Muslims want to disarm us...

The real point of all of this is - that the original intent of the Second Amendment still stands. The founding fathers said that the citizens should be able to own "militia" weapons so that they could resist a tyrannical goverment. Does anybody here dispute that human for human a well trained civilian with an AR-15, FAL, AK, Garand, or M14 (all commonly owned by civilians in this country) could not at the very least make it extremely hard for army infantry (any army-it does not matter) to really take over and hold territory in this country? Assuming that said civilians were in sufficient number and had at least a decent amount of supplies? History shows us - and is still showing us now - that guerrillas, militias, civilians with guns - whatever you choose to call them - can at the very least - make life hard for state backed armies. When those militias are backed by the population it is only that much worse. The only way to get rid of them in the end is total eradication. This is what we have had to resort to in Falujah and other places in Iraq.

So lets say something like that happened - some area of the country revolts and civilians take up arms against the goverment claiming that the goverment is a "tyrannical state" . What happens? Maybe the Army goes in, maybe the Marines, or the National Guard. Does anybody here not think that a situation like this - if serious enough - would not cause major disagreement within the military itself? After all during the Civil War southern born persons in the military fought for the south - they did not fight for the federal goverment whose army they had previously served in. Family, region, and ideology are usually stronger pulls for people than goverment.

Maybe the goverment would come in and start blowing up cities and killing people with smart bombs and all the other great weapons our military now possesses. All that would do in the end would be to validate exactly what those imaginary rebels had said all along - that the government is tyrannical. It is in the end a no - win situation for the government - the only way to win in the end is to display overwhelming force, which in the end only validates the claims of the rebels. If enough people decide to support the rebels the goverment falls one way or another. I am not claiming that a war like would not be a terrible shithouse mess. What I am claiming is the the original intent of the founding fathers still holds true today. And it only holds true as long as people keep their guns. The history of Europe during WWII with the Nazi invasions proves this - unarmed people have no defense against marauding armies. The Swiss - and the Finns, used pervasive firearm ownership among their citizens to either completely hold off (Swiss) or make invaders pay a very heavy price -and hold off for a time the invaders (Finnish).

Most of the time people who argue against the second amendment use the dumb ass argument that "civilians with popguns" cannot stand up to modern armies with modern weapons like nukes and such. That is not the point - but they are right as far as it goes. If a city rebels and civilians hold the city with semi-auto battle rifles - and the government decides to drop a nuke on them - well then guess what - the rifles dont really matter much. Except to point out the real intent of that government in the first place. And in the end do we want to live under a government that would do that to their own people?

The guns still serve their purpose.
 
Last edited:
Not so. If you treat Khe Sanh and Tet as the culmination of the Viet Nam war, the United States military won both decisively. The enemy of the United States who defeated us was Walter Cronkite.
Americans won Tet militarily, but lost public support in the process. The latter proved to be more important.
 
The allures and wonders of revisionist history notwithstanding, the point of the OP was that the "Muslims want to disarm us." Who cares?

The REAL threat is the American citizens - and the officials they elected - who want to disarm us.
 
The REAL threat is the American citizens - and the officials they elected - who want to disarm us.


And this is the bottom line.

I thought it ironic when the UN was making so much noise about Americans being armed. Scriv has made some very astute points. With the exception of a few "civilized" nations the citizens of the U.S. are the least capable of defending anything against any substantial organized group.
 
Hardly. We fielded both militia (state forces) and the Continental Army (the national force). Each fought as a unit in open battle, wearing uniforms under specific colors. Consequently neither constitutes "guerrilla's."

The French gave us funds, arms, supplies, the Marquis de LaFayette and, later both land and naval units. The Comte deGrasse defeated the British fleet which was coming to aid Cornwallis and then blockaded his forces, forcing his surrender.

I don't have much use for the French, but fair is fair. Let us note that the debt was paid - TWICE.

Note that the gross disparity in technology between the combatants that exists today did not exist then. Both sides fielded basically the same long arm and artillery. Cruise missiles, "smart bombs," air superiority, night vision, armored vehicles and helo gunships would give the current military a significant advantage advantage over home-grown guerrillas.

As for that drivel about Yamamoto/Japanese naval officer at a joint conference/ex-IJN officer decrying an invasion of the US because an armed American would be "behind every blade of grass;" it's jingoistic nonsense devoid of any real documentation.

The primary reason is the utter impossibility of supplying an invasion force fortunate enough to establish a beachhead - after being decimated by our air and naval forces across the thousands of miles such an invasion force would have to traverse.[wink]


While there are a number of valid and important points here, I believe it to be an error to equate the dichotomy between regular and irregular forces and the dichotomy between conventional and unconventional warfare tactics. Guerillia warfare is a subset of unconventional warfare.

