Sparring: AR's vs Drones

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Mm in this instance how do you answer the question without looking like a militiaman about to set for Oregon?
How about "That's interesting that you would pose the question that way. Do you think the only basis for a 2d Am. is a citizen versus government war?"

"Is that the only basis for the 1st, 4th and 5th amendment protections too?"

"If you are telling me that the government is so powerful that people with rifles would be no obstacle to it, is it a reasonable response to increase that power even more by disarming individuals?"

Excellent.

[A pause for the COZ]

If it comes down to it. Only a fool would line up against M1's and a well armed infantry battalion.

But a AR would be a great gun to get a better gun with. History has shown Insurgencies fight until THEY no longer want to fight. The power can only react and can not afford to stay committed indefinitely. Inf divisions in the field cost a whole lot of money.

[kilimanjaro]

Ask them why they believe the government has the right to use military weapons such as attack helicopters and armored artillery against its own citizens.

[Freethought]

Anyone familiar with the Afghan conflict against the Russians? They seemed to have fared pretty well against Russian armor with not much more than rifles.


Just sayin'.

[johnwilliamson062]

Afghanistan is the simplest way to defeat this argument. If someone doesn't understand after that simple point is made, I don't think it is worth arguing with them.

[MikeRussell]

Honestly, I'm a bit of a "rooster" when I get those questions...mostly because they tend to come from self-righteous A-holes that are trying to call you ignorant. I pretty much flat out tell them that they need to study history and current events, then get back to me when they become informed on the topic.

However, if it's a genuine question wanting to learn, then the approach is different and we can broach the topic from an academic standpoint.

[jmr40]

In the history of the world every revolution has been fought by military factions loyal to the ruling government fighting against factions loyal to the revolution. The spark that usually begins the fight is often a small civilian revolt. When government forces try to suppress a small scale revolt there is a division between military and LE forces.

Owning weapons capable of holding off conventional forces for a short time is like having a box of matches around a can of gasoline. It is the spark that could set off larger things.

If such a thing ever happens here civilians with only small arms won't be fighting against heavy weapons alone. Civilians will be fighting alongside military forces loyal to a revolution.

I think a more probable justification for civilian ownership of AR type rifles is for protection in the event of total collapse of government or wide spread rioting. Imagine the LA riots of 30 years ago on a much broader scale.

[Nickel Plated]

As has been mentioned already, a fight like this will not be fought against tanks and helicopters on an open battlefield. That's not how guerrilla warfare works.

Our rifles might not do much against tanks and helicopters. But they still work quite well against the guys operating them. Far as I'm aware. Soldiers haven't gotten any more bullet-proof over the years. And they can't sit in those tanks forever.

You don't have to take out the soldier on the battlefield. You can take him out while he's on his way home on leave. How many of them will be willing to continue fighting a very unpopular and morally questionable war when they know they can get sniped the moment they step foot outside the base?

You can easily go for their families sitting defenseless at home. How many soldiers will want to continue fighting knowing that? I doubt the US govt can afford to offer full time protection to the family of every US service member.

Generally how many of those soldiers will even follow orders to fire on US civillians? Most probably will. But many won't. Desertion will be rampant. And atleast a few of those will certainly grab a tank or some anti-vehicle weaponry on the way out.

As far as the tanks go. The US military only has roughly 8,800 tanks all together. That's not a whole lot to secure a country the size of the US with. Especially considering a chunk of those are always sitting in shops getting fixed. Doesn't matter how powerful and advanced those tanks are. They can still only be in one place at a time.

Then you have the vulnerable supply lines. Not a huge issue in Iraq or Afghanistan when the most important parts of your logistics chain is sitting safely off shore. But a much bigger problem when the factory that makes your ammunition and boots and fancy tank parts is right down the road from the local militia camp. Or when the guys working at the factory suddenly don't feel like showing up to work for fear of running into a bunch of angry patriots who aren't too happy with who their employer is selling their products to.

Lastly. Who said we only have rifles and handguns? The Cartels just south of the border have plenty of fun toys to play with and if they can smuggle drugs over here without much hassle. I'm sure they can smuggle some RPGs too. They'll certainly find plenty of buyers here.

People in countries all over the world have successfully overthrown their governments. And they didn't even have all the rifles and shotguns we have to begin with.

[44 AMP]

What good are they against tanks, planes, etc.,...

When someone asks that, particularly if there is an element of a sneer in the process, send them for a mental loop, and ask them if they went to Sunday School.

What could David possibly do with that puny sling?

OR,

just look at them condescendingly and say, "well, YOU probably couldn't do much, with those tactics..."

There are many ways to deal with this kind of thing, Politeness is often wasted, but it costs nothing to try. On the other hand, if they are a jerk, verbally slap them, and move on.

[buck460XVR]

If we are attacked by our own government, long before the tanks/drones come after us, there will be a huge change in the life we are accustomed to living. We aren't gonna just wake up some random morning and find a Tank aimed at our front door. Long before the tanks come, we will be searching for and stashing food and water. We will be looking for a safe place to hide besides the home we are in now. Long before they come for our guns, they(whoever the 'ell you imagine "they" are) will have stripped many other rights from us and again, our constitution will no longer be. It will not be life as normal with us going to our 8-4 job and coming home and changing into our resistance clothing. It will not be pretty and if we still have guns at that point, it will not be because of the 2nd Amendment, since there will no longer be such a thing.

[P5 Guy]

One counter-argument I get from hoplophobes is "if the 2nd amendment is about protecting you from the government, what is your puny rifle going to do against tanks, drones, Apaches, etc?"

How would you counter this argument?

Well it will be hard, but it would be much harder just using pitchforks, torches and spears.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by mcab

if the 2nd amendment is about protecting you from the government, what is your puny rifle going to do against tanks, drones, Apaches, etc

Ask them why they think that you'll have to use your rifle to defend against government forces. Tanks, drones and Apaches require military personnel to operate them. Based on military voting records (strongly conservative), you'll have more tanks, drones and Apaches on your side than the government will. Ask them how THEY intend to defend against your tanks, drones, and Apaches.

Ask them if they've ever read the military (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard) oath of enlistment or officer's oath of commision, since if they're asking you that question they've probably never sworn the oath:

http://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Officer's oath of commision:

http://www.army.mil/values/officers.html

I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

There is no expiration date on that oath. Pay particular attention to the part about defending the Constitution of the US, against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC.

If it ever comes down to the government violating the Constitution by giving illegal orders to attack it's own citizen's, the government has become a domestic enemy of the Constitution and the majority of the tanks, drones and Apaches will be on the side of the guys with the puny rifles attacking the government.

When the government seriously demonstrates that it intends to remove that basic human right (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights) to bear that puny rifle, it is no longer a valid government.

[johnwilliamson062]

In the history of the world every revolution has been fought by military factions loyal to the ruling government fighting against factions loyal to the revolution.

I don't agree. Where were the regular British military factions loyal to the colonists in the American Revolution? The same for the French Revolution. Most of Soviet Europe left soviet control without military actively supporting the revolutionaries.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

I don't agree. Where were the regular British military factions loyal to the colonists in the American Revolution? The same for the French Revolution.

And the Irish War of Independence. The list goes on and on. (The Irish conflict is another example of victory by a lightly-armed force against a far-superior power that—for various reasons largely unrelated to its superior equipment and resources—was unwilling to do what it would take to win.)

"But wait! Some of those are civil wars!"

I'd argue that the difference between a civil war and a revolution is generally defined by which party was victorious.

[A pause for the COZ]

The whole real point. Is that even if our arms are small ( Compared to Gov power)
Its the fact they can not ever just impose their will with out taking into account The 100.000.000 plus fire arms that would most likely resist that imposed will.

That my friends is called a deterrent. It deters our Gov from trying those kinds of things.

They use Australia as an example of what they want.

How much deterrent would the Gov have of imposing any thing they felt was right?
They have none. They are no longer free in any sense. the only freedom they enjoy now is at the bequest of the Government. It can be taken away at any time. All they would need is an excuse to do it and the people would be powerless to resist.

[bamaranger]

Slightly off topic, but there was a news clip about a fella that shot a small camera drone down that he suspected was taking photos of his sunbathing daughter, in their yard!!! Kentucky I think it was, and he used a shotgun.

Wonder what the best "drone load" for a 12 gauge would be???

[Branko]

Funnily enough, I come from a place where there were, on one side, irregular forces armed with rifles and the like, and on the other, an organized army with pretty sizable conventional forces at the outset. Not the US army, of course, but it wasn't a small one either. When the war of independence started, the first two things which happened is that militias attacked military bases and warehouses and seized whatever equipment, and the second that since the army was multi-national, some took a rather dim view at shooting their own people and joined and defected right away. Basically, once the army was asked to kill the very people they had to protect half a year ago, the army fractured.

