JustinJ
Member
I would have said shoulder fired stinger missile but in the age of stealth its kind of pointless. The notion that modern civilians without advanced weaponry could even begin to defeat a modern military is purely delusional.
What's the best Second Amendment purpose rifle/caliber?
- Thread starter henschman
- Start date
- Status
Thanks, I thought it was something like that.
You are somewhere that was hit hard by a very large scale disaster and governmental authorities say "No one will be able to be armed, we're going to take all the weapons"...and then an armed government force enters your residence against your wishes, forcibly disarms you, and removes you from your home...and you have no idea how many other people they are doing the same thing to.
At what point do the door to door gun confiscations, by force, to include forcibly removing and detaining citizens who have committed no crime (and are not about to commit a crime, are not committing a crime, and nobody suspects did/is/will commit a crime) cross the line? And hoe does a person in a state of emergency/disaster tell when they have crossed the line?
henschman
Member
JustinJ said:
I suppose you also think it would be impossible for a bunch of rag-tag fighters, who live in barely more than stone age conditions, to maintain control of large parts of a country about the size of Texas in defiance of the full military might of a coalition of modern 1st world militaries. Your opinion is duly noted.
JustinJ
Member
Your example is apples to oranges. The Afghani fighters will never defeat a modern army. Instead, they just hope to inflict enough casualties to make the invaders decided it is no longer worth the cost so that they will eventually just go home. That is a bit harder to do when the army you are fighting is at home.
The Afghanis also do have support, although limited, from other nations. Good luck getting mexico to support the hypothetical american revolution.
Also, as you mentioned, the Afghani fighters way of life is unfortunately not terribly impacted by being at war so their ability to get food and live is much different than ours would be during a at home war.
Lastly, after decades of war the Afghanis have weapons in their arsenal far more effective than AR15's. They have mortars, machine guns, RPG's, artillery and most importantly the components to make IED's. I don't know about you but i don't have any artillery shells laying around to fashion into a roadside bomb.
henschman
Member
As for the Katrina issue, some of my best friends are in the National Guard and were there, and even took part in enforcing the disarmament orders. A couple of them are even real big gun guys who are strong believers in the RKBA, who I go shooting with all the time. Yet they have justified to themselves their participation in disarming American citizens in their moment of greatest need. When it came down to it, they followed orders like they always do. Funny how that works.
If I were in that real life "2A situation," I think I would have wanted something like my current bolt gun project, a long range precision rifle in .260 Rem, with a good can and maybe some night vision optics. If even one guy had been there with something like that and the will to use it, whatever the outcome, I think it would have provided a much greater lesson and a much stronger disincentive for future encroachments than any laws ever could. When it comes down to it, the last thing politicians want is war in the streets of our country. If they realize that a certain action will inspire that kind of resistance, they will at least have to be more slow and sneaky about it in the future... and there are certain things that they will not even try to begin with. That is what the 2A is all about.
Though I realize that Katrina should never be forgotten, part of me hates seeing those videos posted again, as they absolutely make me sick.
If I were in that real life "2A situation," I think I would have wanted something like my current bolt gun project, a long range precision rifle in .260 Rem, with a good can and maybe some night vision optics. If even one guy had been there with something like that and the will to use it, whatever the outcome, I think it would have provided a much greater lesson and a much stronger disincentive for future encroachments than any laws ever could. When it comes down to it, the last thing politicians want is war in the streets of our country. If they realize that a certain action will inspire that kind of resistance, they will at least have to be more slow and sneaky about it in the future... and there are certain things that they will not even try to begin with. That is what the 2A is all about.
Though I realize that Katrina should never be forgotten, part of me hates seeing those videos posted again, as they absolutely make me sick.
henschman
Member
JustinJ said:
Defeat, inflict enough casualties to make them think it's not worth it and go home; potayto, potahto. Inflicting enough casualties to make it no longer worth the cost, and having a greater will to stay in the fight for the long run, is exactly how you beat a modern government, whether in its own backyard, or in a faraway land. You say it is HARDER to beat them when the fight is at home? There are many factors that would run counter to that, especially in THIS country. Members of the police and armed forces, as well as the voting public, would have a lot stronger sympathies with the rebels, for one thing. Also, the electorate tolerates our military unleashing massive devastation on countries halfway around the world -- but they would be a lot less tolerant of such tactics when the "collateral damage" is in the form of little Billy and Suzie splattered all over their bedroom floor, rather than little Hamdi and Achmed. Then there is the fact that this country is much larger than any we have ever tried to occupy in the past -- even if it is just a region of the country that is in turmoil, any military forces would be stretched even thinner than they currently are in Afghanistan. Our armed forces simply don't have the numbers to garrison an entire region of the country and maintain control with any kind of effectiveness. As I said before, most of the burden of quelling the resistance would fall on local law enforcement agencies.
As for the ability to source explosives, I have no doubt that people would find a way if things were to pop off in this country. Maybe I don't have any mortars sitting around, but I can soak some ammonium nitrate in nitromethane and stick a blasting cap on it as easily as the next guy. Hell, anybody who has a couple jugs of black powder for a muzzle loader and some extra plumbing parts can put together something that can do some real damage easily enough. Nutcases like McVeigh and Kazynski don't seem to have too much trouble cobbling some things together that go boom... I don't see how a group of determined pro-liberty citizens would be any different.
Getting back toward the topic of rifles, a guy with a rifle can use it to get himself plenty of other stuff.
Sam Cade
Member
Me either. But I DO have a good working knowledge of chemistry and electronics as well as a pretty decent lathe.
Last edited:
If you really feel like the gov't is going to turn against you, then the best weapon is your mind. As others have pointed out, we have seen that gov'ts fighting their own populace choose overwhelming force with weapons much larger than small arms (think air strikes, artillery strikes, etc). I have also heard of the Syrian's planting 'spiked' ammo in the supply of the rebels, which when fired, blows up the rifle and usually injures the shooter. So you will want your own very large supply of ammo.
Since we do not have a surplus of Stingers or Grail missiles floating around on the black market, stopping an air attack is unlikely. Resistance fighters in many countries have found the RPG-7 exceptionally useful at not only taking out enemy positions, but helicopters as well. Again, not a lot of RPG's around in America. Many of the road-side bombs encountered have been constructed from artillery shells. Again, you're not likely to get your hands on a 155 round very easily.
Therefore my simple conclusion is get an AR, lots of ammo, and lots of friends, and raid a military base and capture better weapons.
Since we do not have a surplus of Stingers or Grail missiles floating around on the black market, stopping an air attack is unlikely. Resistance fighters in many countries have found the RPG-7 exceptionally useful at not only taking out enemy positions, but helicopters as well. Again, not a lot of RPG's around in America. Many of the road-side bombs encountered have been constructed from artillery shells. Again, you're not likely to get your hands on a 155 round very easily.
Therefore my simple conclusion is get an AR, lots of ammo, and lots of friends, and raid a military base and capture better weapons.
Halal Pork
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 294
Sam Cade
Member
Shadow 7D
Member
And how many soldiers are going to shoot the line of people in front of the base telling them that they are NOT going to hurt fellow citizens, who is going to shoot down the old codger orbiting over the air force base runway telling the pilot not to take off and hurt fellow citizens
There is a threshold, what happens after it's crossed is the question.
There is a threshold, what happens after it's crossed is the question.
Sam_Cade said:
Indeed. You can also blow yourself up in your kitchen. My point being that a military-grade manufactured explosive is going to be a lot safer than whatever you cook up at home. There are a number of terrorists who have blown themselves up constructing their improvised explosives. But we digress.
JustinJ
Member
To make any useful quantities of military grade explosives, without blowing one's self up, requires far more skill, supplies and equipment than most people realize. The notion that it just requires a trip to the pharmacy and kitchen is pure hollywood nonsense. A FAE of sufficient size to be effective would also be quite large so have fun running that one up to a tank.
If, and that's a big "IF", one were able to at least take out a thin skinned vehicle they have just about no chance of taking out armor. The Afghanis, as someone mentioned, have failed to even begin to disrupt the coalitions ability to make war and that's with real weapons. What they're doing is chipping away support at home of the invading armies by inflicting casualties. In this imaginary revolution against a tyrannical government that tactic would obviously not be effective.
meanmrmustard
Member
Trust no one, especially during a revolution.
The primary difference in foreign wars is the military fighting in that foreign location is being paid for by the taxes of people on the other side of the planet. This means in say Afghanistan they have no real means of defeating the foreign military because they are not disrupting that which props them up.
The military can always fight them, the taxes from US citizens are still supporting that military, and the factories and companies, including many military contractors, are safe at home building and supporting them.
There is an entire source of funding, supplies, research, and many other components that force depends on completely untouched sitting back in America far from the front lines.
In a domestic situation things become very different as time goes on. The economy tanks and taxes plummet.
People such as soldiers, contractors, thier families, they all become targets.
Many civilians also starve as the economy cannot support the population, but the military also crumbles and has trouble maintaining itself. It is expensive to maintain high end equipment, and actually patrolling with it requires even more maintenance.
This requires the nation in an extended domestic situation to go into debt to foreign powers, and financial institutions, selling thier future just to try and keep funding what taxes don't. At which point the future of that nation has been sold to another nation that will eventually be telling them how to do things.
However even that only props them up for so much additional time.
So things are very different in a domestic situation. All the support the military depends on, and the family members of everyone involved, are within reach, not safe and undisturbed thousands of miles away. While the funding is severely impacted. That all powerful military starts to become a lot less powerful.
However the chaos involved is extensive, and the level of dedication while friends and family starve as an economy tanks and government forces apply a heavy hand turning neighbors against neighbors is tremendous. In foreign conflicts it is often religious dedication that keeps them going, a stronger motivator than much of what the population would have in the USA. Religious extremists fight for ideology that persists past thier life, so facing death is a more trivial matter making them a more challenging opponent. Those fighting for things in their own life are less willing to die, and so easier to intimidate or wear down when deaths of others surrounds them and thier own seems like it will be coming soon.
So in many ways I don't think you can compare the Mujahideen or Taliban to the type of resistance posed at home. Even with more sophisticated equipment, and better means of production than any insurgent in Afghanistan, an insurgency at home would likely lack the long term dedication of individuals.
However when it comes to equipment I think the civilian population in the US could quickly have anything insurgents possess in foreign conflicts beat. This is a nation where many garages , private businesses, etc have the means to produce all sorts of things. Someone mentioned few RPGs in the USA. RPGs are just tubes in the right shape that operate at low pressure, with a warhead using some propellant. They are simplier to produce than firearms.
The insurgents have even been known to make their own warheads, US civilians have access to more equipment, better tools, and could readily make more complex things.
The types of things you would see being made by machinists, engineers, etc could be quite sophisticated.
I can certainly see guided missiles, and many similar improvised things being used by the population. Nevermind simple things like improvised small arms.
If a conflict lasted enough years the sophistication of the insurgents would likely far surpass what you saw in conflicts like those in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I think the type of rifle someone owned before the conflict would be of limited significance.
The military can always fight them, the taxes from US citizens are still supporting that military, and the factories and companies, including many military contractors, are safe at home building and supporting them.
There is an entire source of funding, supplies, research, and many other components that force depends on completely untouched sitting back in America far from the front lines.
In a domestic situation things become very different as time goes on. The economy tanks and taxes plummet.
People such as soldiers, contractors, thier families, they all become targets.
Many civilians also starve as the economy cannot support the population, but the military also crumbles and has trouble maintaining itself. It is expensive to maintain high end equipment, and actually patrolling with it requires even more maintenance.
This requires the nation in an extended domestic situation to go into debt to foreign powers, and financial institutions, selling thier future just to try and keep funding what taxes don't. At which point the future of that nation has been sold to another nation that will eventually be telling them how to do things.
However even that only props them up for so much additional time.
So things are very different in a domestic situation. All the support the military depends on, and the family members of everyone involved, are within reach, not safe and undisturbed thousands of miles away. While the funding is severely impacted. That all powerful military starts to become a lot less powerful.
However the chaos involved is extensive, and the level of dedication while friends and family starve as an economy tanks and government forces apply a heavy hand turning neighbors against neighbors is tremendous. In foreign conflicts it is often religious dedication that keeps them going, a stronger motivator than much of what the population would have in the USA. Religious extremists fight for ideology that persists past thier life, so facing death is a more trivial matter making them a more challenging opponent. Those fighting for things in their own life are less willing to die, and so easier to intimidate or wear down when deaths of others surrounds them and thier own seems like it will be coming soon.
So in many ways I don't think you can compare the Mujahideen or Taliban to the type of resistance posed at home. Even with more sophisticated equipment, and better means of production than any insurgent in Afghanistan, an insurgency at home would likely lack the long term dedication of individuals.
However when it comes to equipment I think the civilian population in the US could quickly have anything insurgents possess in foreign conflicts beat. This is a nation where many garages , private businesses, etc have the means to produce all sorts of things. Someone mentioned few RPGs in the USA. RPGs are just tubes in the right shape that operate at low pressure, with a warhead using some propellant. They are simplier to produce than firearms.
The insurgents have even been known to make their own warheads, US civilians have access to more equipment, better tools, and could readily make more complex things.
The types of things you would see being made by machinists, engineers, etc could be quite sophisticated.
I can certainly see guided missiles, and many similar improvised things being used by the population. Nevermind simple things like improvised small arms.
If a conflict lasted enough years the sophistication of the insurgents would likely far surpass what you saw in conflicts like those in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I think the type of rifle someone owned before the conflict would be of limited significance.
Last edited:
MCgunner
Member
Second amendment purpose rifle?
Only one possible, a Kentucky flinter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOJQFNOQqCY
Oops, I think that one's a cap lock. Musta not been able to find a flinter at a moment's notice.
Only one possible, a Kentucky flinter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOJQFNOQqCY
Oops, I think that one's a cap lock. Musta not been able to find a flinter at a moment's notice.
Sam Cade
Member
Indeed. Sometimes you might have to go to the Home Depot.
Whut? Define effective. Ever seen a couple gallons of aerosolized diesel detonate?
Thermobaric weapons aren't intended to counter AFVs anywho, and fighting an AFV with unmounted infantry only armed with small arms isn't good asymmetrical warfare is it?....and fyi, 40mm grenades have been in use with US forces since 2003, but I don't have any idea how often they show up in actual issuance.
Halal Pork
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 294
You beat me to it. Reading "Afghani" over and over was like listening to someone talk when they have something stuck in their front teeth; you have to overcome the distraction to process the point they're trying to make (if there is one.)
Lectures on Afghanistan are always fascinating to me, usually (but not always) in a humorous way.
Regarding the OP, have a firearm, know how to use it safely and effectively, and maintain that firearm in a responsible way.
This, exactly!
JustinJ
Member
Afghani is also a slang term for Afghans that originated during the Soviet invasion. Yes, i mixed them up. I'm eternally sorry.
You have an odd definition of the word lecture. Pointing out inconsistencies in an analogy, as i did, seems to hardly qualify. Regardless, please explain what about my comments regarding Afghanistan were inaccurate rather than just throw out a condescending remark with nothing behind it. It's a great way on the surface to try and portray yourself as being an authority on a subject without actually contributing anything but on second look it falls flat. Either way we're not talking about a withdrawl policy or economic development of the nation. You can substitute any insurgent or anti-colonial conflict you like. The point is that it is not any type of indicator the potential success for an at home revolution against a modern military.
My comment was in just but as i understand a thermobaric weapon also needs a conventional explosive to first atomize the fuel and then ignite it. Not quite the afternoon workshop project.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Looks to me like enough wandering around an endless discussion. Think about it for a while and see if any rational conclusions show up.
- Status
