The †roll Cave ®™

When did i say that? Have you never heard of guerrilla warfare? They wouldn’t engage them directly.

No they really weren’t that organized. And lets drop the whole France helped a lot bullshit. France made false promises and only offered us aid after we started wining major battles on our own. France didn’t even send troops till the last fucking battle of the war Yorktown.

1 family was able to hide a Jewish community in the woods of over 1000 people while harrsing the Germans. I’d say they were pretty damn effective. Take away guns and they wouldn’t have had a chance.

And why was that? Was it because their conventional force was too strong? Hell no we kicked the shit out them. It was the Viet cong who did the real damage. They didn’t fight us head on until the Tet offensive and they lost when they did that.

Guerrilla warfare can bring down the most powerful military.

Yes butcher un armed people that were un able to put up a fight.

Hmm colonists had less guns than the British. Those jews in the article i linked had less guns than the German occupiers. The Mexican Catholic army was fighting machine guns and air planes along with advanced artillery in the early 1900s yet they still defeated the Mexican army. The Viet Cong were out gunned yet they tired us out and we left.

They were fighting them conventionally.

No it wasn’t at all. It was some liberal faggot who thinks hes smart. Nothing historically accurate about it.Trying to say militias weren’t the back bone of the revolution HAHAH.

Just a few good quotes on men who had to use guns to overthrow their oppressive British rulers. But according to @TheDivineInfidel they weren’t really successful because its impossible to over throw your government.

““The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.””

  • T Jefferson

“The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

  • Alexander Hamilton

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

  • Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

  • George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

Heres a good article on “worthless militia”

Ohh right so you mean like the Warsaw uprising ?
Yea how did that one go ? Yea they all go slaughtered .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3880, topic:21032”]
Yes butcher un armed people that were un able to put up a fight.
[/quote]indeee they would line your family up and shoot them one by one , how’s your nerve when they have your mum and 12 year old sister on their knees in front of a body pit ?
Could say it would make you fight harder and I wouldn’t disagree but for many of the other men it would make them second think picking up the gun

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3880, topic:21032”]
Hmm colonists had less guns than the British. Those jews in the article i linked had less guns than the German occupiers. The Mexican Catholic army was fighting machine guns and air planes along with advanced artillery in the early 1900s yet they still defeated the Mexican army. The Viet Cong were out gunned yet they tired us out and we left.
[/quote] but you had the support of the people didn’t you so your making my point right with every comment you make .
My point in all of this is that the side with the support of the people wins and every example you have put to me was an example of this and proves I’m right .

Cute a bunch of old men with guns on a roof . A military unit would wipe them off that roof in about a minute .

One bloke ain’t even holding his weapon more interested in smoking.

As for your other cute quotes . I’ll say it again you had popular support therefore you won

Ohhh and they were all terrorists .

The definition of terrorist which you miss quoted earlier .

Terrorism
noun
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Like I said all a bunch of terrorist murderous scum :slight_smile:

How to make an American rage in 3 easy steps
-Russia
-gun control
-American revolution
:wink:

@TheDivineInfidel

Six million Jews were murdered by the Germans. You are saying it is good that they were not armed, because armed resistance might be bad for them.

This is a new low even for you.

1 Like

No ,no if all 6 million picked up arms at once they could deal damage with the support of allies . That’s a given.

But let’s deal with Germany .

500,000 Jews let’s say 250,000 are males and in a position to actually fight . Added with some Germans sympathetic to the Jews let’s call it 400, 000 active people armed and ready to fight

Agasinst millions of men and tanks and planes and ships from at the time the most advanced military on the planet .

Now as we are aware the Germans were very quick and efficant at rounding up the Jews .
What I am saying is there is very little hope of the Jews being in a position to organise a proper gurilla battle . By the time they did many of the Jews would of be captured or shot because at first it would simply be a small group of local men trying to save their families nothing special and 8/10 times would of resulting in them and their families shot .

Now let’s say being generous 250,000 armed rebels manage to organise , logistics , communications and a plan of conducting guurilla warfare .

On the out set that looks like a decent force . But let’s use the Warsaw uprising as an example .

Estimates are that 20-49,000 armed resistors took up arms in an organised attack on the Germans . Using the sewer system they conducted guerrilla warfare with the Germans .

