Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Boozegood at 2012-12-18 15:34:44

I never said "only muskets". I said "they had access to muskets and nothing much stronger." What's the point of blockquoting what I said and then ignoring the part you quoted?

Sorry for misquoting you, replace what I put in-between '' with what you actually said and it still stands.

I don't know on what planet this:

Is "not much more powerful" than this:

though.

Isn't that what I just said? What's not correct? You're saying gun owners opposed this right?

No, you said "[...] the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment[...]" which in the context of your whole argument means just what you said. Unless it doesn't; in which case it goes against your entire argument so I assume you mean what you say.

Yes, but only when 1. the terrain offers a lot of cover with mountains or jungles

You mean like this:

And this:

2. the counter insurgency is from foreigners unfamiliar with the terrain.

Revolutionary War, Balkans, Vietnam, etc. etc. would show you are wrong.

That's what makes it hard, and those don't both apply, particularly the second one. US Troops of some future tyrannical government wouldn't have much trouble in the rural plains no matter what magazines the rebels had. With the armaments and training and tanks and explosives and knowing their own country as well as any insurgents, it would be a very short uprising, unaffected in duration by the amount of bullets each gun could fire quickly or not. Whether we like it or not, our military transcended the level where we could defeat it with an insurrection decades ago, no manner how many bullets we had. This is not a comforting thing, I can agree with you there - but it has been true for some time. I think it's difficult to argue otherwise when you consider all our government's combined defense and intelligence capabilities; we only can lose wars to insurgents because we're the foreigners and they're hidden in the asscracks of terrain they know far better than us.

If you think you are actually correct on this; I commend you. Many, many peer-reviewed Generals, strategists, etc. that have been published in Journals would completely disagree, though. Feel free to submit your theory to their critique.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/fsst20/current

http://afs.sagepub.com/

http://www.pmsaronline.org/

http://www.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss

http://www.smh-hq.org/jmh/jmh.html

If you succeed in convincing people that your point of view is correct I will commend you; as you have just revolutionized military/strategic thinking.

I suggest you start with this bibliography:

http://www.academicroom.com/bibliography/counterinsurgency-bibliography

(I also suggest anyone interested in COIN warfare/military history/strategy/etc. in general check out that bibliography).

[default homepage]

[print][

5:32:40am Apr 23,2024
load time 0.00832 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]