When the army offensive started on my newly independent country started, in the first town (and it's, like, a town with 25.000 inhabitants) the army lost about a hundred tanks and lots of other vehicles and got bogged down for three months. Of course the town was basically turned into craters and holes upon holes (luckily, where I live, standard house construction is such that rifle is just not going through it) and all the defenders died, but it kind of knocked the teeth out of the offensive and bought time to arm and organize.

In theory, we should've just lost in a matter of weeks, but in truth the army sort of fractured when it was asked to essentially shoot the people it was meant to protect half a year before, and determined defenders in rough terrain make it hard to employ weapons which work best for smashing large forces in open battles. Now the US army is a whole lot bigger, and the situation is a whole lot different, but the people who think that military hardware is going to automatically win or that it's easy to use it in cities against your own population are pretty deluded.

If you have popular support behind a rebellion there's nothing easy about defeating it. This was true in the old days when people fought with sharp sticks, and it was true when people fought with flintlocks and whatnot, and it's still true in modern times.

A rebellion without popular support isn't obviously going to work and that was just as true in the old days when people killed each other with sharp sticks, as it is now.

While the discussion is more, I feel, purely theoretical then practical as I just don't see such a revolt coming or the government going dictatorial, the automatic assumption that a dictatorial government automatically wins against any popular rebellion just doesn't seem to be based on reality.

[TXAZ]

To that point, it's difficult to refuel / resupply a tank without a human on the outside. With patience, innovation and some intelligence, the tank dies from thirst after any key part of its support infrastructure is neutralized. Armor can't be everywhere. Maybe that's the refueler, maybe the tanker / tanker driver, or a few well placed shots at the refinery. Lots of options, lots of history.

[MCab]

Logistics: the soft, gooey center of any line unit.

I've said similar to my anti-gun friends, but they end up betraying their pop knowledge of all things .mil and seriously underestimate what I know. Not a vet (stinking asthma . . .), but am a serious reader of mil history, field manuals and have taken pro-level firearms courses (Pat Goodale).

[SPEMack618]

I try not to get embroiled in such arguments. I have better things to do. Drink beer play with my dogs, watch the Hawks, give Jackie a foot rub, but, on the occasion I find myself in such an argument I use the following:

I do not expect to fight an F-16, Predator or Abrams with my AR-15.

But I can certainly fight the fuel truck that keeps the three of those fighting.

[zukiphile]

What is your puny vote going to do against tanks, drones, Apaches, etc?"

[NateKirk]

If the U.S government doesn't have the stones (let alone the ability) to defeat a group of mountain dwelling illiterates armed with cheap AK's and artillary made of plumbing parts, then they have no hope of defeating an enemy using the same guerrilla tactics only with better education, better resources, better weapons and more experience.
Not only that but the US military would be handicapped by the moral damage of fighting their own people, not to mention the personal beliefs of some soldiers, whose response to fighting the public would be anywhere from not fighting effectively, to defection, to outright sabotage.

Of course this is all my own speculation. Really though, I think alot of it doesn't boil down to weapons and tactics so much as it does willpower. If something were to really happen, would the American public be willing to sacrifice their soft ways of life? In my opinion, for the relatively quick, overnight outrages, they would. However, for the slow squeeze, without a clear breaking point, they would justify each small upset as being trivial for an excuse to do nothing, and when the day comes that the right has been abolished it will go unnoticed because not much had changed from the year before.
This is why things like registrations are so dangerous. Today, it might seem harmless, but it's part of a slow whittling away of a part of our culture until it's illegal to be a part of it.

[Double Naught Spy]

Anyone familiar with the Afghan conflict against the Russians? They seemed to have fared pretty well against Russian armor with not much more than rifles.


Just sayin'.

You mean the conflict where we provided them with stinger missiles to shoot down aircraft, satellite intel, training, and other arms and support coming to nearly 3/4 billion dollars per year annually?

[tirod]

It's not going to take much for the government to shut off your supply lines, electricity, food deliveries, gas deliveries, etc. At that point, you have become, in essence, a guerilla, and the whole struggle becomes a war of attrition.

