Are armed citizens overrated?

But didn't the Romans have a "temporary dictator" emergency power that Caesar took advantage of? Didn't he also have an army that was personally loyal to him?

Click to expand...

He did, but you're missing my point. Caesar was killed despite having an army personally loyal to him, and despite having legal dictatorial power, because there were Romans who saw him as the destroyer of the Republic, and were not prepared to tolerate this. That's how strongly some Romans felt about resisting tyranny, and about preserving their republic.

And nevertheless, a couple of centuries later, their descendats were as firmly under the thumbs of their despotic rulers as any people have ever been, excepting perhaps North Korea.

How did that happen? How does it fit into the context of America?

Click to expand...

It happened, in part, just as Madison described, by silent and gradual encroachments. By the 1st century BC, the republic had become politically unstable -- conditions ripe for a strong man who promised to "fix things." Caesar did, and he was popular with the masses. His assassination didn't restore the republic, it just created a power vacuum, and more instability, and sparked another civil war, which lasted from 44BC to AD27. After decades of war, conditions were even more ripe for a strong man, and Augustus didn't have the suspicion and enmity that Caesar faced. As things grew more dangerous and unstable, people were more and more ready to cede their liberty and accept one man rule.

Still, Augustus was careful to cloak his power in a legal fiction of being princeps (i.e. first citizen -- the origin of our word "prince") -- "first among equals" in the Roman senate. It was purely a legal fiction. The Republic was dead, and Augustus was the absolute ruler of the Roman Empire. But his successors maintained the legal fiction for a couple of centuries. This is called the "principate phase" of the Roman Empire. It lasted until the end of the crisis of the third century (more instability -- lots of civil wars), when Diocletian swept away this legal fiction for good, and ruled ostentatiously, like an oriental monarch. This period is called the "dominate phase" of the Empire. It took a long time, but the Roman people were gradually desensitized to authoritarian rule, and the periods of instability made them amenable to charismatic despots who promised to make things better.

To take another example, it was the instability and economic depression of the 30s that made Italy and Germany ripe for takeover by dictators in that era as well.

However it might happen in the US, the details and sequence of events, and catalysts will be different. But gradual erosion of liberty, allowing people time to get used to, and less uncomfortable with restrictions on their freedoms will make them more willing to accept authoritarian rule. And instability or turmoil will make them more willing to listen to demagogues who promise to fix things. There is no reason this can't happen here.

Are armed citizens overrated? Not this one.

The Second Amendment was not put into place so people can overthrow their own popularly elected government.

Click to expand...

Actually it was. We aren't supposed to overthrow a government that's sticking to the constitution but one that trashes our rights and does whatever it wants is prime for revolution according to the teachings of our founding fathers.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

I'm aware of the Mussolini's, Hitlers, Stalins, Pol-Pot's, Idi Amins of the world. But I don't believe that Americans would ever let one of them come to power.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure we haven't already let one come to power. Why does Obama want to fundamentally change America? Change to what? Why is he so intent on taking our rights away from us? Why does he excuse things like the Ft. Hood bomber as "workplace violence" instead of Islamic Jihad? He was raised a Muslim after all. I'm not saying he is a Muslim. I don't think he's anything except a greedy SOB that wants to take total power. He is following the playbook for becoming a dictator you know. Have you read the Rules For Radicals and do you know the intent of those rules? The first thing you do is wreck the economy so you can declare an emergency then you suspend the normal rules of government until things can be set right again. Printing money like crazy is guaranteed to destroy an economy. I'm not talking the depression. I'm talking Argentina where there was no food on the shelves. Did you see the movie about the bank crisis back in 2008? The movie said over and over we wouldn't have food or water or anything else. Was the movie propaganda to promote fear or was it the truth? If it was the truth look how easy it could be to totally destroy our economy. And we are doing all the things needed to destroy an economy. Do you know that George Soros has already used this model to collapse the governments of several countries so he could move in and buy up everything in sight and end up totally controlling those countries? Do you know Soros supports Obama and much of the liberal media like Media Matters and the Daily KOS? The first move Soros always makes is to take control of the media and the mainstream media follows the lead of Media Matters like it's gospel.

