HB of CJ wrote:...
Your opinion regarding armed civil poulations today vs high teck military weapons has merit. The solution would be to arm the civil population equally to that of the military.
But ... history has shown that when it comes down to it, 3.5 million solders would not stand a chance against 80 million armed civil people. Civil meaning responsible law abiding citizens.
Law abiding because here in the USA the every US citizen has a moral ethical and social responsibility to rise up against a very bad goverment. This happened in 1775. The American Revolution.
Respectfully. HB of CJ (oldest coot)
3.5 million soldiers?
Divide by one hundred and you´re closer to the truth.
British soldier numbers in ALL of North America during the war varies between 22k and 42k, and that includes mercenaries, especially hired from German lords. Add a total of around 19k loyalists and 13k allied natives.
Total losses probably not over 10k for all.
Rebels, total militia numbers, around 250k, maybe as high as slightly above 300k. Of which around 25-45k constantly acting as part of armies.
12k French soldiers.
Probably at least around 30k natives.
Various volunteers, mostly unknown as few were registered in any way, except in cases like von Steuben, whose contribution probably more than halved rebel noncombat losses, not to mention providing actual soldier training.
Losses for rebels, somewhere in the 50-80k range, almost 23k war widows were recognised afterwards, setting a very firm absolut minimum ( as most militiamen were not married ).
French losses, 10k, natives probably at least above 10k.
Volunteer loss estimates varies wildly from dozens to several thousands, reality could be anywhere within that range, or even higher.
20k has been suggested as the absolute upper limit.
And this 10-1 losses disadvantage despite 7-1 numbers advantage, came about from a war the British didn´t actually care much about most of the time.
And this in a time when weapons were relatively equal between military and civillians.
If the British had reacted quickly, revolution dies before it can start.
If the British had taken the situation seriously, and truly fought for it, revolution gets squished underfoot.
von Steuben doesn´t arrive? Rebel troops remains mostly incompetent with camp discipline so astoundingly poor that even bands of robbers would be embarassed by it. This alone might double losses without anyone firing a single bullet extra.
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs ... nAppA.htmlNo French assistance? Rebel access to weapons, especially heavy weapons become laughable and means they keep fighting like rabble rather than anything armylike, revolution dies out once British army has trashed enough militia gatherings.
Without loans from France, Netherlands and Spain, the rebels would have bankrupted themselves before 2 years had passed.
Remove just the money gifts from private Frenchmen and the rebels have trouble paying for anything.
The rebel solution was to print money and say hello to hyperinflation which almost let the British win the war just by letting it continue.
Which led to various variations on the theme of something having a "worth like a continental(dollar)", ie worthless.
I might respectfully suggest that millions of people world wide over a great period of time are very dead because when all else fails, all power comes out of a muzzle of a gun.
Well since you want that to continue, that places you as an anarchist, not a democrat, republican or whatever.
Of course, as usual you do not think that thought to its conclusion.
There´s always someone ELSE who disagrees with you and ALSO has a gun.
It´s amazing how shortsighted and unthinking your kind of argumentation tend towards.
The day you and 10 neighbours try to rebel against the government for being so wicked, will you kill the 30 neighbours who just looks at you as if you´re madness incarnate?
Will you kill the other 60 neighbours who supports the government or supports rule of law and calls the police?
If you don´t, you have already lost the battle.
If you do, you´re just murderers, and there´s a fair risk that you have lost yourself any chance of public support, as you become just one more crazy idiot with a gun going on a shooting spree before getting killed by the
police.
No wonder the US gunnuts can´t vote through a decent gun law to their liking when they can´t even step outside their dreamworld and look at the fact that
Actions have Consequences.
Wishful thinking does NOT work if you want to face off against a government.
The infrastructure for voting was at the beginning well and good. Now a days, too many non deserving people vote here in the USA. Way too many.
Stupid elitists. Always believe that THEY are more worthy.
Have you even considered the FACT, that if you managed to implement any kind of OBJECTIVE way to determine if people could vote, chances are fairly decent that you might be judged as "non deserving". Not because you are specifically bad or anything, but because almost any objective limits can apply to most people, some way. And then of course, with your rabid political arena, it would end up a pre-election battlefield of the most disgusting kind.
Voting for the correct reasons is a thing of the past.
Except for you and those who agree with you, obviously...
Way too many. Citizenship must be earned, not freely given.
Because we all know how well that has worked before.
Now people vote here in the USA because they like the color of the candidates hair or his smile.
Like you do then?
You seriously need to realise that most people actually have an opinion based on some sort of logic.
Devaluing your political oppositions ability of coherent thought only shows you as horribly narrowminded. And that´s the nice description.
Not every voter pays into the system. I bet less than half do today. Reverts back to the notion of only tax paying citizens who have served their nation should have the right to vote. Yep. That it the way it used to be. Be nice to return to it.
No, it´s actually quite disgusting and exceptionally stupid. But i guess you wont understand why.
In a way it´s really wonderfully fun to see a yankee proclaim that he wants to create a new system of nobility rule.
It´s also really sad that USA has far more stratification on a social standing basis, than most of Europe, when getting away from such was one of the reasons why many emigrated to USA.
