Can one handgun take on an Army?

[SIG229]

Like I'm gonna jump up and rub my feet on someone's couch like it's somethin' to do. C'mon I got a little more sense than that.

Yeah, I remember rubbing my feet on Eddie Murphy's couch.

-shootinpreacher48 aka Rick James

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

 

[LtCCMPUnit42]

I think it's a very interesting philosophical question but it really boils down to will on both sides.

I am confident that individuals with appropriate will could arm themselves with an occupier's rifles.

However could they arm themselves with enough rifles to cope with modern technology?

Personally I doubt it.

Afganistan fought the Soviet Union for several years primarily with stolen Soviet rifles and were largely unsuccesful because the Soviet gunships killed just about everything they saw and were willing to use brutal tactics to cripple the population including planting mines intended for children.

However they achieved great success when the United States began equipping them with advanced weaponry and this combined with societal/economic pressure brought the Soviet occupation to a halt.

On the other hand, in our own revolution the British with much more comparable technology to those they occupied and much less will were unsuccessful in suppressing the rebellion.

I think that this question is also a bit different here since we have an all-volunteer army and I firmly believe that American soldiers would be much less inclined to use Soviet-style tactics on their own population and probably the majority wouldn't be willing to fight their own population at all.

My opinion is that if a vastly technologically superior oppressor is armed with the will to wipe out a native population, then this type of resistance will probably be futile.

However if the oppressor does not possess the will to wipe out a population and there is a sufficient percentage of the population that has the will to kill their oppressors, then this becomes a much more interesting question.

Michael Brown

If the will to resist is there, the number and quality of firearms is not important. By disrupting supply lines, communications, taking down thier power sources, and rendering thier technology useless, more can be done than with firearms. No beans, no bullets, no war. Taking on, and defeating a superior force is by no means easy, but it is very possible and has been done many times throughout history.
Mr Brown has a very valid point in the fact that if that superior force si eilling to hit the smaller force with all they have all at once, then its chances are pretty slim.

 

[GuyGardner]

Hmmmm....I'm going to say no on this one. AC-130's with IR cameras...not quite the same as fighting Brit's with essentially the same technology.

 

[pinkhamr]

What about all of the retired military folks .... we have a lot of them in Altus and I am quite sure they would resist ... heck so would the LEO's and most of the National Guard. JMO

 

[LtCCMPUnit42]

Hmmmm....I'm going to say no on this one. AC-130's with IR cameras...not quite the same as fighting Brit's with essentially the same technology.

So you don't think they could be affected by disrupting their fuel supply, or communications? (not trying to be a smart a$$, I am very interested in other points of view, it is a good way to learn)

 

[LtCCMPUnit42]

What about all of the retired military folks .... we have a lot of them in Altus and I am quite sure they would resist ... heck so would the LEO's and most of the National Guard. JMO

Damn right, I would!!!

 

[LightningCrash]

Hmmmm....I'm going to say no on this one. AC-130's with IR cameras...not quite the same as fighting Brit's with essentially the same technology.

So groups of tribal mountain dwellers with AK-47s couldn't possibly win against the world's most advanced army?

 

[Michael Brown]

So groups of tribal mountain dwellers with AK-47s couldn't possibly win against the world's most advanced army?

They certainly did not have just AK's.

They were getting their butts kicked when all they had was AK's.

When they started getting Stingers, they started doing some damage.

If we're talking about today, it's even less of a comparison.

Michael Brown

 

[LightningCrash]

They certainly did not have just AK's.

They were getting their butts kicked when all they had was AK's.

When they started getting Stingers, they started doing some damage.

If we're talking about today, it's even less of a comparison.

Michael Brown

The question wasn't "Can they get their butt kicked for a while?" it was "Can they take on an army?" And I wasn't speaking of days gone by. I was talking about the status quo which we have yet to win.
Even a tiger flees from driver ants.
All the driver ants have are little bitty pincers. Certainly nothing that can take on the might of a tiger!
Except that whole "there's 50,000,000 of them" thing.
The most advanced army in the world did Marcus Luttrell a fat lot of good against tribesmen with 55 year old weapons.
But at least he's alive to tell the story.

But here we are, waging wars against sparsely armed foreign enemies while retaining our full economic power, and 9 years later we have no end in sight! Even World War II was done by 6 years.

But to wage war against ourselves, severing our own economic jugular, against a very thoroughly armed and defiant populace... well, we'll have those chumps rolled by dinnertime!

 

[1shot(bob)]

They certainly did not have just AK's.

They were getting their butts kicked when all they had was AK's.

When they started getting Stingers, they started doing some damage.

If we're talking about today, it's even less of a comparison.

Michael Brown

All the more reason for us to stand up for our 2A rights.