Thinking we are immune is exactly what will cause us to fall for these things. We have to be aware of the ways these people become dictators and fight back before they destroy us. Look at how much of the economy Obamacare has taken control of. It's HUGE! We spend more money in this country than every working person makes in wages. How long can that last? Sooner or later our money will be worth NOTHING and we will be scrambling for help from any corner. Enter Obama declaring a national emergency and - martial law.

Don't say it can't happen. They are trying to make it happen now. I've studied this stuff my entire life. I know how totalitarian governments are formed and we are smack dab on that path right now. Why do you think they want our guns so bad? They can't fully control us as long as we are armed. They might kill me but they will never fully control me. I will not be their slave and that is exactly what many want. I can't imagine you haven't heard this before. Start with this list. It details the tactics of the communists that are trying to take over this country and that's exactly what they are. Well they share traits with Nazis too. And don't call me crazy because I know what I'm talking about. I learned this in LIBERAL colleges because they feared the right making these moves. But the left did it first.

Read these "Rules For Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, a self professed communist. Remember that Obama actually taught college courses on using these rules. He may not have the same exact goals of Alinsky but what is important is that he seeks total control over the government which is the main thrust of what the Rules teach - how to gain total power.

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

Here's one thing you may be interested in. It's from Fox so I take what they say with a grain of salt but there are things that can't be denied. Obama taught Alinsky material and he uses his Rules to try to achieve total power. Remember that's the goal - total power - a totalitarian government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd8dKWMeG9k

I don't know that we've outlived our usefulness but I think we might have to rethink the way we conduct ourselves.

I always thought my kit was for emergencies, foreign invaders, civil unrest, and the like. Like a good modern patriot I kept my AR ready with a mag bag full of ammo and 1st aid.

Then I see things like in Boston with SWAT teams and Military going door to door in armored trucks pulling people from their houses and evicting them at gunpoint and I think about what would have happened to me if I lived there and had answered the door with my metaphorical musket and satchel loaded with patch and ball.

In their eyes we are no longer a friend. Just another serf to be corralled like cattle.

Here's a question for all of you. Other Western nations that no longer have widespread arms among the citizenry, the UK, Australia and so on, have they had their freedoms eroded in other areas?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

In the UK there have been restrictions on other civil liberties as well. There is no longer any right to a grand jury; it was abolished in 1933. Britain's highest court has upheld a law ordering newspaper publishers to obtain a government license and to post bond with the government. Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. The American doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" bars use of evidence derived from leads developed in a coerced confession; Britain allows use of such evidence. Even the traditional right to silence has been abolished, as 1994 legislation now allows a defendant's silence to be used as evidence against him. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval. Upon instructions of police administrators, officers in several jurisdictions have begun compiling Japanese-style dossiers on individuals in their locality.

Give this a read: http://guncite.com/journals/okslip.html. It's long, but it's worth the read.

If it wasn't for all the boating accidents we have all had the past 4 months, there WOULD have been a gun behind every blade of grass!

Wars have not been won by rifles for a looong time. Fantasies about regular Joe and his personal AR defeating a modern military, foreign or domestic, are just that..fantasies. People who believe otherwise simply do so because they want to and refuse to maintain any degree of objectivity on the subject. AR15 vs Apache Helicopter with thermal imaging; hmm, who would win? Worst of all this talk makes gun owners look paranoid and delusional.

Wars have not been won by rifles for a looong time. Fantasies about regular Joe and his personal AR defeating a modern military, foreign or domestic, are just that..fantasies. People who believe otherwise simply do so because they want to and refuse to maintain any degree of objectivity on the subject. AR15 vs Apache Helicopter with thermal imaging; hmm, who would win? Worst of all this talk makes gun owners look paranoid and delusional.

Click to expand...

I refer you back to post # 8. Citizens with rifles didn't win the American revolution either, yet the founding fathers unanimously thought the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms vital to preserve.

