the woods are numbered. A helicopter with FLIR can find a normal person in the woods easily.
The body heat gives them away.

Arguably even in the city night favors those would better optical equipment. Only during the day is there an equal playing field in who can see what.
The main threat to fight in such a society is the survelience. Can you imagine an insurgency in a place like London where cameras watch everything all the time, and even if they cannot prevent it, they can track down those responsible by tracking them through the video?
It adds a whole new dimension to blending in. Drop or move something somewhere that later explodes? They will look back through the video, figure out who did it, and do thier best to track you down. Since most of the streets are covered in survelience they can track exactly where you came from and went fairly well. If they have good records of most of the population it is not too difficult.

Survelience will be one of the primary ways to enforce tyranny. Obviously they can attack or arrest anyone that damages the cameras.
All types of cameras can be used, infared, thermal (still expensive for widespread use passive use)etc.
Accurate detailed records of the population, with streamlined databases. I think it will be fairly easy to enforce tyrany in the future.
We are already getting thigns like facial recognition software, cameras that can see under garments and clothing, and many other things that could be passively used on the population as a whole.

Here is an article on the cameras that see under clothing
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3512019.ece

It is already garnering widespread government interest.

Orange_Magnum
July 10, 2008, 10:44 AM
If dangerous leaders come into power in America they will go down like in Dallas. With the evil head removed the stupid body can not function.

Unfortunately, there are so many small steps taken towards socialism that it's difficult where to draw the line.

roger505
July 10, 2008, 11:17 AM
You ask of what use a handgun against an army?

Let me tell you a story, a story of Mindanao, the Japanese army and Mr. Fertig. In 1941 Wendall Fertig was an engineer, building roads and bridges on Mindanao, when MacArthur had him drafted to build fortifications. When the order to surrender came he walked in to the Jungle with a 45 and 2 mags of ammo. With in a week he had six men, a Thompson[no ammo for it], another 45, and 3 rifles with less than 200 rounds. In May 1943 he had 36,000 men, 19,000 who were fully equipped, and a navy. The Japs were sending a army to reinforce New Guiana, they had to be rerouted to Mindanao. This reduced there force on New Guiana by 50%, and probably saved MacArthur's butt. By the time MacArthur invaded, Fertig had driven two army's into the sea and was working on number three

Mr. Fertig had no military experience or training.
After the war he went back to engineering. In the 50's the army formed the Special Forces, they recalled Mr. Fertig to set up the Fort Brag school and establish the Special Forces.

The answer? A pistol, none. A pistol and a man, every thing.

Remember this.
There are no deadly weapons, just dangerous people.

ctdonath
July 10, 2008, 11:24 AM
Excellent anecdote.

hso
July 10, 2008, 11:33 AM
This one's wandered off topic and started a thread within the original thread.

Closed.

ilbob
July 10, 2008, 11:40 AM
I am always a little nervous when we venture into an area of discussion that even remotely suggests some kind of civil war or armed revolt might be an answer to some problem.

I grant you that the founders considered it a basic human right to do so if the situation they faced with their existing government became intolerable, and they installed the 2A as a means to reduce the potential need for it. The 2A was supposed to reduce the need for standing armed forces, which were seen as destructive of liberty, by making the militia the basic unit of collective defense. For various reasons we have gone away from that model, and now we have massive standing armies (I would include paid police in those numbers), and that has certainly contributed to the reduction in liberty we have experienced.

It was also supposed to insure that if it became necessary (a very nebulous term I will grant) that the people would have the means to deal with a tyranical government.

yokel
July 10, 2008, 12:12 PM
Quote:
Our adversary appears to be doing better in the armament dept. than your typical American gun owner:

They could have the best weapons in the world, if they're poorly trained, they're going to be slaughtered. Alot of the skirmishes in the Iraq theater are high casualties for resistance due to the lack of training.

I was just trying to dispel the silly notion that the insurgency in Iraq is forced to make do with nothing more than what one would typically find at a U.S. gun shop.

Who could deny that heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers, recoilless rifles, and small mortars would be more useful in an effort to foil or defeat a standing army than just a handgun?

Naturally, private ownership would have to be accompanied by mandatory training in weapons and tactics as well as their safe storage and transfer.

ilbob
July 10, 2008, 12:18 PM
By the time MacArthur invaded, Fertig had driven two army's into the sea and was working on number three And as I recall, MacArthur's response to the immeasurable contributions Fertig and his indigenous troops made was to deliberately snub him.

TexasSkyhawk
July 10, 2008, 01:00 PM
ilbob,

For the longest time--and the entire time I was in uniformed service--virtually the entire military snubbed their special operations troops. Even the Air Force snubbed their legendary pararescuemen/parajumpers (PJs) even though the only thing standing between a stay in the Hanoi Hilton and freedom was oftentimes a single PJ.

In the Navy, UDT and SEALs were literally persona non grata, and the Army praised their Airborne Rangers, but crapped on their Special Forces (Green Berets) any time they could.

The exception was the Marine Corps, whose attitude has always been "every Marine is an elite soldier." But at times, even the Corps would deal dirt to their recon troops.

