Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?

Stalin said:

>> Yes indeed. But the British had their skirmishers too. Rogers' Rangers
>> springs to mind, as do all those groups (for want of a better word) of
>> native Americans who sided with the British, as most of them did. And
the
>> native Americans were the absolute masters of irregular,
guerilla-style
>> warfare in late-18thC North America.

>Earlier you said that guerilla warfare was useless - until it was
>pointed out that it was not.

Perhaps my memory is failing, but I don't recall saying anything of the
sort. What I DID say (and still stand by) is that when guerillas win a
war, the result is without exception a dictatorship.

>> It's all very well to snipe at an enemy formation, but if the opposing
>> army has snipers and skirmishers of their own (and the British most
>> certainly did)

>Cite, please.

http://www.acidus.com/rogers.html

http://www.americanrevolution.org/ind1.html

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_035000_scouts.htm

Want some more?

>> No, but French advisers played a large role in training the
Continental
>> Army. Anyone who is familiar with how an army is created, as it were
from
>> scratch, will tell you that one proficient and experienced sergeant is
>> worth a hundred untrained, untested men. The French, having fought a
dozen
>> wars in Europe, North America and India in the years before 1776, had
a
>> veritable treasure-trove of hard-bitten NCOs to offer the Americans.

>Your earlier contention was that the French army won the war for the
>colonials.

That's the trouble with this thick Irish brain of mine. I'm forever
writing stuff down that I neither recall having written, nor can I find it
when I go searching back for it ;-)

>> Were these rough-and-ready, self-armed militiamen who hacked out a
free
>> life for themselves in the most volatile part of 18thC Europe
advocates
of
>> human freedom generally? No, they were not. Like the Cossacks of
Russia,
>> they made a deal with their rulers: they were treated with kid gloves
by
>> the Emperor - their liberties were respected - and in return they
supplied
>> muscle and expertise for the Emperor's armies.
>
>> Draw your own conclusions from that.

>Uh-huh. Guns were needed to earn that respect, weren't they?

Of course they were. But the original point was that an armed,
self-regulated militia is not necessarily a friend of freedom. The units
that defended the Austrian Military Frontier were actually used in 1848 to
crush an anti-monarchist, liberal revolution, as the Czars used the
cossacks throughout the late 19thC.

>Make up your mind, troll-boy.

Oh dear. Once again, personal attacks are used as a substitute for
intelligent debate. Very impressive.

>Guns are needed to earn and keep freedom,
>aren't they? If the American colonials had not had guns, the U.S. would

>still be a Brit colony, just as Canada and Australia are today.

First of all, you can make all the sweeping statements you want, but
unless you can back them up factually, there's just so much rhetpric.

Secondly, I'd bet there are a few people in Australia and Canada (not to
mention Britain) who would be quite surprised to find out that Britain
still rules these two countries.

>> Who decides that society has the "right of revolution"? I rather
suspect
>> that a self-serving oligarchy or a police state would ever take such a
>> position, but who actually does, and how is that point of view somehow
>> legitimized?

>Ever read the Declaration of Independence? How about the Preamble to
>the Constitution?

Yes. But just because something is written in the DOI or the Constitution,
does that automatically mean it's some sort of natural, eternal law? If so,
then it was "right" in 1925 to deny someone of the right to sell beer, and
then in 1935 it was "wrong" to do so.

So much for unchanging, "natural rights", at least as far as any legal
documents are concerned.

>It is "We, The People..." who legitimize that point of view.

And what, exactly, is meant by "We, the People"? Would you be so kind as
to define the term?

>>>You may disagree with the theory, but the US is still here, as a living

>>>example of guns = freedom. There was a second American revolution, in

>>>1861-1865, which was not successful, although it too claimed the right

>>>of secession, and the right of revolution.
>
>
>> Once again, where does the "right of revolution" come from?

>"We, The People..."

Once again, specify what you mean by that.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An odd market gap in days past?
    ... of the high sea any afternoon it took a mind to seriously try - and ... still be home in time for tea. ... Navy -- the Americans did much better than expected. ... The British had numbers and firepower and experience, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Be positive but
    ... Irish Republican slogan from the 70s: "if you've got half a mind to ... join the British Army... ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.quilting)
  • Re: Fax problem
    ... > Why hasn't it crossed your mind why we Americans are so much smarter ... > than the British? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax)
  • British and American collusion in the pillaging of Iraqs heritage is a scandal that will outlive any
    ... When the head of Iraq's supposedly sovereign board of antiquities and heritage, Abbas al-Hussaini, tried to inspect the site recently, the Americans refused him access to his own most important monument. ... Yesterday Hussaini reported to the British Museum on his struggles to protect his work in a state of anarchy. ... The tragic fate of the national museum in Baghdad in April 2003 was as if federal troops had invaded New York city, sacked the police and told the criminal community that the Metropolitan was at their disposal. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • British and American collusion in the pillaging of Iraqs heritage is a scandal that will outlive any
    ... When the head of Iraq's supposedly sovereign board of antiquities and heritage, Abbas al-Hussaini, tried to inspect the site recently, the Americans refused him access to his own most important monument. ... Yesterday Hussaini reported to the British Museum on his struggles to protect his work in a state of anarchy. ... The tragic fate of the national museum in Baghdad in April 2003 was as if federal troops had invaded New York city, sacked the police and told the criminal community that the Metropolitan was at their disposal. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)