As Allan Gotlieb observed "Anyone who claims that popular struggles are doomed to defeat by modern military technology must find it literally incredible that France and the United States suffered defeat in Vietnam; that the Shah no longer rules Iran; Somosa (sic) in Nicaragua; that Portugal was expelled from Angola and Mozambique; England from Palestine and Ireland; and France from Algeria."

Countries that have banned guns have had lots of other rights removed as well. GB is even considering censoring the media including the internet now. Read this news article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-seek-to-censor-the-media-1006607.html

Wars have not been won by rifles for a looong time. Fantasies about regular Joe and his personal AR defeating a modern military, foreign or domestic, are just that..fantasies.

Click to expand...

Modern armies aren't the only threats we face. And a few million men with rifles can make a whale of a difference despite what you think. Let's talk about revolutions. Take Cuba for example. What do you think they used to convert to communism? Wars can be and are won with rifles. Not all of them certainly but it is possible. Heck there are gang wars all over this country. Those are just as real to the people being shot at. Dying from a drive by is not a whole lot different from dying by an Apache gun ship. Dead is dead. And it isn't the military that I fear so much as it is the executive branch of our government. Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. come to mind. Maybe that Koresh was a nut. It's hard to say based on what you hear in the media. I KNOW they lie. I've seen them do it many times.

You know a life long friend said the same thing to me about an Apache helicopter and how he wasn't about to face one in battle. First off lots of helicopters were shot down by rifle fire in Vietnam. That's why we now have the Apaches. But there comes a time when you just have to stick up for what you believe whether you have a chance of winning or not. Remember the Alamo friend. The thought still applies. Self sacrifice founded this nation. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I gave it up without a fight. I'd rather be dead. I guess that's hard for some to understand. No one wants to die (except for suicide cases of course). But sometimes it's the right thing to do. Remember that kid who stood in front of a line of tanks in China and blocked them from advancing on Tiananmen Square. He didn't have much chance of defeating them except with his courage. That guy eventually died for his cause. But not before he got his message out to the entire world. Unless we're all willing to stand up we might as well all lay down and learn to like being a slave. I also remember an American who said, "Let's roll" back about 11.5 years ago. And Jimmy Doolittle.

The average American citizen is very different from who he was, say, 150-170 years ago. He knew how to make a chair or a table from the trees on his property. He could live in the woods for a week without having carried in any food or water. He could ride a horse. He could grow vegetables and grains. He could repair just about anything he could operate.

In short, he was self sufficient, independent, a world unto himself. He carried a knife and a gun and had more at home. He used them appropriately and felt no need to defend his choices.

To a large degree, the armed citizen is the self sufficient citizen. It is that which alarms many anti-gunners. They see the gun or know it exists and think the person who has it just might be a person who prefers to make his own choices and be accountable for them. They hate that concept.

So realistically, does our right to keep and bear arms still hold relevance as far as defending ourselves from an outside force, or is that more of a "Red Dawn" fantasy some cling to?

Click to expand...

There is no way to test this aside from things actually going to hell. Would we make a difference? I think so if we used guerrilla tactics and didn't look for a fight. Defend only. As far as driving out an occupying army..... It would take years, but it has happened in the past. Do I think you would see militia style bands of citizens that have enough firepower and ammo to actually repel an invading military force? No. Modern tech really kind of makes that an impossibility. The most citizens could hope to do was be enough of an irritation and widdle down enemy troops over a looooong period of time, force the enemy to spread themselves thin, and hope that our military would then have the advantage and be able to drive them out. Support only would be our role.

As far as the hero mentallity goes in some cc's, I think anyone who is trying to do more than simply protect themselves and the people they care about is playing a dangerous game. If I saw a good oportunity to stop a crime, I certainly would. There is a very heavy line though between protecting oneself and perhaps being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but being armed,able to do something about the situation, and choosing to act. If you aren't a cop, don't try to be a cop.

The folks who say it's too bad that a cc'er didn't find the Boston kid are reacting out of anger. I believe he is guilty, but that doesn't mean he isn't entitled to a fair trial. Due process is a pain, but it is what allows us to live "free."

...our right to keep and bear arms still hold relevance as far as defending ourselves from an outside force...

Click to expand...