This is wild speculation, not fact. It's the usual thing to see the conflict as if it were a police action against someone holed up in their house, or as if it were a drug bust. Mobilizing the DOD for an internal disturbance is, in and of itself, an act of war against the people of the United States. That is how it's seen as Constitutional law. Not by some legal interpreters, but by the People. Those ordered to do it would refuse in large numbers.

The people who say this assume that the police and military are bound by oaths of obedience, not ethics. They need to have it pointed out that most won't show up. If anything, they will sit in and post guards to prevent ANYONE from using the equipment until things clear up. It's hard to mobilize when nobody takes your government fuel card to fill up your HMMV's

Add in the argument there are 25 million veterans who know exactly how to engage those tanks and planes because the SAME government is the one who taught them.

Now, considering only 10% of those who own firearms take them up to resist, with 35% of Americans owning guns, we get about 8-9 MILLION people who would be standing around with their puny rifles. Vs less than 1.5 million in service in the DOD stateside. 90% of them are NOT combat arms trained to any significant extent beyond their first few weeks of Basic Training.

What the question implies is that the Government could order and get 100% compliance from the military, and then achieve tactical and strategic superiority against 9 million who would be equally trained and equally equipped on a one on one basis. We have plenty of ammo - they have to go get it from an Ammunition supply point on a base.

One of my jobs as an Ammo Specialist was to know how to rig explosives to render them unusable to the enemy. Expect ammo supply points to be under attack by service men and women sympathetic to the People.

If they conjecture that it could be done in advance, no. That can't be done in secret whatsoever. When I was mobilized the people processing us told us what our mission was long before we found out officially. A Range Security Officer who patrols an ammo supply point like McAlester Oklahoma may not say why he's working late hours and not coming home - but his family sure will know, and those supplying them with fuel, and the word gets out.

The entire scenario is one of complete ignorance and a lack of educated analysis.

No, we aren't going to have to stand up to our Armed Forces. It's the Armed Forces who will likely be the ones to protect us from a politician gone rogue. THEY need to worry about it, the moment they order the action. An illegal order is just that, and men and women with ethics will make the right choices.

That is what is taught - ethics - not a cult of personality. It's the difference between being an independent citizen of a Republic, vs a peon under a totalitarian regime.

[Freethought]

You mean the conflict where we provided them with stinger missiles to shoot down aircraft, satellite intel, training, and other arms and support coming to nearly 3/4 billion dollars per year annually?

******************************


Nice sidestep of my specific point. We also provided advisers , guess where I was during a period of the early '80s. Care to talk about when the Stingers *actually* arrived in the Afghan theater? ANd by the way what the Afghans got was the 92A , the 92B didn't make it into production until '83 and few of 'em made it to the theatre of operations under discussion. Production of the 92 A and B ended in '87 and they were ( rough figure) 15 thousand to slightly over 16 thousand produced.

And insofar as it goes , you ARE aware of an item known as the SAM-7 or Strela-2 ( 9k32) are you not? What makes you think that the various Afghan rebel forces had not availed themselves of said unit far , far prior to the Stinger showing up? What makes you think that they hadn't gotten their mitts on a few FIM-43s ( Redeye) prior to the Stinger? Quite simply the Stinger wasn't quite the factor that folks such as yourself would like to believe and have others believe. And shall I remind you of the presence in quite some numbers of the RPG-7 and the Chinese type 69 as regards anti-armor weaponry available within that theatre of operation?

Now back to my initial point , the postulation has been made by certain folks that a force armed with primarily small arms is hopelessly out-teched , out armed and...........well in a HOPELESS situation in the face of armor , technical and air superiority. The Afghans have proven time and again that this is not quite the case , as have the Peshmerga , the Viet Minh and a number of other groups I could name.

As regards Armor , sure it exhibits battle superiority * within terrain conducive to Armor operations* ( if I have to go beyond the simplistic to make this point I am willing to do so) outside those parameters it's efficacy degrades fairly quickly.

In point of actual fact and as has been touched upon here , the REAL danger to an "insurgent force" in the event of civil conflict will be from the AIR and of course air-power and capability *requires* a highly extensive support structure.

BAck to the Afghan theatre , during the Soviet conflict in said theatre was the MI24 " Hind" , was it effective? Yes of course it was , but not to the degree that movies and popular myth would have the public believe.

In the end the factor that a lot of folks fail to "get" is that any civil conflict will be inherently a war of "attrition" , there will be one hell of a lot of casualties and those will be on *BOTH* sides.