History tells us another story about gun control.

page: 2
36
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Good luck winning a domestic war against the US government. All you will do is put the country in a state of Marshall law and loose all the freedoms we have. You will be the minority, the majority isn't going to fight........



Less than 10% of the population actively participated in the first Revolution. It doesn't take a huge number of active fighters to topple a government. Some (The Torries about 35% of the population) actually aided the British. The rest either passivly aided the American Soldiers or just stayed out of the way making money on both sides and trying to stay alive. Doesn't take a majority.

Being a 24 year veteran of Special Forces - guerilla warfare is sort of my specialty. You can find numerous examples of small forces waging and wining insurgencies all over the globe throughoutr history.

Most recently some tribal people in Afghanistan have kept the USSR and the USA busy hopping and popping for going on most of the last 30+ years. The same Army you are saying is invincible.

I served in that Army - it is not invincible. Even if they activated and recalled every serviceman under age 65 to fill out their rosters they'd not be able to equip and outfit them all. Our military is exceptionally small - less than 1.5 million on active duty in all the services to quell a nation of 315 million people as big as the USA. Even then only the tier 1 units have the latest in gear and equipment (about 400K troops total) not enough. The rest have Desert Storm era equipment and technology. The National Guard has older tech than that.

Our logistics infrastructure is working full tilt to supply the 150K tops we have in the field right now. It is frankly stretched to its limit. You don't fight an Army at its strong point you conduct guerilla operations at the weak points - the supply chain. Move quick, stay anonymous and hit hard - blend back into the population and repeat as necessary.

The population will get tired real quickly of the draconian crackdown from the government as they arrest and detain "suspected agents" and make mistakes with collateral damage. Time is on the side of the insurgent my friend always has been always will be. War is an art not a science.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Alright, well this argument is played out.

I think you all will loose.

Lets just agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Just wanted to express thanks to the OP for doing what I've been too lazy to do. Context is important in getting this whole point across. It puts me in mind of this little gem of a Twitter argument:


Piers Morgan: The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.

Carol Roth: It was devised 4 people 2b able 2 protect themselves w same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protection.

Piers Morgan: Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution - must have missed it?

Carol Roth: right next to the word "muskets"



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Good luck winning a domestic war against the US government. All you will do is put the country in a state of Marshall law and loose all the freedoms we have. You will be the minority, the majority isn't going to fight........



Less than 10% of the population actively participated in the first Revolution. It doesn't take a huge number of active fighters to topple a government. Some (The Torries about 35% of the population) actually aided the British. The rest either passivly aided the American Soldiers or just stayed out of the way making money on both sides and trying to stay alive. Doesn't take a majority.

Being a 24 year veteran of Special Forces - guerilla warfare is sort of my specialty. You can find numerous examples of small forces waging and wining insurgencies all over the globe throughoutr history.

Most recently some tribal people in Afghanistan have kept the USSR and the USA busy hopping and popping for going on most of the last 30+ years. The same Army you are saying is invincible.

I served in that Army - it is not invincible. Even if they activated and recalled every serviceman under age 65 to fill out their rosters they'd not be able to equip and outfit them all. Our military is exceptionally small - less than 1.5 million on active duty in all the services to quell a nation of 315 million people as big as the USA. Even then only the tier 1 units have the latest in gear and equipment (about 400K troops total) not enough. The rest have Desert Storm era equipment and technology. The National Guard has older tech than that.

Our logistics infrastructure is working full tilt to supply the 150K tops we have in the field right now. It is frankly stretched to its limit. You don't fight an Army at its strong point you conduct guerilla operations at the weak points - the supply chain. Move quick, stay anonymous and hit hard - blend back into the population and repeat as necessary.

The population will get tired real quickly of the draconian crackdown from the government as they arrest and detain "suspected agents" and make mistakes with collateral damage. Time is on the side of the insurgent my friend always has been always will be. War is an art not a science.




Insurgents require outside support. Every succesful one has had it en mass. Armed Americans with no standard weapon, ammunition or training would crushed by a military force without outside support. In fact all these guns we have would have to be tossed aside and we would have to be rearmed with some sort of standard weapon for supply and logistics and then trained. Then we have the issue who the insurgents are facing. If a truly tyranical goverment reacted like the Germans did to the assasination of Heydrich exterminating two towns of people. The idea that people would be able to resist a tyranical gov with the guns they have at home is beyond foolish. They would need to be rearmed and trained by an outside force and most likely need direct military action as well. If not it will end up like the hungarian revolt against the Soviets who left with militias alone instead of the American Revolution with the French and Spanish fighting side by side with the American rebels.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Good luck winning a domestic war against the US government.


I'm sensing sarcasm here, but thanks.



All you will do is put the country in a state of Marshall law and loose all the freedoms we have.


If it comes down to waging a war with my own country, then I think it will be safe to assume that we will be way past Marshall law and much closer to a full on dictatorship....which is where we are slowly heading.


You will be the minority, the majority isn't going to fight........


I have been the minority my whole life...normality is nothing more than majority. I would rather fight and die free than cower and do nothing as a slave. I suggest you go back and read some of those quotes...especially the 3rd one.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Oh you mean NATO is really gonna fund right wing extremist rebels in the US?
edit on 17-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Check your history books. Oh yeah, you LEFT wing extremists aren't too fond of quoting history, are ya? Probably because it has never favored your point of view. Ever.

France, Netherlands and Spain helped the states during the revolutionary war. You think there isn't anyone out there with an interest in keeping the US a constitutional republic besides most of its own military?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
S&F Great O/P, the only problem I see is that many people on this site have no sense of history. I have been told many time's that it doesn't apply now.That is public education's fault.

This is all a deliberate part of the same agenda.

Education is being used as a form of mind control.


"The falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind" - Rousseau


“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”


“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac


"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK


"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses"

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
Insurgents require outside support. Every succesful one has had it en mass.


Do you not think there will be outside actors lining up to help these people topple the government of the United States. It would be payback time for any number of countries and organizations.


Originally posted by MrSpad
Armed Americans with no standard weapon, ammunition or training would crushed by a military force without outside support. In fact all these guns we have would have to be tossed aside and we would have to be rearmed with some sort of standard weapon for supply and logistics and then trained.


Not really, an insurgency is low intensity and according to my training and experience in Special Forces a guerilla force can operate quite efficiently by cannibalizing the counter-insurgency government forces equipment. It is a good motivator for the G's to win battles. Win, you get new and more weapons and food and medical supplies - loose and you don't.

Logistics in an insurgency is not done in a standardized way, it is funded through criminal enterprise mostly and feeds itself on scavenged assets.


Originally posted by MrSpad
Then we have the issue who the insurgents are facing. If a truly tyrannical government reacted like the Germans did to the assasination of Heydrich exterminating two towns of people. The idea that people would be able to resist a tyranical gov with the guns they have at home is beyond foolish. They would need to be rearmed and trained by an outside force and most likely need direct military action as well. If not it will end up like the hungarian revolt against the Soviets who left with militias alone instead of the American Revolution with the French and Spanish fighting side by side with the American rebels.


There are plenty of men and women in America with the experience and means to train and operate as guerillas - me being one of them.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


And I'm going to keep posting it until people stop acting like the federal reserve was the only central bank in American history.

The US was in the bankers paws since its inception.

edit on 17-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


DID YA MEAN THE" NEST OF VIPERS "THAT WERE ROUTED OUT BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE TIME?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Good luck winning a domestic war against the US government. All you will do is put the country in a state of Marshall law and loose all the freedoms we have. You will be the minority, the majority isn't going to fight........



Dont you see its NOT about GIVING UP its ABOUT not SURRENDERING

Its not as simple as that. Its to defend not take, it is a barrier. Their is a braking point that they wont go beyond because we are able to defend our self. Really marshal law? We are all ready in a marshal law state, the president can lock ANY ONE up WITH OUT a trial.

If you do not think we cant defend our self's against the govt then you have never been in war. For starters the military is the people and most of the, understand what it means to have rights taken away. They would not stand for it. Groups of armed civilians and militia would raid Govt bases and sites and take them for their own.
STOP THINKING ABOUT NOW AND THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE!!! Even if you dont think this Govt wont do any thing once our weapons are stripped away from us (the same govt that locks people up with out trials) a future govt easily could.

But in reality ITS NOT ABOUT DOMESTIC WAR!! Its about the hidden war you dont see.
Be a coward and give in...
edit on 17-2-2013 by Infi8nity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


I need to address this quote, as I find it to be ironically the exact argument for why no one has the right to bear arms.

Temporary safety, as provided by the amount of bullets and jamming frequency of said firearm in exchange for a country with daily homicides... Irony so thick I want some on my waffles.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Star , you are a person with a clear mind.......I salute you!



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


I need to address this quote, as I find it to be ironically the exact argument for why no one has the right to bear arms.

Temporary safety, as provided by the amount of bullets and jamming frequency of said firearm in exchange for a country with daily homicides... Irony so thick I want some on my waffles.


I am not following you at all. it basicly says if your willing to give up some freedoms in exchange for someone else to promise to protect you in the short term you deserve neither, because you already have the ability to protect yourself. here is it put a different way that I might even hazard a guess as the correct way as written by him.



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.


www.ushistory.org...

My interpretation might be flawed but thats the way I always saw it and read it. What do bullets and jamming have to do with it?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kleverone
 


Remember Soviet Georgia.

Nuff said.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I read through lots of these debates on ATS. I very rarely post to them. Usually by the time I get to them all points I could post have already been stated.
However I can't help myself this particular time.
First the OP was about the need for the second amendment I believe, and supplied many quotes from our founding fathers. A debated ensues that in my view is a debate on whether or not the second amendment should even still be in place. For those who (such as myself) believe the constitution as written by our founders to be a sacred document that entails the rights of a free people and limits the power of a governing body to infringe upon those rights, the second amendment is as valid and unquestionable as any of the others.
It is my opinion that there exists no valid argument for limiting the gun rights of any or all law abiding citizens which are protected by the second amendment, although there are already many laws (old and new) that do just that. It is further my opinion that American citizens who wish to enjoy all freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution should be lobbying to have those oppressions lifted, not debating on further restrictions.
Further if this is the debate to be had, and even if in the world of today an armed populace could or could not overthrow a government that has far over reached it's power, that is not the point to me. Either way it goes down the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, the limits of power enumerated by the Constitution are being eroded and slowly taken away, if a real fight, a revolution, occurred and the free American people lost this fight, then America, the United States is lost to history. If this fight does not occur it is my opinion it is also lost to history, possibly quicker if we set by and do nothing.
For those who believe guns to be evil beings in themselves, well don't own one, the second amendment gives you the right, not the obligation. It gives me the right to own, and bear arms, and is supposed to prevent you who oppose that from being able to restrict or take away that right.
For those that believe restrictions on the second amendment afford you some safety, I confess that in some limited circumstances that might be true, probably because you choose not to arm and defend your own self. Yes there are laws that restrict other freedoms. Freedom of speech for example; if you yell "FIRE" in a crowded a theater and people get hurt in a panic to get out, you have committed a crime and must be punished accordingly. Know what we don't do??? We don't gag people on their way into a theater so they can't yell. An absurd bit of an example I know but it makes a point, that point being another standard of freedom and the American way we used to believe in "innocent until proven guilty".
I could go on for pages. But for the record those who read this will know how I feel about the debate. To those agree or disagree, it is your freedom to do either and I thank you for knowing my opinion.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


My point is that a gun offers no protection without ammo. A gun which is jammed or compromised offers no protection either. Unless you have a perfect weapon that never jams and unlimited ammo, your "safety" is exactly that, TEMPORARY.

On the other hand, if no one had guns, it's clear to see how this would help guarantee my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Good luck winning a domestic war against the US government. All you will do is put the country in a state of Marshall law and loose all the freedoms we have. You will be the minority, the majority isn't going to fight........



Less than 10% of the population actively participated in the first Revolution. It doesn't take a huge number of active fighters to topple a government. Some (The Torries about 35% of the population) actually aided the British. The rest either passivly aided the American Soldiers or just stayed out of the way making money on both sides and trying to stay alive. Doesn't take a majority.

Being a 24 year veteran of Special Forces - guerilla warfare is sort of my specialty. You can find numerous examples of small forces waging and wining insurgencies all over the globe throughoutr history.

