Author Topic: What good can a handgun do against an Army?  (Read 31437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tritonman

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,085
What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« on: February 27, 2009, 05:30:34 pm »
I found this posted over at the tree of liberty forum and thought I would pass it along, it could well be a very good message to get out of any anticipated gun legislation.

http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot...inst-army.html What good can a handgun do against an Army?

By Mike Vanderboegh

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

"If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)"


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.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. 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

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 gun owners 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, gun-racks and gun-safes. 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
__________________

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2009, 06:24:55 pm »
long but excellent  article..   Many great points  as many I have pointed out to people who ask the question, Do you think you will stand a chance against a army?  My answer is always  Hell yes as they have to sleep , eat and use the bathroom just like all us .

Hit and run tactics will be the rule. 
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

xfahctor

  • Guest
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2009, 06:57:09 pm »
WOw.
Just.....wow!
Amazing piece of work there, simply amazing. May I use this in another forum? Full credit of course.

Offline KittyAK47

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Live Free or Die!
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2009, 07:07:22 pm »
I have seen this before.  it reminds me of the American Revolution in some ways.  Alot of Guerrilla warfare.

Excellent post
Fighting the good fight of faith!!!!

Offline TelepesT

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Genetic Dictator
    • Freedom T
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2009, 07:20:21 pm »
Army Combat Brigade = about 4000 strong

Average small city in USA = about 50,000 to 100,000 total people

Army has 36 Brigades

there are about 18,000 towns and villiages and cities
but probably only 2000 cities of the size above




Ten Foot Lizard Man from Planet Snickle-Snack in the POP-TART sector 
Freedom T
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
- Mohandas Gandhi

strgzr

  • Guest
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2009, 07:42:34 pm »



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

The Liberator was shipped in a cardboard box with 10 rounds of .45 ACP ammunition, a wooden dowel to remove the empty shell casing, and an instruction sheet in comic strip form[1] showing how to load and fire the weapon. Extra rounds of ammunition could be stored in the pistol grip.

After production, the Army turned the Liberators over to the OSS. A crude and clumsy weapon, the Liberator was never intended for front line service. It was originally intended as an insurgency weapon to be mass dropped behind enemy lines to resistance fighters in occupied territory. A resistance fighter was to recover the weapon, sneak up on an Axis occupier, kill or incapacitate him, and retrieve his weapons.

Offline freedomrik

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2009, 08:24:10 pm »
Very good indeed. We all have to draw our line in the sand and stick with it.
"Believe nothing you are told"

Offline getch36

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2009, 10:36:24 pm »
Another WOW to go with the others,Reading it gave me goose bumps.....
Ron Paul is my hero.

Offline Unintelligable Name

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,630
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2009, 11:08:41 pm »
The idea of the Liberator is awesome - they could have added 2 extra rounds though, 1 shot is pretty hairy but I guess you could find a couple and rapid fire to kill someone -- unless you head/heartshot them.

Although it does say on the article it comes with 10 rounds.

Offline tritonman

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,085
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2009, 11:15:38 pm »
xfahctor, like I said I found this on another forum myself and credited both the author and the other forum..I felt this should go out to as many as it could be gotten to and that is why I put it here.  Yes it was a wow piece and well put together, unfortunately the blog it came from is no longer in existance.

xfahctor

  • Guest
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2009, 09:10:58 am »
xfahctor, like I said I found this on another forum myself and credited both the author and the other forum..I felt this should go out to as many as it could be gotten to and that is why I put it here.  Yes it was a wow piece and well put together, unfortunately the blog it came from is no longer in existance.
Ah, my bad. Well in that case I am going to repost it in it's entirety to give the author credit. Thanks for preserving it, this seems to be a very important piece and deserves to live on.

Offline EchelonMonitor

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,934
    • Infowars Ning Network--upload your photos for posting in the forum
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2009, 07:12:34 am »
The power comes not from the weapon, but from the willingness to die of the warrior.

