Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What good can a handgun do against an Army? Threead IV
Free Republic ^ | : Mike Vanderboegh | : Mike Vanderboegh

Posted on 04/04/2002 12:47:08 PM PST by harpseal

A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed:

If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership told me once:

"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." - Aaron Zelman, JPFO

Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question.

Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.

The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half- hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.

Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)

Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)

They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all.

Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas- present fashion out in the middle of the desert.

"A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money." --Everett Dirksen

Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million-- that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility-- everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes.

Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its relatives' backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question).

But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed."

The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gunowners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?" Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elites, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these "divisions of liberty", as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him.

The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?" The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonistas could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep.

Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"-- a political system rejected by the Founders. Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed.

Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable wooly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omni-presence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government. Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep's clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children", er, ah, I mean "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness," tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Every now and then, some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged.

There are some of these dissidents the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not-- for their teeth are every bit as long as their "betters." Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven't eaten any sheep in generations. To the wolves chagrin, this portion of the flock is armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content to watch the numbers of these "armed sheep" diminish, as long teeth are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheep are dismissed by the Mandarins as "Tooth Nuts" or "Right Leg Fanatics".) When the numbers of armed sheep fall below a level that wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two of sheep to complete the process, the wolves can wait. This is our "Animal Farm," without apology to George Orwell.

Even so, the truth is that one man with a pistol CAN defeat an army, given a righteous cause to fight for, enough determination to risk death for that cause, and enough brains, luck and friends to win the struggle. This is true in war but also in politics, and it is not necessary to be a Prussian militarist to see it. The dirty little secret of today's ruling elite as represented by the Clintonistas is that they want people of conscience and principle to be divided in as many ways as possible ("wedge issues" the consultants call them) so that they may be more easily manipulated. No issue of race, religion, class or economics is left unexploited. Lost in the din of jostling special interests are the few voices who point out that if we refuse to be divided from what truly unites us as a people, we cannot be defeated on the large issues of principle, faith, the constitutional republic and the rule of law. More importantly, woe and ridicule will be heaped upon anyone who points out that like the blustering Wizard of Oz, the federal tax and regulation machine is not as omniscient, omnipotent or fearsome as they would have us believe. Like the Wizard, they fan the scary flames higher and shout, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

For the truth is, they are frightened that we will find out how pitifully few they are compared to the mass of the citizenry they seek to frighten into compliance with their tax collections, property seizures and bureaucratic, unconstitutional power-shifting. I strongly recommend everyone see the new animated movie "A Bug's Life". Simple truths may often be found sheltering beneath unlikely overhangs, there protected from the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday. "A Bug's Life", a childrens' movie of all things, is just such a place.

The plot revolves around an ant hill on an unnamed island, where the ants placate predatory grasshoppers by offering them each year one-half of the food they gather (sounds a lot like the IRS, right?). Driven to desperation by the insatiable tax demands of the large, fearsome grasshoppers, one enterprising ant goes abroad seeking bug mercenaries who will return with him and defend the anthill when the grasshoppers return. (If this sounds a lot like an animated "Magnificent Seven", you're right.)

The grasshoppers (who roar about like some biker gang or perhaps the ATF in black helicopters, take your pick) are, at one point in the movie, lounging around in a bug cantina down in Mexico, living off the bounty of the land. The harvest seeds they eat are dispensed one at a time from an upturned bar bottle. Two grasshoppers suggest to their leader, a menacing fellow named "Hopper" (whose voice characterization by Kevin Spacey is suitably evil personified), that they should forget about the poor ants on the island. Here, they say, we can live off the fat of the land, why worry about some upstart ants? Hopper turns on them instantly. "Would you like a seed?" he quietly asks one. "Sure," answers the skeptical grasshopper thug. "Would you like one?" Hopper asks the other. "Yeah," says he. Hopper manipulates the spigot on the bar bottle twice, and distributes the seeds to them.

"So, you want to know why we have to go back to the island, do you?" Hopper asks menacingly as the thugs munch on their seeds. "I'll show you why!" he shouts, removing the cap from the bottle entirely with one quick blow. The seeds, no longer restrained by the cap, respond to gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, "That's why!"

I'm paraphrasing from memory here, for I've only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, "Don't you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we'll last if they ever figure that out?"

"If the ants are not frightened of us," Hopper tells them, "our game is finished. We're finished."

Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants. Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape. Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply-held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." Yet they will have to. I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father's father's fathers fought this same fight. Our mother's mother's mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without.

They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance-- not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake.

Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing.

It is slavery to worship our nominally-elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our "legitimate needs" as they are perceived by that government.

It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; seizes our property; denies our ancient liberties; denies even our very history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized "correctness"; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God.

So finally we are faced with, we must return to, the moral component of the question: "What good can a handgun do against an army?" The answer is "Nothing," or "Everything." The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, "What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?" If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, but only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance.

A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it is written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny:

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill

The Spartans at Thermopolae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The "expendable men" of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they the come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are "selected", divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered.

The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. "By their works ye shall know them."

The time is late. Those who once has trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better.

We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now-- five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the "opposition" Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster's warning: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands-- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world."

Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country.

The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They've got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between "the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans." The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragi-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War.

And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable), they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: "Don't Tread on Me!" Or, as our state motto here in Alabama says: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."

But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery.

If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with the help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant's army.

href=""> Thread III

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: banglist; secondammendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101 next last
Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: harpseal
Thanks for a great article, harpseal, one that ought to be taken to heart and acted upon. There's one thing I'd like to add and it's Get thee to the range and practice, practice, practice.
52 posted on 04/04/2002 10:51:58 PM PST by JusticeLives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChareltonHest, harpseal
Please pass this information around:

Essential reading book plug...

I am duty-bound to suggest that anyone who thinks even halfway-seriously about the potential for armed revolution in the United States needs to read the last chapter in Jeff Snyder's powerful collection of RKBA essays, "Nation of Cowards".

This chapter is titled, "The Line in the Sand", and deals directly with the viability of such an occurrence. To quote from David Kopel's review:

"In the final chapter, "Revolution", Snyder considers whether revolution could be justified today. He answers in the negative, based on his assessment of the current American character. First, today’s American character more like that of the revolutionary French than like that of America ’s Founding generation. Americans today are dependent on government and afraid of responsibility, and therefore unfit to make a new government.

Second, Snyder points to John Locke’s observation that a revolution cannot succeed unless much of society agrees that radical change is necessary, and there is no such widespread belief in modern America."

The mention of John Locke's observation is taken from that worthy's "Second Treatise of Government", wherein he states that those who rebel with arms against a government, however tyrannical that government may in fact be, if the majority of it's citizens do not themselves feel the weight of the oppressor's boot, the rebels will be immediately and easily marginalized and defeated as mere malcontents, and will not garner the support of their fellow citizens. This sad fact cannot be overstated.

I cannot recommend this book more emphatically. You can purchase this book on the web HERE . The price is only $15 a copy and the book is a very quick and worthwhile read. Please note that I have no affiliation with the publisher or author of this book. My only motivation here is to inform and empower those of us who still know, honor, cherish and seek to protect our freedoms.

God knows, there's a terrible amount of work to be done there.

53 posted on 04/05/2002 3:51:33 AM PST by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: go star go
On many threads many times I have stated that the politicians should be the primary target. Always remember that war is politics by other means, and it is best to get as high up the food chain as possible. Further, the vulnerability of political targets makes them attractive. Of course one wants to go as high up the food chaon as possible.

IMHO it would be almost impossible to get the entire armed forces of the USA actively involved in an action against a very large portion of the American populace. There would be divisions within the troops and leadership. Thus there would be at least two factions. Further, there would be two factions within most of law enforcement. There would be some who would dearly love being part of units like the Chicago "CAGE" unit and there would be others who would provide information to those resisting.

In short the situation should it ever come down to our needing to see what good an Ameican handgun can do against an army in America is not going to be pretty in an sense of the word. I note that such an army would perforce not be an army primarily of American citizens as they would be notoriously unreliable in killing their own families and neighbors.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

54 posted on 04/05/2002 5:36:39 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers; go star go; harpseal
"Don't fight an army with a handgun. If you ever get into such a situation, go after the civilian leadership. It's much more effective."

