- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
It is relevant. Small arms have pushed back and nearly defeated a larger more powerful force many times in history. Ours included.
That's not accurate. Cannons are hardly "small arms" neither are the French ships of the line that did battle with the British on our behalf. Remember that we lost most of the rifle based battles. What we did do was grind down the British to the point where the expenditures and loss of life wasn't worth their time anymore and they saw bigger threats coming up on the horizon. The amount of British forces we actually fought were a tiny portion of the total British military at the time. Ultimately, the revolutionary war was just a blimp of the conflicts the Crown was getting into and foresaw at the time. To say small arms defeated the British is very ignorant of the actual conflict and what was happening on the European continent.
Remember that Revolution we had? Beat back the British, twice.
We also lost battle after battle after battle. The introduction of the French navy hardly constitutes "small arms" nor were the massive war materials including cannons they sent us "small arms."
Even the South was not soundly defeated in the civil war.
That depends how you define "soundly." There were small pockets of rebellion, but the South's military infrastructure was destroyed. Sherman is still hated down there by some. The southern militias who refused to accept the end of the war posed no threat to the country nor were they ever able to restart the war.
And its more than just guns that can be brought to bear against the US military, its also thousands of vets that will bring years if not decades of experience with them on top of defectors that will not fire on their countrymen.
It's still funny how you grasp to insane beliefs that the US military will actually fire on its own civilians. What world do you live in?
Seriously, you've lost this argument soundly. Every point you bring up I show I have vastly superior knowledge.
The first amendment is still the most important. Information is power. The pen is mightier than the sword. Without communication, spreading ideas and overall freedom of speech, a militant is limited to acts of terrorism. To overthrow a regime, you need way more than acts of terrorism. Again, why do you think the Arab regimes quickly cut internet and telecom access during the Arab Spring? Because information is power. Why do you think North Korea limits information to its people so dramatically? Because information is power. Why do you think that Putin is actively trying to curtail free speech? Because information is power. The freedom of speech and thus ideas is absolutely fundamental to a free society. Without it, none of our other amendments actually matter.