Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:47:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
258 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> The 2d Amendment is worded vaguely, so it can mean either or both, even
> granted that the "Red Dawn" scenario is pretty unlikely nowadays--and that
> a hostile power would now possess weapons far more powerful than anything
> your average homeowner with a .30-06 is going to have.
Technological superiority would not necessarily guarantee victory in a "Red
Dawn" type scenario - whether the aggressor were foreign or our own gov't.
Afghanistan/Russia demonstrates that (Viet Nam also). If a people have the will
to fight they will win. If it were our own gov't who were to turn on us, I
believe that there would be enough active duty defections to balance the
sides, or provide black market weaponry. Also, there are plenty of veterans out
there with enough knowledge to muck things up royally. In the past, some of
these good ol' boy survivalists have given the gov't a run for their money with
not much more than a rifle or a knife.
Bill
>
> best
>
> Lindsay
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) There's also that "hostile foreign Powers" thing too, considering that the early United States simply didn't have the money to maintain a large standing army or navy, and wouldn't until the 1850s. Until the 1830s, invasion from Canada was a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
