← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Howard Campbell, Jr.
Thread ID: 20318 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2005-09-21
2005-09-21 11:46 | User Profile
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Colt Revolver: The original point and 'click' interface.
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
Free Men Do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
Guns only have two enemies: rust and liberals. (Three, including Neo-Cons. -HC,Jr.)
Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
Enforce the "Gun Control Laws" we have; don't make more.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
".. A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
2005-09-22 01:15 | User Profile
It's always good to remember that stuff.
Privately-owned rifles (and, to a lesser extent, other guns and improvised weapons) and the willingness to use them are the basis of freedom. Not voting. Not writing to congressmen. Not the military. Certainly not the police. Just rifles, other weapons, and an intense, focused hatred of anyone who would violate your rights.
2005-09-22 01:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]It's always good to remember that stuff.
Privately-owned rifles (and, to a lesser extent, other guns and improvised weapons) and the willingness to use them are the basis of freedom. Not voting. Not writing to congressmen. Not the military. Certainly not the police. Just rifles, other weapons, and an intense, focused hatred of anyone who would violate your rights.[/QUOTE] Many people underestimate the power of a gun, saying things like "the government has missiles and tanks; mere guns are useless against tyranny."
But that's ridiculous. Missiles and tanks can't be used everywhere. In fact, they are essentially useless for many tactical purposes. All the gee-whiz gadgets in the world can't take away the fact that a bullet pierces through flesh.
Ask any Vietnam veteran whether guns are really so harmless against "superior" forces.
2005-09-22 03:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]Many people underestimate the power of a gun, saying things like "the government has missiles and tanks; mere guns are useless against tyranny."
But that's ridiculous. Missiles and tanks can't be used everywhere. In fact, they are essentially useless for many tactical purposes. All the gee-whiz gadgets in the world can't take away the fact that a bullet pierces through flesh.
Ask any Vietnam veteran whether guns are really so harmless against "superior" forces.[/QUOTE]Exactly. The argument that "you can't fight with rifles against tanks and helicopters" is just really, really stupid. Usually it's made by smartass types who dislike guns. No one is talking about open showdowns with rifles against combat vehicles. This is all about guerrilla warfare.
Besides, a government would be very foolish to use such weapons on its own territory and people. After all, members and non-members of the government, military, and police generally live in the very same neighborhoods. How on earth are they going to bomb insurgents without causing enormous collateral damage to their own family members, friends, property, and important infrastructure? That would serve no purpose except to cause a LOT more people to join the uprising. If collateral damage is bad news even in a foreign occupation, you can imagine how ill-advised it is when you're fighting on your own soil.
Any future civil war in the US will be fought largely in urban areas, and the fighting will be done almost entirely with rifles, apart from the occasional well-placed booby-trap and bomb. The government will try to use helicopters and tanks, but they'll simply be evaded or (in the case of tanks) turned into cinders by Molotov cocktails and homemade explosives once they enter urban areas.
2005-09-22 05:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Exactly. The argument that "you can't fight with rifles against tanks and helicopters" is just really, really stupid. Usually it's made by smartass types who dislike guns. No one is talking about open showdowns with rifles against combat vehicles. This is all about guerrilla warfare. To call that argument "stupid" is an understatement. It reminds me of the argument that for combat aircraft, guns are obsolete due to the advent of "modern" air-to-air missiles. Funny enough, the same argument was made before Vietnam, etc. It's always shown to be false in the actual theatre of operations. I guess some idiots think that combat aircraft can carry an infinite supply of missiles, which are of course 100% effective. That's nonsense, which is why dog fighting is still with us (for F-16s, not Fidos).
I just posted about how even bayonets are being used in Iraq. If even they have their uses on our oh-so modern battlefields, so much more the rifle!
Besides, a government would be very foolish to use such weapons on its own territory and people. After all, members and non-members of the government, military, and police generally live in the very same neighborhoods. How on earth are they going to bomb insurgents without causing enormous collateral damage to their own family members, friends, property, and important infrastructure? That would serve no purpose except to cause a LOT more people to join the uprising. If collateral damage is bad news even in a foreign occupation, you can imagine how ill-advised it is when you're fighting on your own soil. In many wars, "scorched earth" against a foreign enemy is used without apology. This is true even for nuclear weapons, in the case of Japan. But such tactics can only go so far domestically before they become counterproductive. This is true for the reasons you mention, and also the need for revenue. Tax dollars don't exactly grow on trees, after all. Any future civil war in the US will be fought largely in urban areas, and the fighting will be done almost entirely with rifles, apart from the occasional well-placed booby-trap and bomb. Guns will be major in any such conflict. The AK-47 is cheap, rugged and reliable. Even if every source of automatic weapons was (impossibly) cut off from rebels, more could - and would - be produced. They can literally be made with hand tools. Along with guns and improvised weapons, I could see an important role for mortars, RPGs, etc. They're always available from assorted sellers, many of whom couldn't care less who is buying. Some of these sellers would turn out to be rival governments with an axe to grind. The government will try to use helicopters and tanks, but they'll simply be evaded or (in the case of tanks) turned into cinders by Molotov cocktails and homemade explosives once they enter urban areas.[/QUOTE] You probably recall that just recently, an expensive Chinook was shot down in Afghanistan, almost certainly by an inexpensive RPG.
In WWII, Vietnam, etc. combat vehicles got wasted by improvised weapons, such as well-placed Molotov cocktails. Tanks are slow, unwieldy, and far from invincible. Even the most expensive armored vehicles have weaknesses that can be tactically exploited.