From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:20:20 GMT

davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten) writes:

>>you realize, of course, that every place such restrictions have been
>>put into place they've failed miserably.
>Like?

	Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Killeen, Beruit,
all of Northern Ireland, Seattle...  Shall we go on?  The basic premise
is that those willing to misuse weapons don't tend to be stopped by a
law, whereas responsible people tend to obey the law.

>Get real!  Do you honestly think you'd be able to get NEAR enough
>to anybody of any importance to shoot them?  Forget it!

	You're right, of course.  Beruit shows that you need a pickup
and some dynamite, not a 9mm pistol.  However, you'll have a lot of
lever-action .30-30's out there, so I wouldn't go outside too often
unless you control a 1-mile radius of the countryside.  Even Hitler
had a bomb go off in his bunker, and you can bet he had better
security than any common soldier or general is going to find trying
to secure an area that is populated.

>Again, the military has much better technology than you could ever
>come up with.  They could pick people off in the middle of the night
>and you'd never know what happened.  They HAVE secure communications,
>you don't.  They have intelligence forces that could figure out 
>who's doing what, and they have the special attack forces to take
>out every one of them.

	Precisely why the Beruit bombing is a clever hoax, right?  How
about Israel's problem with the Infantada?  Surely their military is
up to ours with regards to technology, and I've never heard the Mossad
being referred to as anything but excellent.

>>computers. modems. faxes. encryption programs. the kinds of things
>>the government is already trying to control. "for our own good", of
>>course.

>Not "trying."  They DO control them.  Wiretaps are easy for the 
>government.  And in the case of a civil war, they wouldn't bother
>with warrants.  Encryption programs are a joke to the military.

	Translate this: "Mom is doing fine."  Compare that to, "Mom
has the flu, but thinks she'll be fine by friday."  Granted, you would
need to meet and establish what each of these phrases means in advance,
but the French underground seemed to understand such phrases in World
War II, and as you know the Germans were very good at stifling
communications.  The more the government cracks down on comm. to keep
a few rebels down, the more the population will side with the rebels.

>You don't actually think they'd be nice
>and LET you send encrypted messages, do you?  How dumb are you?

	How would they stop you?  Censor all the mail?  Tap every
phone comversation?  They don't have the resources to do this, and as
events in Iraq showed the intelligence forces are already hard-pressed
to keep up with world events, let alone tossing in a domestic rebellion.

>>Viet Nam anyone?

>A) Our technology has increased since then.  B) As I said earlier
>in this post, they can cut off every means of communication you
>have.  You seem to have forgotten that they control the country,
>and you're a band of rebels.

	They control what?  Do you forget the West Bank, Northern Ireland,
Serbia, and Vietnam where governments control the country, but the rebels
get (some) public support?  That public support is important in any
rebellion, and it is the deciding factor.  Toss in all the A-10's and
M1A's you want, but unless the government wants to start shooting at
everybody and anybody, they can't stop a popular rebellion.  The number
of people making a popular rebellion is, of course, open to speculation.

>Stalin, anybody?  History proves you wrong.  Stalin killed thousands
>of people, and nobody even noticed.  He took over the farms and
>put in his own people.  It worked quite well.   And once again,
>a "whole neighborhood" of ak-wielders is going to get demolished.

	And you'll kindly note Stalin had a good war to remove some
attention, no press, little communications infrastructure, and a host
of secret police to help enforce his wishes.  People noticed, of
course, but could do nothing about it.  It took a few years, but is
there any doubt that the populace was willing to revolt?  They siezed
the opportunity in that failed coup attempt, and since then haven't
even stopped to look back.

>What was that college that got fired on in the 60's?  Open firing
>on a whole group of people is not something the US govt. has a big
>problem with.

	You seem to forget the uproar that caused, not to mention the
uproar over the 1967 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and
the Vietnam war protests.  There wasn't enough in each to call for a
revolution, but various groups did form that openly retaliated.  Do
the names "Minutemen," and "Weather Underground" rings any bells?
They weren't popularly supported, but the revolution did start if
their actions are taken into account.  Current actions on the part
of major police forces might have similar groups starting again, and
should the military get involved you can bet organized resistance
will be forthcoming.  Last I heard, only a few members of either of
these groups were even arrested, and one former Black Panther is now
an Alderman in Chicago!  While the Black Panthers were less militant,
you'll note things have changed since then with respect to the
government crackdowns you seem to think will happen.  That they have
not indicates the government knows it cannot be done.

>On the contrary.  Then you have more people in the military than you
>have regular citizens.

	I think the point was that you could not guarentee loyalty of
the troops as the dichotomy between citizen and soldier would not be
as great.  China had to bus in the troops used in Tianneman Square
because they couldn't rely on local troops to do the job.

>Yeah, they're civil, we're barbarians.  I'd rather have mortar attacks
>on the White House (which is pretty damn unlikely to happen just
>because we illegalize guns) than to have 20,000 people/year get killed
>by guns.  The White House could be reinforced to withstand it.  The
>Common Man can't afford or acquire heavy-duty body armour.

	And he also can't depend on the cops to protect him, as that
20,000 dead each year shows.  This is nothing compared to the carnage
on the highways, yet we have highway patrol forces in abundance.  Do
you see where laws are not going to change the status quo with regards
to death and violence yet?

>It always depresses me to find that people are actually so 
>self-deceived as to think they could overcome something as formidable
>as the US Military.  Isn't it more productive to try to work WITH
>the government?

	This is the first step.  When such actions are impossible,
as in the case of a dictatorship and no elections, then what?

>  I mean, if the government got THAT out of hand,
>you can believe that I'd be one of the first to die trying to fight
>it, but I sure wouldn't expect to win.  I'd be fighting simply as a
>matter of principle.

	Expect many National Guard and regular Army forces on your
side.  The principle is what must be upheld -- given a show of
force and resolve, few dictatorships have stayed in power and none
were capable of doing so without serious military forces and outside
backing.  I don't see our government has having these.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns