Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
Does anyone else get the feeling that these technical innovations in counter-insurgency warfare make the second amendment even more irrelevent than it already is when it comes to protecting against the government?

I get into these kinds of arguments with my students all the time. "Can't fight a real army" goes the thinking. Well, look at recent history: The Afghans fought the biggest and most well equipped army in the world (USSR) to a standstill in the 1980s. They did so with what amounts to 18th century level firearms. Yes, they had help with US Stingers courtesy of Charlie Wilson. But the spirit of the warrior is what carried them thru those dark and often frozen nights, all alone and facing an enemy with far superior numbers and technology.

The 2nd Amendment simply represents the base level of an age old doctrine of war. Call it "TRADE UP." If I have a 22, I can trade up to an M4. If I have an M4 I can trade up to a SAW. If I have a SAW, I can trade up to an artillery piece or possibly an MLRS platform. Such is the way armies are equipped. But it does require a base tool to start the trade up process. Thus the 2nd Amendment. Many folks won't have to start with a 22 so their trade up process can proceed much quicker. Also, many Americans wisely foresaw such a necessity and started their collections of firearms in both NATO and WARSAW PACT calibers, many of which are also in common use with police departments.

Also, I don't expect the numbers to show solely citizens on one side and military/LEOs on the other. Although the numbers have been shrinking since the 1960s when liberalism and globalism began to infect the school curriculum's across the nation, I suspect there are still substantial numbers of soldiers and police officers who know the real score and I think we can count on their support at the proper moment.

Kids ask me how do I expect to deal with a tank? Hey I was a tanker for awhile. I know the things that make tankers sweat bricks under maneuver conditions. You can stop a tanks in it's tracks with simple barbed wire. That's a mobility kill only though. He'll still have use of all weapons, he just won't be able to move. Still, a paralyzed tank becomes a "fixed fortification." And as General George S. Patton once said: Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man. Paralyzed tanks can be overcome.

64 posted on 01/14/2009 8:11:55 AM PST by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: ExSoldier
I get into these kinds of arguments with my students all the time. "Can't fight a real army" goes the thinking. Well, look at recent history: The Afghans fought the biggest and most well equipped army in the world (USSR) to a standstill in the 1980s. They did so with what amounts to 18th century level firearms.

They were getting pasted.

The turning point of the Afghan war had two parts. First, the advent of Stinger missiles and other US aid neutralized the Soviets' helicopters, which were their primary military advantage.

Second, the Soviets attempted to win by atrocity (similar to what the FR Keyboard Kommando contingent is always wanting us to do....) That rarely works, and it didn't work in Afghanistan.

69 posted on 01/14/2009 8:41:48 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: ExSoldier

I’m still mostly bothered by those who think American soldiers will kill Americans for no other reason than they’re getting paid. I thought that kind of disrespect for our men and women in uniform was reserved for the Cindy Sheehan types.

As far as your trade up idea is concerned, I’ve read that there are an estimated 100 or more 50 caliber rifles in Michigan alone. Trading up from there becomes a short step.


70 posted on 01/14/2009 8:51:17 AM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: ExSoldier

Well, as you yourself allude to, The mujahadeen in Afghanistan did receive alot of crucial assistance from the west in terms of stinger missiles, without which there wasn’t a lot they could do about air attacks. I can’t really see ordinary US Citizens being able to knock those out in significant numbers under garage conditions.
As the US is currently the only superpower in the world, you would be on your own. No other country would dare to provide material assistance to you against your government.
It’s also worth remembering that the Soviet Union was in a state of economic collapse by this point, and couldn’t afford to fund a FOREIGN war. This is another relevent point. The government would be fighting for it’s own very survival on its own soil. During the Revolutionary war, as with the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the ‘foreign’ government had more pressing issues closer to home to devote their resources to. However, if the government is fighting for its very survival on its own soil, cutting their losses and withdrawing is not an option. They would have just as much to lose by not winning as you guys, and that gives them one hell of a motivation to keep fighting, no matter what the cost, because the alternative is their own destruction....


74 posted on 01/14/2009 1:23:44 PM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: ExSoldier

Don’t forget the fact that one of the first targets in an insurgency in a developed nation with highly armed citizens is going to be politicians...


106 posted on 01/15/2009 7:14:11 PM PST by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson