|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Should a private citizen be able to own...  [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#2394477 - 03/02/04 09:33 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Has anyone mentioned the American Revolution yet?
wouldn't count for alex. the americans, though at first armed only with small arms, later captured british artillery, and also formed into more organized military units. therefore, it doesn't count. there must be an example of a resistance using rifles exclusively and not organizing themselves. if they organize to any extent, or capture or buy heavy weapons at any point in the conflict, the example apparently does not count.
|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2394493 - 03/02/04 09:40 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
a population with no arms at all has no chance of freeing itself.
India?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2394527 - 03/02/04 09:51 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
india did not free itself. the brits let it go.
while we're on the subject...
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mahatma Ghandi
|
 Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,652
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 22 minutes
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2394588 - 03/02/04 10:26 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ghandi was a neocon dittohead.
--------------------
This space for rent
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 30 days
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2394595 - 03/02/04 10:30 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
wouldn't count for alex. the americans, though at first armed only with small arms, later captured british artillery, and also formed into more organized military units. therefore, it doesn't count. there must be an example of a resistance using rifles exclusively and not organizing themselves. if they organize to any extent, or capture or buy heavy weapons at any point in the conflict, the example apparently does not count.
I thought only small caliber pistols were included in Alex's jaded, one-sided depection of the resistance!
What you describe here is consistant with sucessful resistance campaigns in various nations. Smaller units, trained in guerilla warfare, acquiring weapons from either an outside supporter, a machine shop that they run, or the enemy. A revolution can't be won ONLY with pistols and rifles, but using those pistols and rifles to kill the people guarding a B2 loaded with nukes, that could certaintly do it. I'm sure that Alex will pointedly ignore all valid points ocntained in my post and your both, as is typical
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 30 days
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2394735 - 03/02/04 11:10 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
Has anyone mentioned the American Revolution yet? Quote:
Or haiti?
Alex- What about 9/11? Certaintly you can see how 15 dedicated zealots did more damage to our country with only box cutters than any previous terrorist attack ever had. This demonstrates the basic theory of guerilla warfare, use what you have to do the most htat you can.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
#2394742 - 03/02/04 11:12 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the 9-11 attacks were the exact opposite of good guerrilla tactics.
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 30 days
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2394784 - 03/02/04 11:23 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The only reason that I wouldn't consider 9/11 attacks good guerilla attacks isthat they were done independantly of other attacks. If more attacks had followed, say, that some of the Stinger missles were in country and ready to be used on planes the next time flight was allowed, that would have exponentially raised the level of damage done to our country. Other than that, why was it bad tactics?
--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
#2394809 - 03/02/04 11:31 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
guerrilla warfare is a political war. the idea is to break the enemy's will to fight while at the same time bolstering support from the community. sabatoge, assassination, ambush, sniping, etc. are only means to these ends. the 9-11 attacks, like almost all acts of terrorism, had the opposite effect of what a guerrilla group would try to accomplish.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,652
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 22 minutes
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2394815 - 03/02/04 11:32 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Hence "Bush Knew." 
--------------------
This space for rent
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2395056 - 03/02/04 12:45 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
india did not free itself. the brits let it go.
After the indians had made it ungovernable by unarmed protest..
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2395120 - 03/02/04 01:03 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Do you think that unarmed protests would have worked against the Nazis to free the people they had under their rule?
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2395276 - 03/02/04 01:36 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
it was governable, just not by means the brits were cruel enough to employ. had they come down hard on the indians for their civil disobedience, the indians would have been in deep water. when peaceful revolution is possible, it is preferable. there are times when it is not.
rifles are militarily useful. they are also used by millions of americans in peacetime for purposes like target shooting (which is an olympic sport), hunting for food (like deer and elk), and eliminating pests (like coyotes, which destroy livestock). here in america, we've got animals like bears and alligators, and some people keep rifles as defense against them also. rifles are used in commiting a negligible amount of crime. i simply do not see any logic in disarming a population of their rifles.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2397760 - 03/03/04 09:37 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
One thing that's been troubling me about this whole civilians fighting theory is what do they do when they run out of bullets? Bubba's loosing off a thousand rounds a week in gun battles - is the idea he just pops down to the local gunstore and buys a thousand more?
What are the logistics of supplying tens of millions of civilians with the correct ammo for their hunting rifles?