As you may or may not have know the german generals response was - for every one german killed they would kill 50 civilians .

The result of this was 69 days of battle .
Polish resistance:
10,000 KIA
5,200–6,000 MIA
5,000 WIA
15,000 POW

And 150-200,000 civilians excuted
For around 9,000 dead Germans
So now let’s compare to our numbers of
250,000 armed fighters let’s keep it simple and times by 5 them figures

750,000 dead civilians

75,000 dead or missing fighters
75,000 captured
granted them numbers could be a lot better or a lot worse .
But going by them numbers you can’t possibly say them 250,000 had a good effect ?

IF however

The 250,000 rose up as well as an outside miltary engaging in conventional warfare with the Germans that 250,000 would be VITAL to the war effort and be extremely useful to the outside force .
had the russians attacked the city as they were meant to during the warsaw uprising i have no doubt it would of been successful

Which comes back to my point of the side with the support of the people and outside world will always win .

For a guurilla warfare style fight to win a total victory it has to be supported by a convential force other wise there is no end game and the superior force can simply pluck away at it for years

My point isn’t that a gun is useless totally my point is simply picking up a gun agaisnt a leader that has the support of the entire nation is pointless because you won’t achieve much .

Picking up a gun when you have the support from an outside nation or from
The large majority is of course the right thing to do . But in cases like these the army splits and weapons become available irrelevent of the gun laws of that said nation .

So this whole thing of gun control leads to dictatorship is wrong it doesn’t

@snejdarek @SirWarriant

watch the video in this article .

what do you think ? i dont see anything he did that is over the top . the girl wouldnt comply so he had to wrestle her about so he could get her in a position to cuff her . he was surrendered by a large group he draws his gun to make them back off , ok could argue he should of drew a taser but thats about it .

can see this being another "RACIST COPS ! " flare up and hundreds of innocent people getting robbed in the name of racial equality

just like to pick this comment up i missed it .

i suggest you do a little more research .

fun fact for you

90% of the gun powder used by the colonists was from the french …

right so how was you planning on fighting without that precious gun powder ?

ohhh and also another fact over looked by you is the fact the British ships tasked with kicking America’s ass had to survive 12 rounds with the French navy before they could even think of crossing the Atlantic. France gleefully fought the British, eventually teaming up with Spain, declaring a war, attacking from all sides, and even setting up an invasion force

France began providing arms and ammunition as early as 1776 . In early 1777, months before Saratoga, the French sent American colonists 25,000 uniforms and pairs of boots, hundreds of cannons, and thousands of muskets – all stuff that the colonists would’ve had a hard time surviving without, and all stuff they had no access to on their own.

as for beating our entire army like you Americans like to say
When war broke out, the Colonies boasted a population of 2.5 million. Even with just a third of them actively supporting the revolution, and just, say, a quarter of them able-bodied men, the British still had a hell of a crowd to contend with … especially when you consider the fact that just 40,000 British soldiers were expected to subdue them. That’s 40,000 soldiers facing 2.5 million people, spread out over thousands of miles, each of them a potential enemy until proven otherwise.

Colonists never, ever faced the fearsome British army of the late empire. For the most part, the field armies tasked with suppressing the rebellion were softened units that hadn’t seen combat in a decade. As for asking for backup, no matter how belated: There was none to send. In 1776, the total manpower of British military might reached 96,000. That was their entire worldwide strength. With these men, the British were fighting the terrorists , while holding Caribbean possessions, while manning their stations at Gibraltar and Minorca, and Ireland, and Gold Coast territories … and defending England itself.

In all the French spent 1.3 billion livres to support the Americans directly, in addition to the money it spent fighting Britain on land and sea outside the U.S.

but go on please tell me how little involvement the French had. because they seemed to be more involved than the russians are in eastern Ukraine and you seem to put all their success down to the russians (correctly )

now for the Spanish involvement . as i know how much you vision is simply limted to what was happing in the US you dont like to look at the global support you was getting and the global pressure put on the UK at the time in a war invloving .

