1776 vs 2013

[Hugabear]

When the 2nd Amendment was written, this is the kind of armed forces that citizens could expect to be going up against.




Contrast that to 2013:

[BadgerKid]

1. And

[derby378]

27. Yeppers...

Cops like that guy hate it when ordinary people like us are armed.

[bongbong]

46. LOL

So you think that cop wouldn't spray you if you had a gun?

Oh, the delusions of the Delicate Flowers!

[One_Life_To_Give]

2. Taliban is so wasted.

Good thing for the Afganis that Soviets lacked Tanks and Helicopters.

[Hugabear]

4. Apples and oranges

Regarding Afghanistan, there were many other factors at play. It's always much more difficult fighting thousands of miles from home, in very difficult terrain, against an opponent who knows that terrain like the back of their hand. Also, the Afghans were not limited merely to what we would consider household firearms or even assault weapons. They were supplied with state-of-the-art anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank rockets, RPGs, heavy machine guns, etc. Many of those same weapons would later be used against invading American forces - who had to deal with even bigger logistical issues than the Soviets did.

[SQUEE]

8. Insurgents dont have to travel far here to hit the logistcs train.

Military defectors will bring MANPADS and ATW with them, as well as skillsets and information.
Nobody realizes that if those idiots kick this over we are truly done as a nation. Either side dancing about and hoping for some kind of military face off is deluded and sick.
This is not Red Dawn nor V for Vendetta. It will get ugly, bloody and attrocites will happen on both sides. I hope for saner heads to prevail, but that gets less and less likely as the dance keeps going.

[Hugabear]

16. I think you're overestimating the value of military defectors

If it's a "civil war" over something such as gun control, then I highly doubt that many military soldiers would defect and take their equipment with them.

[SQUEE]

19. I truly hope so..

But this country has become insanely polarized over the last 15-20 years and getting progressively more so. 2A is just the tip of the iceberg and a suitable rally cry. This could have legs. The pot is simmering and at this point there is no telling what will be a catalyst to breakdown.

[One_Life_To_Give]

9. Captured weapons same as VietCong and others

Stingers supplied by us tipped the balance. But doubtful that the Soviets could of ever really controlled the countryside. Just as we can't control it either. If any small force enjoys support within the local populace then they could make any military units life miserable.

The US and Soviets never lost such battles in head on confrontation. We lost because we couldn't be everywhere all of the time. Tanks and Planes need fuel, soldiers need food and sleep.

[Hugabear]

13. They're still weapons that were readily available to the Afghans

Doesn't matter who supplied them - the fact is, they had them and were using them.

The other reasons you list would apply equally - if not more so - to US forces operating on home soil. Doubtful that an extremist militia group is going to get overwhelming support from the local populace.

[One_Life_To_Give]

22. Just as in 1775

An unpopular uprising would be dead before it started. The idea that one or a handful of people are a threat to the government is foolish. The idea of a popular uprising against a tyrannical government which had atleast tacit support from 50% of the population is quite another.

Do you really think 50 men stood on Lexington Green while the rest of the Colony despised what they were doing? What revolution ever amounted to anything without broad support.

[SWTORFanatic]

32. All out war has changed and it depends on what the military and CiC are willing to do

to squash a rebellion - and I think we would be much more willing to do so if it was on our home turf. And it's never going to be 50% revolt, if it were this is still (mostly) a democratic republic and things can be changed at the ballot box.

[One_Life_To_Give]

42. Assuming it's not corrupted

I don't think the colonists could have imagined such a few years prior either. Nor did many of the framers predict the rise of the Confederacy. Could our government ever become so corrupt that it no longer served the people? I know of no law that precludes it from happening. In fact Thomas Jefferson hinted that it may be the natural course of governments. And only the blood of patriots and tyrants alike would be able to fix such a corrupted government.

[SWTORFanatic]

21. We've killed more of them than they have of us.

[One_Life_To_Give]

23. And Tet 1 was a military disaster for Giap

So what is the point. Yes we can kill at will. And what good did it do in South Vietnam?

[SWTORFanatic]

25. GIAP? Sorry? Not born until well after Vietnam War. But I understand that

it's very hard to win a guerilla war especially if your goal is not to merely crush the entire populace into fear and submission.

Trying to say they're winning is a little silly. We won the conventional war and we eliminated many of the top AQ and Taliban leaders. Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people or winning the guerilla war over a pile of dirt is not really in our interests (and that idiot Bush got us in without a real goal or victory conditions).

We never belonged there or Iraq in the first place, but to say they're winning is not really accurate.

[One_Life_To_Give]

31. If victory for Taliban is US goes home

then they are very close to victory. If their point was to make it too painful for the US to keep troops there. Then they are succeeding.
The Taliban, or any such force, won't define victory and cost per our terms but in their own.

[SWTORFanatic]

33. And if we leave but the Afghan military is able to keep them out of power, did they still win?

[One_Life_To_Give]

36. Have to ask the Taliban how they define victory

Did Bin Laden win when the last US troops left the Holy land?

I am sure they will have no shortage of pride at having sent packing all invaders since Alexander the Great.

[jeff47]

34. They got crushed militarily

But you have to win two things to win a war: the fighting and the diplomacy.

We've won the fighting. Hands-down. And the neocon morons that started this war, and their ancestors that started Vietnam, thought all you had to do was win the fighting.

You also have to win diplomatically. You have to get the other side to agree to stop fighting. Or more colloquially, you have to win their "hearts and minds". And since these wars were being run by neocon morons, we never tried until it was way too late.

So they kept fighting. And we have a very hard time continuing a war far away for a very long time. They know this, and are just going to wait us out.

That's not the same in a domestic insurrection - we won't get tired of the fighting for a very long time. How do I know? Well, just how tired is the public of the War on Drugs? Still has overwhelming support despite running for 60+ years. And it looks a lot like a guerrilla war.

A domestic insurrection would be crushed militarily, and if they then tried to move to guerrilla warfare we'd happily fight them for a very, very long time.

[reteachinwi]

3. And

[tama]

5. Syrian rebels are winning nt

[Hugabear]

6. Again, are Syrian rebels limited to guns that are legal in the US now?

They're not using ANY machine guns, RPGs, mortars, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank rockets, etc?

[tama]

10. They started that way, more or less

after government murdered peaceful protesters. The armed resistance started small but has been growing with defects etc., and now they are internationally recognized "legitimate" government of Syria, though civil war is still going on.

This whole line of discussion is stupid and extremely distasteful, as the real problem is guns for "self-protection" and that is at the bottom a psychological issue.

[regjoe]

7. You do realize

that the British also had superior weaponry and a better trained and more experienced military? That most battles were not 'conventional?' That the crown did not have the manpower to control all that needed to? That alot of support for the colonists came from seeing British soldiers abusing and killing their fellow colonists?

[Victor_c3]

12. You also have to remember that the British were also entangled with fighting the French as well

Without French support, I doubt that we would have won our revolution. The French gained the support of the Spanish and the Dutch as well - keeping these major powers from assisting the British. The Americans lost every major battle until the French stopped covertly supporting our revolution and took a more visible role. The French were upset at the loss of their northern territory in Canada to the British a decade before our revolution and were basically looking for any means to get revenge for that.

As an interesting aside, I read an article a while back stating that the French spent approximately (adjusted for inflation) $13 billion on supporting our revolution. Some historians believe that this expenditure and debt burden also played a role in spawning the French revolution a few years later.

It wasn't just our rag-tag militia that beat the British. It wouldn't have happened without the French.

[regjoe]

20. Good points

Would a modern day rebellion have the support of a foreign influence? Being outnumbered by tens of millions, would our government seek support outside our borders?
The scenarios are endless and interesting.

Glad to see others who enjoy military history. Thank you for your input.

[SWTORFanatic]

15. Yes, but they were also fighting other wars, and perhaps more importantly

getting across the atlantic ocean (including resupply) is a logistical nightmare in 1776

[Hugabear]

17. The Atlantic Ocean was a HUGE factor in our victory

And even with all of these factors working in our favor, it was still a very hard-fought victory.

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. Far Shorter than Boston to Lexington

As water was the SuperHighway of the day. The cost of transporting materials to Boston from Portsmouth England was a tiny fraction of what it cost to put it in a wagon and haul it to Lexington. According to a later report by the US Senate the Atlantic OCean being equivalent to 5 miles by road in terms of cost to transport materials.

[SWTORFanatic]

29. Maybe, but what about command and communication?

It takes less than a day for a single rider to get from Lexington to Boston or vice versa if supplies were needed and scouting reports.

It took weeks to cross the Atlantic.

[One_Life_To_Give]

39. Or is it our 21st century view that Central Command is necessary

I don't know that the British Commanders really needed that much direct commands from England. They likely had enough authority to be able to operate without constant dispatches that were impractical. The only one I remember is a delayed message to entrap Washington at Yorktown. And the Sea had little to do with that.

[JoePhilly]

26. And an OCEAN is a very useful defense, particularly at that time.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Cheerleading for the military seems to be so DU these days...

[Hugabear]

18. Who's cheerleading for the military?

I'm just stating a simple fact. Is it "cheerleading" to point out that the American military has an overwhelming advantage over a bunch of ragtag militia gun nuts?

[tama]

35. MIC porn

And yours is not the first thread full of it.

[Hugabear]

38. Huge difference

My post is not to celebrate the military, but to point out the folly of thinking that a bunch of ragtag yokels with their AR-15s would pose a serious threat to the US military.

To think that somehow I'm praising the military only shows that you know nothing about me.

[JoePhilly]

30. I like the way the right wing nuts won't cut military spending, but also feel the need to arm

themselves to the teeth to protect themselves from that same military.

[Jenoch]

14. You are assuming that a revolt

will be like the American Revolution.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[JoePhilly]

28. Those claiming they will revolt have no such intention.

Most of it is bluster.

What they are more likely to do is shake a couple more Timothy McVeigh nuts from the right wing crazy tree.

[Jenoch]

37. It's happened before.

I am just suggesting that a 'revolt' does not necessarily mean all-out war with the entire U.S. military. It also does not automatically assume that those who may revolt would always be in the wrong for doing so.

[JoePhilly]

40. In the current environment, what reason would make their revolt the "right" thing to do?

Can you describe LIKELY reasons ??

[Jenoch]

41. 'Current environment'?

I did not think my point was this subtle. I am not referring to a revolt against the federal government. Check out the link that I posted earlier.

[JoePhilly]

44. I'm just trying to be clear.

There are those who are currently preparing for a revolution. Terrified of "prohibition". And they are making threats.

I think they are nuts. And, that their efforts will not lead to an actual revolution like the one in 1776, or the one you reference.

Instead, I expect their efforts will lead to a few more Timothy McVeigh types, and perhaps a few direct attacks on elected US officials.

[NCTraveler]

43. The Syrian Government has fully automatic weapons, tanks, and helicopters.

I am all for stricter gun laws, but this is not a good argument. Unless you are arguing we should be able to purchase more powerful weaponry in order to keep up.

[Hugabear]

45. This is why I think the "we need guns to protect against tyranny" argument is a bad one

Because in order to successfully take on a tyrannical government, you would need those types of weapons at your disposal.

That's kind of the point behind my OP.

[NCTraveler]

47. To start the Syrian rebels did not have that type of firepower. I think this is where the...

argument falls short.

"Because in order to successfully take on a tyrannical government, you would need those types of weapons at your disposal."

They did not have helicopters and tanks. They are still outnumbered by them. They do have the numbers and the staying power.

This looks more like an argument for lax weaponry laws.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. So what... the second amendment is irrelevant because technology has advanced?

It seems pretty logical that the people that wrote the constitution were aware of the fact that technology changes.