What good can a handgun do against an Army?

[lions]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What good can a handgun do against an Army?

Decapitate it's leadership.

 

[strambo]

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]

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]

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]

great read...thanks.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).