Certaindeaf
member
Because America.
Excellent postThe Founders also believed very, very strongly that we should have no federal standing army. Only state militias and perhaps a frontier force or a special purpose force like the Legion of the United States. So in this context, it would truly be impossible for a tyrant to take over. Because the very act of raising militias was a kind of democratic process involving votes of support or refusals to recognize authority.
Since WW2 our betters in DC decided they needed us to keep spending trillions on national defense and that we needed a huge standing army. Without getting into the merits of this, it has created a stress on the notion that an armed citizenry can block tyranny. But I don't see that stress as any reason to disarm. Hopefully we can find a way to avoid Rome's fate.
He has many of those powers right now. And he has a Praetorian guard in the form of the Secret Service. And he's very frustrated with the "failings" of the Senate. The parallels are certainly enough to give pause to any student of history. I know this much--now is not the time to lay down arms.
Apaches cost a fortune. Their weapons are expensive. Their crews are expensive. And when you're killing the people paying for those tools, the end result is a death spiral for the government. You cannot slaughter every tax payer. If the household guns do nothing more than give people the idea that they need not obey, then they have done their job. Because what really props up dictators isn't the bombs or jets, it's the belief that there is nothing that can be done. And what really brings them down is the belief among enough people that they CAN be brought down. Plus nobody is truly bulletproof. Helicopter crews have to sleep somewhere--in this case back in the same neighborhoods they bombed. They have families there. And every one of them has to think long and hard before deciding to back the hand of some nutcase wearing a crown, when all his neighbors can retaliate after the day is done.
I've seen enough supposedly powerful dictators put up against walls and stabbed in the backside in my lifetime to conclude resistance is never futile. And for every one of them who died screaming, a dozen took last-minute deals to avoid that fate and concede power to the rebellion. Believe me none of these guys wants to die with a knife in his fundament.
No need to insult me.
Lots of insurgencies fail. The Irish had to endure 700 years under English rule before they finally launched a rebellion that succeeded. It doesn't just depend on the availability of arms; tactics, popular support, organization, keeping spies and infiltrators out of the ranks of the resistance, etc. etc. are all just as important.If an armed citizenry is so effective, why did all the anti-Communist resistance movements in countries occupied by the Soviets after the war fail?
I quipped to Fred, that Tench Coxe's quote above ought to have been the Appleseed motto, and barring that, made the a/s psalm. The latter especially since every time I read that quote I have a reflex to append "Amen" to it.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"
Probably the best way to explain it right here. As another member said, great post.The Founders also believed very, very strongly that we should have no federal standing army. Only state militias and perhaps a frontier force or a special purpose force like the Legion of the United States. So in this context, it would truly be impossible for a tyrant to take over. Because the very act of raising militias was a kind of democratic process involving votes of support or refusals to recognize authority.
Since WW2 our betters in DC decided they needed us to keep spending trillions on national defense and that we needed a huge standing army. Without getting into the merits of this, it has created a stress on the notion that an armed citizenry can block tyranny. But I don't see that stress as any reason to disarm. Hopefully we can find a way to avoid Rome's fate.
He has many of those powers right now. And he has a Praetorian guard in the form of the Secret Service. And he's very frustrated with the "failings" of the Senate. The parallels are certainly enough to give pause to any student of history. I know this much--now is not the time to lay down arms.
Apaches cost a fortune. Their weapons are expensive. Their crews are expensive. And when you're killing the people paying for those tools, the end result is a death spiral for the government. You cannot slaughter every tax payer. If the household guns do nothing more than give people the idea that they need not obey, then they have done their job. Because what really props up dictators isn't the bombs or jets, it's the belief that there is nothing that can be done. And what really brings them down is the belief among enough people that they CAN be brought down. Plus nobody is truly bulletproof. Helicopter crews have to sleep somewhere--in this case back in the same neighborhoods they bombed. They have families there. And every one of them has to think long and hard before deciding to back the hand of some nutcase wearing a crown, when all his neighbors can retaliate after the day is done.
