Concealed Weapons (or more specifically, handguns)

[Sithdarth]

And Sith, we can't even prevent supplies from reaching/actually find bin Laden, and Afganistan is a fraction the size of the US. You're underesitmating the resourcefulness of the average guerilla fighter and overestimating the abilities of the military. They can't be everywhere, they can't see everything. Shopkeepers/factory owners can cook their books, instillations take lots of time and resources to build/fortify and can be infiltriated by defectors, etc etc etc. The common person has power over their destiny, and moreso when they're armed.

Its significantly different trying to control what goes on in a foreign country. Especially a country with so little infrastructure in place to help. In places like Afghanistan you might not know where a farm is or what not. While in the US you got all that documentation, local law enforcement (though they might not wholly be with you), nice roads, really good accurate maps, ect.

Not to mention your average US citizen isn't going to be nearly as good at guerrilla warfare as someone that's lived under constant attack from their government. Of course they'd get better with time but only if they lasted that long. (Not to mention the whole time the military is getting better at countering you.)

As for fortifications, its not all that hard. Couple feet of concertina wire and a few Active Denial systems at the corners and you have a pretty well fortified position. There are also these new mortar/mine systems that you can seed around a battle field and they monitor movement and attack. They are really nice in that even if you manage to get close enough to tamper with it they fight back.

Local militia's are much more unlikely to fire on locals, so they'd have to be sent to other regions they'd presumably know less about.

1) Its actually supposed to be the local militias that fight the national government. That was like half the purpose of the 2nd amendment, ie making sure local militias were armed.

2) That sword cuts both ways. The locals fighting the local militia are going to be a worried about hurting neighbors as the local militia. That's even if there is an overriding sense of community in the community anymore. (More and more this seems to be going away.)

I also think you're invisioning this war as a repeat of the Civil War, which may not be the case. Guerilla wars are much more easy to sustain/supply (because everybody is in a small band that can fend/supply/forage for its self) and much much much harder to fight against than a regular army war. We kicked the ever loving crap out of the Iraqi military, but trying to fight people that look just like the regular population is damned near impossible.

Well if it played out in the manor envisioned by the founding fathers it would be rather civil war like. The local militias rising up to overthrow the government and all that.

Also, Guerrilla warfare works great when you are fighting off an invading army its not so good against your own government.

That's not to say it be a totally one sided blood bath. Heck the rebels might even win a battle of two. Over the long term though the military would win. Remember its not like they have anywhere to retreat to or foreign and domestic pressure to pull out.

[Sesshoumaru]

We are soooooooo far away from what I envisioned this thread to be.....although I get alot more response than I thought I would.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Its significantly different trying to control what goes on in a foreign country. Especially a country with so little infrastructure in place to help. In places like Afghanistan you might not know where a farm is or what not. While in the US you got all that documentation, local law enforcement (though they might not wholly be with you), nice roads, really good accurate maps, ect.

Not to mention your average US citizen isn't going to be nearly as good at guerrilla warfare as someone that's lived under constant attack from their government. Of course they'd get better with time but only if they lasted that long. (Not to mention the whole time the military is getting better at countering you.)

As for fortifications, its not all that hard. Couple feet of concertina wire and a few Active Denial systems at the corners and you have a pretty well fortified position. There are also these new mortar/mine systems that you can seed around a battle field and they monitor movement and attack. They are really nice in that even if you manage to get close enough to tamper with it they fight back.



1) Its actually supposed to be the local militias that fight the national government. That was like half the purpose of the 2nd amendment, ie making sure local militias were armed.

2) That sword cuts both ways. The locals fighting the local militia are going to be a worried about hurting neighbors as the local militia. That's even if there is an overriding sense of community in the community anymore. (More and more this seems to be going away.)



Well if it played out in the manor envisioned by the founding fathers it would be rather civil war like. The local militias rising up to overthrow the government and all that.

Also, Guerrilla warfare works great when you are fighting off an invading army its not so good against your own government.

That's not to say it be a totally one sided blood bath. Heck the rebels might even win a battle of two. Over the long term though the military would win. Remember its not like they have anywhere to retreat to or foreign and domestic pressure to pull out.

The thing with guerrilla wars is, there are no "battles". The guerrillas lay an ambush, kill some guys, then retreat in the chaos. It's a highly, highly effective way of fighting a force that has superior numbers and superior technology. Harass, harass, harass. Chip away long enough, and the enemy starts to lose morale. Send home enough dead bodies, and the home front starts to lose morale. Without morale, total victory is impossible. The goal of the guerrillas would not be to hold territory, as a conventional army would. Out-right battles and secured locations are things the guerrilla force would seek to avoid. Guerrilla wars and conventional wars are very, very different beasts. You can keep claiming that Iraq and Viet Nam are different than the US, but the principle is exactly the same.

Don't you think we have every square inch of Afganistan inked out from satalite photos? I sure bet we do. Can't get much more accurate than a photograph.

In the post of mine you quoted, when I'm talking about 'militias having trouble firing on local populations' I'm talking about the national guard, and not the rebel bands. Should have used a bit more precise language, sorry about that.

Sorry Sesh. Any discussion of gun rights inevitably turns into a discussion of whether there should be any gun rights, in my experience. To be fair, the Washington State CWP laws were part of one of my posts

[Sithdarth]

Harass, harass, harass. Chip away long enough, and the enemy starts to lose morale. Send home enough dead bodies, and the home front starts to lose morale. Without morale, total victory is impossible.

That right there is why Guerrilla war fare doesn't work as well against a local army. The army is fighting on its home front the more soldiers you kill the higher their morale and the morale of any citizens still on the side of the military becomes. When the army is fighting and dieing in a foreign land for what appears to be no reason the deaths are senseless. When the army is fighting and dieing in its own country to quell a revolt they are protecting freedom and the way of life of the populace and the deaths have meaning.

[Magus]

I think it's all right the way it is right now, though after the VT shootings I think there should be a database of mentally ill people as well as criminals (although I think there is in a lot of states, Virginia just isn't one of them). I'm also suprised Virginia doesn't have a three-day waiting period, but to tell you the truth I've never thought waiting periods to really be all that useful in preventing crime, because 1. a person using the firearm for robbery or something along those lines isn't going to legally purchase a gun 2. a suicidal person may or may not be prevented from shooting themselves with it and 3. someone planning to use it for murder will probably not be sated in merely three days, and could always purchase a non-concealable weapon and make it concealable through alteration.

Anyway, all that stuff is kind've iffy. Personally I think that just outlawing "Saturday Night Specials" would prevent a lot of gun-crime and accidents. They're not safe for the people using them, and they're cheap. Just create laws requiring guns to pass a quality test to be sold and you'll automatically cut down on the amount of gun crime.

[Sesshoumaru]

Except that making cheap guns illegal only really hurts the law-aibiding poor for whom self-defense has been priced out of their hands. Sure, a Raven Arms MP-25 isn't nearly as good as a top of the line Colt 1911, but its still deadly.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

That right there is why Guerrilla war fare doesn't work as well against a local army. The army is fighting on its home front the more soldiers you kill the higher their morale and the morale of any citizens still on the side of the military becomes. When the army is fighting and dieing in a foreign land for what appears to be no reason the deaths are senseless. When the army is fighting and dieing in its own country to quell a revolt they are protecting freedom and the way of life of the populace and the deaths have meaning.

Yeah, that's why the Iraqi security forces and civilians are known for their super high morale, right? And why there aren't millions of Iraqis fleeing the country as fast as they can. Nobody likes getting killed, not even soldiers. If you're looking to institute a regime change a great way to lose the support of the people is to have a bloody, protracted rebellion on your hands. Without the support of the people no nation can long stand. All of this is not considering assassinations, which would also be highly effective in persuading a regime change. Dude can't be dictator for life if he's dead.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

We are soooooooo far away from what I envisioned this thread to be.....although I get alot more response than I thought I would.

This thread is getting pretty far off track, where the ostensible topic isn't even the broader topic of the right to keep and bear arms, but the more specific issue of the carrying of concealed weapons. If you guys want to continue the discussion of guerrilla warfare against a national army v. against a foreign invader, please start another thread for that.

[Magus]

I didn't mean a brand-spankin'-new RavenArms MP25 should be illegal, everyone has the right to the generic brand, I mean a bashed around one you can buy at a pawn shop should be illegal. A new one is probably still breaking a hundred dollars or more, right? But there are cheap, used guns you can get legally for like fifty to sixty dollars, or less, usually made mostly of plastic. People's cars have to pass inspection, I think something that could blow up in your hand should, too, AND it keeps people from buying a gun offhandedly. If a gun costs a decent amount of money, you will plan and think about buying it and what you're going to do with it. Even if you use the thing in self-defense, it'll get confiscated, you know what I'm saying? It might make people less likely to shoot a mugger and more likely to threaten (if he has a knife, obviously if he has a gun it's going to be a shoot him if you can thing). Sure, keeping a gun worth 300-500 bucks isn't worth your life if you have to use it...but man, it is 500 bucks.

Besides, cheap crappy guns are likely to jam or misfire, as well, and then where's your self-defense?

EDIT: Oh, and the cheap, used crappy ones are the ones criminals always buy illegally, as well, as they are easily disposed of, no great loss, and available in large quantities. If cheap crappy guns were outlawed and destroyed, that'd cut down on the amount of guns available to the criminals without really infringing on people's rights.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

This thread is getting pretty far off track, where the ostensible topic isn't even the broader topic of the right to keep and bear arms, but the more specific issue of the carrying of concealed weapons. If you guys want to continue the discussion of guerrilla warfare against a national army v. against a foreign invader, please start another thread for that.

I made an on-topic post, I swear! I think consealed weapons are OK. In fact, I think they're better than OK. As the laws exist right now, I have the right ( at least in Washington State ) to slap iron in broad daylight. However, it's kind of hard to walk through a mall in broad daylight with a .45 on your hip without people getting a little freaked out. A CWP allows me to cary a weapon on my person without disturbing those around me while submiting me to the addition safety of a federal background check. I don't see how this isn't a win-win. I get my gun, you get your peace of mind.