|
Texas school district to let teachers carry guns (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, good luck taking out that tank with your M-16. |
Well, civilian forces can do real damage to an occupying army, as the U.S. is learning once again in Iraq. Actually killing more of their guys than they kill of yours is probably hopeless, but that has not been the point of most guerrilla warfare anyway: the point is to sap the morale of the occupying army, and that can be done pretty effectively.
Of course, the occupying army, if it is brutal enough, can use its own morale-sapping technique in the form of collective reprisal. |
|
|
| Aquadyne |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yes, because you know its absolute horse. yeah, good luck taking out that tank with your M-16. |
You really should learn more about this before running your mouth.
In the 21st century where the vast majority of combat will be in urban environments, tanks have virtually no use or utility.
As a matter of fact, in the 21st century, I would rather own an armful of M-16s than a tank. |
|
|
| diggerz |
stay on the topic,please
No keyboard here• |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquadyne
But to make it an obvious example for you... it took US 3 weeks to invade and topple Iraq. But 5 years later they still have not pacified it. |
was mid-post, and i am amazed you bothered with the such an absurd example.
Case in point: iraq. With borders like a sieve, and weapons overflowing, the US is still planted as firmly as ever, after 5 years of occupation. This is despite people moving to iraq specifically to fight the US. Yet we're meant to believe that a few people with their handguns and shooting range licenses can act against the greatest military machine the world has ever seen? Just ludicrous.
Incidentally, who do you think have suffered more casualties by fighting against the US government, US soldiers or iraqi civilians?
so, what youre saying is that firearm ownership is NOT good at anything but an annoyance. gotcha.
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquadyne
Sure. United States. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquadyne
Or Chechnya in 1994 if you want something a bit more recent. |
oh really? and what happened to the chechans again? that's right, back under the boot of russia. in any case, i find your attempts to make a parallel between a society of gang-bangers and a former soviet vassal to be a little problematic.
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquadyne
Or Nepal this year.
The examples are plentiful. ;) |
im unfamiliar with nepal so you will have to fill me in. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquadyne
You really should learn more about this before running your mouth.
In the 21st century where the vast majority of combat will be in urban environments, tanks have virtually no use or utility.
As a matter of fact, in the 21st century, I would rather own an armful of M-16s than a tank. |
I was painting a picture there champ. Tank. Or helicopter gunship. Or armoured vehicle. Don’t blame me if you don’t get the gist and need to 'win' pedantic meaningless points of contention. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Well, civilian forces can do real damage to an occupying army, as the U.S. is learning once again in Iraq. Actually killing more of their guys than they kill of yours is probably hopeless, but that has not been the point of most guerrilla warfare anyway: the point is to sap the morale of the occupying army, and that can be done pretty effectively.
Of course, the occupying army, if it is brutal enough, can use its own morale-sapping technique in the form of collective reprisal. |
and like i said, the US are still there with iraq firmly underneath its boot. and again, i find the comparison between al qaida, al sadr and other professional militia outfits with the average gun owner in the US to be pretty disingenuous. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| I would also like to point out that the US could have levelled iraq and killed everyone had it chosen to do so, which of course it didn’t because it wouldn't have been politically prudent to do so. Are you saying you expect this fictitious american despot to show similar restraint? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and like i said, the US are still there with iraq firmly underneath its boot. and again, i find the comparison between al qaida, al sadr and other professional militia outfits with the average gun owner in the US to be pretty disingenuous. |
Certainly an army of average gun owners would stand little chance. But in the rather fanciful scenario of an oppressive U.S. government trying to round up and kill some set of civilians en masse, there would probably be at least some rebellion by current and former members of military and police, who could provide tactical and weapons knowledge necessary for resistance.
What we are really talking about here is a subset of a more general set of scenarios: all the situations that involve a vastly less powerful and less experienced "army" trying to defeat powerful occupiers. Obviously such a defeat has happened before (think Vietnam); whether it could happen in the U.S. is very doubtful, I agree, given the current massive size and technological advancement of our military. Which is why I normally leave this argument alone. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Which is why I normally leave this argument alone. |
yes, your other argument is much more compelling, and despite my opposition to gun ownership i completely agree. if i lived in the US i would own everything that i legally could! |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by diggerz
im hurt
really dissapointed |
I was just explaining why there was 'hope' for you as he put it. No reason to get upset as there was no malice involved. |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Certainly an army of average gun owners would stand little chance. But in the rather fanciful scenario of an oppressive U.S. government trying to round up and kill some set of civilians en masse, there would probably be at least some rebellion by current and former members of military and police, who could provide tactical and weapons knowledge necessary for resistance.
What we are really talking about here is a subset of a more general set of scenarios: all the situations that involve a vastly less powerful and less experienced "army" trying to defeat powerful occupiers. Obviously such a defeat has happened before (think Vietnam); whether it could happen in the U.S. is very doubtful, I agree, given the current massive size and technological advancement of our military. Which is why I normally leave this argument alone. |
I think the military would have a tough enough time holding Texas. |
|
|
|
|
