🚀 go-pugleaf

chris@metter.fmpmis.metter.com (Chris Mathes) writes:

>I agree: guns are not -absolutely- necessary.  However, a civilian population
>armed with, say, sticks and stones, against a force armed with guns (etc.) is
>going to have a heck of a lot worse time of it than the same civilians armed
>with guns.

	Let me try again.

	Guns are *irrelevant* because if your revolution is going to
succeed, or have even a ghost of a prayer of succeeding, they will
come from the oppressor's army, or from outside backers. Period.

	A civilian force armed with, say, sticks and stones, is going
to get butchered for being stupid, if they try to resist oppression
in that manner. Deservedly butchered - the universe doesn't coddle
the incompetent. A civilian force armed with guns is going to also
get butchered, *unless* they have a strong enough backing from the
military or external military forces, or a nearly overwhelming weight
of numbers.

	Is this sinking in? Having guns isn't going to protect you
from being oppressed. Having the will to fight oppression is what
it takes. It doesn't even hardly *help* to have guns. Maybe it
hurts, because when they kick in your front door and find a gun,
they have *got* you. If they kick in my door and find acetone and
castor beans they may not figure it out.

>>[...]
>>If you don't have enough ideological support for your revolution
>>that you can't garner support from the populace and the army, you
>>probably shouldn't be revolting in the first place, because you
>>haven't got a mandate.
>
>I agree, but at what greater loss of innocent life if the populace has been
>completely disarmed at the outset?

	Don't be stupid. Populaces that resist are crushed with tanks.
Having guns doesn't help you worth a damn against high altitude bombers
and armor. It may even increase the loss of life, because of collateral
damage.

	If someone clamps down tomorrow and we have a putsch, all that
firing on the army would accomplish is making a large smoking hole out
of a large part of your neighborhood, and getting a lot of folks killed.
History shows that irregular troops generally fare very, very, very poorly
against regulars.

>>	The argument about "guns to defend against the government" is
>>*laughable*.
>
>How so?

	I've presented a fairly coherent set of arguments for why having
guns do not siginificantly improve your chances of resisting oppression
from within.



>You seem to have overlooked the American Revolution.  Destined to succeed,
>but at what greater cost had the Colonies not been armed?

	*BBBBZZZZTT*

	Go back to school. Reread your history books. And you wonder
why Americans are considered uneducated? The American revolution had
the benefit of professional military advisors, professional line
troops, and French gold in profusion. The American irregular infantry
did pretty well for themselves, but it was a war that was won by
shorter supply lines and incompetence on the part of the British.
The war was *not* won by a bunch of homeboys with deer rifles. And
that was before there were radios and helicopters to deal with.



>Further, it has been the case throughout history that those with the weapons
>have oppressed those without them

	I'd amend this to read:

	Those with organization and numbers have oppressed those
without sufficient organization and numbers to resist.

	That's a more accurate statement of the truth. The weapons only
enter into it as an implementation detail. There were many cases in
feudal japan of samurai being mobbed by peasants and killed, despite
the fact that they were well-armed, trained, and extremely dangerous,
while the peasants had rocks and pitchforks. "Gekokujo" - the low
oppress the high.

	War is not the art of wielding weapons. It is the art of
applying force against non-force, and organization against disorganization.

	If you *truly* believe that you need guns to protect yourself
against possible oppression, and feel it is your duty to be prepared
to resist oppression (a laudable goal, and one I agree with 100%) then
you should not worry so much about your silly guns and focus more on
the art of war, and the way of war.



>Countries that have seen significant numbers of its unarmed citizens
>slaughtered by armed forces, in some cases of that country's government:
>(20th century only, a very incomplete list)
>
>North Vietnam
>South Vietnam
>Cambodia
>China
>South Africa
>Liberia
>etc.

	So they were slaughtered. Are you telling me that they would
not have been, had a significant portion been armed? Can you really
argue that? Be careful if you plan to, since arms up to and including
artillery and antitank weaponry are fairly common in:

North Vietnam
South Vietnam
Cambodia
Africa in general

	What's lacking in all those places are revolutionaries.

mjr.