I've seen enough supposedly powerful dictators put up against walls and stabbed in the backside in my lifetime to conclude resistance is never futile. And for every one of them who died screaming, a dozen took last-minute deals to avoid that fate and concede power to the rebellion. Believe me none of these guys wants to die with a knife in his fundament.
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.
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?
I never said it was all it takes. Don't distort my argument.
And if you think that was the reason, you are ignorant of history. Professional armies have ALWAYS enjoyed a tremendous advantage over citizens, all the way back to ancient times. Back in the days of the American Revolution, Washington didn't beat the British with militia. He couldn't, and knew it. He had to raise and train a professional army of his own (enter Baron von Steuben), and get artillery and better arms and equipment from the French. Yet he and the rest of the founding fathers still saw it as vital to keep the citizenry armed.
For the umpteenth time, guerrillas don't come out onto an open battlefield.
Our army consists of roughly half a million active, and another half million reserve troops. Our population is over 300 million people. How do you expect an army, even one as advanced as ours, to hold down a population over 300 times its own size, scattered and without unified strong points that can be taken to end the war, when that population is determined to resist, many are willing to die, many of the soldiers don't really want any part of fighting their own people, etc. etc.?
Syrian rebels are laying down their arms. Assad thanks you for convincing them it's futile. Tyrants around the world rejoice Americans acknowledge their superiority.
The Vietnamese have officially surrendered to us as well since they too are convinced armed struggle against the American military was futile.
And small arms ARE effective weapons, when used in conjunctions with the right tactics.Originally posted by JustinJ
Then what's your point? Obviously it takes will to win a conflict but it takes other things, including effective weapons, which is what we're talking about.
I'm not "stuck" anywhere. I'm looking at the whole scope of history, from the guerrilla campaigns of Quintus Sertorius in Roman republican times to the recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.Originally posted by JustinJ
If you believe the disparity of force between the american militia and the english army is comparable to the disparity of force between american citizens and a modern military today you ought not be calling anybody ignorant of history. Most armies struggle to evolve past fighting in the same manner as their previous war and you're still stuck 100 years back.
Don't be obnoxiously obtuse. The point is -- and you damn well know it, so stop dodging and making smart ass comments --, that the point I am making is that small-scale engagements and ambushes, to say nothing of assassinations of key government or military figures -- all hallmarks of guerrilla tactics -- are precisely where small arms are most useful. The point is that guerrillas, if they are smart, avoid like the plague fighting pitched battles where heavy weapons or high tech weapons are most decisive. Instead they use hit and run tactics to strike and get away again before the enemy can bring his superior firepower to bear.Originally posted by JustinJ
Ah, so body armor only works in open battlefield? I guess thermal does too?
Yes, no tyrant in history has ever used military force to maintain his power after whatever popular support he once enjoyed has withered away and most of the people hate him. Never happened.Originally posted by JustinJ
If the entire population supports your imaginary revolt then there really woudn't be need for armed conflict, now would there?
So what? In Ireland they didn't. They got a handful of tommy guns from sympathizers in the States, but that was about it. They still won.Originally posted by JustinJ
Okay, for the very last time. The resistance fighters are or did receive substantial military aid from defecting military and/or external governments. They did not just grab the rifles out of their closets, since very few had any to begin with, and take down a modern military force.
As an aside, I would like to point out that during World War 2, we had the bulk of our ground combat forces outside the Continental United States (CONUS). If one of our neighbors (to remain unnamed) had decided that it was a good time to regain lost territory and launched a major ground attack across the border, what forces would have been available to resist? Armed civilians organized into state guard units or resisting spontaneously as levees en masse. Red Dawn? Hardly, but unequal combat to start with since many of the neighboring country's senior soldiers had experience in what seemed to be near continuous revolutions. However, there were many veterans of World War One among the armed civilians who would have been called to resist.