I don't believe that our 2nd Amendment rights have anything to do with outside tyranny.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

We hold these truths to be self-evident... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Click to expand...

That's not talking about an outside force.

JustinJ said:

Wars have not been won by rifles for a looong time. Fantasies about regular Joe and his personal AR defeating a modern military, foreign or domestic, are just that..fantasies. People who believe otherwise simply do so because they want to and refuse to maintain any degree of objectivity on the subject. AR15 vs Apache Helicopter with thermal imaging; hmm, who would win? Worst of all this talk makes gun owners look paranoid and delusional.

Click to expand...

That's technically true - going toe to toe with a modern military is certainly not an option for any civilian "force". Defeating a modern military (probably true even for most of antiquity as well) on an open battleground is suicide for even most other militaries. However, I think we could count on a significant portion of our military being on our side (at some point). Consider that, and the use of guerilla tactics could make the governing of any area quite difficult, which, as stated in post #30, is really the whole point. The only realistically achievable objective is to make the other side decide that using force as a means to control you is not worth the effort required. In the context of the 2nd Amendment as primarily a method of last resort to overthrow our own government, one could also consider civilian held firearms as a type of "liberator pistol".

As Allan Gotlieb observed "Anyone who claims that popular struggles are doomed to defeat by modern military technology must find it literally incredible that France and the United States suffered defeat in Vietnam; that the Shah no longer rules Iran; Somosa (sic) in Nicaragua; that Portugal was expelled from Angola and Mozambique; England from Palestine and Ireland; and France from Algeria."

Click to expand...

Vietnam?! Do you honestly believe the US was "defeated" by peasants armed with their personal firearms? Might it not have had something to do with SAM's, fighter jets, artillery, high order explosives, etc from China and the Soviet Union? I don't know about you but my personal collection is lacking those things. The events you cited only happened because external sources supplied the fighters with critical military hardware and/or a portion of the military defected to the rebel side. Allan Gotlieb needs to do a little more homework.

That's technically true - going toe to toe with a modern military is certainly not an option for any civilian "force". Defeating a modern military (probably true even for most of antiquity as well) on an open battleground is suicide for even most other militaries. However, I think we could count on a significant portion of our military being on our side (at some point). Consider that, and the use of guerilla tactics could make the governing of any area quite difficult, which, as stated in post #30, is really the whole point. The only realistically achievable objective is to make the other side decide that using force as a means to control you is not worth the effort required. In the context of the 2nd Amendment as primarily a method of last resort to overthrow our own government, one could also consider civilian held firearms as a type of "liberty pistol".

Click to expand...

If "we" had this military support why would we be using our own weapons to begin with? Making it no longer worthwhile for a foreign invader to remain is something entirely different than beating a government on it's own home turf althoug they both require modern military hardware far beyond just rifle. A government facing an internal rebellion has nowhere to go home to so no matter how big a pain in the ass the opposition becomes the government will not just give up.

monotonous_iterancy said:

A major purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for the effective defense of a free state. From what I understand, the backbone of this defense was to be based off a system similar to what the Swiss have today.

While we don't have hostile nations who could even reach us, in the span of a few generations time, the world could look very different.

Yet, our most recent real life examples don't inspire confidence in me that our right to bear arms would do much of anything to protect us. Granted, most of these cases are against us, but they provide a case study. We lost Vietnam politically, and the Soviets lost Afganistan. Today, we've pretty much won in Iraq, and Afganistan, while not entirely free, is going better than when the Soviets tried.

These examples don't seem to inspire confidence in the 2nd amendment being a safeguard against much except criminals.

So realistically, does our right to keep and bear arms still hold relevance as far as defending ourselves from an outside force, or is that more of a "Red Dawn" fantasy some cling to?

Click to expand...

When it was drafted, the 2nd Amendment was not created to allow hunting, target practice or even self protection. Those things were all taken for granted in those days as the norm of regular activities and security. Instead the 2A's main purpose was to have free citizens never be subjected to a tyrannical government run amok.

How do we know this for sure? You must understand the thinking of the Founding Fathers and people of the time when the Bill of Rights/Constitution was created.

