No. I am talking about Americans of all color, all races, all religions, blue collar and white collar, who own guns, and who believe and support the United States Constittution(most of whom do not belong to the NRA, and I dont either).
Yes, tracer, but some of the things the military has are NOT next-to-useless in urban warfare. Thermal imaging scanners, body armor, night vision goggles, GPS systems and accurate maps of urban areas, etc, etc. Plus some of the best tactical and strategic minds on the planet. I think the only thing urban warfare tactics would allow a civilian population in rebellion to do against a modern army is keep from being slaughtered. A 22 may be CAPABLE of killing a soldier and then you’ve got his arms, but it will do fuck all if you miss. The soldier is much less likely to miss. The 1/1 civilian/military casualty ratio mentioned by Susanann is simply laughable. It would never happen, if it did even start to approach that ratio the army would pull out and nuke/cluster bomb the whole fucking area. The ratio then goes firmly back in favor of the military.
I agree with you that restrictions on what arms can be sold to civilians are indeed making the gap between military effectiveness and civilian uprising effectiveness larger, but at the point where tanks, cruise missiles, RPGs, and WoMD start entering the picture I still gotta go with Military over civilian. Even if every civilian owned an AK and tons of ammo.
Enjoy,
Steven
I think a well-armed citizenry is vital to a democracy…But, what the citizens need to be armed with is not guns but knowledge, education, information, and the political power to use it. In this regard, the current Administration has been trampling all over much of these armaments and has been taking lying, deceiving, and withholding information to new levels.
But, since they haven’t made any laws restricting gun ownership, the gun rights folks are sitting nice and happy and, for the most part, supporting our President while he takes away the rights and tools that really matter. Go figure!
The Ryan, I’ll try to get into a response for you a bit later(leaving for the weekend), but in a nutshell the Vietnam war could have been won if the government were willing to fully commit. They were hamstrung by strategic decisions like “Cambodia is off-limits” and trying to protect the civilians. In a revolution the military forces would have no such boundry lines and would be free to ferret out resistance cells no matter where they were found(within national borders of course, after all, the government is sovreign there). If resistance was particularly brutal in a subdivision, withdraw the troops, form a perimiter and cluster bomb the entire place. Who would stop them? There would never be a decisive victory, oppressed people would continue to resist and undergrounds would form similar to the French resistance in WWII, but I simply can’t imagine a modern military being completely defeated, and that is what it would take if you wanted to topple a government and the military supported it.
Plus, military technology has advanced well beyond what was available during Vietnam as well. I’m not saying that all resistance would be squashed, but I can’t see a modern military being besieged on their bases by crowds with .22s
Enjoy,
Steven
- If the military nukes every area, every city, every county, in America where armed civilians are resisting, there will not be anything left to pull back to. You cant nuke the entire continent and think you won.
- Furthermore, you greatly underestimate the patriotism of our boys in the military. A great many of them are good ole boys, who believe in our constitution, and who will not be fighting against the civilians, against their mothers and fathers and uncles and aunts and children.
Any hypothetical uprising that causes great masses of American civilians to uprise, will find plenty of support within the military itself. Most of the men I know in the military will not fire on their fathers and mothers, esp if there is a constitutional issue at hand. This topic came up repeatedly during the clinton years, when many military men discussed the possiblity of clinton suspending elections and staying in power as president.
The United States military will not be one undivided “loyal only to the king force”.
Actually, I think we will see a civil war “within our military”, long before we see civilians vs. the military.
- Lastly, armed American civilians vastly out number the military, but about 50 - 1. This is opposite and in stark contrast to the long accepted rule of any occupying forces in gurella wars, where “the miitary” is supposed to outnumber the armed civilian resistors by 17 -1, in order to be resonably safe and in control.
An “occupying soldier” does not “sit in a tank” 24 hours of the day, he walks the streets, he goes to restaurants, he goes to the movies, he uses the john, he sleeps, etc. and at any time he is not in a tank or a helicopter, he could be shot by just any one of 100 million armed citizens.
Do you know that the Japanese Americans interned during WWII were unarmed? It’s always been my belief that “all American, constitution lovin’ folks” were the ones doing the rounding up.
Susann, might I offer a bit of friendly advice? The British invented the concentration camp. See what I did there? I admitted that my country had made a mistake in the past. Know why I did it? So that I don’t kid myself that we’re incapable of atrocities, and forget to prevent them happening in the future.
I’m not proud of most of my country’s history, but as a reference book for “what not to do” we really should be required reading in a lot of cases, especially by our own government.
Assuming you can safely cross the 200 yards to the rifle while his 5 buddies and their Bradley vehicle blast away at you.
This may be of interest:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10005188
Draw your own conclusions.
Yes…I think I may have heard of that one.
Here’s what I’m thinking. We didn’t really gain our independence because of farmers with muskets sniping at Redcoats. There was a little thing called the Continental Army than eventually had to be formed, armed and trained.
I think it’s simplistic to say that an armed population ensures freedom. Somalia and Afghanistan are armed but I would hardly say they are free societies. East Germany was unarmed and yet the Berlin Wall still came crashing down.
Well, I’ve learned a lot so far (including how to misuse the term “Executive” :D).
I’ve don’t have much to add yet, except to thank all of you (or as I believe the phase goes, “all y’all”) for enlightening me. I’ll chip in with some obervations later on.
Background note: I moved to Boston from England, where we learned a slighty different version of the events of the American Insurrection/Revolution/Tax Revolt. This has tended to make me more cynical than perhaps it should, so I really like to see the exchange of views and ideas, even (or especially) those that address fundamental beliefs or ideas.
- Like Sgt Sryker said, very few japanese were actually"interned", most were “relocated”. People who held citizenship in Japan or Germany, and who remained in an area that was a high security area(like California), were moved elsewhere. Do we really want “japanese citizens”, or “german citizens”, to be around our war plants? (frankly, I dont believe in the concept of “dual citizenship” - esp if we are at war with one of the countries that you hold citizenship in).
In answer to your question, to be very honest with you, I dont know if a person who actually held japanese citizenship was legally allowed to own a gun in America, at that time in 1941. I believe today, in 2003, an Adult alien can legally buy a gun if he is living in America as a “resident alien”, but I am not sure.
Even today, US citizen children of foreign aliens who are living in america, still cannot legally buy or own a gun.
Anyways, I dont know of any “uprising of any japanese” who were here at that time, and who were living in those few states that were considered security areas. I dont know of any person of japanese decent who was not an alien who was living in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Vermont, New Hampshire, etc who were either relocated or resisted. Amerians of japanese decent in my states, were not bothered.
In hindsight, perhaps we should have actually deported all of those who held japanese citizenship(and their families) and who were living in america after December 7, 1941 .
When did the British invent the concentration camp?
I read where Hitler said it was the Americans who invented it.
The Americans thought we invented them when we called them : “Indian Reservations”.
We disarmed the indians, rounded them up, relocated them, and put them in a confined area( we also killed them, starved them, diseased them, etc.)
Did the British invent the concentration camp BEFORE we invented the indian reservations?
I do know of American history of concentration camps/indian reservations, but I know nothing of the British. If you could enlighten me, I would appreciate it.
I would be glad to know that the British were doing this before the americans were doing it.
ok, I get your point. I cant think of any either.
Our armed resisting civilians, by escalating our power by raising a formal army, and geting the French navy on our side, does not detract from what actually happened from april 19, 1775 to July 4, 1776. (FYI: “The Contental Army” was composed of those same civilians who were sniping the year before)
I think the point of the founding fathers, and their hope and trust, was that an armed populace, was such a potential threat to any military power, that it would never actually have to fight. And so far, it has kept our government in check, and it has prevented any evil american from ever trying to take power. There are just as many good and evil people in our 200 years of America as there are in any other country in the world - we have no monopoly on goodness, and all of our leaders are not honorable, nor devoid of power hungryness.
In general, the famous quote: “no government sits in power without the consent of its people” .
That is still true today, as it was hundreds of years ago, whether the people are armed or not. It is just “easier” to overthrow an out of control government if the people are already armed, but any country can do it if they want to. The fact that most people choose to have evil governments does not detract from their ability to have whatever government they want.
Ok, I got one!!
What about the Alamo, Davy Crockett, and San Jacinto?
Santa Anna suspended the Mexican 1824 constitution, and tried to out law guns, and suspend other freedoms. Santa Anna and his well armed/well trained regular battle hardened and experienced formal army was defeated/captured by a bunch of armed ragtag texan civilans.
I guess you could also ““try”” to say that Santa Anna was defeated by an “army”???
But the ““army”” of Sam Houston was formed by ordinary Texican citizens, and they didnt have time to “train” or become what anyone would call an “army”. It was just a few thousand texans who were all together at one time taking commands from Houston.
I think Texas Independence is a good example for you of what armed civilians can do, esp when they act together in a coordinated effort.
