Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjamuser
Personally, I like the idea of citizens owning guns because the small % of people that are burglars can not be sure which homeowner owns them and which do not. I merely, personally, find things like silencers and 30 or 50-round magazines to be unnecessary OVERKILL (no pun intended). Personally, I think that the unlikely chance of the US having a tyrannical government that is so bad that it can't be controlled by votes - and needs a counter-revolution.......to be so SLIM - that I feel confident that I could use a bolt-action rifle to express myself, I don't need a semi-automatic war machine for that.
And if the US were invaded by Russia and/or China, the situation would be more like the "Red Dawn" movie. The high school kids started out with hunting rifles and worked their way up. Any local resistance would start out low-tech. Even the survivalist types that expect a doomsday scenario - the ones that bury guns in their backyard, put in the cheap bolt action military surplus weapons, not the new $ 3,000 AR-15 type rifles.
|
"And if the US were invaded by Russia and/or China, the situation would be more like the "Red Dawn" movie. The high school kids started out with hunting rifles and worked their way up. Any local resistance would start out low-tech. Even the survivalist types that expect a doomsday scenario - the ones that bury guns in their backyard, put in the cheap bolt action military surplus weapons, not the new $ 3,000 AR-15 type rifles."
I expect that would be the case in just about all instances where a resident population decides to throw off oppression, be it internal or from an outside threat. The people, and the powers, that intend to do the oppressing rarely if ever embark upon that path without preparing...by arming themselves, disarming their intended (for want of a better word) targets, or (usually) both.
Lots of examples out there, but a really good one is Afghanistan. The Afghans threw off the Soviet yoke with pretty primitive weapons considering the resources of their oppressors. Took 'em ten years to do it, but in the end the Soviet Union decided that the gain wasn't worth the cost, and left.
Pretty much that way here too, at least for the first couple of years of the Revolution. The Colonial rebels had their arms and wherewithall to keep them: a lot of people don't know that the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep the British from destroying colonial arms stores, but the British had the big guns, the ships, and in comparison a huge advantage in overall power. They ended up going the way of the Soviets in Afghanistan in large part because the colonials avoided the European-style battles with the British, preferring instead the hit-and-run tactics of leaders like Francis Marion, whose guerilla tactics allowed him to harass and in the end help defeat much larger British forces.
Revolutions are not won with overwhelming force of arms but with overwhelming persistence in the face of that force.