The Iraq war is proof positive that guns are ineffective against

[billbuckhead]

modern armies. What's the fatal casualty ratio? A 1000 to 1. Most of the American casualties seem to be from improvised bombs and not guns. If we were fighting for a just cause or were a dictatorship, the casulties would be considered insignificant. Throwing political considerations aside, airpower could level Falluja with a dozen fuel air bombs.

[FeebMaster]

1. How to respond?

Are you on crack? Air power might be able to level cities, but that's hardly a way to win the hearts and minds of anyone. It's a pretty good way to make enemies too. If New York City decided to secede, do you think the federal government is going to level the city with air power, just because they can? For that matter, why hasn't the US leveled Falluja?

Just because some people in the Middle East have a penchant for bombs and blowing themselves up, doesn't mean the rifle can't be effective against a modern army.

[LibLabUK]

2. Okay...

"Just because some people in the Middle East have a penchant for bombs and blowing themselves up, doesn't mean the rifle can't be effective against a modern army."

Can you give any modern examples to support the claim?

The IRA had large numbers of rifles and other small arms (including .50cal rifles and machineguns, Stingers and other shoulder-lauched SAMS and ofcourse their improvised mortars), but found bombs (and their most nefarious invention, the car bomb) most effective.

I agree that air-power is not the way in which the US (or any government except maybe the Russians and Indonesians) would quell a civil uprising.

[FeebMaster]

9. The IRA?

Can you give any modern examples to support the claim?

Nope. You're right, I guve up, rifles are useless. As the IRA showed, if you blow a few people up, you'll get what you want.

[iverglas]

3. so many tangents

Air power might be able to level cities, but that's hardly a way to win the hearts and minds of anyone. It's a pretty good way to make enemies too.

Who was talking about winning hearts and minds, or making friends??

Not billbuckhead.

Did you miss these bits? --

If we were fighting for a just cause or were a dictatorship, ...
Throwing political considerations aside, ...

The point he made was really, really plainly that individually-owned firearms are utterly and completely ineffective against the weapons of any state you might be finding yourself up against in the near future.


Just because some people in the Middle East have a penchant for bombs and blowing themselves up, doesn't mean the rifle can't be effective against a modern army.

Just because somebody brought some rocks back from the moon doesn't mean that the moon isn't made of green cheese.

Me, if I were wanting someone to think that the rifle could be effective against a modern army, I'd be wanting to offer some facts and arguments in support of my assertion.

Were you making an assertion?

[billbuckhead]

5. It's another one of those Walter Mitty fantasies gunners have.

Charlton Heston at a 21st century Alamo fighting Sarah Brady and those evil gun grabbers.

In reality, guns in America are really used to terrorize neighbors, co-workers and especially family.

[LibLabUK]

8. Hehehe..

"Charlton Heston at a 21st century Alamo"

Even I know how that one ended.

[alwynsw]

14. Your agenda is showing

In reality, guns in America are really used to terrorize neighbors, co-workers and especially family.

What new spin will you use next to get to the Disarm Law Abiding Americans platform?

[iverglas]

19. oh dear

In reality, guns in America are really used to terrorize neighbors, co-workers and especially family.
What new spin will you use next to get to the Disarm Law Abiding Americans platform?

This wouldn't be someone maligning the messenger instead of attacking the argument, would it?

I know that there are some here who would take this as clear proof that the argument is fireproof.

[alwynsw]

25. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Spin harder, you may come full circle and see the transparency of the post.

[T Town Jake]

31. Don't hold your breath...

...waiting on reason from the gun control crowd.

[mongo]

40. I doubt if you are really even from America

And yes, the Left coast does not count. Neither does the country of the eastern seaboard.

In reality, guns in America are really used to terrorize neighbors, co-workers and especially family.

Out here in AMERICA guns are used to hunt food for your family's table, recreation, and self preservation - when the county you live in has 1 deputy per shift for 15,000 people.

[FeebMaster]

10. Then why hasn't the US government simply leveled

any city that doesn't fall in line?

You're all right. Rifles are useless against a modern army. I don't know what I was thinking.

[iverglas]

18. what on earth are you talking about?

Then why hasn't the US government simply leveled
any city that doesn't fall in line?

Let me scratch my head.

Lemme see.

Do you suppose it might be because THERE ARE political considerations, and because IT IS claiming to be after hearts and minds?

Good god. Are you so fascinated with your tail that you would plan to continue chasing it in perpetuity??

Do you suppose this might kinda be the explanation for why it is unlikely that the US govt is going to come gunning for great masses of US citizens inside the US? That THERE ARE political considerations that contra-indicate such an undertaking, and because IT DOES have to have an eye to hearts and minds?

None of this speaks in any way to what billbuckhead said, which was that a government, for instance, yours, COULD simply crush any domestic enemy it wanted to crush, if it wanted to crush it.

It is the very fact that IT DOESN'T WANT TO DO THAT that is the best and only real protection against it being done, for pity's sake. NOT the pistols and rifles and shotguns in the hands of the people it might want to do it to, which would be utterly useless against a government that DID want to do it.

Rifles are useless against a modern army
whose masters DON'T CARE what anybody thinks of them, and who DON'T CARE what the price of victory is, and who regard the loss of lives that may occur among their own troops in the course of using less effective means to accomplish their ends as unimportant.

I have no problem figuring out what billbuckhead was talking about and what he was saying about it. I don't know why you apparently do. And I have yet to figure out what you may think you're talking about, let alone saying about it.

[FeebMaster]

20. Why are you still arguing about it?

I told you. The masterful logic of our benevolent gun grabbers has convinced me of the error in my previous way of thinking about guns. Guns are useless. If you bother a government with one, they'll level your city. If you really want to stick it to a government, you blow a few random people up, then they'll give you what you want. It worked for the IRA and it will no doubt work for the Palestinians any day now. All guns are good for is terrorizing unarmed people.

[iverglas]

22. gosh, you're easily led, aren't you then?

Damned if I know whom you're following ... but then I'm not omniscient; I just know that it's nobody I've heard or read hereabouts.

I might just recommend that you watch your step as you toe whoever's line it is, as it appears that you have been listening to someone who is, um, perhaps less than scrupulously honest.

[FeebMaster]

24. I have you to thank.

You helped show me the error of my ways.

[Bowline]

4. Why does the Army still issue rifles to its troops then?

Shouldn't we just do away with the Army and simply level everything?

[LibLabUK]

6. Umm

"Shouldn't we just do away with the Army and simply level everything?"

That is essentially what the US has been doing for over a decade. The aerial bombardment of Iraq prior to the invasion pretty much ended any hope of the Iraqi military staving off the invasion.

Ground forces are needed to mop up pockets of resistance and hold ground.

You can't hold ground from the air.

[alwynsw]

12. Try since the Civil War

Indirect artillery fire was first used in the U.S. Civil War. ("Invented" by a Confederate sergeant of artillery whose name escapes me who was, as I recall, a mathemetics student before the hostlities.) Both direct and indirect artillery fire were first used during that war to "soften up" fortifications before the infantry attacked.

The world - led by U.S. technology - has simply been getting more accurate with the delivery of pre-assault bombardments since then. The average miss by aircraft bombing in WW II was roughly 4,000'. By the time Viet Nam rolled around it was down to 400". In Desert Storm the number had been shaved to under 40'. I don't have numbers for Iraq.

As a point of interest: artillery fire was so (relatively) inaccurate in WW I that allied artillerymen who were captured by the Germans were often hanged for murder because of the huge amounts of collateral damage (read: civilians killed by mistake).

[billbuckhead]

7. They still get knives as well, but you know the story about bringing a kn

knife to a gunfight. Soon, people will saying it's like bringing a gun to a robot fight.

[alwynsw]

11. Opinion, opinion, opinion

Please tell us, Mr. billbuckhead; aside from your personal hypothesis on the subject, from where does this statement come?

Have you ever served in any military or paramilitary (such as a police department) organization? Did you attend the War College (you know, the one in Carlisle, PA)? Do you have even a Piled Higher and Deeper in an associated field?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Why not just opt for the grandest bomb of all and turn Fallujah into another Hiroshima? The net effect of world opinion would arguably be about the same. There's nothing quite like indiscriminate wholesale slaughter to endear a nation to the world community. (Remember that little place called Israel and the Bekka Valley?)

How about we just ask a few grunts who have been on the front lines about taking their firearms away? What about the up close and personal aspect of war - especially urban combat? OR do we jus keep the troops out and kill everyone in the area? I can hear the loudspeakers now: "Come out, Saddam, or we'll drop a bomb on you just as quickly as we can get a plane or cruise misile tasked to the mission. Of course, that may take a few hours which will give you ample time to escape by firing your trophy pistol into the now unarmed troops surrounding your hole because, you see, firearms are no longer necessary. Be a good boy and wait for us to get the plane tasked and the bombs loaded."

[billbuckhead]

13. I was talking about the impossiblity of winning a war against a

modern army with just the "assault" weapons the gunmongers keep telling us can save us from an oppressive government.

Gee, Ruby Ridge and Waco turned out so well for the gunwackos they still fantasize about it. A really vicous government would just gas insurgents, but once again that's a political decision.

[alwynsw]

15. Speaking of impossibilities

That dance step is impossible to perform. Nowhere in your original post did you make any reference to defense against opressive government. You did however, refer to winning a war; specifically the war in Iraq.

Which is it going to be; your original premise or this unvarnished attack on personal firearms ownership? I suggest another thread if it is to be the latter. Apples and oranges.

[OpSomBlood]

17. Is the war in Iraq over?

That seems to be a prerequisite for the argument in this thread to hold water.

[alwynsw]

26. Doesn't seem to be over IMHO n/t

[billbuckhead]

28. The Iraqis will never get their OIL back, mark my words

Morgan Stanley has already leveraged all the oil assetts, how the profits are divided, that's another thing.

[Columbia]

38. Hey MrB

Tell us your credentials on military tactics again?

Or is it all learned from the streets bouncing http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x64651#64843">"heads up and down off the pavement like a basketball?"

You are the best argument we have for gun-rights.

We need them to protect ourselves and others from the likes of you.

[jukes]

60. !mi malo!

my bad. thought this was a discussion of the US penchant for relying on airpower diplomacy to lose wars.

adding fuel: do think maybe those jihadists pack an AK while setting up their ied's?

[iverglas]

21. and somebody else, uh, misses the point

What billbuckhead said:

If we were fighting for a just cause or were a dictatorship ...
Throwing political considerations aside ...

What you retort:

Why not just opt for the grandest bomb of all and turn Fallujah into another Hiroshima? The net effect of world opinion would arguably be about the same. There's nothing quite like indiscriminate wholesale slaughter to endear a nation to the world community.

Seeing the problem?

Plainly, the issue is what a government like yours could do to its citizens (the possibility of it wanting to do dastardly deeds to them being the context in which this blather constantly comes up) IF IT WANTED TO, not if it wanted to but not badly enough to actually do it.

Why doesn't somebody just address the issue?

I ask, snickering to myself ...

I don't know what the rest of that nattering was about. Not anything said by billbuckhead in starting this thread, as far as I can tell, so I'd say we can safely ignore it.

[alwynsw]

27. We've established that we'll likely never meet in the middle

therefore, I'll just leave you to it. Perhaps another thinly veiled attempt to steer us back to the No Guns No Way No How position will catch my interest and we can post away once again without consideration of the meat of the issue.

Ta ta 'til then.

[iverglas]

29. perhaps, maybe ...

Perhaps another thinly veiled attempt to steer us back to the No Guns No Way No How position will catch my interest ...

Or you could keep making these snazzily composed, not hardly veiled at all, insinuations of things that ya got no basis for actually coming out and saying, eh?

Maybe, perhaps, you could explain why you make such insinuations in response to posts written by moi. If you are not falsely claiming that the "No Guns No Way No How position" is mine own, what, pray, might you actually be saying?

... and we can post away once again without consideration of the meat of the issue.

I'm sure you will. Given what an excellent job you've done of it right here, just for instance, I wouldn't expect you to be reticent about doing it again. And again. And again.

[minavasht]

16. The way I see it

We are talking about 2 different things here.
Iraq is far away, they are different and don't speak english. For the average G.I. Joe they could be martians. None of the US soldiers have problem shooting at the bastards.
On the other hand, if the guns in the USA are to be used against a fascist government, the soldiers will be fighting their friends, relatives and neighbors.
There aren't any deserters in Iraq, but how many US soldiers will follow orders and shoot at american citizens? And if they are forced to shoot, how many will really aim to hit?
Also, there are many ex-military people here, who can use the weaponry of the army.

[iverglas]

23. now this does demand the question

On the other hand, if the guns in the USA are to be used against a fascist government, the soldiers will be fighting their friends, relatives and neighbors.
There aren't any deserters in Iraq, but how many US soldiers will follow orders and shoot at american citizens? And if they are forced to shoot, how many will really aim to hit?

C'mon, can you guess what the question is?

If few of those soldiers are gonna shoot many of their friends and neighbours ... what on earth do their friends and neighbours need all those guns for??

Perhaps that was actually what you were saying. In that case, you might want to make sure that someone other than me gets the point ...

[minavasht]

61. You've got a point

It really doesn't make sense.
After all, only small part of the population is committing crimes, then why bother with all those LEO? Local police, sheriffs, state troopers, mall guards - the list is endless. Imagine all the money that can be saved!

[TexasMexican]

30. The Second Amendment...

doesnt say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless advances in military technology and laws restricting civillian ownership of said military technology leaves the military with weapons that cannot be destroyed small arms fire."

It says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesnt matter if some future hypothetical revolution would be successful or not, what does matter is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[iverglas]

32. regular blood-letting,

... being necessary to the health of the human person, the right of physicians to drain blood from patients, shall not be infringed.

This would have been a very important right at the time. People have the right to life, and thus to obtain the medical treatment that will preserve that life. Imagine if physicians could have been denied the right to drain blood from patients -- all kinds of people might have died untimely deaths.

Hmm. Funny thing is, we've kind of realized that regular blood-letting ISN'T necessary to the health of the human person. What then of the right of physicians to drain blood from patients? Should we stand back and let 'em do it at whim?


Oh look it's a straw person an analogy.

The first portion of your second amendment is a statement of opinion. It may have been a good opinion at the time it was written. It's a nonsense now. A pure and utter and complete load of crap.

Just like the opinion that regular blood-letting is necessary to the health of the human person, eh?

It doesnt matter that we have come to understand that regular blood-letting is dangerous and sometimes lethal to the human person, what does matter is "the right of physicians to drain blood from patients shall not be infringed".

If my constitution said "regular blood-letting, being necessary to the health of the human person, the right of physicians to drain blood from patients, shall not be infringed", and I said that it didn't matter that the descriptive portion of that provision on which the prescriptive portion depended was too obviously a big old stupid thing to say in the modern world, I'd be embarrassed.

Manure, being essential to the growing of crops, the right of the people to poop in parks shall not be infringed.

[T Town Jake]

33. Somewhere in that wordy melange...

...of straw man & apples/oranges reasoning,
I think I detect the following point:
The Second Amendment WAS written to guarantee the right
of individuals to own firearms, but it is now an
outdated "right" that should be repealed. Just curious,
because, you see, if the Second Amendment is a "collective"
right only, as the gun control crowd is always proclaiming,
then it's simply a harmless, dead-letter clause. But if it
is, as it's plain language states, a guarantor of an individual
right to own firearms then it is indeed a problem for the gun
control crowd - and the Second Amendment will need to be validly
repealed through the constitutional process. Which is it? I'm
genuinely curious...

[OpSomBlood]

34. If the amendment is outdated, repeal it.

Because there certainly isn't a need to have a Constitutional amendment to say the military should have the "right" to be armed. That's like passing a resolution stating that the sky has a right to be blue.

If the grabbers really want to get "serious" about banning the individual ownership of guns, they should start a campaign to repeal 2A.

Doing so would mark the end of the Democratic party, by the way. Not that some of you care.

[FeebMaster]

35. If the gun grabbers really want to ban guns

I've repeatedly told them how to do it, regardless of the 2nd amendment.

[OpSomBlood]

37. No, let's run with this one.

Why isn't there a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment? If the cause is so noble and popular, this should pass with little resistance.

[FeebMaster]

41. The gun grabbers may be dumb

but even they understand that few people care enough about the 2nd amendment to oppose whatever restrictions they come up with on guns. Besides, it's easier by far to get a simple majority vote than it is to amend the constitution. Not to mention the publicity an attempt to repeal part of the bill of rights would create.

It's one thing to come up with a catchy phrase like assault weapon, or sniper rifle, or Saturday night special, or pocket rocket to try and ban something. Everyone loves chanting "no right is absolute" and most people by far are willing to accept some infringements on just about any right as long as it doesn't affect them too personally. But you start talking about repealing one of the bill of rights and you aren't just talking about infringing a little bit on a right that someone might or might not care about, you're talking about taking that right away and that is far more offensive to most people than a few infringements.

Not that repealing the 2nd amendment would take away the right to bear arms since it didn't bestow that right in the first place, but that's more or less how I figure people would see it.

[billbuckhead]

36. Another pipe dream from the Walter Mitty crowd

No has talked about repealing the second amendment, it's just some fantasy battle y'all dream about. If you really want to use those guns and you're all so brave, join the Army or sign up for all that money with Blackwater, give your wives and families a break. Not to mention giving your fellow citizens, I think we can survive without you and your weapons.

[OpSomBlood]

39. You seem to think that 2A has no applicability to today's world.

So repeal it.

[hansberrym]

42. Walter, get your head out of ...

the clouds.


You can't be serious - "No one wants to repeal the second amendment" -have you read Silveira?

If Judge Reinhardt has his way, the amendment will be effectively repealed.

[hansberrym]

43. If your constitution said...

"regular blood-letting, being necessary to the health of the human person, the right of physicians to drain blood from patients, shall not be infringed", I would indeed be embarrassed for you.


But if some of your Judges, or some legislative body, decided that blood letting could be banned by a mere court decision or act of congress, as oppossed to a constitutional change, I'd be MORE embarrassed for you.

At least your hypothetical bloodletters managed to get their opinion, and a guarantee of its protection, into the constitution by an actual amendment, rather than by debasing the legal process in the way you seem to advocate.

[happyslug]

44. Lets Modernized Blood Letting

Blood Letting up till its rapid fall from Favor in the early 1800s was used as A PAIN KILLER (Thin a person's blood, he starts to get an almost drunk feeling, this leads to the patient's feeling less pain. Now the Medical community came up with all types of reasons for Blood letting, but in actual practice bloodletting was used as the main method to reduce pain).

When opiates came into favor as a pain killer in the early 1800s, blood letting disappear (In fact almost overnight. Blood letting was still popular at the end of the Napoleonic Wars i.e. 1815 but gone less than 40 years later during the Crimea war of 1854). This the real purpose of blood letting was pain control.

Lets take that into your Amendment preserving the "right to bleed people". If you understand that the right was a right to reduce pain, than the right would still exist. A person would have the right to pain relief even if that relief would violate a law designed to prevent harm cause by that pain relief (The ban on opiates i.e. Heroin, morphine etc) could be viewed as violation of the ban on restricting pain relief.

On the other hand abuse of those drugs could not be protected under the "Right to blood letting". Thus like today people would have the right to own an assault rifle but not to abuse that right. Also the Government would have the right to restrict possession of certain pain relief drugs because of their inherent potential to harm PROVIDED that the right to some sort of adequate access to pain relief is provided for (for example Pistols can be banned under the Second on the Grounds that if a Militia is needed the Government would prefer the Militia to be armed with RIFLES over Pistols.)

Thus your analogy fails on two counts, first a right survive even if HOW THE RIGHT IS PROTECTED HAS CHANGED (For example the right to free speech on the Internet is NOT in the Bill of Rights, but the right to Freedom of the press is. Even if Newspaper and the printed press disappears do to new technology the UNDERLYING RIGHT to spread ideas would still exists even if the means is electronic instead of manual operated Presses.

Similarly the rights set forth in the Magna Carta did not end as England evolved from a Knight based feudal system to a Capitalistic system. The rights survived even when they were no longer any real knights.

The Second problem is when the Second Amendment was adopted it was to calm down claims made against the US Constitution. This group opposed granting the SOLE POWER TO FORM THE MILITIA TO THE FEDERAL Government. Thus in the the Second the Authors of the Amendment wanted to preserve the Right of the Federal Government to form the Militia as the Federal Government saw fit AND PERMIT BOTH THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE TO FORM THE MILITIA IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID NOT.

Thus the wording of the Amendment. First to make sure that the each state AND the US People as a whole could form themselves into the militia AND also preserve the Federal Government ability to form the Militia. The Second is a balancing act that has to be read with the Militia clauses of the Constitution (and the Militia Act of 1792 to see HOW the people at that time period wanted the Militia to be formed).

This is the Second error, reading the Second by itself without reading the Constitution and the history of the Colonies both in the Revolution and the Colonial Time period. To understand what the authors wanted you have to understand HOW we won the Revolution. The Militia by itself did not win the war, nor did anyone in 1775 or 1787 thought the Militia could.

On the other hand without the Militia the US would have lost the Revolution. The US could NOT have fielded the Regular armies needed to contain the British and to make sure the British lacked supplies. This containment of the British forced the British to operate large units (Battalion size or larger) instead of very small units (Sections or Squads).

Very Small units could be overwhelmed by the Militia so the British always used large units. These units tended to use up as much resources as they gathered in from the Countryside. Further any serious Resistance (while defeated by these larger units) would cause enough causalities as to force the British regulars to disengage and withdraw to their camp (If this sounds like Vietnam and Iraq you are correct, it is the big lesson from the US Revolutionary war. We did not defeat the British in any real battle, we wore them down. We did defeat smaller sections of the British army (Saratoga and Yorktown) but the Main British Army held New York City till the End of the War.

What caused the defeat of the British was that the Militia would always have to be considered in any Military Action. It was known that the Militia would be defeated with heavier losses to the Militia than to the British, but at losses the British could not readily replace (and that the Militia could and did).

The better armed the Militia was the better it did (See Saratoga where the British army was defeated by some US Regulars supported and aided by the Best Militia in North American at that time, the New England Militia), but even poorly armed Militia could preform adequately enough to force the British to take actions that the British should not have done (Cornwallis knew that the US Army could NOT drive him out of the Carolinas even with the Militia, but he had a deteriorating position do to the Carolina Militia preventing him from getting food for his men and animals. It was this slowly deteriorating situation that lead Cornwallis to march North to Yorktown so to destroy the Virginian supply base for those Militia and the Regular US Army supporting that Militia. Cornwallis could not hold BOTH the Carolinas AND march on Virginia. The Militia forced him to make a choice, Cornwallis picked Yorktown.