Unconventional warfare can be and has been waged, sometimes quite successfully, by regular forces. Some examples: USFIP in WWII, our efforts in Greece, the task forces that made possible the Pusan breakout and Inchon linkup. By any pragmatic military standard, large aspects of our unconventional warfare in Viet Nam were very successful, particularly in the Mekong delta region.

Because the outcome of any particular battle can be affected as much by accident and terrain as by strategy and tactics, one has to be careful about placing too much reliance on generalization. That said, one of the contributors to the outcome of the American Revolution (in which our side waged both conventional and unconventional warfare at different times) had to do with the fact that, by personal situaton conditioning and, to some extent, technology differences, colonial forces generally had more effective range. That is to say, our guys could pick off British regulars at distances greater than those at which the British could bring effective fire. Likewise, the colonials never employed the "phalanx" approach to infantry deployment, which, by presenting a bigger target to shoot at, resulted in greater effective accuracy of colonial fire.
 
KMaurer

"Do you really mean less than 2 out of 1,000,000?"

Ken

Ken, .0002. (two tenthousandths?) .1 is tens, .11 is hundreds, .111 is thousandnth, .1111 is ten thousandths......... but you're right. I didn't mean millions.

I think the actual figure I was trying to quote was crimes involving a firearm used by a legally licensed person, and I believe the number is more like 2 out of a thousand.

I got carried away with my decimal points.

Do you think I should write that guy a letter and apologize? [thinking]

My wife is already afraid the Islamic center in Sharon< MA will be sending someone over to "talk" to me. [wink]

On a sidenote Ken, I've always wanted to ask you if you were related to the radio personality Ken Maurer? I called WO9-8989 so many times in my youth, it's still with me today.

Bill
 
Last edited:
The allures and wonders of revisionist history notwithstanding, the point of the OP was that the "Muslims want to disarm us." Who cares?

The REAL threat is the American citizens - and the officials they elected - who want to disarm us.


Exactly. The real problem we are facing is that while we are fighting a war in Iraq to allegedly fight terrorism - many citizens of this country and quite a few of the politicians who run it - are letting potential sleeper cell members slip easily over the border. Then they are giving them drivers licenses, in-state tuition rates to colleges, welfare, Medicaid, you name it - so they can sit around and wait for the day when they start launching terrorist attacks against us here in this country. The fact that the author of the article (who has an obviously Arab sounding name) is writing as a "research assistant" for an organization in this country just goes to show you how big this problem is. As more Muslims come into this country - and gain election influence - they will be able to elect legislators who reflect the preferences of the author of this article.

First thing we have to do is stop the infiltration.
 
With the exception of a few "civilized" nations the citizens of the U.S. are the least capable of defending anything against any substantial organized group.

I'd disagree. I believe that the citizens of the US would be extremely capable of defending against any organized group stupid enough to actually attack. The real problem is that unless someone is actually shooting at us, we tend to just close the blinds and turn the volume up on the TV. The American media and political elite on the other hand would probably be in a neck-and-neck race with the French to the "Collaborators Welcome" reception.

Ken
 
I know that French-bashing is a bit of an American pasttime, but the French citizenry hanged the Vichy France collaborators (i.e. the politicians) after WW2.
 
Scriv-Valid points, but more excuses than not.
Bottom line-none of the examples were state sponsored militaries (with exception to the Vietnamese-at least in part), all of them cleaned our clocks. The Palestinians cleaned the Israeli clocks but good too.

To think the US military could win a war, conventional or otherwise, against a group of decently armed, likely well trained, group of American citizens with home field advantage is moronic in the greatest degree.

The military has spent alot of effort on studying this. Google the Kerner Commission or Operation Garden Plot. Then find some research papers on them.
 
I'd disagree. I believe that the citizens of the US would be extremely capable of defending against any organized group stupid enough to actually attack. The real problem is that unless someone is actually shooting at us, we tend to just close the blinds and turn the volume up on the TV. The American media and political elite on the other hand would probably be in a neck-and-neck race with the French to the "Collaborators Welcome" reception.

Ken

The problem is that those who are going to attack are already here and the incoming flow has not ebbed. Rest assured they will be more heavily armed, more determined and more organized than the average American citizen.

Maybe, if the battle is sustained long enough, we might stop our infighting long enough to muster the strength, and organization, necessary to prevail. I just don't see it.


Paul - Most every example Scriv gave were organized state sponsored militias. They had a leader, military chain-of-command, training, weapons and a cause.
 
I think what a lot of us are losing site of on this tread is that the only reply necessary for dribble like this article is "From My cold dead hands Mr. Afeef! "
 
Bottom line-none of the examples were state sponsored militaries (with exception to the Vietnamese-at least in part), all of them cleaned our clocks. The Palestinians cleaned the Israeli clocks but good too.

Maybe you use words differently than I do. Perhaps when you say "cleaned our clocks" you intend that to mean "inflicted some serious casualties". OTOH, when I use it intend to mean "clearly defeated". We faced two distinct military foes in Vietnam: the Viet Cong, an indigenous group with serious support from outside. and the North Vietnamese Army, a regular army with ranks, uniforms, tanks, etc. While we indeed suffered some serious casualties from both, the simple facts are that the 1968 Tet offensive was a military disaster for both the VC and the NVA. The VC essentially ceased to exist after then and never mounted a single half-way successful action again, even on the local level. The NVA pretty much kept a low profile until the cease fire was signed and we left in '73, then started major actions again in '74 culminating in their '75 takeover of the south.

It was entirely forces and events in the US that allowed the north to achieve this victory. Between the American media, traitors like our current junior senator, the release of the Pentagon Papers, and Watergate, the American people were unwilling to provide any further support for South Vietnam. While we lost over 58K good people in Vietnam, everyone agrees that the VC and NVA lost over 1M people. By any stretch of the language, that can hardly be expressed as "they cleaned our clocks". It's more along the lines of "he was pounding the hell out of my fists with his face."

And while Palestinian extremists continue to shoot off rockets at Israeli civilian targets and blow themselves and mostly civilian bystanders up on the streets, they always take much more in return, and have never achieved anything even vaguely resembling a military victory on any noticeable level. They're the military equivalent of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

If you want an actual example of local irregulars "cleaning the clocks" of a major professional army, I'd suggest the case of the Roman 17th, 18th and 19th Legions in the Teutoburger Wald. When you use words, please try to have them actually mean something.

Ken
 
I think what a lot of us are losing site of on this tread is that the only reply necessary for dribble like this article is "From My cold dead hands Mr. Afeef! "

that's the gist of what my email to him said.
 
If you want an actual example of local irregulars "cleaning the clocks" of a major professional army, I'd suggest the case of the Roman 17th, 18th and 19th Legions in the Teutoburger Wald. When you use words, please try to have them actually mean something.

While reviewing Ken's reference to Roman history, you might also examine the success of Spartacus in defeating legions with his motley army of ex-slaves and gladiators. His force did very well until it left defensible positions and diffused itself across the freed area, instead of remaining a cohesive fighting unit.

Your description of Palestinian ordnance as "home-made bottle rockets" is also disingenuous. There are numerous radical Muslim elements happy to equip local insurgents with quality weaponry.

In short, your historical examples are egregiously flawed, as is your logic. Review and revise accordingly.
 
KM and Scriv

The Israelis do not occupy and failed to stomp the guts out of the Palestinians as they clearly should be able to.They make those bottle rockets in basements and garages. I've seen them-up close. We can do better, trust me.

We are not in Vietnam-the other guys are. Or does that not define a "clock cleaning" to anyone but me?

We left Somalia-tail between our legs. They are there-we and our influence are not. Getting it yet?

We continue to get bitch slapped in Iraq, despite a huge technological, logistical, and possibly (probably) numerical advantage. A friend recently returned (Apache pilot) says its worse now than it was in '03 right after the invasion-some success story. I'll take his word over the media or yours (no offense) anyday

What is it you two don't get about a government's standing military cannot defeat a homegrown insurgency-popular or otherwise ? Popular insurgency is near impossible to defeat.

...His force did very well until it left defensible positions and diffused itself across the freed area, instead of remaining a cohesive fighting unit....This a guy with no ideological aspirations beyond not being a slave (big motivational difference) whose followers were killed in such great numbers by Cassus that they couldn't find Spartacus' body. Or the ones crucified and displayed on the Appian Way? This is did very well?

And I'm the one whose examples are flawed.
 
Last edited:
But all that aside- I assure you anyone -especially some muslims-trying to get my guns is looking for trouble.

And they will find it.

I'm certain we agree on that.
 
About the only weapons currently lacking from general availability to the typical American citizen that would pretty much insure an easy defeat of just about any standing military are anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft. Once we started supplying the Afghan mujahadeen with Stingers they really started giving the Soviets a hard time. When Hezbollah fought the Israelis over the summer in Lebanon they had Iranian anti tank weapons that pretty much negated any advantage the Israelis might have had from their armor. The use of shoulder fired anti tank and anti aircraft missiles brings any fight back to being an infantry vs infantry battle. So if you have a popular insurgency with good tactics, training, and supplies you do have a decent chance of success against a state sponsored military. This is not guaranteed of course - but it also far from sure thing that the state military will win also.

Why do you think the anti's want to take our guns away so badly?
 
Back
Top Bottom