[TheForge] coffee and guns

[Andrew Vida]

ries wrote:
> 
> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Andrew Vida wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And finally, Jim is spot on.  The ONLY thing keeping government from 
> running wholly roughshod over us is the fact that we are pretty well 
> armed.  Were it otherwise, the few rights we retain would probably have 
> flown away decades ago.
> 
>     -Andy
> 
> 
> 
> Andy, you are a great guy, but you are completely FOS on this one.
> No war in history has been won by small arms alone, and the ONLY thing 
> keeping government from running roughshod over us is the constitution 
> and our rule of law- GUNS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

	I love you, too, but I must respectfully disagree.  Rule of law is 
nothing more than an agreement.  If a group believes they can and should 
take control, and assuming they in fact have the material 
instrumentality to do so, there would be nothing in their way to stop 
them, all else equal.

	To say that the presence of privately held firearms has nothing to do 
with the maintenance of so-called "liberty" is not reasonable.  It isn't 
the only factor - I hastily said it was, and that was careless of me. 
It is, however, a contributing one and I believe that it IS the final 
check upon those who would consider something very extreme.  If an 
action credibly risks armed revolt, the reasons for entertaining such 
action had better be pretty compelling.  Citizens with no recourse to 
the means of material equalization give usurpers considerably less to 
think about.

> Without a foreign nation supporting us against our, or any other 
> government, we would be toast in two weeks.

	This is not so easily determined.  This is a very wealthy nation and 
the people here can be very resourceful and determined when the 
complacency is swept away.  Rousing the people of this nation to anger 
would be a very dicey gamble for any administration, were they to 
consider something cure.  It would not be nearly the slam-dunk you seem 
to imply.  But to your point, I will agree that some of the outcome 
would be determined by the response of the corporate community.  I am no 
longer confident that large corporate bodies could be trusted to stand 
by their people.  If they were to side with government, and I am pretty 
sure that many would, that would make things far more difficult for the 
rank and file.
> 
> The successful guerilla wars of the last 5 decades or so were all only 
> successful because a large industrialised nation, be it China, the USA, 
> or the Soviet Union, supported the guerillas with a steady flow of new 
> weapons ( in real combat, guns wear out very fast- machine gun barrels 
> may last one day sometimes, and even a very well maintained assault 
> rifle has a short lifespan) ammo, and, most essentially, crew served 
> weapons.

	A well maintained assault rifle should live for several tens of 
thousands of rounds.

> Without medium to heavy machine guns, mortars, rpg's, surface to air 
> missles, and hundreds of tons of explosives, all of which are in very 
> short supply in private hands in the USA, you have about a snowball's 
> chance in hell of surviving a few days against the average big city 
> police department, much less a real army.

	Utter nonsense.  You seem to forget who feeds the army we'd be 
fighting.  That would be us.  Without access to steady supplies of food, 
the armed forces would be SOL in short order.  Weapons generally do not 
run themselves.  Food reserves are more readily controlled by millions 
of people than by a few thousands of troops dedicated to the same task. 
  My point is that these scenarios are not simple and the action is 
never linear.

> Koresh had 50 caliber rifles, full auto weapons, and a reasonable supply 
> of ammo for a private individual in the USA. He and his managed to kill 
> a few feds by surprising them, but in a war situation, his seige would 
> have lasted 2 hours, not 51 days.
> A couple of runs by F-15's with 500lb bombs, and it would have been over 
> by lunch.

	Comparing this with a nation-wide armed revolt is not valid.  It is 
easy to see that ATF could have burned the place down immediately, 
rather than wait 58 days.  This proves nothing.
> 
> So if the government actually decided to flex the incredible force it 
> has as the largest military power on earth, no amount of deer rifles and 
> glocks and shotguns would make much difference.

	Again, I must disagree.  Short of the nukes, our armed forces do not 
hold nearly enough material instrumentality to maintain an occupation. 
I've lived all over this nation and one thing I have come to appreciate 
is its size.  Even ten thousand tanks distributed over the area would 
comprise targets that can be defeated with some creativity and 
determination.  Don't forget that each tank must have at least a squad 
of troops for support.  That would be 60k head occupied just keeping the 
tanks from being defeated.

> Guns are good for a lot of things- but their mere presence does not mean 
> freedom, democracy, or a hands off government.

	Not in and of themselves, but they are a significant contributing 
factor, even if only as one of last resort.