Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!rutgers!husc6!necntc!adelie!infinet!rhorn From: rhorn@infinet.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Rational response - part 1 Message-ID: <1006@infinet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 31-Oct-87 18:34:10 EST Article-I.D.: infinet.1006 Posted: Sat Oct 31 18:34:10 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Nov-87 00:56:15 EST Reply-To: rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) Organization: Infinet, Inc. North Andover, MA Lines: 103 This is the first in a series of ``rational'' responses to the various issues raised in support of gun control. They will dribble out as time permits. First, the claim was made (paraphrasing somewhat): > Current technology makes the notion of an armed citizen defense > obsolete. I disagree, and I suggest that you look at the experiences of Israel and Switzerland before calling their military forces obsolete. True, an armed citizenry will not stop a nuclear warhead. But there are a great many military dangers that an armed citizenry will protect against. In colonial times the militia were the primary military force. The following summary is from Massachusetts colonial law, but is typical of all the colonies. There were three categories of militia: the militia, which corresponded to all males between the ages of sixteen and sixty; the active militia, those members of the militia that were properly equiped, had some training (maybe), and were willing to serve when asked; the serving militia, those members of the active milita who were actually in arms and under military command. In writing about the militia the adjectives were generally ommitted because it was obvious from the context which category was meant. Every town was required to have no less than one third of their adult male population as members of the active militia. They were to be ready to serve on a minutes notice, hence ``minutemen''. This was not simple posturing. There were various alarms during 1776 and these demonstrated that at least a third of the men actually turned out within a day. Each man was responsible for providing his own weaponry (musket, rifle, pistol, sword, etc.) while the towns provided ammunition and some specialized equipment. The men generally provided a little of their own ready ammunition because it took time to get to the armories. This allowed them to handle skirmishes and raids immediately. The huge amounts of ammunition needed for major battles and campaigns would be provided by towns or other governments. The direct analogy for current technology would be for the levy to apply to both sexes (I hope we are less sexist) and to use current weaponry. That would mean assault rifles, pistols, light machine guns, body armor, grenades, and ready ammunition provided by the citizens. More ammunition, anti-tank and anti-air individual missiles, mortars, and special tools provided by the town. In colonial times transport and communication were feet and voices. Today, cars, pickup trucks, and portable radios are well within the means of the public and towns. How does such a force rate militarily? It is very similar to the landing forces of the U.S. Marines at Guadalcanal or the British Marines in the Falklands. It is light infantry. The military experience with most light infantries is that they are a significant military unit. They can be defeated by combined arms forces with armor, artillery, and air support, but the attacker will face real resistance. If the light infantry gets some armor, artillery and air support of their own, they can defeat a combined arms attack. This is the Swiss model. If they get a lot of support, they become a combined arms force. This is the Israeli model. A militia will not match marines in combat primarily because they tend to be poorly trained, out of practice and out of shape. On the other hand, when defending their own homes they are just as highly motivated. Militias are also a poor choice for projecting force and supporting allies. It is easy to get them out to defend their homes. It is hard to motivate them to go help some ``damn furriners''. With the current mortar and missile technologies, it is very easy to disperse supporting weaponry quite widely around town. Town buildings, police stations, fire stations, and guarded depots are sufficiently scattered to prevent an attacker from seizing these weapons. So even an armored force will be facing motivated defenders who know the territory well and who have weapons that can destroy everything up to and including tanks. The attacker can employ chemical weapons (and will if following Soviet standard practices) but protective gear can be included with the other special weapons. They can employ nuclear weapons, but this would mean destroying every city and town so what is the point of attacking except as a suicidal counter attack. The U.S. has had a half-hearted support for the militia concept since WW II. The National Guard could act as the supporting forces for a militia. But for various political and social reasons the militia approach has not had real support. I believe that two of the major reasons for this are 1) we have not faced a realistic outside invasion threat since 1812, and 2) our military strategy has been to fight overseas rather than at home. An overseas strategy must base itself on the use of regular army and navy because militias perform very poorly in this role. The above is not in itself reason for or against gun control. It does describe some of the environment of the writers of the Constitution, and I believe it does answer the argument that technology has made the militia concept obsolete. Gee, I just realized this is alt.flame. Are rational arguments allowed? -- Rob Horn UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA (Note: harvard!infinet path is in maps but not working yet)