Perhaps just as effective, in terms of psychologically crippling a civilian leadership intent on imposing a tyranny, would be a credible threat to eliminate their families. Such a credible threat could paralyze the would-be tyrants even before they took any irreversible steps toward tyranny.

It is all an economic equation - raise the cost of anything too much, and no one is interested in buying. This is, in my view, the specific reason for the existence of the Second Amendment - to let future would-be tyrants know that the liberty-loving populace would be armed.

Besides, if they threaten the families of those who would resist the impostion of a tyranny (which they clearly do), well, there's always "collateral damage" on both sides in a war.

Molon Labe! Sic Semper Tyrannis!

55 posted on 04/05/2002 5:58:57 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MyPetMonkey
"America is historically familiar with the concept of civil disobedience. The beginning of our country was founded on our disobedience to the laws and rule of a tyrant King."

Back then, it was called Treason against the King.

Today, we have Kongress; Treason against The Constitution.

56 posted on 04/05/2002 6:18:34 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mv1
SUBJECT: What good can a handgun do against an Army?

Well if some lunatic would take a handgun and resist the U.S. maybe they would report back, I doubt it though.

Wrong question

Correct questions:

  1. What good is an Army without people willing to deliver ammo and food, collect taxes to pay for supplies, do paperwork to purchase supplies from suppliers, rent apartments to dependents of Army personnel, etc?
  2. What good is a handgun against all the civilians who must do stuff for the Army, in order for that Army to be anything more than a bunch of starving people in ragged uniforms walking around without ammo?

57 posted on 04/05/2002 6:19:53 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stevio
When someone asks me; What can you do against a tank? I say, "They have to get out sometime."

Your quote reflects the thinking of someone far wiser and more experienced in guerilla operations. Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia, when he was a mere leader in the resistance against the Germans in WW2, was asked "How will you fight the Germans, with their new tanks?" He responded:

"We will wait for them to get out of their new tanks to take a pi$$, and then shoot them with our old rifles."

58 posted on 04/05/2002 6:30:23 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
if the majority of it's citizens do not themselves feel the weight of the oppressor's boot, the rebels will be immediately and easily marginalized and defeated as mere malcontents, and will not garner the support of their fellow citizens. This sad fact cannot be overstated.

The fact is we have absolutely no means of reliably mneasuring how oppressed people feel and what the distribution of that feeling of oppression really is. Elections provide some measure of this but sadly the vote fraud that is so widespread in many urban states makes accurate measurement impossible.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

59 posted on 04/05/2002 6:45:56 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
The fact is we have absolutely no means of reliably mneasuring how oppressed people feel and what the distribution of that feeling of oppression really is.

All too true. As part of my ongoing analysis into the mindset of my fellow Americans, I use everyday conversation with friends, associates, neighbors and people I meet as a guide. Letters to the editor in newspapers also help provide some insight as well. Overall, I have to agree with the consensus that the United States has never been more internally divided on the question of "What is Freedom?" since the first Civil War.

I truly fear for the future of our blessed Republic, and for the lives and fortunes of my family and the others I love.

60 posted on 04/05/2002 7:03:58 AM PST by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
If we do get into a war where government tries to take over, that scenario is likely true.
61 posted on 04/05/2002 7:08:06 AM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: xzins; harpseal
They will not fire on their fathers and brothers and uncles and cousins. Instead, they will join them. And then the army of the enemy will be the army of the freedom fighters. The tanks and the planes and the missiles will turn to target the oppressor, not the oppressed.

I would suggest that the powers-that-be are well aware of that.

One response would be to cultivate a self-contained segment of the population. This segment would be carefully indoctrinated to feel a sense of entitlement and grievance against the productive middle class (which is the group that needs to be kept in line). The members of this segment would be comfortable with armed violence, have few of their relatives being members of the productive middle class, and would feel that their continued comfort and prosperity was dependent on the powers-that-be being kept in power, and the productive middle-class being kept in line

In the early days of his presidency, there was a gang summit attended by 186 street-gang leaders from across the US. Clinton addressed the summit over closed circuit TV, with the text of his speech not being made public. This always bothered me to a degree...

