Educate the Canadian on 'Bearing arms'!
- Thread starter JDenver
- Start date
lklawson
Grandmaster
Don't assume too much about the assumptions and thought processes of a poster who's already specified he's simply presenting food for thought. Said poster might be working for the DOD on a military base and doing nothing more than presenting a thought experiment, as he's already indicated.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
I find it interesting that, more than once now, replies about disparity of weapon technology has focused on non-infantry such as nukes, air-bombing, and heavy bombardment. This is interesting because I have specified nothing but combat infantry, man-portable weapons such as M16, SAR, and AA-12. In other words, I agree that "big, heavy weaponry" isn't part of the parity equation.
Who knows. When I first read KOGK I immediately noted that Applegate had an early precursor to room-entry/clearing technique. It would have worked and was superior to anything going at the time he wrote it. But, only a few short years later now, modern room-clearing technique is far superior to what Applegate was teaching. My point is that modern skills are continually improved, continually best-match-mated to modern weaponry and conditions, and that skill sets of veterans (indeed ANY person) degrades with disuse. No offense to those worthies, just saying that if you haven't done room-clearing drills in 10 years, those skills are going to be "rusty" at best and most likely won't incorporate the latest innovations.
Note that I'm not saying they're useless, worthless, or wouldn't be applied to the hypothetical insurgency. I'm simply saying that they wouldn't represent a parity.
Who knows? All of them one would hope. But that's not particularly relevant to my assertion that the equipment available to the modern Warfighter is vastly superior to what is legally available to the modern potential insurgent to a tyranicial government.
Shotguns are more appropriate to urban warfare than an autoloading 30/30. Unless you're a sniper, you're less likely to need to reachout an touch someone from two football fields. Room-to-room, on the other hand...
But, again, as I've said before, consider it as food for thought, a "what if" discussion, not a personal challenge.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
I remember hearing about them. Didn't an opposing Superpower send them weapons, anti-aircraft, training, and "advisors"?
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I remember hearing about them. Didn't an opposing Superpower send them weapons, anti-aircraft, training, and "advisors"?
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Only after they'd kicked some substantial amounts of ***, often with 19th century weapons. The U.S. aid, especially in the form of weapons and anti-aircraft, came in response to the Russians deploying the Hind-24. As it was, before it was over, the Russians were resorting to the kind of tactics that only deepened the Afghan's resolve, like booby-trapped toys for children.
Langenschwert
Master Black Belt
Just as an addendum, with regards to firearms and the 2nd amendment, this Canadian "gets it". Would that we had similar rights here. As it is, the government is bent on disarming us, and no one here sees the danger in that. Sad, really.
Best regards,
-Mark
Best regards,
-Mark
lklawson
Grandmaster
I have several Canadian friends who are like minded. The common thread seems to be martial arts and serious thought about self defense.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
A couple of thoughts to throw in here, as well.
- As I understand it, the original idea of the "United States" was less focused on the "United" part, and more on the "States" part. Part of the "defense" was not against a strong, central Federal Government, which was not popular at the time, (let alone a national army) but against other states, should they have to fight each other. (Not that that problem ever came up! /end sarcasm). The Civil War changed a lot about the nature of the 2nd Amendment. It shifted the focus of the "United States" to them being "United" whether they liked it or not. We still have things like the "Oregon National Guard" but now the focus is on the "National Guard" part.
During and before the Civil War, the armies were divided by States, and each individual army was first devoted to the best interest of their state, and then to the best interest of either the Confederacy or the Union.
Even today this debate still rages on, as far as whether certain rules should be up to each state to decide, or whether the Federal Government has a right to enforce a national law on all states about certain subjects.
Now we have one large Government, of which the individual states are just branches, so instead of having a group of individuals who can access the state's armories to defend against other, possibly oppressive, state's governments, now we have the idea of defending civilians against a single, national force. This makes the practical application of the 2nd amendment less clear.
-Part of my understanding of the Framer's frame of mind was that the U.S. was a "great experiment" involving the proper balance of rights vs. law. "Law vs. Liberty" I think was the phrase. That's why "Liberty" is such a catchphrase of the U.S. psyche. The Government represented "Law" which was in itself divided against itself into three branches, and the "Liberty" represented the people, who had their rights recognized, and provided for, that they had measures to protect their liberty. The whole thing was designed to be a check-and-balance system against any one person, or group of people having too much power. Nobody had complete liberty, nor was the law the final authority.
-To the OP: you got your numbers mixed up: instead of 1 round in 4 minutes, it was 4 rounds in 1 minute for a well-trained soldier. Even cannons could be loaded in 2 minutes. Not a big deal, but overstating your case could be seen as a lack of sincerity.
