Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Well, I think this argument works against gun control. Guns were the major military armament in the late 1700s. Now they're eclipsed by bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, artillery, tanks, etc. So in terms of their comparative power, guns are much less formidable in today's world of force. They're hardly even a credible means of resisting a government like ours (on an individual basis).
I'm not saying this is my thought, I'm just following your point through...
|
You are pretty much right about firearms of that period. Yes, I'm sure an enthusiast can point out numerous technical improvements made, but in essence, if a militia formed of soldiers with weapons from 1725 were to face off against one with weapons from 1825, the weapons would be one of the more minor factors when figuring out which force would win the battle.
I think more to the point though is to discuss the nature of military forces of the period. There wan't a whole lot of difference between a professional standing army force and a raised militia force when it came to military formations of the period. The pros had an edge in training, discipline, and perhaps better understanding amongst the officers of military tactics, but they were both based on ranks of rifle-armed infantry.
The same can not be said today. Modern professional armies are highly technical with powerful weapon systems that require entire infrastructures to support and deploy, and which have fundamentally altered the nature of the battlefield. Raised militia armed with personal weapons are incapable of even meeting modern professional armies in battle, much less prevailing. Instead, they must fight their own style of war, hence the insurgencies and guerilla wars we've seen in recent times.
In the past, at least the militia could stand opposed to a professional force. They would still have the disadvantages as noted above, but may well be able to overcome them by gaining other advantages (numbers, terrain, leadership, morale, etc.) At least the balance of battle could be measured on the same scale. Today, there is no direct comparison of any value. It all comes down to what kind of war is fought.
Resistance by arms on an individual basis has never been a credible means of resisting a government, it always has required organization of a people to form credible armed resistance. But you are right, firearms alone do not give us the power to form such organization. We must have heavier arms to be able to do so. Thus, call me crazy, but I think tanks and howitzers and such should be permitted within reasonable regulation for the equipment of well-regulated militia in the interest of the defense of the free state.