Is the concept of armed resistance to oppression outdated?

[gorfle]

Is the concept of armed resistance to oppression outdated?

[ixion]

1. never

nt

[bossy22]

2. i can be seen in iraq and afganistan

i'm not saying that we are actually "oppressing" but it shows that a rag tag bunch of guys with handheld weapons can give the world's mightiest military a major problem

[TheWraith]

17. I would say that having a foreign army in your country counts as "oppressing."

We're not the Nazis by a long shot, but just being there under false pretenses is bad enough. Not to mention the problems of roadblocks, detentions, home search raids... If China or somebody tried to do that to us, we'd be readying every round of ammo in order to resist.

[OHdem10]

3. Is this so many people are packing heat these days???

"Always prepared??"

[Goldstein1984]

4. No. But it is quite impolite to mention it in public

And the subject is basicalyy taboo on DU.

That a country born in an act of armed resistance should every mention it again is just not something we mention in a nation of sheep.

Note the unrecs.

[sharesunited]

5. In the United States? Yes, impossible. How?

By what scenario are people with guns allowed to coalesce into an insurrection?

By virtue of what common interests can a group of people spontaneously form who are willing to die for each other or a cause?

[farmout rightarm]

24. "allowed"??? What the hell are you babbling about? Revolution is NEVER, by definition,

"allowed."

Goddamnit, I'm getting pretty sick of some wilting lilies who just want to bend over and let any old jerk who comes down the pike to fuck them in the butt without a kiss or any lubricant.
:eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Most likely any such insurrection would rely more upon explosives

a 'la the insurgents in Iraq. Arms as defined in the 2nd would be of limited use, unless the people overwhelmingly supported the insurrection, and engaged en masse.

[gorfle]

40. Looks like you're in a pretty small minority.

I knew that, of course, but I made this poll for you to see it for yourself.

[proteus_lives]

47. That's why he's so resolute in his non-logic.

He knows how small his circle is.

[dairydog91]

49. Examine the UK's exciting adventures in Ireland.

Some of the groups involved in the most recent troubles had origins as considerably more peaceful organizations. The original IRA had mostly faded away (It was sometimes said that IRA stood for "I Ran Away.") Once the Troubles began, partly because of abuse of peaceful protesters, the much more destructive PIRA was formed. Other organizations started off militant but were so tiny that they could muster in a single garage bay. Even small groups can cause enough damage to radicalize the population and create a cycle of increasing violence and growing militia membership. All of this is exacerbated if the military authorities are seen as favoring one side. One might also note that the British did not "win" the conflict, as they ultimately headed to the bargaining table.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. No. Just imagnie the logistics of defeating an army up to 80,000,000 people.

If you want to "conquor" Amreica... that is what it would take.
80,000,000 gun owners possessing 300,000,000 firearms.

The US Armed forces is having trouble with a few thousand insurgants.
I'd hate to se ethem against a force thousands of times larger.

[sharesunited]

7. 80,000,000 pledged to each other or a common purpose? You've got to be kidding.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. Even 1% of 80,000,000 is several hundred thousand.

I think to fight off an outside invasion or genocide... you would see alot of people stand and fight if confronted.
If you're talking about insurrection (revolution), you might end up with a small percentage.
Even a small percentage is a helluvalot of combatants. Worse yet, those combatants are integrated ALL throughout society.

[sharesunited]

13. If this were true, the Teabaggers would be a threat instead of a joke.

So which are they?

Or are they a threat which we are doing our best to keep a joke?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. If all the teabaggers steppe and decided to grab a rifle...

It would shake the nation to the core. I'm not entirely confident America would be itself for decades afterwards. The funny thing about drawing lines in the sand is everyone picks a side...

If they are not a threat, it's because they have not been deemed to have the balls to take up arms... not because they lack the capability to wreak havoc. Fortunately your personal beliefs and acceptance of reality has little bearing on actual world events and threats.

[sharesunited]

21. Don't Heller and Federalist No. 29 contemplate that the Teabaggers

are precisely the kind of "Militia" for whom the 2A is intended?

Self-styled patriots who get together and decide that tyranny must be stopped and fill their hands to stop it?

Seems as though that is what pro-gun advocates here at DU have tried to educate me to understand.

And if you aren't with the Teabaggers, then I guess that means you might need to take up arms to do battle against them.

Is that the kind of sectarian violence which the 2A translates into?

Who can support any such thing?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. Why do people always blame the teachers?

"Seems as though that is what pro-gun advocates here at DU have tried to educate me to understand."

Some seeds will never grow despite the labors put forth to cultivate them.

[sharesunited]

23. Sometimes the student achieves an understanding which exceeds that of the teacher.

If this weren't true, knowledge would never advance and people would never get any smarter.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. DUZY!

:spray: (I literally LOLed)

Are you suggesting such an event has occurred here?

[sharesunited]

31. We must accept that possibility. Not that my education is yet complete.

[farmout rightarm]

27. It's not always true and that's why we still have creationists, Republicans and racists.

Do you ever read the swill you type before poking the 'post' button?

