Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

    I just had a thought. One part, big or small, of the argument in favor of the second amendment is that an armed society would be difficult for an oppressive local government or an invading foreign government to control effectively. Basically, the idea that if the citizenry is armed any foreign invasion will be met with an armed insurgency.

    So, Iraq.

    Without commenting on the justice or injustice of the invasion, Iraq is a nation that was invaded by a powerful foreign nation. Weapons were and are readily available in Iraq, and various factions inside of Iraq have waged a staggeringly expensive insurgency for the last five or six years.

    So my question is, in light of the Iraqi insurgency, how does that influence your thoughts about private firearms ownership in America, or Britain, or wherever you happen to live?

  • #2
    Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

    Firearms aren't very cheap here in America - an AK is something like 20 USD in most of the middle east. While their currency is not as strong, it's still cheap.
    Skud


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

      Originally posted by FrankManik View Post
      I just had a thought. One part, big or small, of the argument in favor of the second amendment is that an armed society would be difficult for an oppressive local government or an invading foreign government to control effectively. Basically, the idea that if the citizenry is armed any foreign invasion will be met with an armed insurgency.

      So, Iraq.

      Without commenting on the justice or injustice of the invasion, Iraq is a nation that was invaded by a powerful foreign nation. Weapons were and are readily available in Iraq, and various factions inside of Iraq have waged a staggeringly expensive insurgency for the last five or six years.

      So my question is, in light of the Iraqi insurgency, how does that influence your thoughts about private firearms ownership in America, or Britain, or wherever you happen to live?
      It is encouraging. Civilians where able to cause huge problems for the largest army in the world. That is the whole point of the 2nd amendment. The people should be able to defend themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic.

      So not only would an invading force have to defeat our army they would then have to deal with a well armed population.

      AND our armed forces, and the leaders of the forces, must think twice about using force to subdue the people.

      The good of that outweighs the bad caused by the fact some civilian gun owners are stupid, evil or both.
      Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
      - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
      - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
      - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
      - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
      - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
      - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

        To be fair, Iraqis with guns very rarely cause problems for US soldiers. Its Iraqis with bombs who cause problems.

        Still, I'll throw my hat in for the "woo! go second amendment" crowd on this one. Its nice to know a civilian population isn't completely defenseless when facing an army, even if they're still outmatched.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

          Iraqis with rifles cause problems up until the point air support shows up. That's the major trump card most modern military forces hold over an insurgent civilian population. Indirect attacks (IEDs, EFPs, mortars) are what give US forces the most troubles. How many US civilians have access to mortars, or 155mm arty shells to fashion an armor-defeating IED, or have the know-how to create something like an EFP? (To be fair, most Iraqis didn't, either. The Iranians had to teach them). Iraqis interested in staging attacks on coalition forces have the advantage of military-grade weaponry available to them, whilst citizens in the US just don't, not the ease of access an Iraqi militant does. If the federal government and the US military went berserk and turned on us, we wouldn't be able to do much about it besides a token resistance.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

            Originally posted by Gillespie View Post
            Iraqis interested in staging attacks on coalition forces have the advantage of military-grade weaponry available to them, whilst citizens in the US just don't, not the ease of access an Iraqi militant does. If the federal government and the US military went berserk and turned on us, we wouldn't be able to do much about it besides a token resistance.
            Wrong. The Oathkeepers are the American Resistance's ace in the hole. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors, as well as Police and Fire officers who honor thier oath to the constitution, have vowed to disobey any and all unlwaful orders. The orders we will nt obey are:

            1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

            2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

            3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

            4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

            5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

            6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

            7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

            8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

            9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

            10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

            When TSHTF, soldiers will desert, refuse to leave their barracks or home, or work behind the lines to subterfuge the acts of the tyrannical government and political officers who are in it for a career and a paycheck rather than the ideals our country was founded upon.

            As for Mil-Grade Weapons, take a look around a gun store in a historically red state. 50 Cal rifles, SKSs, AR-15s, AK47's, MP5s, 1911s and 92FSs. In all reality, any small arm used by the army can be legally bought somewhere, by someone. Tanks and Howitzers and Aircraft? That's why you hit the supply lines. And don't forget the Oathkeepers working in logistics as well.

            When our government cracks down on the people for good, it will be the biggest mistake they EVER made.

            Sic Semper Tyrannis
            Last edited by SnowmanActual; 09-03-2009, 08:46 AM. Reason: Edit, Ace in the 'HOLE'...
            The American Resistance Movement: Defending the nation from tyranny since 1776.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

              So basically, you won't honor the oath you took when joining the armed forces. You'd be a traitor like the all the soldiers who fought for the south during the Civil War or American citizens who fight the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

                Have you even READ the oath of enlistment?

                I, (NAME), 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.


                The constitution comes FIRST.

                The President and his officers come SECOND.

                If the president or his offcers give me an unlawful, unconstitutional order, I do not only have the right to disbey it, I HAVE AN OBLIGATION!

                Please research..
                The American Resistance Movement: Defending the nation from tyranny since 1776.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

                  Originally posted by SnowmanActual View Post
                  Have you even READ the oath of enlistment?

                  I, (NAME), 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.


                  The constitution comes FIRST.

                  The President and his officers come SECOND.

                  If the president or his offcers give me an unlawful, unconstitutional order, I do not only have the right to disbey it, I HAVE AN OBLIGATION!