Or is the idea that the civilians fight for a couple months till the ammo runs out and just kind of hope the occupiers have left?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2397785 - 03/03/04 09:48 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
securing ammunition may present a problem. as might securing weapons. or men. or food. or just about anything a resistance would need. there are problems. there are difficulties to overcome. it doesn't mean that guerrilla resistance is unworkable.
the question of this thread incidentally did not ask if we thought that citizens should be able to own rifles. now it seems to have come to that.
the usefulness of rifles for military purposes aside, they are both very good for peacetime uses and are used in commiting a negligible amount of crime.
if you don't think that citizens should be able to own rifles, why? what would it accomplish? assuming that every murder that would have been commited with a rifle wouldn't happen if you banned rifles, that would reduce the homocide rate by .0045%. why should citizens be barred the use of what to many is such an important tool?
even if rifles were completely worthless for fighting off oppression, there would still be no reasonable cause for banning them.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2397799 - 03/03/04 09:52 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm not saying guerilla resistance isn't workable, I'm asking whether having millions of armed civilians has any bearing on the effectiveness of guerilla resistance.
the question of this thread incidentally did not ask if we thought that citizens should be able to own rifles. now it seems to have come to that.
Actually I seem to remember it was you who insisted we refer to rifles.
There may be valid reasons for owning a rifle, what do you think they are?
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 20 years, 30 days
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2397861 - 03/03/04 10:14 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Just as a preamble; your ignorance of firearms, guerilla tactics and ammunition required for firearm useage doesn't give you the right to be condecending. IT does, however, make it more fun when I school you.
Quote:
Alex123 said:
One thing that's been troubling me about this whole civilians fighting theory is what do they do when they run out of bullets? Bubba's loosing off a thousand rounds a week in gun battles - is the idea he just pops down to the local gunstore and buys a thousand more?
A THOUSAND rounds a week? I'm not sure if you think that guerilla warfare entales standing out in front of the other troops ranks and letting loose with a machine gun, but it certaintly does not. If a trained individual was properly using 1,000 rounds of high-powered rifle ammunition per week, it would mean that he would be killing a minumum of 750 enemy soldiers per week. This factor certaintly isn't the same in real war (In Vietnam, for example, it was estimated that the US fired over 1,000,000 rounds for each confirmed kill of an enemy), but in guerilla war, you realize that ammunition could possibly become scarce, so you don't "spray and pray", you use aimed, precise shots. I personally was trained to make each shot a seperate entity, not in conjuection with other shots to make noise or frighten people. Each shot I make, wether it is the first one of the day or the last one after 6 hours of shooting, is planned, thought out, and made independantly of all other shots.
Quote:
What are the logistics of supplying tens of millions of civilians with the correct ammo for their hunting rifles?
TENS OF MILLIONS of civilians? If "tens of millions" of civilians were, on a weekly basis, shooting 1,000+ rounds at the enemy, their soon wouldn't be an enemy, just a gigantic pile of spend brass and 300 yards away, a repository of bullets and dead bodies.
However, since you asked, lets cover it. If you were preparing for such an event, you'd most likely purchase an "assault weapon" such as an AR-15(the civilian, colt manufactured version of the M-16A2) or a rifle such as a FN-FAL(pricey, but worth it). The AR-15 uses the same .223 (5.56mm) round as the M-16 that American troops would be using, if we were talking about America. The FN-FAL, SKS, AK-47, and a great deal of hunting rifles fire the .308 (7.62mm) round. If I personally was in charge of a group of 4-5 armed men fighting the occupying army, I'd just find a small patrol of enemies to ambush and take their ammunition / weapons. Ammuntion also stores quite well, especially if you rotate your stocks. A brick of 1,000 rounds can be purchased and stored. If you have, as I do, an AR-15 (or three), you'll most likely be using a 30 round magazine. It would take firing off 33.3 of these magazines to use 1,000 rounds. Do you honestly think that the most effective tactic in guerilla warfare is to fire off 1,000 rounds per week? Hardly. With my customized, accurized AR-15, I could make that 1,000 rounds = a minumum of 995 dead enemies, destroyed guidance systems, punctured fuel tanks, aircraft engines destroyed, etc. With my .308 rifle, bolt action, I guarantee you that 1000 rounds would equate with 1000 enemy casualties.
In combat situations, US Marines are, or were in my day, given four-six full magazines. A trained five man team with these weapons, with one man using a hunting rifle for 'sniper' support, could easily take out a few moving vehicles pretty quickly.
You are either totally ignorant of guerilla warfare tactics, or you are intentionally mangling figures to fit your own needs. If their was to be a need for "resistance" and IF I were to take place in it, and IF my supply of ammunition became depleted to a point where I could not possibly attain more, I'd just buy a few trucks full of fertilizer, a few barrels of wood alcohol, and I'd turn the nearest enemy base into a burned out crater.
Quote:
Or is the idea that the civilians fight for a couple months till the ammo runs out and just kind of hope the occupiers have left?
Hardly. Some of the hard-core survivalists out there have tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. In Vietnam, they would steal weapons from American servicemen to have a weapon and the ammunition contained there in.