[sharesunited]

33. By swill, do you mean nutritious refuse?

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Some would argue

a true Militia is subject to a civilian authority. Some states are more or less explicit on this point. (Generally the Governor is in control)

I would take lawful orders from my governor. You bet. Teabaggers can go get fucked.

[TheWraith]

32. You don't seem to understand the constitutional definition of "militia."

In the law, "the militia" means everybody. All able-bodied males age 17 to 45 (and additional groups as state law dictates). That means teabaggers, liberals, random schmucks off the street, everybody. The second amendment was intended primarily as a check against invasion or usurpation, not necessarily as a "Don't like the government? Go to war!" option.

[sharesunited]

36. A black president is a usurpation to some, especially when accused of being foreign born.

They're not the armed forces and they're not the national guard.

Aren't they the "militia" as 2A advocates would have it?

Or must everyone comprising the "militia" be in agreement?

[TheWraith]

39. Um, no.

Again, "the militia" isn't some random "Let's overthrow the government" party. It's a civilian-based force, divided into organized (National Guard) and unorganized (everybody else) wings, with the idea of being able to protect the country in an emergency. Until and unless you see some state governor seceding from the union, the militia as constitutionally defined has nothing to do with current politics.

[sharesunited]

41. One last question before my breadcrumbs run out.

Must the militia be on the same side as the National Guard? Or does your 2A allow the militia to follow orders from a source they regard to be more legitimate than whomever the Guard is following?

[TheWraith]

28. In my view they are a threat, albeit more of a "lone wolf" type threat.

I was a lot more worried about them in an organized sense around the beginning of last year. But Bin Laden and company showed you don't have to be a million man army to pose a serious threat to peace and stability. In this context all you really need is a handful of guys--like the Unitarian church shooter, the guy who killed George Tiller, the Holocaust museum killer, et al.

Now that said--in order to sustain popular resistance the public has to be broadly supportive of that action, and even then it's not exactly the typical clear cut example of victory. Look at Iraq. You have a popularly backed insurgency, which hasn't yet ousted the US forces. Historically, popular insurgencies win in the end, but the emphasis is on "popular."

[aliendroid]

45. more bigotry from sharesunited

they are called tea party people. Bigots call them teabaggers because bigots are ignorant and like to group people up and then call them names.

[Kaleva]

14. Many of whom may fight to support the govt.

[onehandle]

51. How would they hold their 3.75 guns, much less their Confederate Flag?

And their latte?

[SteveM]

53. They can't hold the Confederate flag. The gun-controllers grabbed it....

SEE:

www.georgiacarry.org And search locally for the Heller brief submitted to the SCOTUS in that decision. An excellent history of how modern-era gun-controllers pulled Jim Crow's jalopy out of the garage, jump started it and found a way to keep guns from blacks.

You should also read what gun-controller Robert Sherrill had to say about the intent of the 1968 GCA. But you'll have to look it up yourself; I think learning the truth is more effective if you have to work for it, no?

_________

I know you don't like to engage, but don't you think it's time to consider changing your outlook if for no other reason than your stuff serves the interests of the GOP? Your bugaboo, the NRA, recognizes this and has a history of paying royalties to anti-gun editorial cartoonists for the right to re-print in house organs/web sites, all the better to stoke up existing membership, gain more members and pull in money to defeat "progressive" candidates.

Finally, it occurs to me that the tenor of the gun-control side in this thread suggests a "strategy" less centered on the issues of gun-control and more centered on trying to disrupt this Forum, and indulging some "hateration" on the side. I've noted in this regard a somewhat "noted" national gun-controller make a one-liner appearance in another Guns thread. Could it be that some of the gun-control groups now recognize DU's Guns Forum as a force to be reckoned with?

[tularetom]

8. Possible but not likely unfortunately

It's a question of timing. The trick is to get everybody pissed off enough at the same cause at the same time, and in this age of media propaganda that is virtually impossible. They manage to keep half the people pissed off at the other half, and it has worked well enough for the corporatists to keep power regardless of which party occupies the white house or controls congress. It would take some over the top act by the government to foment armed insurrection and given the shit they have already pulled without a peep from us, it's hard to envision an act so egregious that it would cause an armed uprising on a scale that would change things.

We could keep them off guard for awhile, but they'd eventually wear us down, sadly.

[rrneck]

18. One of my favorite quotes:

"You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half." -- Jay Gould

[Tesha]

9. Armed resistance with NRA-approved weapons is relatively futile

To resist the government, you'll need the weaponry that the
NRA hasn't got any interest in defending because these
weapons aren't manufactured by the companies that, in effect,
own the NRA and its minions.

You'll need RPGs, hand grenades, C4 by the caseload, heavy artillery,
and, ideally F16s, and the like, none of which your right to "keep and
bear arms" seems to extend to. Basically, take a lesson from every
on-going resistance movement in the world, NONE of which are
being substantially fought with NRA-approved guns and, especially,
handguns.


Tesha

[bossy22]

20. i dont know how many F-16's the taliban owns

[Tesha]

35. That's why I suggested F16s were desirable (but definitely optional).

But go ahead, tell me you'd turn them down if you had access...

Tesha

[TheWraith]

34. Actually, fighting like that you'd get curb-stomped pretty quickly.

Conventional warfare requires a highly complex machine behind it: to supply and maintain those F16s with not just ammo and fuel but also information, coordination, tactical support, etcetera. Unconventional warfare is the only way a smaller force can take on a superpower.

[Tesha]

37. Which is why I started out by mentioning RPGs, hand grenades, C4, and the like.

Asymmetrical warfare is the name of the game if you're an insurgent
without a big Uncle Sugar-daddy feeding you arms.

Tesha

[TheWraith]

38. RPGs would be good. But improvised weapons are best.

Theoretically, in a true insurgency situation, anything that you can't manufacture yourself can potentially run out, and therefore shouldn't be relied on. You can't make RPG rounds in somebody's basement (at least not without having someone with godlike skills on your side) but you could make simplified plastic explosives, homemade land mines, etcetera.

[Katya Mullethov]

43. You might see a surge in bootleg subsidized "Vergatorio-7" rounds

From Venezuela.

Well , you might , someday , if they can ever get the tin screwed onto his arms factory faster than it can be pilfered .

[Artie Bucco]

48. The era of conventional warfare is over at least for now

They are just to damn expensive and are a huge gamble. A good example of the change over into asymmetrical warfare is that of Pakistan. They overtly fund and support Kashmiri groups that attack India. They do enough to hurt India while not escalating what they do into a full blown conventional conflict.

In terms of explosives one has to remember that they don't have to be military grade. There are lots of demolition and mining companies that still use explosives; mostly ANFO.

IEDs now seem to be the at the vanguard in guerrilla warfare and it is very understandable. You don't risk numerous people in an ambush all you need is one guy to press a detonator or in many cases let a pressure plate do the work. Small arms are still important if one looks at say the Taliban since they are still used to attack soft targets, cops, soldiers and government officials to great effect.

[Tesha]

50. ANFO, unless physically constrained (by rock), say, is a bit too "low energy" to be really...

...efective. That's why you end up needing to fill a Ryder Truck
with barrels of it to cause much damage.

If you want to make a good IED, you need a higher-energy,
faster-burn-rate explosive.

Tesha

[SteveM]

54. Many errors...

"you'll need the weaponry that the
NRA hasn't got any interest in defending because these
weapons aren't manufactured by the companies that, in effect,
own the NRA and its minions."

There are no companies which "own" the NRA. Sad as it may be for you, the truth is the NRA is a membership-funded pressure group, like reproduction rights groups, like GLBT groups, etc. You should Google up the controversy a few years back wherein the NRA called for a virtual boycott of Smith & Wesson because of the latter's actions in advocating safety devices gun-controllers were advocating. The boycott had a telling effect on S&W. How can a group "owned" by a company bite its owner's hand with any real success?

"heavy artillery, ideally F16s?" Hardly. What use is there in these? You are repeating an argument that has been, ahem, shot-down repeatedly. SEE: Cuba, 1958 wherein a small group of insurgents went up against a U.S.-supplied army (which included helicopters!) and won virtually by default. SEE: the insurrection in Ireland. SEE: Vietnam for goodness sakes, where the U.S. owned the skies and where tanks were useless. And above all SEE: Iraq, Afghanistan. Now. They don't need no steenking NRA approval for their guns; they have their own. And plenty of Monsanto-approved fertilizer, and plenty of Soviet-approved artillery SHELLS (the artillery is useless), converted to IEDs.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DBoon]

12. During the 1980's and 1990's, many opressive regimes fell

In Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, South America (Chile, Argentina, etc.)

In not one case was armed resistance a factor.

The resistance looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_of_the_Plaza_de_Mayo

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_revolution

[baldguy]

19. And gap-toothed morons the world over cried.

(but especially in the less scholastically-well endowed areas of America)

[gorfle]

42. Peaceful change is always preferable.

Peaceful change is always preferable to violence. But there are times when oppression can only be thrown off by violence. We don't keep and bear arms for times when diplomacy succeeds. We keep and bear them for when diplomacy fails.

[proteus_lives]

46. Romania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989

That's what the resistance also looked like.

[SteveM]

55. All the more reason why small outfits with small arms can succeed...

The classic case was Cuba. Fidel's little outfit blew up a few power lines, bridges, etc., using squat for weaponry, and the U.S.-backed Batista regime (with heavy arms) collapsed.

Why was this? The government lost credibility in the most crucial arena: protecting its own citizens, not only from violence, but also from the worst sorts of poverty, disease and poor education.

[Hoopla Phil]

16. Nope

[X_Digger]

44. Apropos story in LBN..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4270483

"Snipers Harass US, Afghan Troops Moving In Marjah

<snip>

Multiple firefights broke out in different neighborhoods as American and Afghan forces worked to clear out pockets of insurgents and push slowly beyond parts of the town they have claimed. With gunfire coming from several directions all day long, troops managed to advance only 500 yards (meters) deeper as they fought off small squads of Taliban snipers."

[SteveM]

52. It's possible, but there is no 90-day warranty. nt