France
Spain
Netherlands
Austria (diplomatically )
the US
VS
the British empire

siege of Gibraltar

In 1780 and 1781, Luis de Córdova y Córdova’s fleet captured great America bound British convoys, doing much damage to British military supplies and commerce.

The siege of Gibraltar, June 16, 1779 to February 7, 1783, was the longest lasting Spanish action in the war. Despite the larger size of the besieging Franco-Spanish army, at one point numbering 33,000, the British under George Augustus Elliott were able to hold out in the fortress and were resupplied by sea three times. Luis de Córdova y Córdova was unable to prevent Howe’s fleet returning home after resupplying Gibraltar in October 1782.[7]

The combined Franco-Spanish invasion of Minorca in 1781 met with more success; Minorca surrendered the following year, and was restored to Spain after the war, nearly eighty years after it was first captured by the British

York town
The Spanish also assisted in the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, the critical and final major battle of the War. French General Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau, commanding his country’s forces in North America, sent a desperate appeal to François Joseph Paul de Grasse, the French admiral designated to assist the Colonists, asking him to raise money in the Caribbean to fund the campaign at Yorktown. With the assistance of Spanish agent Francisco Saavedra de Sangronis, the needed cash, over 500,000 in silver pesos, was raised in Havana, Cuba within 24 hours. This money was used to purchase critical supplies for the siege, and to fund payroll for the Continental Army

West Indies and Gulf Coast

Spanish forces overran the British lines during the climactic Battle of Pensacola (1781).
In the Caribbean, the main effort was directed to prevent possible British landings in Cuba, remembering the British expedition against Cuba that seized Havana in the Seven Years’ War. Other goals included the reconquest of Florida (which the British had divided into West Florida and East Florida in 1763), and the resolution of logging disputes involving the British in Belize.

On the mainland, the governor of Spanish Louisiana, Count Bernardo de Gálvez, led a series of successful offensives against the British forts in the Mississippi Valley, first capturing Fort Bute at Manchac and then forcing the surrender of Baton Rouge, Natchez and Mobile in 1779 and 1780. While a hurricane halted an expedition to capture Pensacola, the capital of British West Florida, in 1780, Gálvez’s forces achieved a decisive victory against the British in 1781 at the Battle of Pensacola giving the Spanish control of all of West Florida. This secured the southern route for supplies and closed off the possibility of any British offensive into the western frontier of United States via the Mississippi River.

When Spain entered the war, Britain also went on the offensive in the Caribbean, planning an expedition against Spanish Nicaragua. A British attempt to gain a foothold at San Fernando de Omoa was rebuffed in October 1779, and an expedition in 1780 against Fort San Juan in Nicaragua was at first successful, but yellow fever and other tropical diseases wiped out most of the force, which then withdrew back to Jamaica.

Bernardo de Gálvez, Count of Gálvez
Following these successes, an unauthorised Spanish force captured the Bahamas in 1782, without battle. In 1783 Gálvez was preparing to invade Jamaica from Cuba. but the war ended .

Source that. We captured most from the British and even then it was usually enough.

Muskets were a thing almost ever man had at the time. And the guns they gave us were so shit we almost armed the army with bows and arrows.

Irrelevant the British had control over most those people. Lets also add to the fact that the actual continental army wasn’t even a fraction of that number.

They NEVER faced all those people. The continentals were almost always out numbered when they fought the British you’re talking out of your ass.

Well trained well equipped British troops vs farmers with guns. They had a huge advantage in a battle over the continentals.

And yet they were still able to out number the colonists in ever major battle :smiley:

The French gave us shit supplies and showed up at the end of the war. That’s like saying the U.S single handily won world war 1.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/AHR/30/2/Supply_of_Gunpowder_in_1776.html

http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/the-gunpowder-shortage/
http://www.harryschenawolf.com/211/

The vast quantity of powder came from sources overseas , around 90% from French Colonies in the West Indies. The other 10% was produced domestically. With dwindling powder supplies and only three powder mills in operation in all of the colonies, Washington’s army around Cambridge was is serious danger at the start of the war.