I don't think armed citizens are overrated.
ECS
CPT, AR
USA (Ret)
And small arms ARE effective weapons, when used in conjunctions with the right tactics.
Don't be obnoxiously obtuse. The point is -- and you damn well know it, so stop dodging and making smart ass comments --, that the point I am making is that small-scale engagements and ambushes, to say nothing of assassinations of key government or military figures -- all hallmarks of guerrilla tactics -- are precisely where small arms are most useful. The point is that guerrillas, if they are smart, avoid like the plague fighting pitched battles where heavy weapons or high tech weapons are most decisive. Instead they use hit and run tactics to strike and get away again before the enemy can bring his superior firepower to bear.
Yes, no tyrant in history has ever used military force to maintain his power after whatever popular support he once enjoyed has withered away and most of the people hate him. Never happened.
So what? In Ireland they didn't. They got a handful of tommy guns from sympathizers in the States, but that was about it. They still won.
It really is just this simple: if you were a tyrant, or a would be tyrant, and wanted to impose your will on a populace, would you prefer that they be armed or unarmed?
The right tactics means making the best use of the weapons you do have, and being smart and hitting the enemy where he's vulnerable, and avoiding him where he's strong. You can cause a lot of mayhem with just small arms if you use them intelligently. Guerrillas know this, even if you don't.Originally posted by JustinJ
The "right tactics" include use in conjunction with military equipment that I'm guessing you probably don't have.
So what? You seem to be arguing from the premise that a popular resistance by people using personally owned small arms must somehow necessarily be limited only to those small arms, and the guerrillas will never be able to obtain other weaponry. This is NONSENSE. No guerrilla force ever fought that way. But if I were organizing a resistance movement, I would sure as hell prefer my resistance fighters start out with some weaponry rather than none. It would sure as hell make acquiring other weapons easier as the conflict unfolds.Originally posted by JustinJ
Uh huh. Once again, unless you have effective modern military weapons, you're just going to die tired after you waste a couple of rounds. What you seem to not understand, willfully, is that modern militaries have spent the last 70 years or so fighting against guerilla tactics and the technology has evolved dramatically to counter it. Hit and run is pointless when all you can do is deliver little love taps. This is exactly why insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have resorted to converting military grade explosives and shells into IED's. Yes, they use guerilla tactics but when they do engage in direct contact it is in conjuction with mortars, RPG's, grenades, machine guns, radio communications, etc.
So? You're looking at things in very unrealistic, black and white terms. If you are a soldier in an army that is 1/300th the size of the population you are trying to hold down, it goes without saying that some of those 300 are going to be collaborators, some are going to be people who just want to ignore both sides of the conflict, some are going to be hostile, and some are going to be active rebels. But how do you know which ones are which? You somehow have to keep watch over them all. And the harsher the methods you use to keep them down, the more you risk pushing more and more people into the rebel camp, as well as losing the support of those on your own side who are uncomfortable with such harsh measures. In addition to ambushes and bombs and so forth, the rebels will be engaging in sabotage, destroying the infrastructure you depend on to maintain your high tech military. A resistance movement, if it has enough support from a population, can make life pure hell for an occupying army. Enough to make them give up sometimes.Originally posted by JustinJ
You threw out the entire population of the united states and now it's mostof the population.
Originally posted by JustinJ
Wow, seriously, get off Ireland. Both sides were equipped with essentially the same weapons. WE LIVE IN A DIFFERENT WORLD.
Then why have tyrants throughout history always sought to deprive their people of arms?Originally posted by JustinJ
No, I'm afraid there is a little more to it than that. Just because a tyrant would prefer his opposition not be armed does mean they are anything more than a minor annoyance.
If you can explain the point you're trying to make with your arguments, and do it in under three sentences, could you please do that for me?
And in addition, since you SEEM (I could be wrong) to be arguing why the 2nd Amendment ISN'T relevant to modern America, would you mind telling me why you support it, if you do at all?