62 posted on 04/05/2002 7:08:30 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
I am familiar with the gang summit you mentioned I also note that the Clinton administration tried to let the PRC supply fully automatic weapons to street gangs. At present we do not know just how well armed many such gangs are. Nor do we have an understanding of what level of discipline there is in keeping arms cached for some later use. The one big disadvantage many of these street gangs face is many if not most of their members lack adequate practice time to become good marksmen but Soviet doctrine always relied on massed firepower to achieve its ends. Yes, they employed sharshooter snipers but marksmanship was never a broadly taught discipline in that nation's armed forces.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

63 posted on 04/05/2002 7:23:13 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Bottom line for any people..
Who do you trust more to have a weapon (any weapon);
You or the government?

There are many maxims about this:
The people are always one meal away from revolution.
The people vote their wallet.
The people vote for the guy who gives them more free stuff.

The founders established who they trust, and it was not the
goverenment. (any government)
Those that are the professional politicians, constantly seek
to change this.

So, who do you trust?

64 posted on 04/05/2002 7:32:55 AM PST by Greeklawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greeklawyer
So, who do you trust?

Clearly I trust myself and I trust a balance of power to keep absolutely everyone in check. However, there are many who seek to upset the internal balance of power within the USA. Those people are asking for disaster.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

65 posted on 04/05/2002 7:39:44 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Another reference about my point is a report by the Chicago Crime Commission. A couple of relevant quotes:
The [Chicago] street gangs are a mobilized army, in the tens of thousands. They represent a cross-section of society. They are Hispanic, African-American, Asian, and white. All they lack at the present time is the political backing and degrees of sophistication of the Mafia "dons" of yesteryear. In time, though, that is likely to occur if we are apathetic. We are already witnessing the early stages of the "empowerment" of the street gangs through organizations like 21st Century VOTE, a self-styled "political action committee" that we see as being little more than a "Trojan Horse" to further the aims of imprisoned gang leaders.


Nationwide, the F.B.I. estimates that there are 400,000 gang members in the U.S. active in 700 cities.

66 posted on 04/05/2002 7:44:10 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Great essay. Reminds me of one of my favorite movies.

67 posted on 04/05/2002 7:45:19 AM PST by Johnny Gage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
ahh young student,
you truly do hear the grasshopper at your feet.

appologies to kung fu tv series

68 posted on 04/05/2002 11:38:06 AM PST by Greeklawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Thanks for the compliment but, I probably heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, who posted it on FreeRepublic, who got it from Marshall Tito.
69 posted on 04/05/2002 11:50:35 AM PST by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
"How will you fight the Germans, with their new tanks?" He responded: "We will wait for them to get out of their new tanks to take a pi$$, and then shoot them with our old rifles."

When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home.

70 posted on 04/08/2002 10:05:36 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home.

Ah, yes, another of my favorite historical quotes. Notice that Switzerland was not invaded in either World War.

71 posted on 04/08/2002 5:15:41 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub,dixie sass,47carollann,chesty puller,antivenom,bigun,smallstuff,pocat,su
I love these threads it Pisses the liberals off to no end to know we are well informed and well armed [lmao]
72 posted on 04/08/2002 5:25:22 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
I own a nice rifle and pistol with about 150 rounds for the pistols and rifle. I need to atleast double my ammunition and get my food storage then I'm set.
73 posted on 04/12/2002 12:52:57 AM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Been looking for this thread big ol bang list indexing bupmerroo
74 posted on 05/18/2002 7:32:50 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd_Amendment_Defender
I would recommend a very large increase in the amount of ammunition on hand and regular practice. Should you need to use either in a life and death situation your accuracy could be the difference between life and death.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

75 posted on 05/20/2002 7:06:09 AM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9; bang_list
Been looking for this thread big ol bang list indexing bupmerroo

Sounds like as good a time as any to get to the current bang_list.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

76 posted on 05/20/2002 7:07:57 AM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
A related essay: What I Have Learned From The Twentieth Century.

Stay well, all.

77 posted on 05/20/2002 7:27:51 AM PDT by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: 2nd_Amendment_Defender
"I own a nice rifle and pistol with about 150 rounds for the pistols and rifle."

It's more important that you shot 150 rounds last week. Shoot IDPA and High Power Rifle matches. Those two disciplines will help you achieve higher skill levels than any other sports. Since we're still at the Ballot Box stage, join one of the gun groups.

78 posted on 05/20/2002 7:39:54 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
That image of the ATF boot and MP5 is one of the most compelling and creepy things I have ever seen.
79 posted on 05/20/2002 8:25:59 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Here is another version of the story I picked up:

There is an apocryphal story of a visit paid to Switzerland by Kaiser Wilhelm II in the early part of the twentieth century. Upon his arrival, he was met by an honor guard of Swiss troops at the railway station in Zurich. Among the impeccably uniformed troops that comprised the honor guard was a crusty old sergeant-major. As he reviewed the troops, the Kaiser paused in front of the sergeant major.

"Is it not a wonder, sergeant-major, that the might of the German Empire is such that the numbers of our standing army are double that of your army, even with all your reserves activated?"

The sergeant-major immediately responded: "Jawohl, your majesty, it is such a wonder!"

The Kaiser prodded the sergeant-major a bit further.

"So what do you think should happen if we were to invade your country, with an army twice the size of yours?"

The sergeant major thought about this for a little bit, and responded.

"Then, your majesty, we should all have to fire our rifles twice!"

80 posted on 05/20/2002 8:31:36 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
A common sense and historically proven way to keep those dangerous and destructive GUNS out of YOUR life.
Details below

Concerned about the easy availability of guns in our society?

Alarmed about the "gun nuts" and other freedom wackos the government allows to run loose?

Wish the government would just repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all the guns because you believe sensible people shouldn't suffer because of some idiotic notion about some antiquated “right?”

While we can't take the guns away from the people, we CAN take the people (or at least SOME of them) away from their guns.

At CAMP GUNFREE, we have created an atmosphere of near-total tranquility where you and your family will experience the benefits of a GUN FREE environment.

The unique main gate at Camp GunFree. Most arriving camp guests never see this view from their comfortable rail cars.

Each of our camps is a gated community designed to keep guns away from camp guests. Firmly enforced security measures ensure that these dangerous and destructive devices are kept outside. Each camp boasts 24 hour, 7 day a week sentries and state-of-the-art enclosure systems, guard dogs, trenches and surveillance equipment to absolutely GUARANTEE that no firearms enter the facility. Rigidly controlled access ensures that no guns can ever be smuggled in.

No cost has been spared to ensure that Camp GunFree remains gun free.

All camp members are given distinctive uniforms to distinguish them from any gun-toting barbarians who might attempt to evade our security measures. Each camp member is also assigned a distinctive ID number to ensure that only the right people are allowed within the camp.

Room and board are provided to each member in exchange for rewarding tasks designed to provide a sense of accomplishment and to demonstrate that large numbers of people CAN exist in a gun violence free community.

Camp members engaged in one of our many fun-filled organized work activities.

The current headlines prompt us to remind you that there has NEVER been a shooting by a student in any of the camp schools and we can GUARANTEE that there never will be!!

For more information, call 1-800-GUNFREE
OR visit our new website at

(This idea from a pamphlet originally created by The Minnesota Center for Individual Liberty, PO Box 32170, Minneapolis, MN 55432-0170)

81 posted on 05/20/2002 8:35:42 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
Actually if one closely examines the History A high school agaed person actually did somehow manage to obtain a firearm even in one of these normally gunfree camps, TREBLINKA. The carnage that followed resulted in many of the staff of this facility being killed or injured. Of course people sometimes learn from mistakes. Especially Nazi types.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

82 posted on 05/20/2002 10:36:23 AM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

Comment #83 Removed by Moderator

To: 2nd_Amendment_Defender
The FReeper standard is 1,000+ per weapon, with reloading tools and supplies. Anything less is less.



Cache is king.

84 posted on 05/20/2002 9:38:49 PM PDT by SevenDaysInMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
It is interesting to consider that totalitarianism, whether Nazi, Communist, Fascist, or Democrat all require the harnessing of others labor.