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3892, topic:21032”]
Muskets were a thing almost ever man had at the time. And the guns they gave us were so shit we almost armed the army with bows and arrows.
[/quote] incorrect while most men owned a musket they were nothing compared to the british armies muskets which at the time were the most advanced . the french supplied modern muskets that were unavailable domestically .
http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers

In 1778 France became an ally of the colonies in their fight against England. The French government sent large quantities of French muskets. These muskets were much lighter in weight than the British army’s “Brown Bess” and fired a smaller lead ball. They were a favored weapon of the Continental soldier.

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3892, topic:21032”]
They NEVER faced all those people. The continentals were almost always out numbered when they fought the British you’re talking out of your ass.
[/quote] not all at once but in support of the colonialists , logistically , intelligence .

again you vision of war is simply combat soldiers but in reality that couldnt be further from the truth .
by having the population on your side you stayed one step ahead as you had far more intelligence on where our troops were and could set ambushes etc . as well as nurses , supply runners , communication runners .

and you only actually killed 4,000 british soldiers and 2,000 german merc’s on land
and took up to 50,000 casulites on your side .

hardly a crushing victory over the british is it ?
comes back to my point of numbers and men lost in a battle not counting for shit in the grand scheme of things :slight_smile:
then you look at a battle like waterloo where
the casualties on either side were 24,000 allies - 41,000 french in a single day and you get a sense at how small scale battle wise this war was

bunker hill
226 british soldiers killed .

yorktown
309 british soldiers killed

7,000 captured .

very small scale in the grand scheme of war

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3892, topic:21032”]
And yet they were still able to out number the colonists in ever major battle
[/quote] not with all first class troops though :slight_smile: mixed and match .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3892, topic:21032”]
The French gave us shit supplies and showed up at the end of the war. That’s like saying the U.S single handily won world war 1.
[/quote] the french supplies started in 1775 . the war started in 1775 .

learn you own history and be grateful to the french for your very existence .

on your own you would of lost plain and fucking simple . just admit it . far more honour in admitting that than bullshitting yourself .

we lost the war plain and simple . we simply wasnt in a position to fight such a broad conflict as it was . hardly costly war in terms of men lost but a defeat none the less .

another reason why this didnt matter is your troops were much more spread out . we bulked our troops as was the done thing then . meaning we beat you with a large force then move on to the next area . once we left you simply moved back in and set up shop again creating a cat and mouse effect . much like the Taliban do today .

in a conventional war of them times . two large armies met the winner took the area or town or whatever .
you conducted a warfare that meant we had to fight for every metre . we simply wasnt set up for that .

in many aspects you shaped modern warfare

No we had long rifles as well which far out shot the standard British musket. The muskets given to us by France were god awful. That’s why it was a popular idea to arm the army with bows.

First off a large portion of that population also sided with the British. Second many people didn’t want to risk hanging by helping the continentals So no it was not your fantasy of 2.5 million vs 45,000.

Nope they were far better trained and equipped than the colonists they had every advantage except their incentive. A man fighting for freedom will always fight harde.

No i don’t believe we would have. Sure it would have taken far longer and be more costly. It would have been like Vietnam. The war would have lasted so long that public opinion caused the war to end.

We fought you head on plenty of times. In the south there was more guerilla activity yes. We out smarted you by simply leaving the field and the British were shocked that Washington wouldn’t surrender.

source ?

because what im seeing is you picked up british muskets where you could for the rest you used french muskets

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3895, topic:21032”]
No we had long rifles as well which far out shot the standard British musket
[/quote] these were not front line rifles were they . im talking front line muskets here .
the long rifle were used by "snipers " as such to pick off our officers .

very effective may be but not standard issue .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3895, topic:21032”]
First off a large portion of that population also sided with the British. Second many people didn’t want to risk hanging by helping the continentals So no it was not your fantasy of 2.5 million vs 45,000.
[/quote] many did though didnt they not all of course but many did . more supported you then supported the british .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3895, topic:21032”]
Nope they were far better trained and equipped than the colonists they had every advantage except their incentive.
[/quote] note i said not first class , didnt say not trained.

