Can armed citizens really make a difference?

[White Devil]

A friend of mine (he's a journalist in Chicago) is one of those annoying anti-gun people. No matter what I say, he won't change his mind (or even admit I make some good points). In a recent and heated debate, I made a comment that the people we fought against in Vietnam were armed rebels. In other words, armed citizens resisting their current government. He doesn't think armed citizens could successfully fight against Apache helicopters and Stealth bombers. I say that history is full of examples proving him wrong. Was I correct in using the Vietnam War as an example? If not, what examples could I use? After thinking about the Vietnam conflict awhile, I could be wrong because the Soviet Union was helping them quite a bit. Any ideas that could help me battle my friend would help.

[RRK]

For vietnam the stats (i believe)were
57,000 dead americans vs 1.5 million dead
V.C. and North vietnamese. A 26.3 to 1 kill
ratio in americas favor, maybe not a good
example http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/smile.gif. How about the Soviet union vs
Afghanistan freedom fighters?

[DriftPunch]

Two things:
1. As a journalist, your friend probably is a fierce supporter of a strict intrepretation of the 1st ammendment. If one is to stand by the 1st in this fashion. One must then stand by all the ammendments in the same fashion. To do otherwise would compromise the position on the first. The whole document must be intrepreted in the same fashion. You can't just single one out for loose intrepretation because you don't agree with it.

2. Your friend is also seeing in black and white when he says that it is "futile to fight the military". That is an extremely defeatist attitude for life in general. This attitude is one reason that government is now so big and intrusive. "Nobody will dare question us", is the bulldozing attitude of some agencies (The IRS). Ask him if he ever gave up in a press conference when he noticed that many other journalists were there and his odds were long. (this assumes he is a news guy)

[Destroyer]

How about the Colonists against Great Britian? We did it once before, we can do it again.

[Battler]

Although vs. Great Britain there wasn't a technology advantage.

However, how do you fight against Apache Helicopters and Stealth bombers?

I have a better question: How does a stealth bomber fight against a soldier?

Such military equipment is more self-negating than anything else. A stealth bomber cannot take one inch of ground, it cannot intimidate one civilian into accepting your rule over him.

A stealth bomber blows up buildings owned by people with HEAVY FIXED anti-aircraft defenses. In a civil war such as you describe, what does the "evil man who doesn't turn in his gun" have for a stealth bomber to shoot at?

Such a war would be dirty, on the streets, and man to man, and very demoralizing for anyone who would have to go in and fight his own country-man.

Fighting that is inter-mingled with the "civilian populace", especially in cities, is the dirtiest ugliest "don't touch it with a ten foot pole" fighting/warring there is. The Russians lost 300,000 (yes, 300K) troops taking Berlin defended by old men and little boys.

If the objective is genocide of an area, you nuke it. If the objective is to rule the people in an area, to impose your will, to inflict taxes, rape, pillage, the man with a rifle is the ULTIMATE and NECESSARY weapon system.


Battler

[White Devil]

It's true. My friend is a strict advocate of freedom of the press. But when I pointed out his double-standard, he said I was comparing 'apples and oranges'. As far as he's concerned, the Second-Amendment is a mistake. He will go on and on about how the truly wonderful thing about the Constitution is that it can be changed. He thinks the 2nd needs to be changed (changed to the point that it's useless). I've used the argument that if the 2nd goes, soon the rest will be gone as well. He doesn't think so.

[Battler]

Ehheh. I know why the media isn't scared of the first. What a stupid argument.

They ARE in charge - the big interests who RUN the media mold politics, not the other way around. The point of view your friend pushes is mostly the general trend, whether it be gun control, socialism, support for whoever Billy-boy has to bomb to get out of his latest scandal.

Your buddy tells people what he's told to tell them now. And like most Americans, he believes the left-wing crap after being saturated in it. And he'll be told that the re-education camps are good, he'll tell us, and he'll believe it, and we'll all believe it, first amendment or not, it only affects him if he doesn't do what his boss says, so his job won't change a bit.

Battler.

[Battler]

Pardon my last post, it was a little heated (media). I didn't mean any of you were stupid for arguing it, just that I don't see any mass-media people "breaking out" from the pack.

I still maintain that a modern-day media outlet needs the first amendment like a fish needs a bicycle. They either reflect or generate that which is popular, either what most people want to hear (and consequently are above reproach) or what the powers that be want people to think (in which case, they're also above persecution by the "powers that be".