Your opponent won't be fighting for a cause he is willing to die for.

Offline Bad Slave

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2009, 10:46:17 am »
Willing to die?  While it may sound brave and embolden some, it's a sentiment of very little use.  You have little control over when you will die and absolutely no control over the fact that you will die.  The question people need to ask themselves is, "Am I willing to kill?"  Until you can answer that question, you are of little use to anyone, including yourself, to effect change or control your own destiny.

The lead post is well written but in certain key respects it misses the mark.  It praises the virtue of every generation fulfilling its duty to fight tyranny, and cites the world wars as previous calls to that duty; however, the world wars, like virtually every war waged over the past two centuries, were not wars against tyranny but wars in service of tyranny.  The wars were intentionally created and the people manipulated into fighting solely for the profit of the elite.  Absent the conscious and deliberate actions of criminal elites to stage the conflicts, none of the wars would ever have been fought.  It is critical to realize this.

I recommend F. William Engdahl's "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" to anyone who has not read it.  http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2009, 11:23:44 am »
Willing to die?  While it may sound brave and embolden some, it's a sentiment of very little use.  You have little control over when you will die and absolutely no control over the fact that you will die.  The question people need to ask themselves is, "Am I willing to kill?"  Until you can answer that question, you are of little use to anyone, including yourself, to effect change or control your own destiny.

The lead post is well written but in certain key respects it misses the mark.  It praises the virtue of every generation fulfilling its duty to fight tyranny, and cites the world wars as previous calls to that duty; however, the world wars, like virtually every war waged over the past two centuries, were not wars against tyranny but wars in service of tyranny.  The wars were intentionally created and the people manipulated into fighting solely for the profit of the elite.  Absent the conscious and deliberate actions of criminal elites to stage the conflicts, none of the wars would ever have been fought.  It is critical to realize this.

I recommend F. William Engdahl's "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" to anyone who has not read it.  http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X


That is some extraordinary assessment of the situation.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2009, 05:34:22 pm »
That is some extraordinary assessment of the situation.

The question of ones willingness to kill is truly at the heart of the question as you have pointed out.

As for the main question of What can a handgun do against an army? Ask a battle hardened veteran, as for me I already have first hand experience, and no power on earth will make me willingly sacrifice my firearms, for without them I and my loved ones are little more than cannon fodder.
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline More Perfect Union

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2009, 07:55:25 pm »
The power comes not from the weapon, but from the willingness to die of the warrior.

Your opponent won't be fighting for a cause he is willing to die for.

Most likely the military will have a better lifestyle then say the average non-military person.

The middle class would be the protective force (police/military). People will have their own livelihood to fight for.

Offline KoWBoY

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 737
  • Super Patriot
    • WAR ON YOU
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2009, 11:07:32 pm »
The idea of killing is not to be taken lightly no matter who you are or what you stand for. Having a conscience and a clear mind to find a way to engage your enemy without the loss of your life or anyone else should be your first priority. Escalating only when all other options have been exhausted. Even the most peaceful people will fight to their last breath to protect themselves and the ones they love. There is a saying I was taught: You put a coward in a corner and he will kill you.
Placement is Key.
Violence Begets Compliance.
Ignorance is Temporary. Stupid is Forever.
I HUNT! Because the voices in my head tell me to.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php

Offline Jaan

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2009, 11:25:50 am »
You shouldn't kill people to steal from them...that's what the NWO does..

Killing should be an unfortunate by-product of defending your own life or the life of another.  Not something you plan to do.

Offline rawiron1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,032
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2009, 01:54:40 pm »
Any magnum or round with a steel core.

Jason
Jason the Fed

Offline Bad Slave

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2009, 10:50:27 am »
You shouldn't kill people to steal from them...that's what the NWO does..

Killing should be an unfortunate by-product of defending your own life or the life of another.  Not something you plan to do.

I wasn't advocating murder.  There is a difference and I know you know that. 

Do you remember the scene in Apocalypse Now when Sheen is floating down the river and reviewing Kurtz' confidential personnel file?  In the file is a letter from Kurtz to his son, if I recall correctly.  Kurtz informs his son that he has been formally charged with murder by the U.S. Army for executing a couple regional officials of some sort.  Kurtz admits this to his son and claims the officials were double agents; however, he did not inform nor seek the approval of Army command for the action.  After Kurtz "killed" the agents, enemy activity in the sector ceased, which leads Sheen to conclude that Kurtz was right. (Although I'm not going to discuss the issue, it is the opinion of many that we never intended to win the war.).

If I recall correctly, Kurtz then explains to his son what it means to be a soldier.  I won't say anymore.  Watch the movie again if you can't remember what he says.

And if you intend to post some knee jerk comment about Hollywood, save it---because you don't get it.

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2009, 01:00:26 pm »
well Can someone help verify this PLEASE.. If it is true then you better get ready for a all out revolution if it becomes known to gun owners.


WTF! Blair Holt Provision In Feb 17th Stimulus Package Suprise Bill - REQUIRES GUN REGISTRATION!
 

It was slipped into the stimulus package.

It's named after 16 year old honor student murdered in Obama's Chicago in May of 07.

It's Called "Blair Holt's Firearms Licensing And Record of Sale Act of 2009"

This provision has been kept secret.

It will begin Feb 2010 (one year after the signing of the stimulus package)

Everyone American owning a firearm must possess a permit.

No private sales will be allowed.

Sec. 92 of Title 18 Amended (All guns in the USA will have to be registered w/ no private sales sec 101 no private sales of guns will be allowed)

This will effectively disarm the entire population of the United States

sec 901 amendments will take place one year after the enactment of stimulus package

Source : Gary Bell CFMJ 640 AM Toronto
Sat Mar 14 09




here is what i have been able to find .

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Bad Slave

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2009, 01:19:11 pm »
well Can someone help verify this PLEASE.. If it is true then you better get ready for a all out revolution if it becomes known to gun owners.


WTF! Blair Holt Provision In Feb 17th Stimulus Package Suprise Bill - REQUIRES GUN REGISTRATION!
 

It was slipped into the stimulus package.

It's named after 16 year old honor student murdered in Obama's Chicago in May of 07.

It's Called "Blair Holt's Firearms Licensing And Record of Sale Act of 2009"

This provision has been kept secret.

It will begin Feb 2010 (one year after the signing of the stimulus package)

Everyone American owning a firearm must possess a permit.

No private sales will be allowed.

Sec. 92 of Title 18 Amended (All guns in the USA will have to be registered w/ no private sales sec 101 no private sales of guns will be allowed)

This will effectively disarm the entire population of the United States

sec 901 amendments will take place one year after the enactment of stimulus package

Source : Gary Bell CFMJ 640 AM Toronto
Sat Mar 14 09




here is what i have been able to find .

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp



It's not true.  The NRA reviewed the legislation and confirmed that this is a rumor.  Nothing of the sort is in the Act.

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2009, 01:43:40 pm »
NRA ? you would believe those government owned stooges?   I will check GOA website.


If there is one silver lining to all of this, it's the debunking of a rumor that recently swept across the internet.  The rumor claimed that the provisions of HR 45 -- the massive gun registration bill introduced by Chicago congressman Bobby Rush (D) -- were "rolled into" what was passed. 

But having searched the contents of the new law, GOA staff has determined the rumor appears to be false.
http://gunowners.org/a021809htm.htm
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Bad Slave

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2009, 02:08:23 pm »
NRA ? you would believe those government owned stooges?   I will check GOA website.


If there is one silver lining to all of this, it's the debunking of a rumor that recently swept across the internet.  The rumor claimed that the provisions of HR 45 -- the massive gun registration bill introduced by Chicago congressman Bobby Rush (D) -- were "rolled into" what was passed. 