-As far as the "War of the Flea" we're forgetting the pivotal issue: Smaller guns are used to obtain larger ones. We have a couple of armories in our county, (not close to any bases) they are barely guarded. Most of the time it's no big deal, but like somebody said, weapons need people. So there's a ton of firepower in the building -- what are 4 guys gonna do with all of it? So there's a huge national army? How much of it is overseas? If the civvies control the docks and airfields, what good is it going to do the army to destoy them? Where would they land? How would they re-fuel? How would they reload?
(Granted, the navy's pretty self-sufficient, but the air force isn't.)
And what about the private companies that provide the stuff -- who's gonna protect the Remington Factory, or McDonnel-Douglas, or Colt? The national army is going to fight from their bases outward, while the civvies already control all of that stuff -- we just keep our hands off of it because it's illegal to. But we have to means to control it. Part of what the South underestimated in the Civil War was the time it would take to gain independence. The North was able to fight longer because it had access to the factories.
Once this theoretical war starts, what's really there to prevent the larger number of civilians from upgrading to "illegal" weapons? Other than social programming, that is? If there is a demand for them, people will find ways to smuggle and sell them. The smaller the disparity between what the civvies have, and the military, the faster equilibrium will come.
-But my best argument on how keeping guns, (even small ones) helps keeps the government from over-reaching it's ends was in a post I did not long ago. The basic thrust is that as long as we are able to protect ourselves and our loved ones from criminals, the less we are going to ask the government to protect us, and the less the government will be requested (by it's own citizens) to curtail citizens' rights for the sake of public safety.
If we take care of ourselves in the little things, this theoretical war will never need to happen.
- As I understand it, the original idea of the "United States" was less focused on the "United" part, and more on the "States" part. Part of the "defense" was not against a strong, central Federal Government, which was not popular at the time, (let alone a national army) but against other states, should they have to fight each other. (Not that that problem ever came up! /end sarcasm). The Civil War changed a lot about the nature of the 2nd Amendment. It shifted the focus of the "United States" to them being "United" whether they liked it or not. We still have things like the "Oregon National Guard" but now the focus is on the "National Guard" part.
During and before the Civil War, the armies were divided by States, and each individual army was first devoted to the best interest of their state, and then to the best interest of either the Confederacy or the Union.
Even today this debate still rages on, as far as whether certain rules should be up to each state to decide, or whether the Federal Government has a right to enforce a national law on all states about certain subjects.
Now we have one large Government, of which the individual states are just branches, so instead of having a group of individuals who can access the state's armories to defend against other, possibly oppressive, state's governments, now we have the idea of defending civilians against a single, national force. This makes the practical application of the 2nd amendment less clear.
-Part of my understanding of the Framer's frame of mind was that the U.S. was a "great experiment" involving the proper balance of rights vs. law. "Law vs. Liberty" I think was the phrase. That's why "Liberty" is such a catchphrase of the U.S. psyche. The Government represented "Law" which was in itself divided against itself into three branches, and the "Liberty" represented the people, who had their rights recognized, and provided for, that they had measures to protect their liberty. The whole thing was designed to be a check-and-balance system against any one person, or group of people having too much power. Nobody had complete liberty, nor was the law the final authority.
-To the OP: you got your numbers mixed up: instead of 1 round in 4 minutes, it was 4 rounds in 1 minute for a well-trained soldier. Even cannons could be loaded in 2 minutes. Not a big deal, but overstating your case could be seen as a lack of sincerity.
-As far as the "War of the Flea" we're forgetting the pivotal issue: Smaller guns are used to obtain larger ones. We have a couple of armories in our county, (not close to any bases) they are barely guarded. Most of the time it's no big deal, but like somebody said, weapons need people. So there's a ton of firepower in the building -- what are 4 guys gonna do with all of it? So there's a huge national army? How much of it is overseas? If the civvies control the docks and airfields, what good is it going to do the army to destoy them? Where would they land? How would they re-fuel? How would they reload?
(Granted, the navy's pretty self-sufficient, but the air force isn't.)
And what about the private companies that provide the stuff -- who's gonna protect the Remington Factory, or McDonnel-Douglas, or Colt? The national army is going to fight from their bases outward, while the civvies already control all of that stuff -- we just keep our hands off of it because it's illegal to. But we have to means to control it. Part of what the South underestimated in the Civil War was the time it would take to gain independence. The North was able to fight longer because it had access to the factories.
Once this theoretical war starts, what's really there to prevent the larger number of civilians from upgrading to "illegal" weapons? Other than social programming, that is? If there is a demand for them, people will find ways to smuggle and sell them. The smaller the disparity between what the civvies have, and the military, the faster equilibrium will come.
-But my best argument on how keeping guns, (even small ones) helps keeps the government from over-reaching it's ends was in a post I did not long ago. The basic thrust is that as long as we are able to protect ourselves and our loved ones from criminals, the less we are going to ask the government to protect us, and the less the government will be requested (by it's own citizens) to curtail citizens' rights for the sake of public safety.
If we take care of ourselves in the little things, this theoretical war will never need to happen.
chinto
Senior Master
yep, that is the truth all right. and the Idea that the guy who lives on that corner will blow your head off with out a thought keeps them going to the houses around them.
I know a man who is a historical reenactment group member. the period the group he is a member of is the middle ages.. and he has a halberd. he saw some punks teasing his dog on its change right after he moved into his house. he came out with a life steel ( read sharp real battle weapon and not a wall hanging decoration. ) Halberd. This is the same weapon the Swiss Guards at the Vatican still carry as a duty weapon . He told them the dog was not their worry, but the owner was! and started to move their way swinging the weapon in a pattern that was designed to show how it could be used. they ran away screaming that he was " an axe wielding homicidal maniac! " over the next 6 months every house around him and a school near by was burgled by these same punks, but they left his house alone.
I remember hearing about them. Didn't an opposing Superpower send them weapons, anti-aircraft, training, and "advisors"?
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
With the exception of military coups, most rebellions/revolutions fail without significant support from outside the country in question.
Last edited:
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Because they require weapons and ammunition in those countries that were not previously allowed.
Remind me what support is needed in a nation that already possess over 100 Million small arms and billions of billions of rounds of ammunition? Food?
Guerrilla warfare favors the guerrilla.......governments generally fail to realize what the strategic resource is in an insurgency.
Moreover, unlike an insurgency in a foreign land, a domestic insurgency makes the political apparatus of the ruling apparatchik vulnerable.
Last edited:
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
I have better weaponry in my closet than the average infantry soldier carries.
An i'm saying you're very mistaken.
If it were vastly superior, we'd have mopped up Afghanistan and Iraq years ago.
The average soldier carries an M-4 carbine.......which the M1 Garand is superior to in many ways......but there are plenty of shoguns floating around in civilian hands.
I'm giving you food for thought.....i've heard your position before......it's the same position that envisions a bunch of rednecks lined up, Civil War style, against tanks........it's mistaken.But, again, as I've said before, consider it as food for thought, a "what if" discussion, not a personal challenge.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Long after they started fighting.....and those weapons mainly consisted of anti-helicopter rockets.I remember hearing about them. Didn't an opposing Superpower send them weapons, anti-aircraft, training, and "advisors"?
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Exactly.......I find it quite humorous this notion that an armed populace is useless against a super-power........and yet we still haven't policed up a few thousand Taliban and al-Qaeda floating around Afghanistan on mules and horses and armed mainly with AK-47's, SKS's and in many cases old bolt action rifles.
lklawson
Grandmaster
lklawson
Grandmaster
To be blunt, if that's what you heard then you heard what you wanted to hear, not what I was saying.
And, yeah, I'm pretty much the go-to-guy expert about what I was saying and what I meant because, well... I'm the guy who was saying it.
Look, I'm not trying to be a wang, but you've just told me that you're arguing against a position I have definitively not taken and I've said so a couple of times now.
It's a little frustrating.
I can understand you wanting to argue against the position that you're arguing against. I'm just not the guy to argue it with you. 'Kay?
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
And just recently, due to the Obama scare, well over one MILLION firearms were purchased (and not including those with CCWs that don't have to do the Brady Bill checks.) And that don't include private sales to other individuals. That's enough guns to arm Russia's WHOLE STANDING ARMY. I have no doubt there is one gun for every person (legal or illegal) in the U.S. That's an awful lot of guns.
And notice the ammo shortage. That means most people with guns are buying up the stocks (another part of the Obama scare.) Right now this country is awash with guns and ammo. THANK GOD! Free men have guns (and ammo), slaves don't.
I have no doubt the populace of the U.S., if aroused, would today literally have a rifle behind every blade of grass. The casualties for any invaider (or the U.S. military), would be horrendous. And that alone keeps our government from becoming a dictatorship. Our government can't afford to destroy their miliary. Way to many other nations would immediatly jump on us in such a weaken state.
The Bill of Rights is not about 'duck hunting' and any such liberal ideas as to what the rights are about. The Second Amendment protects all the other parts of the Bill of Rights. Disarming the citizens is the only way to abolish their rights.
Deaf
lklawson
Grandmaster
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Instead of telling us what your position WAS NOT.........tell us what your position WAS.
Often when someone spends a great deal of time telling me what they weren't saying, they're attempting to back track from what they were saying......perhaps you aren't.....I could be reading your posts wrong.....the easiest way to clarify that is NOT to tell us what you weren't saying......but simply explain what you were......because telling us what you were not saying isn't really being blunt, it's being obtuse.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
The "Look! Look at my cool workout!" thread
- Latest: Prince_Alarming
-
-
-