Is it time to start fighting back..?

[Skelton]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Easy to say, hard to live (or more accurately, die,) by. Would you really die rather than hand over your gun? I suspect not.

Yes, Mugabe holds power because he has the military on his side. Kind of the point here isn't it?

Honestly, yes I would die for my rights, why wouldn't you?

Secondly, it wasn't the military beating the men and killing their wives. That was his supporters and the point was to connect dictation with gun control which was brought up earlier due to a fragment of a exagerated sentence I posted.

Last, if I can't spell a word correctly I spell it in phonics instead of wasting my time and I was choosing not to capitalize.

[General Grim]

I can comment no further on the effectiveness of glitter as I still believe that the effect that glitter has on night vision devices is limited at best. The only way to settle this is to bring out additional references and/or test results.

YouTube - ATN night vision goggles

I can't actually find any information on NVGs that relate to glitter having any effect on the vision, but that video shows street lamps which hardly effect vision at all. This is another reason why I doubt the much smaller glitter pieces would have a substantial effect.

Till we find a member with a set of NVGs with an IR illuminator we can't do much.

Honestly, yes I would die for my rights, why wouldn't you?

Secondly, it wasn't the military beating the men and killing their wives. That was his supporters and the point was to connect dictation with gun control which was brought up earlier due to a fragment of a exagerated sentence I posted.

Last, if I can't spell a word correctly I spell it in phonics instead of wasting my time and I was choosing not to capitalize.

So what about stopping people from celebrating under the false justification that it was "stopping riots"? What about how the military police didn't stop the clearly widescale violence to non-supporters? If you can't spell then download a spell checker.

[Skelton]

Alright, drop the NV. I don't think the glitter will work either and if it does it is not practical as was previously stated.

A conflict with the military is not what we want as I said we will have restrictions during and more after if we lose, but what if we win, if we had the military on our side and avoided major conflicts. Thats what we should now be talking about, the new regime. What reforms should be made and what structured government we would have.


I just downloaded the spell check when typing this.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by General Grim

I can comment no further on the effectiveness of glitter as I still believe that the effect that glitter has on night vision devices is limited at best. The only way to settle this is to bring out additional references and/or test results.

YouTube - ATN night vision goggles

I can't actually find any information on NVGs that relate to glitter having any effect on the vision, but that video shows street lamps which hardly effect vision at all. This is another reason why I doubt the much smaller glitter pieces would have a substantial effect.

Till we find a member with a set of NVGs with an IR illuminator we can't do much.

Sure we can...
YouTube - MH-60L DAP in Iraq at night

This video shows how sparks appear through NVGs and the glitter looks very similar when reflection abiant light (especial when the IR is switched on). Now the glitter, would have to spread over a large area (packed into small blasts) to spread the glitter over said area, probably connected through a daisy chain of small charges. But, thats a limitation of that technology as well.

All technology has a limitation and technology to counter a specific technological limitation is of course limited by that as well. I never said it was fool proof, merely that it was a limitation.

YouTube - Basic Fire Training-Thermal Images
here is a video of some firemen training done through a thermal imaging camera, notice that the insolated suits conceal their heat and reflect the air temperature around them. This is similar to what I was saying involving the space blankets.

To Steven,

I could argue the issues with you but there is no point, we both have our own beliefs. We don't agree but thats cool. A rebellion is limited by what it can fabricate and steal from the enemy. The police having anyone out gunned is a joke, you can make a improvised AK for less then $100 with stuff from Lowes. A few years ago a marine PFC killed two police officers in Cali, they had him out gunned but not out trained. While I may agree with some of the issues you mention, I have a completely different prospective based on personal experience. The desertion rates are the highest since the 1980s and is reported at an 80% increase, so imagine the desertion rate during a civil war or civil rebellion.

Personally, I agree with much of your assessments, but I'd like to point out the Israel was considered unbeatable in the middle east, yet lost they took heavy losses against Hezbullah and to many nations and individuals lost that fight.

Here is a few links for you...

US Army desertion rates rise 80 percent since 2003 Iraq invasion; highest rate since 1980 - International Herald Tribune

Gang Activity in the U.S. Military

YouTube - AK-47 Armed Bank Robbers get Caught

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Skelton

A conflict with the military is not what we want as I said we will have restrictions during and more after if we lose, but what if we win, if we had the military on our side and avoided major conflicts. Thats what we should now be talking about, the new regime. What reforms should be made and what structured government we would have.

The problem is a conflict on some level will occur with someone. So you need to be prepared for that specifically even if only as a fall back. As for regime change, I say reinstate a constitution based government and abolish various unconstitutional laws and of course either impeach and arrest BUsh or execute him for treasion.

In fact, the constitution gives US citizens the right (and therefor the responsibility) to rebel against an unjust (therefor illegal) government or government action. I previously discussed this eariler with the openning statement to the bill of rights.

[General Grim]

Draven, that's the problem, you're comparing two fundamentally different things. Glitter which rarely reflects already existing light to the goggles and sparks (deflagerating pieces of combustible material with the reaction being sped up by traveling through the air) which generate their own light source and often are quite luminous. To be completely fair and to stop working off theories we would need a third party to verify the effects of glitter on night vision devices. What further invalidates the first video provided is the fact that those sparks would be clearly visible to the blind eye.

[Skelton]

I couldn't find the quote but someone else already said its impractical, they would just start firing wherever they saw "star bursts". It is not reasonable and that is only one form of technology that the military would posses, GET OFF THE NIGHT VISION!!!

[Draven]

Originally Posted by General Grim

Draven, that's the problem, you're comparing two fundamentally different things. Glitter which rarely reflects already existing light to the goggles and sparks (deflagerating pieces of combustible material with the reaction being sped up by traveling through the air) which generate their own light source and often are quite luminous. To be completely fair and to stop working off theories we would need a third party to verify the effects of glitter on night vision devices. What further invalidates the first video provided is the fact that those sparks would be clearly visible to the blind eye.

Your actually very correct in your assessment, except that the glitter would reflect such light back at the goggles. Granted it wouldn't be as bright as the sparks unless you had the IR on. Remember the "glitter" would have a similar effect as rain reflecting light back to the NVGs, and would only last a second or two at best (thus that system of defense has its own flaw).

How I discovered that glitter worked in such a way was during a force on force exercise, someone tossed a flash bang and the foil that was expelled from the flash bang, reflected the light from outside (behind me) and obscured my vision. It lasted for a about a second or two, but any distraction in a fire fight isn't good.

Also, as you noticed from both videos, the NVGs are a single color so anything with a darker shade can blend in. Basically camouflage still works against NVGs as it does with normal vision. Neither system is fool proof and the US Army doesn't make know the weaknesses of field equiptment so ypu can imagine how hard a third party will be to find.

[headcase]

I want to split the NV posts but because some contain references to both the NV arguement and the topic itself it would be quite troublesome, so I'll just say drop it. Start a thread elsewhere.

What do you do when being spyed on by thermal imaging
Electronics, Spy Tech and Communication - Bombshock Forums

[Draven]

Originally Posted by headcase

I want to split the NV posts but because some contain references to both the NV arguement and the topic itself it would be quite troublesome, so I'll just say drop it. Start a thread elsewhere.

Fair nuff, and again my views are this...

We are dangerously close to becoming a police state/totalitarian dictatorship here in the USA. The government says we are innocent until proven guilty, but treat you as guitly until proven guilty. Our president has already said the constitution was just a piece of paper, and since our constitution is basis of our government and its laws to me that makes Bush a bigger enemy then Ben Laden.

Also there is a certain level abiding by the constitution the government has ignored and in fact acording to the Oath I swore to when joining the military twice my job (the job of the US military) was to protect the constitution and ideas of the constitution. Factor this in with the fact that reportedly 25% of the US military and 1/3 of US citizens believe 9/11 was an inside job and the comspiracy theory that Bush and others are trying to destory the country. Some of this is backed up by credible experts.

The issues is that only a few are willing to act, but many might support them indirectly. Remember one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The more the government presses unconstitutional policies and laws the more likely someone will start to rebel. The more someone rebels the more the government will press unconstitutional laws and policies. Thats just how it works, things escelate. If 50% of those who share such views were to take up arms, you'd have only 1/6 of the civilians and 12.5% of the military that would create huge blood bath or a very long civil war.

Government, Military, Intelligence Officials Question 9/11 Commission Report

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by Draven

I could argue the issues with you but there is no point, we both have our own beliefs. We don't agree but thats cool.

Fair enough. We have stated our opinions, further argument would be unproductive. I'd like to discuss the constitutional issues when I have time to do the research.

Originally Posted by Skelton

Honestly, yes I would die for my rights, why wouldn't you?

Secondly, it wasn't the military beating the men and killing their wives. That was his supporters and the point was to connect dictation with gun control which was brought up earlier due to a fragment of a exagerated sentence I posted.

Last, if I can't spell a word correctly I spell it in phonics instead of wasting my time and I was choosing not to capitalize.

1. Depends which rights you are talking about. Would I die for my firearm? (I don't own one BTW.) No. I don't think I'd lay down my life for anything unless I thought it would make a difference.
2. My point was that as long as Mugabe has the backing of the military he is immovable. Few (if any) civilian populations could hope to beat their own military. Zimbabwe is no exception.
3. Learning how to spell a word correctly is never a waste of time.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

1. Depends which rights you are talking about. Would I die for my firearm? (I don't own one BTW.) No. I don't think I'd lay down my life for anything unless I thought it would make a difference.

The right to "keep & bear arms" here in American is our right as citizens to rebel against our government. The right to own a weapon (not only limited to firearms) is key to allowing a civilian population to defend any other rights. So yes it is something, I could see fighting for. Of course our first amendment leaves various safe guards for abuse of 2nd amendment rights.

Why would you not see having the power to defend yourself and your rights as not something to fight for?

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

2. My point was that as long as Mugabe has the backing of the military he is immovable. Few (if any) civilian populations could hope to beat their own military. Zimbabwe is no exception.

In one way you are very correct, in another way you may be wrong. You are correct in that few civilian populations have what is takes to defeat a larger military force. However, I'd like to point out that the leading sources of information on guerrilla warfare say something quite different.

Che Guevara wrote that a popular (guerrilla) forces can win a war against (an) army and that it is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection can create them.
Che-Lives.com - Che Guevara Lives - Archive

FM 31-21 the US army special forces guerrilla warfare manual, states the guerrilla soldiers control all areas of operation by their ability to blend into a population. If the military uses excessive force killing its own civilians to get suspected or known guerrillas/terrorist. The harder the government responds against its own people the more the rebels appear to a) threaten the government and b) the more likely it will drive people to join said rebellion.

Of course Che also points out that as long as the government pretends to hold legal power, no true rebellion can take place. However, fighting need not take place with violence either and from my personal prospective I think a rebellion would have to begin with education (counter-propaganda and propaganda).

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

3. Learning how to spell a word correctly is never a waste of time.

Very true...

[Skelton]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

1. Depends which rights you are talking about. Would I die for my firearm? (I don't own one BTW.) No. I don't think I'd lay down my life for anything unless I thought it would make a difference.

This must be an American thing, but firearm ownership does make a difference. It allows us to rebel and overthrow our government. Besides I would be very unlikely to die defending my guns because of the shear number of resistors and also because who is going to shoot a 15 year old kid.

Is obeying an unjust law just?

(Also I'll assume your original accusation of my poor spelling was about "electon" which was a typo and I responded before checking.)

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Skelton

This must be an American thing, but firearm ownership does make a difference. It allows us to rebel and overthrow our government. Besides I would be very unlikely to die defending my guns because of the shear number of resistors and also because who is going to shoot a 15 year old kid.

Is obeying an unjust law just?

(Also I'll assume your original accusation of my poor spelling was about "electon" which was a typo and I responded before checking.)

Actually owning a firearm gives you the ability to protect yourself, your property and your loved ones. Even then the historically, violent crime was lower in a society with an armed civilian population. Think about you gonna rob, mug, rape or assault someone who has a gun to? Not if you have brain stem.

