Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Training & Safety (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f55/)
-   -   Armed society VS regular army during the war (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f55/armed-society-vs-regular-army-during-war-33557/)

MajkiFajki 10-26-2010 02:29 PM

Armed society VS regular army during the war
 
Hello Everybody


I'm from Poland. In my country, You are strictly prohibited to have a firearm. You know, "because guns kill people, we'll be like USA, where everyday is shooting in schools, etc.":D

Seriously - in Poland most of the people see guns in USA that way.

I've been arguing with many people who are against free access to weapons. And only one argument made me think.
"Armed civilians are unable to defend their country against regular military. They have trained soldiers, tanks and all kind of military accesories". Groups of armed people would be wiped out in seconds. Look at Faludga, second attack at Grozny, siege of Sarayevo."

I asked for sources of this way of thinking.

"It's obvious! You still live in the 40' of XX century. Nowadays heavy industry is away from cities, you don't have to even use infantry. Just eliminate government, and bomb few cities as example what will happen, if they don't surrender. Classic war is past."

I thought, I'll look for some interviews with military officials or on-line resources. I did not find anything. So I have registered at this forums to ask community about that.

Are this arguments reasonable?
And would You please point me some on-line resources about this subject? Preferably video with some military officials - I'd translate it into polish language and re-upload on YouTube in purpose of education.

Cory2 10-26-2010 03:52 PM

Well an excellent example is Switzerland in WW2, and really any modern time of war. They arm their citizenry and it prevented them from being involved in ww2 as no one was willing to suffer such massive losses. I mean sure, if an abrams tank where to roll down my street right now there would not be to much i could do about it (short of abusing the R.O.E.) but if i knew it was coming ahead of time there are quite a few things i could do about it. Also for the foreseable future infantry will always be the keystone of any modern military. Even though they may have fully automatic weapons and body armor the civilian population will still massively outnumber them and a bullet to the brain kills soldiers just as much as it does civilians.

Here is a good example of how having an armed citizenry has helped the Swiss out immensly
WHY AN ARMED CITIZENRY?

Alot of what you are talking about is pure "theorycraft". It all depends on how armed the civilian population is. Obviously if every single person has a firearm but all of the firearms are flintlocks they arent going to be very effectual against a modern military. However, if they have availability to high end modern day firearms (such as Americans do e.g. FN SCAR, ar 15's, r700's, or any other semi or fully automatic highcapacity firearm or highpowered hunting rifles) they will present a significant threat to any military force.


I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

MajkiFajki 10-26-2010 04:04 PM

Thank you for response.

My adversary used argument, that armed society is defenseless against military invasion. In my opinion, You can beat the army, sure. But still You have to occupy cities, roads, etc. And getting killed by civilian any time (including pee-time around the corner) can be very demotivating.


Does any of US Military Officials said something about that? Somebody who has been in many military missions? I'm looking for the sources. For me, not having a right to have firearm is equal to fascism. When I argue about weapons, this was the only argument, I could not deal with - the argument that created this topic:)

kenhesr 10-26-2010 04:27 PM

Hi Maj, You might try the NRA website. They have some news & video you might find useful.

NRA News

We in the US have it in our constitution, (2nd amendment) that we have the right to keep & bear arms. The people who started this country thought it was important enough to spell it out in the start-up manual for our country.

Originally they gave us the right to have weapons, not so much for hunting or sport, but more to protect the peoples rights FROM OUR Government.

Your friends are probably right, a head-on confrontation of civilians against an army wouldn't last too long, except in places like Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. But thats not what its about in the USA. Just by having an armed populace, our forefathers thought it would help keep our government leaders in line and respect the rights of the people.

If you really want to understand more, read some of Thomas Jefferson's quotes and a few of our other founding fathers. It seems complicated, but its really not, just remember, we have the RIGHT to own weapons over here.

Thomas Jefferson Quotes

Welcome to the forum. Ken

MajkiFajki 10-26-2010 05:56 PM

@kenhesr
I absolutely agree with TJ, read a lot about history of US and I truly respect America's classic liberal heritage. Shame on Europe, that we fell into hell we live still.

What I'm after - is reliable sources, that armed society can seriously slow down enemy invasion.

dunerunner 10-26-2010 06:16 PM

What a civilian militia can do is slow down an invading force, freeing-up trained, better armed regular Military to engage on another flank. An invading force cannot advance, leaving a potential sniper force or organized militia behind to disrupt its operations and supply lines.

If you are talking about a government over-running its populace with tanks and military, all I can say is; I hope this never happens in the USA!

kenhesr 10-26-2010 06:30 PM

How about this quote from WWII - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” - He had the right idea!

robocop10mm 10-26-2010 06:58 PM

Does the Warsau ghetto uprising sound familiar? A small band of armed people were able to hold off the German Army for quite a while. A larger force would have fared much better. Similar such forces across Europe would have given Hitler such fits they would not have been able to take as much land as they did.

Napoleon had a terrible time with the guerillas in Spain they nearly ended the Spanish campaign over it.

It is not that an armed citizen could defeat a standing army. The armed citizens stand together as a roadblock to tyranny. One could not expect every American service person to actively engage US citizens in battle. Those that would do so would have a difficult mission in defeating an indigenous guerilla force, much like the Viet Cong were impossible to completely overcome.

IMHO, the USA would be far too costly to invade unless the politicians succeed in disarming the populace.

MajkiFajki 10-26-2010 07:03 PM

In short words.
Statement, that "armed civilians are useless in direct combat with regular military" is wrong.
Because armed civilians don't fight that way, they go guerrilla instead, right?

orangello 10-26-2010 07:05 PM

Siege of Leningrad used some civilians: Siege of Leningrad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:27 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.