Adding fuel to the fire:
An armed man is a “citizen”, an unarmed man is a “subject”
unclviny
First up, unclviny>
<—unarmed citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Susanann.
My apologies. My knowledge of US history, although fairly robust, didn’t include the fact that Jackson used prison camps before relocating the Cherokee. This would, indeed, be the first use of the Concentration Camp, although the first time such a camp was called a Concentration Camp was during the Boer War.
The British have the dubious honour of being the first to employ them in a large scale during wartime to wreak genocide on a population, as far as I know, which I will admit is not the same as inventing them.
Link. From 1899 to 1902, the British killed 27,000 Boer women and children through either planned confinement and starvation (most likely), or confinement followed by gross negligence and lack of consideration for life. Either way, it was utterly unacceptable.
It’s not directly comparable to the Prison Camps that the Cherokee were confined to, but I rather suspect it is comparable to the Trail of Tears.
Where I would take issue is with your classification of Reservations as concentration camps. Although the treatment of the Native American population is hardly listed among the Shining Moments of US History, not every population was as badly treated as the Cherokee. This is not to apologise for their suffering, but rather to put things in perspective. Reservations, although bad, are not concentration or internment camps.
I tend to think that Abrams tanks, going down residential streets knocking down houses of “suspected militants”, would have the effect of driving the average American into the arms of the “suspected militants”.
You’ve got to remember that there are less than 2,000,000 members of our Armed Forces. There are easily 10x that amount who are former Armed Forces. I just can’t picture the US military,no matter what weapons they have at their disposal, taking action against the Militia without pissing off tens of millions of Americans.
Last I heard, the Texans lost the Battle of the Alamo.
I would counter that (A) GPS systems and accurate maps are available cheaply to the average civilian right now; (B) body armor (in the form of kevlar vests) is also available and not terribly expensive, but the average civilian just isn’t that interested in buying them for some reason; and (C) while thermal imaging scanners and night vision goggles aren’t easy to come by for the civilian (are they?), they wouldn’t be much help in a fast-moving combat situation because they limit your peripheral vision. (They would allow the military to snipe at civilians through their window shades, but that’s all the more reason why the civilians should be interested in getting some body armor. 
)
Heh.
Hermann Cheruscan
Nah, man, that’s crazy talk.
CNN reports you as a “lone gunman,” a member of a “terrorist group.” You’ve got full coverage as the National Guard takes you out, and then people go back to their lives. Why would they run “into your arms,” you’re obviously a complete nutjob. CNN said so.
By the time it gets bad enough, in the USA, for a sizable number of people to think “hey, this is bad,” it’ll already be over. You don’t start taking over the population by sending in the tanks. If you’re smart, you start taking over a population by convincing people that it’s unpatriotic to disagree with the government in any situation. If you’ve got a scapegoat category broad enough to label the people that you’re detaining without charge, such as “terrorist”, you’re onto a winner.
Anyone remember HUAC?
Oh, and other advantages that the Military has that a Milita might not have to the same degree.
Grenades, landmines, artillery support, air support.
And, last, but not least.
Training.
Quick easy response before bed. I’ll get back to Susanann and some others later.
A) GPS systems are worthless without the satellites, which are owned and controlled by the military. The military can degrade the signals or shut off the non-military bands completely without affecting their own systems. The advantage of GPS is wholely in the hands of the military. The citizens don’t need this advantage, they are on their home turf. Military GPS is useful in urban warfare to quickly and accurately pinpoint resistance cells for tactical strikes from air support or indirect-fire weapons.
B) Body armor won’t protect a civilian from military grade weapons. Body armor will protect a soldier from most civilian grade weapons.
C) A rebellion/uprising is going to be either localized or widespread. A modern military would most likely form a perimeter around a city/subdivision/etc that is in substantial revolt and anyone trying to breech those lines will be subject to heavy fire from patrols(perhaps vehicles, perhaps helicopters, maybe just roadblocks). A sweep pattern of armored vehicles would probably be used to ferret out resistance. If the rebels can steer clear of the vehicles they’ve got a chance, this is where IR and night vision come in. It makes it MUCH harder to stay out of the sweep AND much harder to cross the perimeter undetected. A civilian-based force of irregulars only has one chance. Stay mobile, stay spread out, make them come after you. If the revolt is localized, this is not possible. If the revolt is widespread, then weapons of mass destruction/bombs come into play. Either way I see this going the way of the military.
Enjoy,
Steven