3 ms·

>the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge. That's not true. The US Army spent 20 years and trillions of dollars trying to impose regime chan

>the citizens would lose without even presenting a challenge. That's not true. The US Army spent 20 years and trillions of dollars trying to impose regime change on Afghanistan, but were defeated by a group (the Taliban) that had very little military capability beyond men with rifles and some explosives to make improvised bombs. (Yes, they also had decades-old weapons with which to shoot down helicopters.) Algeria's war of independence from France in the 1950s and early 1960s is another example where a group with very little in the way of military capability defeated one of the most powerful militaries in the world. I don't necessarily buy the argument that the US should continue with the gun status quo just because all those guns would come in handy in a revolution, but you haven't successfully refuted the argument.

mapontosevenths 1y ago
The Afghanistan bit is over simplified isn't it? My understanding is that the US military successfully imposed regime change between 2001-2003. I doubt those rifles slowed the tanks and bombers much at all. The fact that we packed up and left eventually doesn't really change the fact that the US rolled over the men with guns like they weren't there in the early 2000's.
mapontosevenths 1y ago
The Algerian war doesn't really prove much either, except that terrorism works. The Algerians hid within the population and gradually picked at the French, like flies biting a bull. Eventually the French got bored and wandered off to find a new form of entertainment. If anything the French lost to propaganda, not guns.
- hollerith 1y ago
  >The Algerians hid within the population Yes, but we're discussing a civil war or revolution in the US, where the rebels or revolutionaries would be able to engage in terrorism and to hide within the population -- and where there are so many long guns in private hands that the defending force (the government) probably wouldn't be able to deprive the attacking force (the rebels) of long guns simply by punishing any civilian found with a long gun in their home.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    My point is that it wasn't the guns that saved the Algerians. Knives, bayonets, and IEDs would have been equaly effective for the sort of guerilla tactics that eventually won the war.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      I find it very unlikely that "knives, bayonets, and IEDs would have been equally effective". The ALN ambushed French convoys and patrols, raided isolated military outposts and police stations and defended themselves when their camps and zones were attacked. I doubt the ALN could have succeeded in those encounters even one tenth as often as they actually did if they had no access or much worse access to guns (with "success" meaning inflicting casualties on the occupier, avoiding taking casualties, capturing supplies (including guns) and disrupting the occupier's control). There is a reason people say, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight". The ALN got guns from donors and sympathizers in Egypt and other Arab countries. In later years, the Eastern Bloc and China also contributed supplies, including guns. Was there a single significant war, rebellion or revolution in the last 100 years where both sides didn't have a gun for every fighter or almost that many guns? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.
      - mapontosevenths 1y ago
        >Was there a single significant war, rebellion or revolution in the last 100 years where both sides didn't have a gun for every fighter or almost that many guns? I'm not sure, but I doubt it. Again though, the French like the Americans in Afghanistan, were not defeated on the battlefield. They lost because they got tired of fighting the natives and the war had become politically unpopular. Howeer, even if I stipulate that the guns are the thing that made the difference it's irrelevant. The Algerians were not legally allowed to own those guns. So the very promise that their right to bear arms is responsible for their victory is unreasonable from the start. They had no such right in Algeria.
        hollerith 1y ago

mapontosevenths 1y ago

The Afghanistan bit is over simplified isn't it? My understanding is that the US military successfully imposed regime change between 2001-2003. I doubt those rifles slowed the tanks and bombers much at all. The fact that we packed up and left eventually doesn't really change the fact that the US rolled over the men with guns like they weren't there in the early 2000's.

mapontosevenths 1y ago

The Algerian war doesn't really prove much either, except that terrorism works. The Algerians hid within the population and gradually picked at the French, like flies biting a bull. Eventually the French got bored and wandered off to find a new form of entertainment. If anything the French lost to propaganda, not guns.

hollerith 1y ago
>The Algerians hid within the population Yes, but we're discussing a civil war or revolution in the US, where the rebels or revolutionaries would be able to engage in terrorism and to hide within the population -- and where there are so many long guns in private hands that the defending force (the government) probably wouldn't be able to deprive the attacking force (the rebels) of long guns simply by punishing any civilian found with a long gun in their home.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  My point is that it wasn't the guns that saved the Algerians. Knives, bayonets, and IEDs would have been equaly effective for the sort of guerilla tactics that eventually won the war.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    I find it very unlikely that "knives, bayonets, and IEDs would have been equally effective". The ALN ambushed French convoys and patrols, raided isolated military outposts and police stations and defended themselves when their camps and zones were attacked. I doubt the ALN could have succeeded in those encounters even one tenth as often as they actually did if they had no access or much worse access to guns (with "success" meaning inflicting casualties on the occupier, avoiding taking casualties, capturing supplies (including guns) and disrupting the occupier's control). There is a reason people say, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight". The ALN got guns from donors and sympathizers in Egypt and other Arab countries. In later years, the Eastern Bloc and China also contributed supplies, including guns. Was there a single significant war, rebellion or revolution in the last 100 years where both sides didn't have a gun for every fighter or almost that many guns? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      >Was there a single significant war, rebellion or revolution in the last 100 years where both sides didn't have a gun for every fighter or almost that many guns? I'm not sure, but I doubt it. Again though, the French like the Americans in Afghanistan, were not defeated on the battlefield. They lost because they got tired of fighting the natives and the war had become politically unpopular. Howeer, even if I stipulate that the guns are the thing that made the difference it's irrelevant. The Algerians were not legally allowed to own those guns. So the very promise that their right to bear arms is responsible for their victory is unreasonable from the start. They had no such right in Algeria.
      - hollerith 1y ago