Free speech protects he whose opinion is NOT popular, usually he won't be the media. Heck, look at how the media says "blah blah spreads hate; but (unfortunately) the FBI claims their hands are tied wrt. investigating/persecuting on 1st amendment grounds). They're about as subtle about free "unpopulat" speech as they are about gun control.

Battler.

[WAREAGLE]

Ya want some statistics for odds...How's this? When Fidel Castro set out to start his guerrilla war in Cuba, he landed on Cuban soil with 82 men. The Cuban government was forewarned and ambushed the group. Around 70 of the men were killed and they lost most of their equipment and supplies. This left a grand total of 12 men. With these 12, over a period of time, using guerrilla tactics, he eventually led a band of rebels, never numbering more than 2,000 (no, it's not a typo), to defeat Batista's army of 30,000. The ratio was 15:1 in favor of Batista and he even had US backing. Now, we may not agree with Fidel, but you have to give it to him, he's got balls AND he's still in power. http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by WAREAGLE (edited September 23, 1999).]

[White Devil]

Battler--I agree with you 100%. When the media never seems to go against the grain in any significant way they have little to fear about the First Amendment (especially when the head-honcho buys and sells politicians like used cars). Great point made by WAREAGLE about Castro. Never thought of him, but that brings up a good example of a small army of men making a difference against a government. The strange thing is that before my friend went to college he wasn't such a liberal zombie. It's like they brainwash anyone majoring in journalism. Perhaps others out there also have friends or co-workers like this. Luckily for me, I live in rural Kansas, and most folks around here can see through the bullshit.

[RRK]

Personally i see two possible scenarios for the future first;China- currently china has been building 5 aircraft carriers and 4 boomer submarines the completion date is to be around 2008. After china has sucked the technology and wealth from this country we will no longer be of use to them. At which time they will attack,clinton having dismantled our military we will find ourselfs defenceless except for nukes, which will not be used on our own soil. Second scenario, China joins the new world order and becomes part of NATO things continue as usual until the world socialists gain total control,NATO troops consisting of mostly of Asian soldiers are used to mop up pockets of nationalist strongholds in America and the rest of the world. And so begins the new world order.

[Heavy Metal]

The Answer Is:
You use small arms to capture the heavy stuff from your enemy
In week one you have rifles and pistols,
Pretty soon, you have grenades, mortars and rocket launchers.
Third, the Tanks and planes.
Fourth, The NUKES!
Remember, Ex-GI's can use heavy U.S. equipment so we have a GREAT advantage in this fact.

H.M.

[56s]

Heavy Metal is correct and right on!

Take care, OUT

------------------
56s-2

Kind of reminds me of the "Liberator" pistol,a single shot .45 that was dropped to resistance fighters during the second world war.The concept was you shoot an enemy soldier,take his weapons,and pass the "Liberator" on to the next guy in your group that needs a weapon.Armed civilians in the form of resistance groups were a very valuable asset to the Allies during the war.

[White Devil]

I remember reading about the CIA "Deer Gun". They were going to drop thousands of them behind enemy lines in Vietnam to 'inspire' anti-red civilians into making nice little holes in communist soldiers (or better yet, officers). I don't know if any of these small single-shot 9mm's were ever dropped or not.

[This message has been edited by White Devil (edited September 23, 1999).]

[Floyd]

More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott, Jr. is the best work to convince people of the need for the private ownership of guns and for concealed carry. Here's the review at Amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493636/qid%3D938152575/002-3207170-5590606

------------------
Join the NRA!!! http://www.nrahq.org/givejoinhelp/membership/

[CassidyGT]

The People of this country could beat the Govt. if they had the support of some of the population. Look at the Olympic Bomber - they still haven't caught him. He is hiding out in N. Carolina somewhere. The fact that there are people there who support him makes it relatively easy for him to elude the authorities. The kind of war vs the Govt. would not be a stand and fight kind of battle, it would be undercover, guerilla operations where most of the patriots would be regular guys by day and go and blow stuff up by night. Others would melt into the hills and mountains with the support of the local people and attack installations etc by night too. It would go on for years and years. It could even devolve into something like N. Ireland where it goes on for 100 yrs. The fact is that the Govt could never actually win a war like that as long as there are those willing to fight. The Patriots could never really lose a war like that either. Sure many many would die but as long as there were Patriots alive, the fight would go on in some form or another.