From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:20:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com


benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:

>Well, the thing is you see, guns will -never- help you against a
>government. The day there is a coup d'etat in the US (which will have
>the support of the army, because it needs it),

>n ** you will look rather silly waving you little colt at a BIG TANK !!**

>The US has the biggest (and best of course...) military in the world.
>A few (even a few milion) hunting rifles will do NOTHING against it.

 Is anybody else sick of hearing this same bogus argument 5 times
 a month.  Someone should mail these people a history book!  When
 will they get a clue.

 1) No, guns won't work against tanks. But a firebomb will. And
    once the crew abandons the tank, guns will work against them.
    Tanks and APs are easy targets for urban ambush types of
    attacks. You want to ban gas, commercial explosives, soap.
    (Hint mix gas and soap and you have a nasty stick flamable
    substance). There are also ALOT of people out there who
    know how to make explosives from scratch, using relatively
    uncontrolled chemicals. (going to ban these also?) I'm sure
    my brother-inlaw with his PhD in chemistry could come up
    with all sorts of nasty things, including chemical warfare
    types of weapons. Kind of hard to be mobile when you have
    to wear NBC gear all the time.

 2) Tanks are not good for controlling a population. To do that
    you need troops.  Tanks are good for supporting troops, but
    thats about it.  5+ guys with scoped rifles could take out
    a group of soldiers and be gone before the tank crew could 
    even respond. BTW: Tank crews don't live in their tanks.
    Even they have to get out sometime!

 3) You shoot guys in a supply truck. Steal the contents of the
    truck, and gain access to other bigger weapons such as
    shoulder launched anti-tank weapons, explosives, ammo. . .

 4) Some % of the army/NG will defect and bring their weapons
    with them, including perhaps tanks. (remember Russia?) And
    anti-aircraft weapons.

 5) Officers and Generals don't ride around in tanks and are
    easier targets.

 6) Even at a 10:1 loss rate in their favor, they would need ~5 
    million or MORE troops to breakeven.

 7) Sniper and ambush attacks can wear down a army. After seeing
    1-2 of your buddys die every day for months, you start
    to question what your doing, and when will it be your turn
    to catch a bullet.

 8) How are all of the 1,000s of troops we have stationed world
    wide going to react? What about the Navy? All it would take
    is for 1 sub commander who doesn't agree with the New Governments'
    policies, to use 1-2 of his 20 Nukes on board to wipe out DC.
    A long shot, yes. But not something that can be disregarded
    off hand. Even more likely is for the crew of one ship to 
    "disagree" and take control of the ship. Even some surface vessels
    carry Nuclear cruise missles. (Although the millitary is in
    the process of removing nukes from most surface vessels. Wonder
    why?)

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

------------------------------------------------------
Demand Zero Tolerance Laws:
Impeach any elected official who abuses their power
and violates the Bill of Rights, or oath of office!
------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns