Subject:
|
Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:32:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1043 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott A wrote:
> Most modern Armies are trained in urban clearance - it is a key part of
> modern warfare. Personally, I fail to see how a bunch of out to shape middle
> aged men can put up any sort of credible resistance, with small arms,
> against a well trained military. To me, the notion that a man with pistol
> can put up anything more than a token resistance is absurd. Has anyone seen
> “Dad’s Army”?
I think you underestimate what someone who REALLY believes they are
right, and are REALLY willing to die for their cause is capable of
doing. Governments have been doing this for over 200 years (that
underestimation is what lost the American Revolution for the king). Look
at how much effect the Palestinians are having on Israel (for a very
modern example, where the "trained" military is probably one of the best
trained in the world, with a much more healthy dose of willingness to
die for their cause than probably any other professional army).
> Naturally, all that assumes that the military would not divide. If it did
> divide, the gun owning populous would be even more ineffectual.
I think the army would divide. Certainly at some point, the "civilian"
gun owners would stop contributing much to the cause, but I suspect they
would have a very strong influence early on. At some point, soldiers are
going to start asking themselves, "Why am I killing someone who could be
my brother? Is my cause really so right that we should be killing our
bothers and sisters?"
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 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
|
|
|
|