You forgot to mention the republicans. They (pubby leadership at the national level) enjoy the benefits of the US tax code as well as the demosocialists.

85 posted on 11/22/2002 9:38:48 AM PST by winner45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
86 posted on 11/22/2002 9:40:16 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
It's the David and Goliath thing. With a single bullet a man could win, end WWIII and maintain the peace.

87 posted on 11/22/2002 9:49:56 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; humblegunner; dix
88 posted on 11/22/2002 10:06:47 AM PST by Eaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
This is my all time favorite FreeRepublic Article and thread. I have had this bookmarked for it seems like years. It says it all. A Free Republic indeed.
89 posted on 11/22/2002 10:23:06 AM PST by CollegeRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
One of my favorites.

I have had this article posted on My Site since May of 1999 HERE

I posted it on FR in April of that year and Critter posted a follow up after that thread got almost 300 posts. That thread (which is the oldest one containging it now on FR) is HERE. Now you have kept the faith with it several times , the latest version being this one.

It always brings good discussion.

90 posted on 11/22/2002 6:26:56 PM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
I have appreciated this article for years and have understood the basic concept from a time prior to the original being written. The Warsaw ghetto uprising alone is more than ample evidence of what good a handgun can do against an army. This uprising which started with less than a dozen arms in the hands of the Jews in the Ghetto tied up the Wermacht for longer than the entire Polish Army.

This is the basic prnciple underlying the Right to Keep and Bear Arms enumerated in the Constitution and this well written essay brings elucidates the point.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
91 posted on 11/23/2002 7:28:27 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Amen and roger to every word of that. Those principles still hold true today and tyrants everywhere, abroad and right here at home, know it.
92 posted on 11/23/2002 9:03:26 AM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
bump for later
93 posted on 11/23/2002 9:37:39 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mv1
"Not in this day and age."

I give you Mohammad and Malvo. These two guys terrorized the DC area with just one weapon. And if they had only been reasonably smart about it, they would still be out there frustrating the efforts of the LEO community. The military wouild not have had any better luck.

Yes, even in this day and age.

94 posted on 11/23/2002 9:46:49 AM PST by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
One of my high school teachers was a firearms/militaria/historical artifact collector.

He used to bring in the best stuff to his classes. Indian arrow heads and lance points. Civil war uniforms. Firearms of the period that he was teaching (this was the 1970's he did not get arrested).

He brought in a Liberator.

What a peice of junk! Sheet metal. Horrible trigger pull, must have been about 20+ pounds, long and gritty. No rifleing in the barrel, must have been horribly inaccurate. Only one shot! Harder to hide than an M1911A1.

But when you have nothing at all such a weapon is a godsend.

95 posted on 11/23/2002 9:48:36 AM PST by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
But when you have nothing at all such a weapon is a godsend.

Indeed, moping up evil has to be done with what is at hand. A liberator is a godsend that makes it easier, blesseder and more dignified the rotten job of killing people who like to start trouble for the rest of your life.

Of course, life is not a vacuum cleaning operation, but some like to turn it like that.

96 posted on 11/23/2002 10:19:24 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Apparently a Japanese leader in WWII said Japan would not attempt to attack the USA mainland "because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

I think the Soviets had similar concerns.

97 posted on 11/23/2002 10:46:11 AM PST by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
A liberator was deswigned to get its possessor a nice Mauser, MP38, P38, Luger, or PPK. The old line crude but effective comes to mind. During the seige at Dunkirk a poster brought up the fact that a British officer who was an accomplished archer caused a great deal of havoc within the advancing German formations with a long bow.

It is not the weapon it is the person weilding it that is important. Also keep in mind that no sane person really would wish to see a war where we had to resort to this weaponry. The situations which would encompass such a war are the things of nightmares.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
98 posted on 11/23/2002 8:28:40 PM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Here's an older thread

What good can a handgun do against an Army? Thread II
99 posted on 12/28/2002 1:39:57 AM PST by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
An early morning bump from Kalifornia...
Thanks for the article --- my first read.. Bookmarked.

Semper Fi
100 posted on 12/28/2002 3:04:08 AM PST by river rat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson