Some Gun Math

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by madprophet, Only I didn't pay good money for it -- that's what libraries are for.

Yes, smart man, as I.

[Villin221]

I don't think the biggest threat to Americans is going to be our federal Government. But the hardcore anti-American Americans seem to believe that the revoution will start with the poor rising up and slaughtering the middle and upper-class. That's why they work so feverishly to ban guns and, therefore, the right to defend ourselves and our property from a much larger-scale version of the L.A. Riots. I'm being presumptious but that's the only motivation that makes sense to me. Clearly, banning guns will only make the middle class more vulnerable to violent crime. There are hundreds of thousands of gang-members in this country and I've heard rumblings from some of the commies I go to school with that the upper level members of some of these gangs have the notion that they will overthrow our Government with a violent uprising. But really, that would be just a huge mess because guns will never be bannned in this country. Sorry commies, the Revolution will, in fact, be televised and will still have commercial interuptions and will probably taste good with Coke.

Sorry commies, the Revolution will, in fact, be televised and will still have commercial interuptions and will probably taste good with Coke.

The "Revolution" already occurred. And it happened befroe there was television.

It happened when there were "fireside chats."

[Liberty Landing]

Dunedan -- great analysis. You're missing one major point that would be of benefit to the resistors, though.

In order to search out resistors, oppressors have to bust down doors, search buildings, and generally make their pesence known. Doing so makes them vulnerabe. Resistors can fire on them from a distance or a safe hiding place, take their weapons, and reposition themselves before the next cadre arrives. This is part of the reason the door-to-door searches in Iraq have been disastrous.

Furthermore, tanks and bombs are out of the question, especially if resistors relocate into a major city like Washington, DC. No government in America would be stupid enough to drop bombs in their own cities to rout out a few resistors, since this would endanger the economic interests that power the economy as well as the voters that keep that government in power.

Your claim that foreign supplements would increase the number of oppressors by 1.1 million is overblown, too. Most European nations are too busy realizing their own postmodern utopian dream, which is increasingly undemocratic and ugly, to busy themselves with American problems. Some would certainly leap on the opportunity to kill Americans and get away with it, though, so you're right that foreign supplements are a possibility. But unless Israel pitches in (and who knows, they might), it would only be more of the same -- poorly-trained turds with crap for guns.

Heavy military machine is almost certainly out of the question for the reasons you already mentioned. They're too clunky and awkward. This war would be very much a guerilla war.

Finally, just as police, National Guardsmen, local security forces, "loyalists," and FBI/CIA/BATF types, would add to the oppressors count, regular citizens who are disgusted with the government's willingness to massacre its own citizens over possession of a few guns would also enlist with the resistors. You can bet you'd have civil libertarian groups like the ACLU working against the government democratically to stop it all, too.

I wouldn't count on the ACLU to push me out of the way of an oncoming bus, let alone defend my gun(s).

[Liberty Landing]

They wouldn't defend you by virtue of gun ownership, but because of other civil liberties that are restricted in the process -- protection from unreasonable search and seizure, for instance.

Ehhh, I have my doubts about that...

[Liberty Landing]

You can doubt it all you want, it doesn't make it less true. The ACLU has its faults (many, many faults), but it follows through when it has to. It would not sit idly by as possibly tens of thousands of Americans are butchered.

Butchered? No, probably not. But by the time it got to that point, I doubt the ACLU would exist.

[Liberty Landing]

Only if you assume such a confiscatory gun ban is so far off that other civil rights would be quelched first.

Remember, guns will be among the first to go... the rest will topple later. If a total ban were introduced today, most Americans would probably rally behind it.

[Villin221]

"most Americans would rally behind it"

By that I hope you mean most Liberals. What about the ultra-conservative South? Haven't you ever seen the bumber sticker, "They can have my gun when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands"? Those people really believe that. The notion of a gun ban is silly at best.

[Liberty Landing]

That doesn't mean they would fight it, though. It's easier said than done, especially when you have a family.

[samsara15]

You have presented a penetrating analysis of how the lightly armed Iraqis can cause our very well-armed army highly technical army so much trouble.

[CherryPie]

ok..... i don't get this topic.... why do americans feel that it is important to be able to own guns anyway? why own one when the only purpose to own one is to commit acts of violence? i don't get it.....

[The Dunedan]

Because certain people, like Tyrants and Criminals, need violence committed against them. Nothing can protect you from a Tyrant except the ability to destroy that Tyrant. Voting doesn't work, because Tyrants rig votes, or simply ignore them. To have a hope of being free, a population must always have the means to rid themselves of Tyranny, by force if need be. Otherwise, that population exists only so long as their Masters find them useful. Once their usefullness is up, they can be ( and usually are ) exterminated or imprisoned.

[ruiner]

Right so you must be against the policy of the US army in confiscating guns from the Iraqi people right? Why is it that the Iraqi people don't need guns to defend themselves from criminals but for you it is some kind of inherent right?

It seems pretty clear to me that resistors will lose. Your calculations were very impressive but you forget that the tyranical government doesn't have to come get you while you hide out in the mountains. They can just leave your resistance to run out of steam.

So it is the resistors who must be on the offensive and attack government soldiers, effectively carrying out guerilla operations. Government soldiers will proceed to baricade their garrisons so that you will suffer heavy casulties trying to assault.
Helicopter gunships will devestate any kind of open running battle you plan to have, unless you have any sort of anti air defense.

Your only hope will be to run an urban guerilla war where you can melt back into the population. You will be called cowards in the media for this and just imagine the propaganda when your hit and run attacks kill young soldiers. Every soldier you kill will be replaced as their are enough people who simply need the money and will sign up. No doubt some of your more foolish collegues may eventually plant a bomb somewhere and end up killing civilians by mistake. Game over, you now become painted with the brush of civilian terrorism all over the news.

The only way to overthrow a government is to have mass public support of the kind that the population will simply march upon the capital. Anything less and guns or not you cannot win.

[Liberty Landing]

Originally posted by CherryPie, ok..... i don't get this topic.... why do americans feel that it is important to be able to own guns anyway? why own one when the only purpose to own one is to commit acts of violence? i don't get it.....

Possibly because the fact that a gun's ability to kill is precisely what makes it so effective for self-defense and hunting? Guns are the ultimate levelling of the playing field. Two people with guns are equally as likely to kill each other (and given such a circumstance, the criminal will always flee unless the reward is worth the risk of his life); between a criminal with a knife, and a guy with nothing at all, guess who will win?

They can just leave your resistance to run out of steam.

If they leave the resistance, the resistance wins. If their only goal is to exercise their right to bear arms without government interference, leaving the resistance alone is the perfect way for the government to concede the fight.

So it is the resistors who must be on the offensive and attack government soldiers, effectively carrying out guerilla operations. Government soldiers will proceed to baricade their garrisons so that you will suffer heavy casulties trying to assault.

Read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. It's a very chilling account of how a narrative could be both fought and won by resistors without actually identifying themselves as such, thus making themselves prone to open assault.

[The Dunedan]

Ruiner:
Yes, I oppose the US confiscation of Civillian-held arms in Iraq.

As for the resistors losing; look at Afghanistan under the Soviets. Look at Vietnam. Look at any situation remotely like the one I described; the Resistors -always- win. Sometimes with great loss of life, but they -always- win.

As for "mass public support," the American Revolution was fought with between 3-5% of the population under arms, with less than 30% popular support. The IRA numbered, at most 500 men for most of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and the Brits didn't dare venture outside Derry and Belfast, because the IRA -owned- the countryside. They shot down the British helicopter, ambushed their patrols, the works. They weren't even very effective; they just kept morale low and the Brit's heads down. And it worked.

[JoshuaRGodinez]

Originally posted by Liberty Landing, Only if you assume such a confiscatory gun ban is so far off that other civil rights would be quelched first. Remember, guns will be among the first to go... the rest will topple later. If a total ban were introduced today, most Americans would probably rally behind it.

I agree. The emotional argument against guns has been underway for a long, long time. I can't talk about this subject with my wife any more. Last time she accused me of not caring about little kids because some whacko had sniped an elementary school.

The guns would go first. A pacified, scared, unarmed populace would be serenaded down the path of more restrictive laws. Wait a minute, that's what some board members have been saying has happened already.

Although the concept of an armed citizenry as a watchdog on the government was discussed at the beginning of our republic, I don't think that's the way the amendment was written. The wording makes it sound like people were just paranoid about being able to defend themselves in case the federal power was too slow, unwilling, or unable to do it. Good thing, too, or the war of 1812 may have had a much different outcome. We know that people have their own reasons for supporting issues and the same vote may be made for completely different motivations. I wonder how much of the debate in the various state legislatures and newspapers during ratification discussed gun ownership and what those comments were. Are the federalist papers and VIP's diaries the only thing we have to rely on for original intent?

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by CherryPie, ok..... i don't get this topic.... why do americans feel that it is important to be able to own guns anyway? why own one when the only purpose to own one is to commit acts of violence? i don't get it.....

I like rolling tin cans up my dirt road with my AK, its fun!

Think of this, far more people are killed as a result of automobile accident than as a result of a gun shot wound. By your logic, car should not be able to go faster than 70 MPH. Why should I be allowed to have a 3rd Gen Camaro with a mildly modified Buick 455? So can I get to work in one hell of a fucking hurry, to the tune of my speed averaging 100 MPH? Or mabey I just want to be able to bracket race on saturday with the same car I drive to work with.

Or how about so when the four guys show up at my house and start trying to knock my door down so they can crack my skull with ball bats can be sent packing at the site of a .30-30 rifle? Is that a good enough reason? Or how about if a rape gang was trying to spoil you cherry pie for you, and you wanted to prevent it, and watch them run after you whip out the Glock.

Ponder: about 2,000,000 times a year, guns are used for self defense, the vast majority of the time, a shot is never fired. And those are only the ones reported as such. My personal experience was reported as "emotionally disturbed 16 year old brings gun to bat fight", of course, the liby, anti-gun extremist pacifist "guns are evil and there are no exceptions, and I would rather be raped than point a gun at somebody, and anybody who owns a gun is obviously psychotic" nut case at school where the issue ended up being brought to the officials there, forgot to mention it happened at my house, and that they were four, and I was one, and my only other option was winning a trip to the morgue.

How about my ability to have a gun is the only reason I'm alive to debate this issue with you? Is that reason enough? Because I am tired of trying to explain this issue to sheltered yuppie wusses that still harbour the delusion that the police can protect them from everything, and that everybody lives in ozzy-and-harrietville like they do. Because I dont live in that kind of neighborhood. I live out in the woods. The nearest police precient is more than 30 minutes away, and the last cop that drove down my road actually pulled into my driveway and asked me to give him directions on HTF he was supposed to get out of here. Some people, like me, can expect about a 3 hour response time from the police. That is the reality. If you do not want to live in reality, go do some drugs, and dont interfere with my ability to not get my skull bashed in by some miscreant bullys with attitude problems.

Nuff said.