Let me give you a few examples;

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison , author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

------

In my view having studied their thoughts of the time (primarily in the Federalists Papers, but other sources as well), they would want every able bodied citizen to posses an ability to be armed well enough to thwart a tyrannical government run amok.


`

If "we" had this military support why would we be using our own weapons to begin with? Making it no longer worthwhile for a foreign invader to remain is something entirely different than beating a government on it's own home turf althoug they both require modern military hardware far beyond just rifle. A government facing an internal rebellion has nowhere to go home to so no matter how big a pain in the ass the opposition becomes the government will not just give up.

Click to expand...

If there were to be another American civil war, I'm pretty sure some states would wholly be against others. Which was where I was coming from. Individual bands of "civilians" fighting well trained and supplied military forces aren't going to last long even with relative force parity if going head to head (Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, etc.).

If there were to be another American civil war, I'm pretty sure some states would wholly be against others. Which was where I was coming from. Individual bands of "civilians" fighting well trained and supplied military forces aren't going to last long even with relative force parity if going head to head (Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, etc.).

Click to expand...

And in such a scenario each soldier who joined his corresponding state's forces would be issued a rifle.

What many tend to forget is that rebellions have probably established just as many tyrants as they have resisted. Communist revolutions around the world were generally fought for by civilians as well. Taking power by force when their is a democratic means in place is by definition tyranny.

Wouldn't want to get a hangnail.

Originally posted by JustinJ

Vietnam?! Do you honestly believe the US was "defeated" by peasants armed with their personal firearms? Might it not have had something to do with SAM's, fighter jets, artillery, high order explosives, etc from China and the Soviet Union? I don't know about you but my personal collection is lacking those things. The events you cited only happened because external sources supplied the fighters with critical military hardware and/or a portion of the military defected to the rebel side. Allan Gotlieb needs to do a little more homework.

Click to expand...

You really don't get it do you? Wars are won in the will. If you and your comrades are willing to die, if need be, while your opponent isn't, you're side will win, in the end, despite being outgunned. We won almost every military engagement of the Vietnam War. The Tet Offensive is widely seen as the turning point when the fact that the US was losing became undeniable. And yet it was a military disaster for the NVA. They achieved none of their objectives, and were quickly driven back, with massive casualties. The Tet Offensive was significant because it basically broke the will of the American people to keep up the fight -- LBJ, his administration and the Pentagon told the American people we were winning and the enemy couldn't launch an offensive on that scale. The American people, ambivalent about the war to begin with, now felt the government was either lying to them, or was simply running the war incompetently. Either way, they wanted out. In other words, when it became clear that the North Vietnamese were never giving up, no matter how many casualties we inflicted, there was no prospect for victory. We could go on, inflicting massive casualties, winning battle after battle, but they'd just keep on coming. So the prospect is endless bloodshed, with no hope of victory. They can't beat us. But they won't ever give up either. So either we go home, or we keep sending our boys over there to die forever. No thanks. Let's pack it in.

And I refer you again to the example I cited in post #8. The Irish won their independence from the British by a guerrilla campaign where most of the Irish rebels had nothing more to fight with than rifles and handguns. How do you account for this if civilians resistance with small arms is hopeless. The British Empire was the world's foremost power at the time, with artillery, machine guns, tanks, airplanes, and thousands of veteran troops with recent combat experience from the first World War. And they lost! To a handful of rebels with small arms. Explain this, if your thesis is correct.

I can explain it. They did the same thing the Vietnamese did decades later. They made their enemy realize they were never going to give up or surrender, and all he could look forward to was endless strife, expense, and bloodshed, trying to hold a country down that couldn't be held. The British said Uncle and came to the negotiation table, and the Irish won their independence.

This is how insurgents win. They use guerrilla warfare, and outlast the enemy, until his will to keep fighting is exhausted. And if you think this doesn't happen, I think it is you, not Allan Gotlieb, who needs to do your homework.

See what two dudes with some pressure cookers did to Boston and the nation.. and what a handful did with some box-cutters.. especially financially. what was the question? allow me to say har