Is there any doubt...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...what these words by Richard Henry Lee actually mean?

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

On June 7th, 1776 Lee brought a resolution before the Continental Congress declaring the colonies independent. Congress then formed three committees. One began drafting what would become the Articles of Confederation. Also drafted was a model treaty to be used as a guide in foreign relations. The best known is the Declaration of Independence.

[doc03]

1. It is hardly relevant in this day of nukes and

the Patriot Act.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Oh my!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Out of curiosity...

...have you ever played chess?

[gejohnston]

4. out of couriosity

ever read anything by Sun Tzu?

[doc03]

5. Out of couriosity, you going to fight a tank with your Glock.

[BiggJawn]

7. No, a bottle of gasoline and a rag.

Ah, the old "But they have TANKS! And AIRPLANES! Resistance is FUTILE" meme...

Go ahead and offer to work for them. I'm sure they'll feed you and give you a corner to rest your head...

[Callisto32]

8. You don't fight the tank....

you fight the people IN the tank.

Why pick a fight you can't win?

[doc03]

9. One word Waco n/t

[Callisto32]

12. See post 11.

[DonP]

19. A few more words ...

Viet Nam
Afghanistan
Somalia

Tell me again how all that air power and armor crushes any opposition with small arms?

[Clames]

38. One more word, Iraq.

You seriously don't have a clue when it comes to this stuff do you?

[Glaug-Eldare]

10. It's not about matching the army, gun-for-gun

If it was, the war in Afghanistan would've been wrapped up 10 years ago. It's very hard to control territory when it's populated by armed people who hate you. Since the people and resources are the most crucial thing to be held, it's not an option to nuke or devastate them.

[doc03]

13. The one percent seem to be doing quite well controlling this country without

firing or even threatening to fire a shot. This argument is as ridiculous as the rethug idiots that show up at Obama rallies carrying a gun. What are Democrats going to do now act as stupid as the Teabaggers?

[Glaug-Eldare]

15. So, what do you want to do?

Are you saying it's time for armed resistance against the one percent? Are you saying we (Democrats in particular) should not be capable of armed resistance? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[gejohnston]

16. only because they are fooled by the one percent

most of the Teabaggers are 99 percenters and will be disillusioned by then. Some already are. Some are beyond fucking brain washed.

[Callisto32]

11. OH, here's a teaching opportunity!

During WWII the Panzerkampfwagen VIB-Koenigstiger gave the incredibly under-equipped American tankers a bit of a problem, with a glassis plate that was pretty much impenetrable.

Not being stupid, the American tankers quickly realized that while they may not be able to punch a KT with a 76mm M1A2, you could sure as hell load a phosphorous round and make the Feldwebel in the KT think his machine was burning. Since a lit tank is pretty much your tomb, the tankers would bail, and now the impenetrable KT doesn't even matter anymore.

Warfare, you can't afford to be conventional.

[sarisataka]

22. The KTs faced a very different problem vs the Shermans

The hi-velocity 88s would push the AP rounds completely through the US tanks before they could explode. The Germans solved that issue but simply removing the explosives, thus inventing Sabot rounds.

Also, as pointed out, tanks have a very soft weakness. Their supply train, which can be very vulnerable to lightly armed individuals.

[gejohnston]

14. Don't own a Glock

but read the book The Art of War. Read a really good history of the Vietnam war. You don't fight the tank, you kill the tank by blow up the fuel dump.

[PavePusher]

20. Tanks are useless without fuel and spare parts (and they need LOTS of both).

Also useless without trained crews.

I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the student....

[Callisto32]

6. You are ignoring the proven effectiveness...

of rag-tag militiamen armed with shoulder-fired weapons (granted, there are often recoilless anti-tank weapons involved, but I digress) against the American military machine.

Don't presume a "conventional" conflict.

[doc03]

17. I have no problem with gun rights for personnel protection or

sport. But using the argument we need them to defend us from the government is ridiculous, that's the stuff we hear from the NRA and the Teabaggers.

[Glaug-Eldare]

18. I can agree with you to a point

I believe the "defense against tyranny" argument is legitimate, and does serve as one justification for RKBA, but it is mostly rhetorical crap. Most people who point it out are trying to capitalize on fear and paranoia, and the entire argument has been tainted by that association. On the other hand, Mao was right -- political power comes out the barrel of a gun. Political power should belong to the people in good measure, and not only to the select militia.

[sarisataka]

24. It is not necessarily armed insurrection

that we need; and only a few extremists are calling for that. It is the potential that the people could challenge the government.

For those who say 'what about tanks and nukes and bombers and long range kitchen sinks'....
A- the military is not a bunch of robots but normal guys and girls with family and friends around the country. A percent much greater than 0% would refuse orders to attack American citizens
B- what would the reaction of the US people, Congress and the world be if the President ordered Cleveland nuked?
C- if by some outlandish occurrence there was a armed insurrection against the government, it is not even necessary to defeat the army. The people already own the country, the military would have to be on the offensive. An evenings worth of historical study will reveal how effective a armed, mobile populous fighting on their home ground can frustrate a well armed and equipped military force. The people only need to resist long enough for the oppressive government to fall.

[jeepnstein]

26. Cleveland?

Hmmm... Let me get back to you on that one.

[PavePusher]

21. Right. The American Revolution never happened.

Nor the French Revolution.

Or the Spanish.

Or the (insert favorite country here).

[Spoonman]

23. So bitching about the government

under the 1st amendment is just as ridiculous.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Sorry for the delay...

...(doctor's appointment).

"...the argument we need them to defend us from the government is ridiculous..."

No it isn't. My earlier question about chess has to do with tyranny, conflict and military domination. The goal of an army of occupation is almost never annihilation. The goal is control. Those subject to occupation are controlled by the fear that retribution will be brought upon individuals or small groups. A game of chess is won when your opponent's only option is resignation. Tanks, bombers and nuclear weapons are the equivalent of lighter fluid and a match in a chess game. No one wins when you burn the board and pieces. The subjects of military rule may have been somewhat productive but after a devastating attack they are refugees at best and often just casualties. In either sense they represent a greater liability than they do as subjects.

The list of examples of the difficulty in maintaining regions of subjects include both wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and Palestine and stretches into history. The Romans were rather good at it but I just don't see crucifixion coming back into vogue.

But none of this is what really keeps tyranny in check. Our standing military is staffed from among the common citizens. Not from some special class or group. Those who volunteer for service have little desire to fire on their neighbors. No benefit will accrue from those actions nor will be a trivial affair.

I quote Robert E. Lee: "It is well that war is so terrible...lest we should grow too fond of it."

[doc03]

27. I don't want to hear anyone on DU making fun or complaining about the buffoons from the Tea Party

when they show up at Obam's rallies with guns and make their threats. This is the kind bullshit we hear from morons like Wayne LaPIerre and Ted F----g Nugent. I guess we should all show up at Congress packing heat to scare the Rethugs. If you don't agree with someone you get out your gun, no wander we live in the most violent country on earth.

[gejohnston]

28. Not in DC, from across the river in VA maybe.

If you don't agree with someone you get out your gun, no wander (sic) we live in the most violent country on earth.

Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#2010s

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. won't be me :) n/t

[Glaug-Eldare]

34. Making threats is one thing

It is deeply wrong to attempt to stifle political speech by a show of force. Anyone who does this is a villain, no better than the SA troopers using violence to intimidate their opposition.

BUT, patriotic vigilance is another thing entirely. It is not wrong, and it serves a legitimate civic good. Like a fleet in being, it deters and guards against government violence.

I'm reminded of the example of the Swiss militia -- millions(?) of citizens issued automatic rifles and ammunition to store in their homes, because the government doesn't fear a peaceful, well-armed population. They are immunized against despotism.

[Hoyt]

29. That's a simple view of something said in 1776. They probably coveted scythes as well for farming.

[sarisataka]

32. Like these words?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Hoyt]

33. Yes, and lots of folks would prefer to pursue those without yahoos carrying guns in the public.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. I'd prefer...

...To win the powerball.

[Hoyt]

36. 4—29—34—38—41—44

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. if I win, I'll cut in. :)

[sarisataka]

37. Those words were also said

in 1776. I took your statement to mean that the age of the words made the topic post irrelevant.

Could you define 'yahoos'. I carry in public every day and pursue life, liberty and happiness. I have one and hope to catch the other two Never, that I am aware of, have I deprived others of their same opportunity because I happen to to be carrying.

[Hoyt]

39. Think of it as smoking a stinking cigar or flying a bigot's flag

in public. And we won't even mention children and grownups who truly are phobic around people callous, or silly, enough to wear a gun or two openly in public.

[sarisataka]

42. A person is free to do/say as they wish

Though Abe Lincoln summed it up well: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

I thought it was agreed hoplophobe is a made up word But there are those here who are pro-control who would prefer all weapons be carried openly. I wonder how many would carry then? Of course we only know how many permits have been issued. No one has any idea of how many actually carry and how often.

[Hoyt]

43. Funny you would quote Abe Lincoln when he was shot in the head.

[sarisataka]

44. Worst thing that happened to the Confederate states

We can put JWB down as a "toter"?

[ileus]

30. There never was or has been any doubt...

Last edited Mon May 14, 2012, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. +100 :)