Most recently some tribal people in Afghanistan have kept the USSR and the USA busy hopping and popping for going on most of the last 30+ years. The same Army you are saying is invincible.

I served in that Army - it is not invincible. Even if they activated and recalled every serviceman under age 65 to fill out their rosters they'd not be able to equip and outfit them all. Our military is exceptionally small - less than 1.5 million on active duty in all the services to quell a nation of 315 million people as big as the USA. Even then only the tier 1 units have the latest in gear and equipment (about 400K troops total) not enough. The rest have Desert Storm era equipment and technology. The National Guard has older tech than that.

Our logistics infrastructure is working full tilt to supply the 150K tops we have in the field right now. It is frankly stretched to its limit. You don't fight an Army at its strong point you conduct guerilla operations at the weak points - the supply chain. Move quick, stay anonymous and hit hard - blend back into the population and repeat as necessary.

The population will get tired real quickly of the draconian crackdown from the government as they arrest and detain "suspected agents" and make mistakes with collateral damage. Time is on the side of the insurgent my friend always has been always will be. War is an art not a science.




Insurgents require outside support. Every succesful one has had it en mass. Armed Americans with no standard weapon, ammunition or training would crushed by a military force without outside support. In fact all these guns we have would have to be tossed aside and we would have to be rearmed with some sort of standard weapon for supply and logistics and then trained. Then we have the issue who the insurgents are facing. If a truly tyranical goverment reacted like the Germans did to the assasination of Heydrich exterminating two towns of people. The idea that people would be able to resist a tyranical gov with the guns they have at home is beyond foolish. They would need to be rearmed and trained by an outside force and most likely need direct military action as well. If not it will end up like the hungarian revolt against the Soviets who left with militias alone instead of the American Revolution with the French and Spanish fighting side by side with the American rebels.


I agree that, historically, insurgents have always needed out side support. However, in the past the oppressors always had a strong economy. A global economic depression might place enough stress on an oppressing force to weaken it's tactical abilities. Also if a revolutionary war in the US was concurrent with revolutionary wars world wide, there would be some kind of positive (getting surplus stuff) and negative (bad guys loosing stuff) support.


Two things about a real war
1) Weapons have become so destructive that a low tech force cannnot concentrate before attack or defence. The combatants would need to stay dispersed until the exact moment of contact with the opposing force or always be in contact, as close as possible to the opposing force. Any grouping of soldiers or equiptment or premade defences not adjacent to OpFor would be anihilated by modern firepower.

2)The revolutionaries would need all supplies to be hidden or quickly made. Like numerous underground, small chambers-- because big chambers can be found by geologic technology; and maybe some form of alge or microbiotic for food and fuel, things that can be made in a day or two. The revolution would need alot of scientists. or busy amateurs.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Right. I forgot these rebels are going to have millions of dollars in funding and someone supplying them to keep up with the US military.


Actually I think you did forget... The supplies and money will come from the NRA and everyone with money to spare in Texas. Hell given how poorly Obama has run this country he will probably have stimulus money for militias.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


My point is that a gun offers no protection without ammo. A gun which is jammed or compromised offers no protection either. Unless you have a perfect weapon that never jams and unlimited ammo, your "safety" is exactly that, TEMPORARY.

On the other hand, if no one had guns, it's clear to see how this would help guarantee my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


I doubt that it would help guarantee your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some crazy nut could just as easily shoot you with a bow, a crossbow, tazer you and slit your throat, crush your windpipe in a dark alley, hack off your arms legs and head with a sword, stick a ball peen hammer through your skull, ect.... the crazy bastards are what we have to watch our for. Humans have been murdering one another since the dawn of time without guns. The report from a gunshot alarms the people who hear it. The severing of a femoral artery is silent, a trained killer can kill just as many people in a crowded room with a knife as with a gun, he could probably take five or six people out due to the silent nature of the weapon before anyone knew what was really going on. Even in a world without guns you are never safe.
edit on 18-2-2013 by kdyam because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-2-2013 by kdyam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kdyam
 


I'll take my chances with the knife. You need to be able to reach me to stab me. Or, you could shoot me from 500+ ft. I'll take my chances with the knife.





new topics
top topics
 
36
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join