Cornwallis's defeat at Yorktown was by the Combination of the Regular US Army, the French Army and the French Navy. These are what defeated Cornwallis tactically. The Role of the Virginia Militia's being to dig the Trenches while the Regulars trained for the assault. Even here the Militia Role is often overlooked for it was more strategic than tactical. The Strategic role being one of making sure the US and French troops were in peak condition even as the Siege of Yorktown took place, but that the British Troops condition slowly deteriorated.

Thus the main weapon of the Militia at Yorktown was the Spade. IT was the spadework of the Militia that freed the Regulars to keep up their training while the Militia dug. If you have studied Military operations it takes 3 months of training to do one month of hard combat (Which is why the US Army is upset at Iraq, our troops are NOT getting the needed training between tours of Duties in Iraq).

The fact that the Virginia Militia dug the trenches meant that the Regulars were free to train. This training meant that as the siege progressed the Fighting ability of the Regular US and French Troops stayed roughly constant while the British Troops training had been halted for months (their had no Militia to dig their fortifications so their had to do it themselves). Thus by the end of the Siege the Allied Regulars (Both French and American) were fairly close to peak while the British troops were at an all time low. Cornwallis knew this and was a factor in his decision to surrender.

Thus the Militia did win the Revolutionary War. The Militia affect was slow but sure. Just like the Viet Cong in Vietnam and it looks like the Iraqi people in Iraq. The actions of the People of Iraq are forcing the US forces into using larger and larger formations (Which go out less and less). The People of Iraq are forcing US forces to use more and more supplies (Both in fuel, armored Humvees use a lot more fuel than un-armored Humvees, and ammunition as the US troops try to keep the Iraqi people away from them in any firefights). This has always been how Militia defeat a more powerful Army, a slow death of a thousand cuts.

Tactically, it is the widespread use of Rifles that are forcing the US forces into these larger and heavier armored formations. This makes the US Forces easier targets of bombs. A comparison can be seen in the Yom Kipper war of 1972. During the Yom Kipper War, the Anti-Aircraft Missiles forced the Israelis to fly their planes low to avoid being targeted by the missiles. This brought the planes into the range of ground fire. The Israeli's Air Force high loss to Ground fire was do to the Ground fire BUT ALSO BY THE MISSILES FORCING THE PLANES TO FLY LOW AND THUS IN RANGE OF GROUND FIRE.

The same in Iraq today, while rifles may NOT be causing most of the injuries in this war, the presence of said rifles are forcing the US Forces to go into actions in larger and heavier formations than the US would have had to if the rifles did not exist. Thus the mere fact bombs are causing more injuries than rifle fire does not mean rifle fire has NOT Been effective.

One last note, my reading of the Second Amendment would NOT preclude the Militia (and by this I mean every American) from owning the bombs being used to harm US forces in Iraq. These can be "arms" just like Rifles can be "Arms". This is the reason the word "Arms" was used instead of "Muskets" or "rifles". The authors of the Amendment wanted to cover items wider than the weapons of their own time period (and I believe restricted to Battalion level weapons for the same Congress only addressed light Infantrymen in Section 1 of the 1792 Militia Act, the section of the Act that most clearly puts forth the Militia that Congress envisioned in the Second Amendment).

[billbuckhead]

47. If you have the politcal will you just kill everyone like we did the Nativ

Americans or you put them in concentration camps like the Brits did to the Boers. If the Brits weren't fighting the French all over the world they would have won the war and slavery would have ended half a century earlier and the Native Americans wouldn't have been exterminated. The American Revolution really isn't something to be so proud of. It was actually a trial run for the civil war. A bunch of landowners who didn't want to pay taxes and wanted keep their slaves. John Hancock just wanted to keep the Brits out his tea monopoly . It was just another mercantile deal. The whole American Revolution thing is so overromanticied. Ever wonder why we never conquered Canada? Even the French in Canada thought Americans were so corrupt and immoral that they chose to stay with the Brits.

It's kind of like a work the other day when someone brought a rebuilt from the ground up brand new 57 Chevy and was talking about the good old days, a middle age black lady said that wasn't the good old days.

[T Town Jake]

49. "The American Revolution really isn't something to be so...

...proud of"...hilarious. Here's another one of our "real" Democrats from the gun control crowd positing a wonderful campaign theme for the National Democratic Party. Gee, Bill, do you think that particular ladle of slop from your voluminous bucket of the same would really fly with the vast majority of the electorate? Do you begin to grasp why your stripe of "real" Democrat has been so harmful to our Party since the congressional elections of 1994?

[billbuckhead]

54. Do you deny Native Americans& Blacks were big losers in 1776?

The truth shall set you free. Ultimately it worked out for the Brits, but not for the Native Americans or African slaves.

[iverglas]

55. maybe s/he has never heard

of Shays' Rebellion.

For a long time, traditional historians were content to portray the rebels as wrongheaded villains in an unfolding drama of patriotism.

Recent historians have revolutionized our understanding of early American family and community life, and improved our comprehension of post-Revolutionary political and social struggles.

To follow Shays' Rebellion is to witness an escalating crisis in which the men who fought or financed the American Revolution were obliged to reconsider that revolution and its principles only ten years later.

I hadn't until recently, and found reading about it quite instructive. "The people", farmers unable to pay their debts and sent to prison as a result, rose up against the usuruious mercantile class -- the indigenous, post-Revolution, USAmerican capitalists. They lost. A couple of them were hanged, I gather.

And this is the context in which Jefferson spoke those famous and, as far as I can tell, oft-misinterpreted, words, arguing against hanging the instigators for treason:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government."

As long as the rebels don't actually *win*, the government benefits from the exercise. And this particular unsuccessful rebellion didn't actually bring about any change to solve the problems it was about.

Not all revolutions are actually intended to benefit everybody. The US Revolution plainly did exactly what it was intended to do, and that was to relieve the economic élite in the colonies of the burden of imperial taxation. It certainly didn't relieve the farmers and workers in the colonies of any of their own burdens. And hey, let's not even mention those slaves.

[happyslug]

62. Temperature was a factor in Shay's Defeat

It was 20 below when Shay marched on Springfield, if it had been warmer i.e. Freezing or above, he would have double the number of men and either the Arsenal would NOT have fired on him or he could have taken the Arsenal.

Just like the Yellow Fever epidemic in Philadelphia in 1793 would prevent the Federal Government from cracking down on the Whiskey Rebels of Western Pennsylvania till 1794 (When the major movement of the Rebellion had disappeared), the temperature during Shay's rebellion was a bigger factor than the actions of the Government to suppress the rebellion.

[iverglas]

65. generally ...

I find your posts very interesting. Of course, I'm probably the only one who reads them. Well, maybe DoNotRefill, who seems to have too much time on his hands ...

But I'm not sure what you're saying in response to what I said -- or was this just an bit of fascinating arcane knowledge?

I was speaking to billbuckhead's assertion that the US's revolution was just a replacement of one set of bosses with another, basically. The causes of Shays' Rebellion were my point: exploitation of the classes that essentially led a subsistence existence by the capitalist class. Nothing had changed for the regular folks, all that had happened was that a level of constraints on the ability of the élite to amass money and power had been removed.

I wasn't addressing the reasons for the failure of the rebellion -- I was talking about the reasons for the occurrence of the rebellion. Nuttin to do with whether a few guys with muskets could take on the might of the state. ;)

When someone mentioned Shays' Rebellion a few months ago I spent a pleasant part of an afternoon reading up on it. The tale certainly confirmed my own understanding and opinions of the US's revolution.

[happyslug]

57. 18,000 ex-slaves sailed with the British in 1783

As the British pulled out of Charleston. At the same time most states were in the possess of abolishing slavery. This was true even of the American South. Slaves had been shown to be an internal security hazard (i.e. they sided with the British whenever the British promised them Freedom). The only way to eliminate the hazard was to abolished slavery. Most states adopted slow abolition (i.e. adopting laws like making the children of existing slaves were not slaves and telling slave owners such slaves will become free in 20 years unless they would become wards of the states).

The process increased in the 1790s and than reversed with the invention of the Cotton Gin. With the Cotton Gin slavery became profitable (if you could plant cotton which you can do south of Virginia). By the time of the Civil War over 1/2 of the US total Exports was cotton. It was the need for Cotton that almost force Britain to go to war with the United States (i.e. Britain would have declared war on the US to PROTECT the RIGHT OF SLAVERY even as slavery was illegal in the British Empire).

Thus the blacks were among the winners in 1776 but started to lose big time starting in the 1790s. Yes the dates are only two decades apart but so are the 1980s from the 1960s. We look at the 1960s much differently than the 1980s and the same for the decades of the 1770s and 1790s. The 1770s were a decade of fighting and the problem of Slavery became clear, on the other hand the 1790s was the worse depression in American till the 1830s (and some people says the 1870s). This made the 1790s more dependent on economic growth than further extension of Freedom. Thus the movement to abolish slavery tended to end in the 1790s. The money to be made in Cotton do to the economic demands of Britain for American Cotton was so great that Slavery survived till the Civil War. Britain made no effort to STOP using slave produced cotton. Thus it was the 1790s that saw the rights of blacks do down hill.

As to the Native Americans, we have to credit the growth of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State for that. The Depression of the late 1780s and 1790s saw increase in demands for "charity" from the local churches. While this was called "Charity" it was state funded and went to anyone in the state church's parish (Including poor Indians and other "non-believers"). Thus the proper modern name for this "Charity" would be "Welfare". It was to remove such people off the welfare rolls that the doctrine of Separation of Church and State was adopted so widely in the 1790s. In fact the adoption of the Doctrine had less to do with Freedom of Religion than to reduce the tax burden of caring for the poor.

Now the poor still existed after the adoption of the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State (and let me be clear the Doctrine had little to do with the First Amendment, the Doctrine was adopted and implemented at the State level with no reference to the Bill of Rights). The answer to the Poor was to tell them to go west and take lands from the Indians. The assistance to the poor from their Churches was limited (Do to the Church new reliance on private donations which came no where near what the State's had been providing them). Thus the poor had to go West and take the land from the Natives. Thus the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State was one of the building stones of Westward expansion. The Native Americans lost out in that expansion for no one really wanted to pay them either.

Doctrines are often cited for actions that are economic in nature, for example the "Welfare Reform" movement of the 1990s which had less to do with reforming welfare as opposed to reducing costs (and forcing people into low income jobs). The same with the Doctrine of Separation of Church and States. The Doctrine was adopted in the 1790s more to kick the poor off the Welfare rolls than to separate The State and Religion. Than manifest destiny was used to justified the poor being forced to move to the Frontier to take lands from the Native Americans.

This is our history and we are a product of that history. A person may not like it but you should look at the good while accepting the bad. Good Doctrines have often been used for bad purposes, but that does not make them bad Doctrines. Just like Welfare needs reforming does not mean "Welfare Reform" was good, but the fact "Welfare Reform" was bad does not make any reform of welfare bad. Throughout history Good Doctrines have been used for bad reasons, but that does not make them bad doctrines. The same with the movement of 1776, the Revolution lead to reforms throughout our country and the implementations of various Doctrines (Some old like the Right to Bare Arms, other new like the separation of Church and State). The implementation of these Doctrines have lead to some harm in addition to some good. As a whole more good than harm.

[happyslug]

56. I have read some strange history (Mostly Right wing) but ....

to make the claims you do you have to show a complete lack of study of history.

First, the French in Canada BACKED THE US in the Revolution. The US RAISED THREE REGIMENTS out of right is now Quebec. One of those regiments survived till 1783 (6 years after all US forces were forced out of Quebec). As to the French along the Ohio River, these openly sided with the American even providing arms and money to George Rogers Clark's expedition against them (Now some French militia served with the British but the reports that they were unreliable in combat when under British command, but very Reliable under American Command). The main reason Quebec stayed British was NOT that the French preferred the British to the Americans but that the British held the forts of Quebec and controlled the waterways through its control of the Seas. Thus were the French had a choice (The Ohio River) the French sided with the Americans, where the French had no choice they picked neutrality (When they were not sending their boys to join the American Army).

As to the British decision in 1835 to abolished Slavery, by 1835 the Sugar plantations were converting from Slave labor to Free labor and had been do so for about 100 years. With the Santo Domingo (Now Haiti) slave rebellion slaves started to be looked at as a security risk, no longer worth the effort to keep. Beat sugar had also been invented reducing the dependence of Europe on West Indies Sugar. The final nail in the Coffin of English West Indies Slavery was the raising price of slaves do to the demand from the Southern US. The Demand for Slaves was so severe that the West Indies could no longer compete (And this was after it was technically illegal to import slaves into the US).

Thus the US demand for slaves had out priced the West Indies. With growing Security Concerns given the growing power of the US, the British decided it no longer could afford Slavery and thus abolished Slavery.

Now the real question is would the British have Abolished slavery in 1835 IF AMERICA WAS STILL A BRITISH COLONY? The above would still have existed (with the exception of Security concern do to the raising strength of the US) BUT the slave holders of the American South would have had to be considered by England. Various English banking institutions held mortgages against Southern Plantations and their slaves and sold such slaves even after 1835. The South and their London Bankers did not object to the British abolishment of Slavery for the abolishment did not affect them nor the mortgages they held on American Slaves. American Slaves were still slaves after 1835 BUT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THEIR CASE IF THE US WAS PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. Furthermore the British bankers would have seen a vast decline in their mortgages do to the abolishment.

Simple put given the money involved there is NO WAY that Britain would have abolished Slavery in the American South in 1835. Either no abolishment would have occurred or an exception would have been made (Much like in India debt slavery survives to this day, even if the debt was incurred by the slaves Grandparents).

As to John Hancock wanted to keep his imports from having to be taxed, he agreed to have them taxed by his states AND the Federal Government during and after the Revolution. His attack on the import tariff had less to do with the money collected than WHO SPENT THAT MONEY. Johns Hancock wanted to control (or at least have a say) in how the money was to be spent and they was no way that was to occur without Independence (Or no taxation by England which was Hancock's first choice).

As to the Native American most of them had accepted the United States by 1815, the fights after that date was fights as to what would they role be in the United States. Massacres occurred but even the Indians admitted that the real enemy was the American Farmer whose MALES were willing to work the land AND the professional classes of White Society that made life easier to bear. It was these two groups that the Indians knew they had to convert to but never did (those that did prospered). America west ward movement was more a replacement of a primitive Agriculture done only by Women to the advance Agriculture done by Men and Women. It was this that drove the Indians off their lands more than any action of genocide.

[TexasMexican]

45. Its still the law of the land, if you dont like that have it repealed...

"The first portion of your second amendment is a statement of opinion. It may have been a good opinion at the time it was written. It's a nonsense now. A pure and utter and complete load of crap."

The 2nd Amendment is still the law of the land, if you dont agree with it then have it amended or repealed.

"It doesnt matter that we have come to understand that regular blood-letting is dangerous and sometimes lethal to the human person, what does matter is "the right of physicians to drain blood from patients shall not be infringed"."

Nice strawman of your own, the right to let blood is not a right protected by the constitution.

[OpSomBlood]

46. I find it funny that the Queen of the Straw Man berates us for using them.

From bloodletting to land mines to crocodile moats...she's the master.

[iverglas]

51. you talkin to me? eh?

The 2nd Amendment is still the law of the land, if you dont agree with it then have it amended or repealed.

There be those who constantly and falsely allege that I am engaged in an effort to change US law when I'm not a USAmerican ... and there be those who exhort me to do it.

What's a girl to do??

[RoeBear]

58. "What's a girl to do??"

???

[iverglas]

64. aw, you remember

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q
=canadian+%22dry+humour%22&meta=

You can even spell it your way:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q
=canadian+%22dry+humor%22&meta=

and get a couple of thousand more results.

Canadians aren't like accountants:

http://www.camagazine.com/index.cfm/ci_id/6509/la_id/1.htm

Somehow, as I scanned the October 2000 issue, I inadvertently passed "In God we trust" and went on to "Certifying tax specialist," which seemed to have more relevance. I think it was the title ("In God we trust") that diverted my attention away from the piece. I mistakenly assumed it was a story dealing with American money.

A linkage between God and humour is not normally anticipated, and when it appears in a publication from the CICA it comes as a complete surprise. Despite items such as "Master of comic domain" (October 2000), CAmagazine is not known as a reliable source of humour and levity. More typical of the magazine's offerings, unfortunately, are such articles as "The heat is on" (a discussion of auditor independence) and "Will that be cash or equity?" (an exploration of issues associated with the taking back of shares for fees).

Perhaps this reluctance (inability?) to produce self-deprecating humour or, really, much humour of any kind is a symptom of accounting's insecurity as a profession. Don't we have enough confidence in the value of our talents, skills and knowledge to risk poking fun at ourselves? Is there an ingrained fear that the public will not see us for what we think we are - consummate financial professionals - and instead view us as what we don't think we are: bean counters, bookkeepers and number crunchers? Of course, if we won't admit that there are elements of the bean counter, the bookkeeper and the number cruncher in the work that we do, we are surely ignoring reality.

We know that you people see us as lumberjacks and commies, and we think that's funny. Soviet Canuckistan, I'm snorting my fresh supply of diet coke all over again. We just know on whom the joke really is.

Anyhow, that's a little tangential. "What's a girl to do?" is really just in the vein of "my dear boy". One of yer time-honoured cliché thingies, used in a kinda ironic way, eh?

[iverglas]

52. Here beginneth today's lesson

Today we shall discuss what many persist in calling the "straw man" argument, despite the decades-long consensus among progressive people that the language they use should be inclusive.

Nice strawman of your own, the right to let blood is not a right protected by the constitution.

I believe I pointed out that what I had presented was AN ANALOGY (and yes, ALL analogies are flawed). And it's possible that a couple of our friends here really do understand this, and really do know what a straw person argument is, and really do know that I've never made one here, and are just heartily amused with themselves because they think they're bugging me. At least billbuckhead seems to have grown up, eh?


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

(Y'see? It just doesn't hurt at all when those here who ARE prone to making straw person arguments do it.)

Here's how you can tell the difference between the ANALOGY I offered and a straw person argument:

I did not attribute any argument to anyone else.

I did not pretend that someone else had argued that bloodletting was constitutionally protected.

Now, here's the example offered, easily tailored for our purposes (the text in italics):

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
firearms control advocate: Ten thousand people a year are killed by handguns in the US.

Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Voter: What are we going to do?

Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Firearms control opponent: I think we should put all violent criminals in prison for life. That would take care of it.

Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Firearms control advocate: We could severely restrict and regulate access to handguns by members of the public instead.

Prof. Brown: "I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
Firearms control opponent: I can't understand why you want to disarm honest law-abiding gun owners so that criminals can slaughter them and their children like that, and why you want to aid and abet the fascists who are coming to take us away like that, gun-grabber.

Now y'see -- once again, I have offered an analogy. An analogous straw person argument. Isn't that clever?

But *I* have simply never ascribed an opinion to someone that s/he has not stated, or otherwise misrepresented or disregarded what s/he said and instead "rebutted" something s/he did not say.

Nope, that position is already over-staffed around here, and the incumbents are so good at what they do that I wouldn't even bother competing.

[Columbia]

48. I can tell you from personal experience

That rifles are indeed effective weaponry against military personnel. The only reason the insurgents are not faring as well as they could is because their numbers are very few. The trouble that these few have caused, however, is a testament to the power of guerilla warfare in urban terrain.

If the majority or even a significant minority of the Iraqi population were to take up arms against the coalition then there would absolutely be no contest.

[DoNotRefill]

50. The insurgents are not faring well?

then why are we in such a goddamned hurry to hand over power?

It's to give the crazies something else to attack other than US troops.

[Columbia]

53. Militarily, they are not

But things play differently in the eyes of the average American TV watcher. Of course, perception is all that really matters anyway, as we've seen time and time again in every conflict since Vietnam.

[jukes]

59. No offense

new in this forum. hope not to break etiquette.

have to disagree w/your statement. sooner or later,in any war, you have to stand on the ground to win it. grunts will always be the deciding factor in a war. (von Clausewitz states it more eloquently.)

flatten fallujah? have you forgotten hanoi? (look, i know you threw out a teaser for discussion, but i'm playing it for real, also for the sake)

air strikes ARE scary shit to the guy in the dirt; my ass was saved by an F-4 strike 15 mikes o/s our perimeter. multiple 20mm vulcan night strafing runs(we marked our perimeter w/fuel tabs in empty c-rat cans. damn, those pilots were good shots!), then napalm/HE 100 meters deeper.

we met up w/alpha company next day; a week later we cycled back to battalion base. where do you think charley was after we left?

[Hrumph]

63. You're drawing a questionable conclusion

from one conflict and offering it up as an axiom.

I can only assume that your intent is to counter the "guns as protection from a tyranical government" line of reasoning so I will proceed from that point of view.

Your postulate is fallacious on several counts:
1) You presume that said rebels might march out into the wilderness to "do battle" with the military machine. Clearly, such a tactic would be suicide. Ground troops, armed only with rifles cannot stand against an organized military with armor, mechanized infantry and air assets. What it can do is to harass the occupying force and make the occupation terribly expensive. This is hard enough on foreign soil. I believe it would be unsustainable on native ground with a population to govern and an economy to maintain.

2) You seem to think that a government (despotic or otherwise) seeking to quell a rebellion will have the same options at its disposal that it does when fighting an outright war. I do not believe this to be the case. Large-scale assaults and destruction of infrastructure is counter-productive to the goal of "ruling" a thriving nation state. Furthermore, the use of such tactics will tend to drive support for the rebellion.

3) You're counting on military personnel to be willing to go to war against their own neighbors and relatives. I do not believe that would be the case. Yes, there are always the hard core who will draw a bead on whoever/whatever they're told to and drop the hammer but I believe they are in the minority. Including reserves, the Armed forces is only roughly 3 million strong http://www.npg.org/forum_series/manning_military.htm Even if only 20% of the accepted 80 million gun owners were to resist a tyrannical government, that still leaves the military outnumbered by 5.3:1. Consider that most of the military's duty personnel would be unavailable for combat (in support roles) and remember that much of the military's might could simply not be brought to bear. (The Navy, for instance, would be largely ineffective against inland threats.) And remember that there would be a great number of troops that would refuse to attack their own home. In the end, you'll be left with (and this is strictly a wild guess on my part), maybe, 16 million armed citizens against 1 million troops.

Assuming that such a rebellious force wouldn't be stupid enough go sit in the middle of the desert and be bombed into oblivion, it's going to be very, very expensive (in every way imaginable) to find them and either kill them or round them up. All along the way the military would have to deal with the harassment of the attacks on supply, communication and transportation infrastructure. Some of the available force would have to be posted to guard against such attack, further reducing the size of the force the military could field against the threat.

Then lets pile on the political and economic pressure that this supposedly tyrannical government would be under once hostilities started.



Now... Clearly, this is all just a great big "what if" game. My point is simply that you cannot make the sorts of generalities you're trying to make. The dynamics of such a situation are far more complicated than you make them out to be. It is conceivable that an armed populace COULD, in fact, bring enough pressure to bear on a given political entity to effect real change.


Lets all hope we never have to find out for real.