But having searched the contents of the new law, GOA staff has determined the rumor appears to be false.
http://gunowners.org/a021809htm.htm

I also ran multiple word searches on the text.  There is no such provision.

Offline s3d1t0r

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • F̱̹̳̖o̤llow the mon̐ͫ͂̓̊̓͊ë́͐͒̍ȳ̏ͨ̾͆
    • Seditious Blasphemy doth appear here!
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2009, 04:07:07 pm »
(Without reading the long article YET... I just woke up)

What good can a handgun do against an Army?

My handgun is what I use to fight my way to my rifle.
“go to work, send your kids to school
follow fashion, act normal
walk on the pavement, watch T.V.
save for your old age, obey the law
Repeat after me: I am free

Offline Enigma

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Thats about it everyone.
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #25 on: March 17, 2009, 04:13:54 pm »
Guns are to trivial as a representative of power. That said. Hit run and hope the tankers are a lousy shot.
Lesser evils are necessary to balance out the greater evils in the world.

Offline 1776er

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2009, 07:00:28 am »
Remember what happened in Afghanistan?...the Russians invaded with one of the most well equipped  armies on earth, yet the Afghani rebels beat them down little by little with WW 1 junk weapons that they repaired by setting up small repair shops in the caves in the mountains...LATER in the conflict the U.S. gave them arms and ammo, but it was old stuff, not state of the art weapons like the Russians had...where there's a will, theres a way...the Russians finally got tired of loosing men and left the country...

Offline Bad Slave

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2009, 07:00:08 pm »
I also ran multiple word searches on the text.  There is no such provision.

I guess I need to correct myself.  I didn't search for the mental health provisions.  I will have to go through it to see what AJ is talking about.

Offline KoWBoY

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 737
  • Super Patriot
    • WAR ON YOU
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2009, 10:40:01 pm »
I guess I need to correct myself.  I didn't search for the mental health provisions.  I will have to go through it to see what AJ is talking about.

HR 45 Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45&tab=summary

Also check out this post there are additional bills in it.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=94243.0
Placement is Key.
Violence Begets Compliance.
Ignorance is Temporary. Stupid is Forever.
I HUNT! Because the voices in my head tell me to.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php

Offline JonTheSavage

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,655
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2009, 11:12:56 am »
You shouldn't kill people to steal from them...that's what the NWO does..

Killing should be an unfortunate by-product of defending your own life or the life of another.  Not something you plan to do.

Things are different in war, and if it comes down to it, its kill, or be killed.

Offline Dolphin

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • John 3:16
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2009, 11:59:31 am »
Quote
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."

Hate to break this too you but if you won't behave how the global elite want you too, then there is always the nuclear option, or releasing some sort of biological weapon effectively shutting down America from the outside world, and maybe other countries resorting to a nuclear option to prevent a biological spread too there bit of land, in the grand scale of things if America is all that is stopping the global elite having there way what does it matter if the entire country is reduced to rubble they've got the rest of the whole as there play ground.

You need to get them out of there positions of power no matter what rat whole there in before they can do any of the above.

Offline chrsswtzr

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,700
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2009, 10:01:54 pm »
WOw.
Just.....wow!
Amazing piece of work there, simply amazing. May I use this in another forum? Full credit of course.
Absolutely brilliant paper. Simply brilliant.

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2009, 10:51:53 pm »
It's not true.  The NRA reviewed the legislation and confirmed that this is a rumor.  Nothing of the sort is in the Act.

I have a copy of this HR 45   111th congress 1st sessionon paper if you will give me a few mins i wil figure out how to scan it and  ahhh never mind click here and read it there for yourself:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

and it is article 921(a) of title 18

zafada

  • Guest
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2009, 01:48:52 am »
That is some extraordinary assessment of the situation.

 :D

sounds like optimism to me.

Offline Dsparil

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2009, 11:46:54 pm »
Handguns and firearms and general are still part of the main deciding factor in warfare, even today. It's a common misconception that small arms have no affect on war. If they didn't, then our troops would not be carrying them, period. I think people would be very surprised as to what a competent person can do with a rifle or a pistol. It's a statistical fact that 50% of all casualties on the battlefield are attributed to snipers. Militaries tear up cities with millions of rounds but hardly do a thing. 2,000 pound JDAMs go crashing down on to target sights but yet we're STILL fighting insurgents today. The guy in the article needs to take a hint. And whoever posted the liberator pistol, EXACTLY. We dropped those things by the truckload in to Germany and France. The idea was you'd pick up one of the pistols and conceal it and wait for the lone soldier to walk across your path. One shot from it and he was dead and next thing you knew you had his service pistol and rifle all to yourself. Sometimes even a subgun. Then you'd simply pass on that little pistol to the next person. It's a tactic that might serve well against any occupying force, even today.
Beretta. Accept no substitutions.

Offline Letsbereal

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #35 on: August 02, 2009, 12:07:37 am »
Ask the Taliban, the are they experts on guerilla, or read Sun- Tzu :-\

P.S. But not the Fake Sun- Tzu's by some wonnabee smartass manager but direct translations.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Unintelligable Name

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,630
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2009, 12:09:02 am »
Ask the Taliban, they are they experts on querilla  :-\

+1 Afghanistan is unconquerable. Unless of course you flooded it with a million troops. They're just goat herders and whatnot -- America cannot be occupied with force (barring drone armies and space rays)

Offline mad_norwegian

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2010, 07:03:58 pm »
If anyone's been watching the news for the last 10 years or so, we know very well what handguns (even the primitive homemade kalashnikov-copies with poor optics we find in afghanistan and iraq) can do against a modern army. Throw in some homemade dynamite and you can take on anyone if you have a few thousand lojal men and are fanatical enough.

You wont get far with a F22 raptor and smart bombs if theres nothing smart to bomb. To control a nation you have to do it man against man and take house after house. Sure you can exterminate all life and drop something like 100 or more tsar bombs (the largest atombomb ever detonated) over a country, but what would there be left to conquer, and what damage would it cause to the enviroment?

No. To control people, down to you individually, is the only way to make you submit, and a F22 raptor cant do that.

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2010, 07:26:01 pm »
Theoretically, pointed against the right head, it could discourage them -- to answer the question at hand.

The difficulty in doing so brings up the real wording of the constitution, it says "arms".  It does not stop at rifles (NRA, I'm looking at you) or even handguns.  You should be able to park a working tank in your backyard if you want to -- and maybe, more people should.

Offline mad_norwegian

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: What good can a handgun do against an Army?
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2010, 10:20:49 pm »
Theoretically, pointed against the right head, it could discourage them -- to answer the question at hand.

The difficulty in doing so brings up the real wording of the constitution, it says "arms".  It does not stop at rifles (NRA, I'm looking at you) or even handguns.  You should be able to park a working tank in your backyard if you want to -- and maybe, more people should.

I think its just fine being restricted to handguns. It is all we need if a large propotion of the people want to overthrow the government, plus it has its use for self defence or hunting. You dont bother anyone by keeping a rifle and 50 000 rounds of ammunition in the basement, but when youre talking about tanks that carve up roads, missiles etc, i wouldnt like my neighbour having a ton of explosives right next to my house and the kindergarden or carving up the road and shaking my house to pieces with a tank. Also, i dont want to see a small group of private merceneries, like blackwater, being better armed than the state run army. The balance of power is also an issue here, firearms is enough to make the government surrender if 10 million men take up arms, but if 1000 merceneries did it they wouldnt stand a chanse in acomplishing much. 1000 mercenaries in F22 raptors and tanks and nuclear bombs on the other hand, would cause consern.

Is realism too much to ask for here?