                  Please research..
                  Heres the problem with that type of thinking. It never actually happens. Use Hurricane Katrina as an example. Under what authority did the Goverment and their agents use to arrest law-abiding Americans and confiscate their weapons? That was a blatant disregard for the 2nd amendment, and basic civil rights for that matter. The National Gaurd, city, state, and Federal Law Enforcement agents just went along with whatever orders they got. The End. Individuals with ideologies that don't match the views of the coersive goverment don't last long in their careers.
                  [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8[/media]
                  [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4[/media]
                  |TG-X| mp40x



                  Register for the Forums! | Get on Teamspeak! | Play Squad! | Join Discord! | Support Tactical Gamer!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

                    "As for Mil-Grade Weapons, take a look around a gun store in a historically red state. 50 Cal rifles, SKSs, AR-15s, AK47's, MP5s, 1911s and 92FSs. In all reality, any small arm used by the army can be legally bought somewhere, by someone."

                    I'm talking about things capable of destroying an armored vehicle, or capable of eliminating an air asset.

                    "Tanks and Howitzers and Aircraft? That's why you hit the supply lines. And don't forget the Oathkeepers working in logistics as well."

                    Reasonable, but... you've now come into possession of 4 M1A2 Abrams MBTs. Now what do you do with them? Which 12 guys are going to jump into these tanks and die when the now-evil Imperial States Army realizes what you have in your possession and calls in a squadron of A-10s?

                    Who knows, though. Maybe Canada would assist the American insurgents. Foreign aid from Great Britain somehow, something.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

                      Well, no one ever said winning an insurgency was easy. The point is just to make sure its possible. :)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

                        Originally posted by mp40x View Post
                        Heres the problem with that type of thinking. It never actually happens. Use Hurricane Katrina as an example. Under what authority did the Goverment and their agents use to arrest law-abiding Americans and confiscate their weapons? That was a blatant disregard for the 2nd amendment, and basic civil rights for that matter. The National Gaurd, city, state, and Federal Law Enforcement agents just went along with whatever orders they got. The End. Individuals with ideologies that don't match the views of the coersive goverment don't last long in their careers.

                        The Oathkeepers was formed following that event. We were fortunate that Katrina was only a Fed test run, and now people know that 'hey, it can happen here'. Education is key. I myself only became aware of the terrible state of things after the DHS report got leaked that listed me and people like me (Own guns, combat vet, didn't vote democrat) were potential extremists.


                        As for careers.. I've done pretty well for myself. There is a time to air views and times not to. Constitutionalist organizations are not listed as "Extremist" on the Army's regs of the topic, and I know a few senior NCOs and field grade officers that participate in this as well.

                        We are the 'relatively' silent watchdogs.


                        Edit: Add on.

                        As for comandeered Mil vehicles, I can't really say a lot about the topic. I can only say it would be really unwise to steal them and bring them back to resistance central.
                        The American Resistance Movement: Defending the nation from tyranny since 1776.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

                          Originally posted by SnowmanActual View Post
                          The Oathkeepers was formed following that event. We were fortunate that Katrina was only a Fed test run, and now people know that 'hey, it can happen here'. Education is key. I myself only became aware of the terrible state of things after the DHS report got leaked that listed me and people like me (Own guns, combat vet, didn't vote democrat) were potential extremists.
                          Well its extremely dangerous these days to believe in The Constitution and its principles. The problem with groups that support libertarian ideas is that you have the inevitable wackos that join the cause as well, such as white supremacist groups and other idiots. They are few in number but widely reported and exaggerated. Thus the movement is sadly lumped into that extreme side of the spectrum and easily discredited both by the media and politicians alike.

                          It seems that Oath keepers has been attacked by the Southern Poverty Law Center. See the link below. I hope you guys have a good legal defense fund.

                          SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers
                          |TG-X| mp40x



                          Register for the Forums! | Get on Teamspeak! | Play Squad! | Join Discord! | Support Tactical Gamer!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

                            Originally posted by Gillespie
                            I'm talking about things capable of destroying an armored vehicle, or capable of eliminating an air asset.
                            Who cares? You have to get out of that tank/aircraft at some time.

                            Originally posted by Gillespie View Post
                            Iraqis with rifles cause problems up until the point air support shows up. That's the major trump card most modern military forces hold over an insurgent civilian population.
                            Only when they don't care about the collateral damage. Besides, modern military has many trump cards over insurgent armies. Numbers, training, technology, intelligence. I could go on.

                            What they usually lack is the will that the insurgents have. How much will is there to forcefully subjugate your own people? This is a question I've asked about Texas: Texans tend to identify more with their state than the USA. And considering Texans makes up a large chunk of the armed forces, how many of them are willing to go to task disarming fellow Texans?

                            Iraqis interested in staging attacks on coalition forces have the advantage of military-grade weaponry available to them, whilst citizens in the US just don't, not the ease of access an Iraqi militant does.
                            You would be surprised at how easy it is to create explosives with stuff you find in your home. Besides, you don't need anything fancy to kill someone. Two jackasses (one was 16 years old IIRC) in D.C. killed ~14 people with a .223 hunting rifle available at academy for $200 and an AR-15 (about the same thing).

                            If the federal government and the US military went berserk and turned on us, we wouldn't be able to do much about it besides a token resistance.
                            History has kicked this idea in the teeth so many times, it's not even funny. How long do you think an American president is going to stay in office if he starts carpet bombing major metropolitan areas? Air support does jack all when you can't find who you want to kill. Good god, we napalmed entire areas of Vietnam and those guys still managed to kill 50,000 American soldiers.

                            As for the OP: my view on firearm ownership in America has little to do with the 2nd amendment. The facts support legitimate ownership of firearms.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Iraq as an argument for and against civillian firearms ownership

                              Fenix... you're being stupid.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X