lazarus
Member
IS THE ARMED CITIZEN OBSOLETE?
The modern revisionist historians and anti-gunners amongst the effete liberal class here in the United States latest "interpretation" of the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is that while guns were perfectly logical in a Colonial times, today they are unnecessary and obsolete. Today we have large, modern and effective police forces (and para military groups?) and other arms of government to keep us safe from the criminals. And more importantly the myth of the Armed Citizen defending his country went out when all the modern high tech weaponry became available to military and government forces. Today, the armed citizen with his rifle is no match for "smart bombs" and F-16's.
This is a view only shared by arm chair wimps who have never been there and never done that. The efficacy of the armed citizen with his rifle has been proved over and over in the twentieth century, including the "eighties" and "nineties." Stephen P. Halbrook, author of THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED, has recently written TARGET SWITZERLAND: SWISS ARMED NEUTRALITY IN WORLD WAR II. More in a minute.
The American view on the armed citizen was pretty much proven during the American Revolution. The British Army, one of the best equipped and trained in Europe, set out to seize a Colonial arms depot in Concord. At Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge they met the American Minute Men, the armed citizen, the militia. The British failed in their mission and were harried back to Boston where they were besieged. The Minute Men gave the Colonial Governments time to muster and train a professional army under George Washington. The British were forced to evacuate Boston. The War of American Independence would drag on for years. The armed citizen and militia would play a role in many of the battles that led to the founding of the United States of American and the Constitution.
The Civil War was fought by armed citizens from both the North and the South rallying to the "cause." Militia companies in numerous towns and cities were the foundations of many of the regiments that went into battle. At the height of the Civil War well over a million men were in the field, starting from a professional peace time army numbering a few thousand and officers in the hundreds.
Again in World War I and II armed citizens would make up the vast majority of soldiers, sailors and airmen. Reserve officers would make up the majority of the staffs and even command divisions, corps, warships and task forces that would defeat the Axis powers.
The American Civil War is recognized as the first modern war, where technology played a more important role than brute physical strength. World War I and II continued and expanded on the role of technology, leading ultimately to the Atomic Bomb, about as far from the armed citizen with his rifle as one can get. Yet, even in World War II the citizen with his rifle played a pivotal role.
Switzerland was neutral during World War II. How did that happen? Stephen Halbrook in TARGET SWITZERLAND tells us. Switzerland depended upon an armed citizen militia. Each man had his rifle and 46 rounds of ammunition at home. If and when war came, the Swiss could put a large force into the field within 24 to 48 hours.
Nazi Germany laid many plans to invade and conquer Switzerland both before and after the war started in September 1939. But each time they decided to postpone or cancel invasion plans. Why? Because the Swiss had several factors in their favor. They had a very high percentage of male citizens armed and trained for war. This went from about 200,000 to over 850,000 during the war. The terrain also favored the Swiss; they had the Alps and heavily fortified what they called the National Redoubt. The Germans depended upon the rail routes through the Alps controlled by the Swiss who were prepared to destroy them and their strategic tunnels. Also both Axis and Allied Powers depended upon Swiss neutrality for political, diplomatic and espionage activities.
But, the most important reason was that the Swiss had decreed that they would not surrender; surrender was forbidden. Every man would defend his position to the last. There could be no surrender and no retreat. Also the Swiss were the best marksmen in Europe. The Swiss at the beginning of the war had an army made up of riflemen, with only a smattering of artillery and less than a score of modern combat aircraft. Yet, they intimidated the founders of the "Blitzkrieg" warfare, the very embodiment of high tech weapons and tactics in 1939-1943.
The Swiss succeeded because they had the will to win, the will to resist and the means to inflict unacceptable casualties on the Germans. The Germans realized this and decided that a neutral Switzerland was more important than a "third front" that would bleed the Wehrmacht dry.
So what does this have to do with the "nineties?" Look around the world. The Soviets got clobbered and were bled dry by the Afghans who were armed citizens, citizens with rifles, many "obsolete." Yet they are determined to live free or die. More importantly they were willing to let the Soviets die as well. The armed citizen gave the Afghans time to organize, train and equip, with a lot of outside help, and defeat the Soviet Army.
Other examples abound of armed citizens defying modern high tech armies and defeating invading hordes of blunting their objectives. In Somalia the best Americans could field, Delta Force, Rangers, Special Operations Forces were fought to a stand still by a bunch of rag tag armed citizens who were willing to fight and die and never surrender. America did not have the political will to win that fight, so we left. Vietnam, Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese fought the French and the the Americans to win victory because they had the will to do so. The started their wars with armed citizens, citizens armed with the low tech rifle.
Today, in Chechnya, the Russian Army has yet to defeat a rag tag bunch of die hard armed citizens who believe that they should be free. Which brings us to the real question. Do Americans today have the will to fight and die for freedom? Millions have fought, bled and died to keep America free; hopefully this and coming generations will have the will and the means to defend Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
If we do, the armed citizen will be at the cornerstone. The citizen with his rifle is both a symbol of the will to live free and practical manifestation of that will. The criminal, the tyrannical government, the invading armies have always respected the armed citizen; almost always the reason for their defeat.
The modern revisionist historians and anti-gunners amongst the effete liberal class here in the United States latest "interpretation" of the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is that while guns were perfectly logical in a Colonial times, today they are unnecessary and obsolete. Today we have large, modern and effective police forces (and para military groups?) and other arms of government to keep us safe from the criminals. And more importantly the myth of the Armed Citizen defending his country went out when all the modern high tech weaponry became available to military and government forces. Today, the armed citizen with his rifle is no match for "smart bombs" and F-16's.
This is a view only shared by arm chair wimps who have never been there and never done that. The efficacy of the armed citizen with his rifle has been proved over and over in the twentieth century, including the "eighties" and "nineties." Stephen P. Halbrook, author of THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED, has recently written TARGET SWITZERLAND: SWISS ARMED NEUTRALITY IN WORLD WAR II. More in a minute.
The American view on the armed citizen was pretty much proven during the American Revolution. The British Army, one of the best equipped and trained in Europe, set out to seize a Colonial arms depot in Concord. At Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge they met the American Minute Men, the armed citizen, the militia. The British failed in their mission and were harried back to Boston where they were besieged. The Minute Men gave the Colonial Governments time to muster and train a professional army under George Washington. The British were forced to evacuate Boston. The War of American Independence would drag on for years. The armed citizen and militia would play a role in many of the battles that led to the founding of the United States of American and the Constitution.
The Civil War was fought by armed citizens from both the North and the South rallying to the "cause." Militia companies in numerous towns and cities were the foundations of many of the regiments that went into battle. At the height of the Civil War well over a million men were in the field, starting from a professional peace time army numbering a few thousand and officers in the hundreds.
Again in World War I and II armed citizens would make up the vast majority of soldiers, sailors and airmen. Reserve officers would make up the majority of the staffs and even command divisions, corps, warships and task forces that would defeat the Axis powers.
The American Civil War is recognized as the first modern war, where technology played a more important role than brute physical strength. World War I and II continued and expanded on the role of technology, leading ultimately to the Atomic Bomb, about as far from the armed citizen with his rifle as one can get. Yet, even in World War II the citizen with his rifle played a pivotal role.
Switzerland was neutral during World War II. How did that happen? Stephen Halbrook in TARGET SWITZERLAND tells us. Switzerland depended upon an armed citizen militia. Each man had his rifle and 46 rounds of ammunition at home. If and when war came, the Swiss could put a large force into the field within 24 to 48 hours.
Nazi Germany laid many plans to invade and conquer Switzerland both before and after the war started in September 1939. But each time they decided to postpone or cancel invasion plans. Why? Because the Swiss had several factors in their favor. They had a very high percentage of male citizens armed and trained for war. This went from about 200,000 to over 850,000 during the war. The terrain also favored the Swiss; they had the Alps and heavily fortified what they called the National Redoubt. The Germans depended upon the rail routes through the Alps controlled by the Swiss who were prepared to destroy them and their strategic tunnels. Also both Axis and Allied Powers depended upon Swiss neutrality for political, diplomatic and espionage activities.
But, the most important reason was that the Swiss had decreed that they would not surrender; surrender was forbidden. Every man would defend his position to the last. There could be no surrender and no retreat. Also the Swiss were the best marksmen in Europe. The Swiss at the beginning of the war had an army made up of riflemen, with only a smattering of artillery and less than a score of modern combat aircraft. Yet, they intimidated the founders of the "Blitzkrieg" warfare, the very embodiment of high tech weapons and tactics in 1939-1943.
The Swiss succeeded because they had the will to win, the will to resist and the means to inflict unacceptable casualties on the Germans. The Germans realized this and decided that a neutral Switzerland was more important than a "third front" that would bleed the Wehrmacht dry.
So what does this have to do with the "nineties?" Look around the world. The Soviets got clobbered and were bled dry by the Afghans who were armed citizens, citizens with rifles, many "obsolete." Yet they are determined to live free or die. More importantly they were willing to let the Soviets die as well. The armed citizen gave the Afghans time to organize, train and equip, with a lot of outside help, and defeat the Soviet Army.
Other examples abound of armed citizens defying modern high tech armies and defeating invading hordes of blunting their objectives. In Somalia the best Americans could field, Delta Force, Rangers, Special Operations Forces were fought to a stand still by a bunch of rag tag armed citizens who were willing to fight and die and never surrender. America did not have the political will to win that fight, so we left. Vietnam, Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese fought the French and the the Americans to win victory because they had the will to do so. The started their wars with armed citizens, citizens armed with the low tech rifle.
Today, in Chechnya, the Russian Army has yet to defeat a rag tag bunch of die hard armed citizens who believe that they should be free. Which brings us to the real question. Do Americans today have the will to fight and die for freedom? Millions have fought, bled and died to keep America free; hopefully this and coming generations will have the will and the means to defend Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
If we do, the armed citizen will be at the cornerstone. The citizen with his rifle is both a symbol of the will to live free and practical manifestation of that will. The criminal, the tyrannical government, the invading armies have always respected the armed citizen; almost always the reason for their defeat.
, Art
) But can a rapist, robber, etc. tell which one is carrying and which isn't?