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3895, topic:21032”]
A man fighting for freedom will always fight harde
[/quote] of course no truer words .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3895, topic:21032”]
No i don’t believe we would have. Sure it would have taken far longer and be more costly. It would have been like Vietnam. The war would have lasted so long that public opinion caused the war to end.
[/quote] with what weapons ? with what powder . i just provided to you sources backing my claims that 90% of your powder came from france and your standard issue rifle was french .

now your ingoring them two facts and letting your american head go crazy in "USA USA USA ! " mode as you spout utter bollocks . you know as well as i do without , weapons , ammo , money you would of lost . dont even argue you look silly .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3895, topic:21032”]
We fought you head on plenty of times. In the south there was more guerilla activity yes. We out smarted you by simply leaving the field and the British were shocked that Washington wouldn’t surrender.
[/quote] didnt say you didnt but the battles were small scale . not large like ones would be in europe . the siege of Gibraltar (1779-1783) involved over 60,000 french and spanish troops v 7,000 British thats NEARLY equal to all the combat troops in the revolutionary war combined .
(british won losing very few men )
let that sink in for a moment

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3895, topic:21032”]
We out smarted you by simply leaving the field and the British were shocked that Washington wouldn’t surrender.
[/quote] yes correct you went against the common "rules " of war and it paid off as it always does .
much like the start off ww2 and how the germans didnt play by the book of the time . :slight_smile: ultimately tactics like this progress warfare and how it is fought

Well as regards the girl, she was already on the ground and crying. I didn’t see any need for any further restraint. It may be legal but not appropriate.

As regards the situation with the gun - had it been in front of a shopping mall, I’d say you’re about right. But this was outside of swimming pool, everyone had fairly light clothes with next to no chance of having concealed weapons, there was a multitude of officers at place already, and the people he was dealing with were all teenagers. Taking up a baton? OK. Unholstering firearm? Inappropriate. Aiming firearm anywhere else than down into dirt? Gross overreaction.

What I find quite horrific about American gun culture is that in most of US warning shots are a no-no. In some jurisdictions you may be even prosecuted for giving intentional warning shot even though you did it in situation where you would not be prosecuted if you shot the attacker directly in the face. I’ve read that even many police departments train in a way that the policemen never give a warning shot. That is how the video gets from situation where there is hardly a reason for gun being unholstered to a situation in which gun is immediately pointed at people.

I won’t get into further discussions on guns with you. Frankly, the fact that you say/believe/argue that it is actually a good thing that the 6 million Jews that were killed in holocaust were unarmed makes me want to vomit.

@SirWarriant I had a lunch today with a US Airborne veteran of 20 years who lives in Prague for about 12 years now and works as head hunter here. He has a very nice collection of guns. I was quite surprised to hear that about 70% of his firearms are those that I plan to buy in next 5-7 years :smile:

He is currently looking for a 1914-1919 Mossin Nagant that would go with Czech legionnaire uniform that he bought and has alongside his ABN uniforms :smile:

He brought all his firearms from US to CR but keeps full autos that predate FOPA (paperless) still in USA. Really nice guy.

dont think i ever said close to that but fair enough . i guess thats the natural reaction to having no counter argument . twist your opponents words in order for you to take the higher moral ground when in reality i just provided you with some simple logic and you didnt have a response .

while i admire your honour and bravery i think you’re quite naive , verging on silly on your views on taking on an organised well equipped military with a bunch of civilians with no logistics , no communication methods and no training .

every single successful guerilla struggle has had support from a superior force in some form or another be it the french resistance , cezch resistance or any other resistance group .

a gun is useless without someone willing to use it .

a gun is useless without ammunition

a gun is useless when its user dies of starvation.

how much ammunition do you own ? because in a large firefight a unit can fire its way through thousands of rounds within a matter of hours .
so you need the logistics to replace these rounds . factories , trucks , trains etc .
the guy with the gun is the very last link in the chain.

in your dream world where the opponents are always unarmed your idea would work every time but back here in the real world where your opponent has logistcs , tanks , planes , millions of troops , german civilians grassing your hide out up etc . your plan and idea quickly fall apart .

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=454841

a form having the same debate . :slight_smile: you probably wont even attempt to look at the source because your close minded and dont like being wrong and prefer to live in the world of coocoo where everyone is proficient with a gun , everyone is willing to kill , everyone wants to own and gun but simply oppressed so they cant .

jesus christ is all i can say to this :slight_smile:


ahh the memories .
sangin was hell on earth but equally best experience of my life