La Résistance

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wacki

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,703
Location
Reminiscing the Rockies
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to William S Smith which said:

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them.

This makes it very clear that the spirit of resistance is the goal of the 2nd amendment. Obviously there needs to be a balance. We can't give every random person on the street a vial of VX gas. But Jefferson said the ability of the American populace to engage in a somewhat painful resistance to hostile forces must be maintained.

My question is focused on the military aspect. What is the *minimum* firepower you would need to resist a military coup? What is the *minimum* firepower you need to "preserve the spirit of resistance"?


My answer:

I would think a 20mm rifle such as these:

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn55-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm

Would be good for taking out APC's and stuff. High capacity magazines would also be required for infantry vs. infantry combat. Full auto is a trivial matter and really isn't needed if you have a semi. I also don't think grenades and stuff are required for a peoples rebellion. It certainly helps to level the playing field but it is not required to "preserve the spirit of resistance". So some states in the US are clearly following the founding fathers intent. However, it's pretty obvious to me that California is not. But that is legal/political stuff and I'm more concerned with the military aspect.
 
I don't know that many people will be comfortable answering this.
Click to expand...

Why not? Read the whole quote here:

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

It really is brilliant. I have neither the intent or even serious thoughts of doing something drastic. I'm simply using this as an exercise to try and figure out what is "preserv[ing] the spirit of resistance". This is, indirectly, about understanding the constitution in modern times. If we are to limit guns just to what is "recreational" then we are not preserving the spirit of resistance.
 
The spirit of resistance is the only weapon absolutely necessary in the long run. Combined with a bit of knowledge, an unarmed populace properly motivated can do wonders.

That being said, discussing the types of weapons needed, even in the context of the quote, can only serve to aggravate those who are watching from the various alphabet soup agencies, and cause further scrutiny of you, this board, and its participants.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own all the weapons appropriate for a militia, which will consist of said individuals. What more needs to be discussed, really? Or, more appropriately, what more should be discussed on an open forum whose goal is, in part, to get us away from the image of gun nuts looking to overthrow the government? I understand the intellectual excercise inherent in the post, but I also understand how it can and will be twisted by those with a goal to destroying what we are guaranteed.
 
hrm........ I foolishly didn't think about that. I ever so slightly modified the OP. Using the definition of militia in wikipedia we have: "supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup." Heh, I dunno if that is too sensitive to talk about. I really hope that isn't.

although this sentence of yours:

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own all the weapons appropriate for a militia, which will consist of said individuals.
Click to expand...

Is interesting. Heh, is talking about what this means too much?
 
That topic has been discussed quite a bit. Debating and discerning the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in all its nuances is one thing; figuring out how to carry out its purpose is another.

But don't mind me. I will readily admit to being a bit hyper sensitive in such areas. It's been clear for years that our friends in the various federal and state (particularly, California) alphabet agencies monitor these boards. I try and limit my posts to only those things that I'd be ready to repeat and defend either at Sunday dinner or on the witness stand.
 
I'd say there's not too much point to having a 20mm. Big and bulky are not advantages in assymetrical warfare.

There were plenty of AT guns in Iraq before and during the war. How many insurgents are using AT guns now? Probably just about none, and it's certainly not for lack of availability.


A 20mm doesn't seem a very convenient item to transport up to the sixth floor of an apartment building and angle down to engage APCs in the street.

Shooting at APCs in rural areas would be a far worse idea. Without large numbers of uninvolved civillians providing you with human shields, there's nothing keeping your opponent from calling in airstrikes or arty barrages to shred whatever patch of woods they think you fired from.

Take one shot and run? Good luck running with a 20mm. If they want you bad enough they'll scour the area from the air, use FLIR, maybe even toss our ground sensors.

Rural combat is pretty foolhardy in the modern day. Modern insurgents depend on putting the enemy in a dilemna:

a) Try and cordone off a 200-unit apartment building, search every room, tick off the 1000 people living in there as you frisk them individually and tear apart their mattresses, and then maybe get into a gruesome CQB fight in room #183, just to catch one guy with a Dragunov.

b) Guess which window the shot came from, fire a burst of 25mm into that window, hope that CNN doesn't go live with pics of dead women and children being taken out of the building five minutes later. Whether there are women and kids in there or not, the insurgents will publicly demonize you for "attacking civilians" and insist that there was no sniper. Now all 1000 people in that building feel personally attacked by the oppressor.

Long/short: a big 20mm rifle has very little going for it. If you want good ideas, look to Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents make tons of dumb mistakes, 90% of them can't hit the broad side of a barn with a .22, and yet they're still holding out against the world's largest superpower.

-MV
 
It's been clear for years that our friends in the various federal and state (particularly, California) alphabet agencies monitor these boards.
Click to expand...

Heh, thats scary. Being on the internet I will frequently say things I don't mean. Heh, I will have to be more careful. Just curious, what makes you so sure that federal and state people have watched this forum? Obviously cops and military people post here but do politicians quote THR?
 
i think the biggest jab to joe citizen having the tools necessary to respond to an oppressive government is the general illegality/unavailability of automatic weapons. we can sit all day and talk about how disciplined fire with a semi-automatic weapon is more than sufficient, but in this scenario, and given the likelyhood of always being grossly outnumbered, there would be no more tactically necessary tool than an automatic weapon. there is a reason why for so very long, 10 or so soldiers or marines have been accompanied by a support weapon. a properly placed machine gun makes one man an army...at least for a little while.
 
I do believe that Matthew is right.
The IRA gave our boys a scare with American .50 cal rifle(s), for a little while, but it's not something that you can hump around indefinitely.
 
Oh geeze.

We're having a revolution thread again?!

attachment.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top