Such soldiers, or "operators" are trained to think independently of command in order to survive and succeed. This "independent" thinking goes directly against the mentality and tradition upheld by ring-knocker officers, admirals and generals.

As of late, the value of special operations has been seen and utilized, but the ring-knockers still don't like them very much.


By the time the first one is downed you need to already be downing the next or retreating. That means you need a decisive shot they don't see coming, not numerous rounds in arms and legs.

And you know this because you've done it?

Again, I don't think--no, I KNOW--you don't understand what can often happen on a non-traditional battlefield.

Never discount the value and worthiness of any weapon, let alone a handgun.

A lone handgun against an entire army? That's a ridiculous question.

Handguns against an army? Fair question for those who know, understand and have experience in tactics involving "weapons trade" as we used to call it.

Jeff

roger505
July 10, 2008, 02:08 PM
MacArthur tried to have Fertig court marshaled for not fallowing orders and surrendering. He aided him only when ordered to do so by Roosevelt. The attitude of the regaler army goes back to the stone age and has been held by about every "professional" sense. This can be used by irregulars to there advantage , as every generation of military must learn, often to there regret. Never under estimate the enemy!
A handgun, rifle, tank, is but a tool. The deciding factor is the man wielding it.
Forget this and you will regret it, assuming you survive.

ilbob
July 10, 2008, 02:17 PM
MacArthur tried to have Fertig court marshaled for not fallowing orders and surrendering. Quite true. Fertig proved MacArthur was wrong about the value of irregular troops, and I suspect that is what really irked Mac. His ego was huge, even for a 4 star general. Mac also was a bit of a bigot about the value of officers who did not come from the traditional channels. Despite the plain fact that most of the finest junior combat leaders did not come out of west point.

It also may have offended him that Fertig did not consider Mac to be his social equal. Mac thought that he was the top of the social order (remember his monstrous ego). There was also the issue of Fertig promoting himself to brigadier general.

ctdonath
July 10, 2008, 02:58 PM
You are NOT going to blend in here because you will not have the support of the population.
You WILL blend in here because you are already part of the population. You only stand out if you stand out.

I'm reminded of the exchange between high-ranking leaders of the German and Swiss militaries in WWII as the former was preparing to invade Switzerland (paraphrased):
"We have 400,000 professional troops ready to roll into your country. What will your paltry 200,000 part-timers do?"
"Shoot twice and go home."
Switzerland was never invaded.

About 1/3rd of our population is armed. 18,000,000+ are deer hunters (suitably equipped). Several million are equipped for CCW. None are distinguishable from the rest of the population.
Raptors and Abrams and Sidewinders, oh my! What, pray tell, will they actually do? especially when their opposition need only "shoot twice and go home"?

roger505
July 10, 2008, 03:03 PM
I once had a long talk with a former German WWll field officer who was instructing at the command school on Ft. Leavenworth. He said that of all the armies he faced he least wanted to face the American. The reason was it was not a professional army but an amateur one. And a talented amateur is the most dangerous and hardest to face in combat.
The same can be of the American people, for they are one and the same.

siglite
July 10, 2008, 03:04 PM
What I find kind of amusing, is the assumption that the handgun is the ONLY weapon of an insurgency. Oh, you can bet that if there were an insurgency in the US, handguns would be used, and used extensively. But it would only be one tool.

The most effective tool of an insurgency is the non-insurgent population. They become cover and concealment for the militants. No one is an enemy. Everyone is an enemy. Enemies look like civilians, civilians look like the enemy.

Sure, handguns will play a part in that. But so will a whole lot of other tools. Who would have imagined the military power of the CELL PHONE before .iq and .af? Donkey carts! Broken down cars.

Fortunately, I believe that we're still a very long ways as a nation from having to consider the handgun as a tool against a modern military in our own country. But to think that it won't be utilized in low intensity urban warfare is folly. It will have its place.

ilbob
July 10, 2008, 03:09 PM
Fortunately, I believe that we're still a very long ways as a nation from having to consider the handgun as a tool against a modern military in our own country.I think you are right, but we get closer to the precipice every day.

roger505
July 10, 2008, 03:55 PM
I pry to god that we are not! But if we are, just how many old snake eaters do you think are out there? Just who do you think they will fallow? Remember talented amateurs?
As a case of making lemonade I offer the fallowing true story. A friend of mine was stationed at an Air Force base in Nam, as it was in " a secure area" the commander had all weapons locked in the arms room, with "don't worry, the CQ has a key and will open if need". Well--- they were hit by a company of VC and my friend could not reach the arms room [ they had to brake the door, CQ nowhere to be found]. He took a flight line fire extinguisher and headed for the ditch, making it one jump ahead of a vc who tried to bayonet him. He stuck the nozzle in the vc's face and puled the trigger. This left him with one Charley sickle and a AK, ammo and several grenades. He used this to fight the rest of the night.

Remember.
There are no deadly weapons, just dangerous people.

Justin
July 10, 2008, 04:02 PM
Evidently hso's attempt at closure didn't take.

If you enjoyed reading about "What good can a handgun do against an Army?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!