Skip to main content

View Diary: The Importance of Drawing the Line on Weapons of War (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, really, the reason that the Iraqi Army (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    43north, oldpunk, ancblu, theatre goon

    melted after a few weeks of resistance was because the people there didn't really have a deep-seated fondness or sense of loyalty to the regime. They did manage to make life really, really difficult for us though.

    What really needs to be hammered out in the gun debate is "what is the militia" and "how much training is needed before a person is considered trained enough to trust with a firearm?" The semi-automatic weapon is a "militia arm" and should be treated as such, but the expectations of militia service have been left vague. It might have once fit the mould of the National Guard, until the National Guard was, well, Nationalized to serve as an auxiliary of the Federal Army.

    I feel that much of the gun debate is lunging at shadows, unfortunately.

    •  Iraq and Afganistan... (5+ / 0-)

      involved attacks by Guerilla.  Gurella warfare is remarkably effective.  

      Here are a few terms to Google:

      Iraq Occupation
      Afghanistan, Russian Occupation of
      Afghanistan, American Occupation of
      Anglo-Afgan War
      Vietnam
      Malayan Emergency
      Spanish Maquis
      French Resistance
      Second Boer War
      Forest Brothers
      FARC
      IRA
      Bielski Partizans  

      Today most gurellas seem to rely on improvised explosives planted by roads.  These are effectively banned.  

      As for my own thoughts on it, we have a functioning federal republic and there is no imaginable reason to take up arms to change it.  Look at what Occupy Wall Street accomplished in changing the conversation.  

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:57:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I'm familiar with the effectiveness (7+ / 0-)

        of guerrilla warfare; I got to see it first hand in Iraq myself. I'm making a similar point that you are, really-- people who say "rag-tag militia could never beat the US Army" don't realize that "beating" the US Army and storming the steps of the Capitol building aren't in a militia's purview at all.

        A militia is a guerrilla force that just has to make life so bitter and miserable for a standing army that the political will to support that army erodes and the leaders are forced to terms. Either that, or the army cedes swathes of territory to the guerrillas, and in that sense they "win".

        As long as the people think that the government still responds sufficiently to people's votes or protests, then guerrilla warfare won't be necessary. (Of course, if a government makes guerrilla warfare necessary, then it's a bit late to pick nits about weapons, but that's headed down the rabbit hole of doom scenarios).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site