[TheForge] coffee and guns OT OT OT

[Jerry Smith]

So my ground hog has other uses?

Jerry
--- Peter Fels And Phoebe Palmer <artgawk at thegrid.net>
wrote:

> With the widespread availability of accurate,
> scoped,long range 
> rifles, an effective revolt against an oppressive
> government 
> becomes a much more realistic threat.
> It helps keep them honest...something we could use a
> lot more of...pf
> 
> craig.schaefer at verizon.net wrote:
> > And like in any civil war conflict, SOME of the
> governments war making equipment will become
> equipment of the insurrection, because that's where
> the sympathies of the government troops lie.
> > 
> > Speculating of course.
> > 
> > CraigS
> > Gresham, OR
> > 
> > 
> >> From: GRAF <adveniam at att.net>
> >> Date: 2007/12/18 Tue AM 11:21:43 CST
> >> To: Sponsored by ABANA <theforge at mailman.qth.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [TheForge] coffee and guns
> > 
> >> Our armed forces are really good at meeting other
> organized armed forces 
> >> that present a target rich environment.
> >> It is not as effective as an occupying force.
> >> It can barely keep the lid on in Iraq.
> >> Imagine trying to constrain an insurrection in
> the highly urbanized 
> >> landscape of the US.
> >> It would not happen.
> >> Add to that rural resistance  on the scale of the
> US .
> >>
> >> All in all I think Andy is correct. The mere
> hassle factor placed right 
> >> up front is something any occupier, domestic or
> foreign, would find a 
> >> significant stumbling block.
> >>
> >> It is much more cost effective to play up close
> to the margins of the law.
> >>
> >> What makes a huge stockpile of ordnance in
> private hands work in this 
> >> country is that we DO believe in our rule of law,
> and that officials DO 
> >> leave peaceably when their terms are up. That
> plus an adequate economy 
> >> keeps those private arms locked away.
> >>
> >> Anything that weakens this system of private
> ownership, including 
> >> registration in my opinion, works against us.
> >>
> >> Mike Graf
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrew Vida wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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 
> 
=== message truncated ===