To sum it up, ammunition won't be a problem as long as the enemies have ammo. I can't explain EXATLY how it would occur, because it is a situation-by-situation thing. Lets say that the enemies were shipping their ammo via train car to supply their troops. Blowing the cabling system out on the trains would allow the cars to be pilfered, as would intercepting the train and killing all crew. Where their is a will...
I'd recommend reading "Guerillas in the mist", available from Paladin Press, to get a full (or even a basic) understanding of guerilla warfare and tactics.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2398001 - 03/03/04 10:57 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
There may be valid reasons for owning a rifle, what do you think they are?
aside from the political argument?
1. hunting for food. hunting for deer and elk is a cheap way for many people in this country to put meat in their freezer. poor rural folks in particular benefit from this. in my area alone (which isn't exactly rural) we have a huge problem with deer overpopulation. they are a nuissance. people hit them in their cars and are sometimes killed. each year, hunters are permitted to hunt the state parks for a few days. the meat, usually on the order of several hundred pounds, goes to local homeless shelters.
2. target shooting for sport. many people find this to be a relaxing and rewarding hobby. i personally am one of them. target shooting is very meditative for me. i get a lot of enjoyment from it, and so do millions of other americans. rifle shooting is an olympic sport and national pasttime.
3. defense from criminals and wild animals. hikers and campers venturing into alaska or parts of appalachia would do well to carry a rifle. many do. if a bear attacks you, there is little short of a rifle bullet that will stop it before it wants to. i personally know a man who lives in a rural area with a lot of bears who carries a rifle on his back when hauling his trash down to the street or taking the cans back up. bears are a major problem in his area. people going into the florida everglades often carry a rifle or shotgun too as protection from alligators.
4. elimination of pests like coyotes. animals like coyotes are pests which destroy livestock. farmers and ranchers use rifles to protect their livestock from these animals.
there are problaby a whole bunch more. i do believe that private gun onwership does serve as some protection from tyrannical government. think of that what you may, but even if rifles were useless in that respect, they still have a great many other uses, and the crime reduction which would result from banning rifles would be negligent if it happened at all.
what are the reasons for prohibiting rifles?
the only one i can think of is the notion that maybe, if you ban rifles, and every single murder that would have happened with a rifle is prevented, the homocide rate can be cut by as much as .0045%.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2398366 - 03/03/04 12:47 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ok, I can go with you on the hunting and target shooting. Not quite sure of the percentage of americans hunting deer or needing to fend off attacks from alligators. What percentage of the population are we talking? How many are interested in target shooting? BTW, we have target shooting in the UK - you go to a registered club and shoot at targets as long as you like. No need to allow anyone to buy an AK-47 and take it home with them.
Not so sure about the shooting bears thing either. I've spent weeks in Yellowstone Park - never had a single problem with a bear. Never had a rifle - just common sense.
farmers and ranchers use rifles to protect their livestock from these animals.
Ok, farmers and ranchers have access to guns too. What percentage of the american population are farmers and ranchers?
what are the reasons for prohibiting rifles?
So what rifles are we talking about? Only those useful for hunting and target shooting?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
#2398416 - 03/03/04 12:58 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
IT does, however, make it more fun when I school you.
../Me Pulls up chair..
Ok lysergic/johnnyrespect/enima/whoever. Go ahead and school me.
Each shot I make, wether it is the first one of the day or the last one after 6 hours of shooting, is planned, thought out, and made independantly of all other shots
But no-one knows you do they. I know you think you're John Rambo but what possible military benefit is there to sending unknown yahoo's as much ammo as they need? Any ammo you get you want to save for people who know what the fuck they are doing.
If I personally was in charge of a group of 4-5 armed men fighting the occupying army
You're getting into this arn't you?
TENS OF MILLIONS of civilians? If "tens of millions" of civilians were, on a weekly basis, shooting 1,000+ rounds at the enemy, their soon wouldn't be an enemy
No, there soon wouldn't be any civilians. I'm sorry but a trained army backed with F-16's, helicopters and tanks is going to make mincemeat of you and your Uncle Vester.
IF my supply of ammunition became depleted to a point where I could not possibly attain moreI'd just buy a few trucks full of fertilizer, a few barrels of wood alcohol, and I'd turn the nearest enemy base into a burned out crater.
And I'd drop a daisy-cutter on you.
Blowing the cabling system out on the trains would allow the cars to be pilfered, as would intercepting the train and killing all crew
Are you finished?
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
CBD Concentrates 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
HagbardCeline
1 2 3 all )
luvdemshrooms
Tao
carbonhoots
MycoThrill
ZippoZ
gregorio
Redstorm