As for is obeying an unjust law, if the law violates the constitution I ignore it.

[Skelton]

Yes gun ownership reduces crime rates which can be supported although I'm sure the gun control advocates could support their ideas. I neglected to mention this because it does not pertain to this thread.

To answer my earlier question about the new regime I would say keep the structure and remove the laws that dictate peoples lives and invade privacy. Second best would be a republic for each town to create laws that cater to the areas needs and values.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by Draven

The right to "keep & bear arms" here in American is our right as citizens to rebel against our government. The right to own a weapon (not only limited to firearms) is key to allowing a civilian population to defend any other rights. So yes it is something, I could see fighting for. Of course our first amendment leaves various safe guards for abuse of 2nd amendment rights.

Originally Posted by The US Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm seeing two things here. Firstly the reference to a "well regulated militia". The amendment does not implicitly state that the individual has this right. Private gun ownership hardly constitutes a "well regulated militia", unless those who exercised this right were required to be part of some organised group.
Secondly, "being necessary to the security of a free State". This would appear to refer to the security of the state (ie. the nation), not to the right of the individual to defend themselves. Given that the second amendment was made law only a few years after the War of Independence the primary consideration may well have been the security of the state against foreign aggression. I don't see any mention there of taking up arms against the (US) government.

I realize that the meaning of the second amendment has been debated at length by many legal minds: I don't think you and I are going to come to a definitive agreement.

Originally Posted by Draven

Why would you not see having the power to defend yourself and your rights as not something to fight for?

Largely because I can't defend myself if I'm dead.

Originally Posted by Draven

In one way you are very correct, in another way you may be wrong. You are correct in that few civilian populations have what is takes to defeat a larger military force. However, I'd like to point out that the leading sources of information on guerrilla warfare say something quite different.

I think the main problem we have here is our vastly different perspectives. You, as a former soldier, are confidant (perhaps rightly so) of your ability to wage guerrilla warfare, and of the damage you could thus inflict. I am thinking from the civilian perspective. Most western citizens are highly unwilling to endure hardship, or risk injury and death. Thus I doubt many people would take up your cause. I am also considering that the larger and more dense a population center is, the more easily it can be controlled/coerced by simply cutting off power, water and gas. A few days of this, even in mild weather, and people would not only be begging for the return of services, they would cheerfully inform on your activities in order to bring about a faster resolution. Government forces would not have to enter a city (and expose themselves to your guerrilla forces), they could hold siege from without. A first-world city is less able to withstand such a siege than a medieval village.

Originally Posted by Skelton

This must be an American thing, but firearm ownership does make a difference. It allows us to rebel and overthrow our government. Besides I would be very unlikely to die defending my guns because of the shear number of resistors and also because who is going to shoot a 15 year old kid.

See above for my view on the right to overthrow your government. And, yes, I do think it's an american thing. Following the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania (the crappy little island of the south coast of Australia), the government banned the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons. (Full-autos were already illegal.) A compulsory buyback scheme was initiated: all semi-autos had to be surrendered and compensation paid. Since gun licenses and registration were already mandatory anyone with a legally owned semi-auto could not hope to keep it because the regulating body already knew that they owned it. So, with the exception of illegally owned firearms, the vast majority of semi-autos were surrendered. My point? Although there was considerable outrage from some sections of the community (drowned out by the shocked reaction to Port Arthur), I am not aware of any australian actually dying rather than hand over their weapon.
As for who would shoot a 15 year-old kid: I would if he pointed a firearm at me. So would most US cops I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Draven

Actually owning a firearm gives you the ability to protect yourself, your property and your loved ones. Even then the historically, violent crime was lower in a society with an armed civilian population. Think about you gonna rob, mug, rape or assault someone who has a gun to? Not if you have brain stem.

When it comes to gun ownership I believe there are only two balanced situations. Either everybody has one, or no-one does. Since it is naive to assume that criminal elements will ever be completely disarmed I support private gun ownership, on the following conditions:

1. That all owners be licensed, have completed a firearms safety course, and that all firearms be registered. (This is already law in all states of Aust.)
2. That anyone who is carrying a firearm on their person, for whatever reason,