The discussion on gun control on the thread before last took an unexpected turn, with JP Scholten asking whether it would not be logically consistent for gun rights advocates to concede that all countries should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. After all, one of the points that is repeatedly made is that guns are necessary to 'even the score' - the weak and the vulnerable, the argument goes, can only properly defend themselves against the physically strong with the help of a firearm. By the same token, JP Scholten asks, how are weaker countries supposed to defend themselves against the might of America by any other means than nuclear firepower? Presumably, Kevin Baker and his disciples would not be terribly comfortable with the idea of America being 'stopped' at all (especially at the possible expense of their own lives), but given their moral certainties it's hard to see how they could credibly take issue with the proposition that countries should have the right to defend themselves by any means that prove necessary.
Now, this is indeed a fascinating question, and Nate gave a very interesting and surprising answer (essentially that all countries bar a few should be entitled to a nuclear capability). But I think there's an even more fascinating question to be asked, and indeed I asked it of Joe Huffman last year - isn't the logical conclusion of the gun advocates' philosophy that any weapon, regardless of its potency, be available to ordinary people? To spell it out, doesn't it follow that private citizens should be permitted to possess nuclear weapons? That might seem an absurd suggestion at first glance, but unless someone can provide a serious answer to it, it seems to me that it in fact drives a coach and horses through one of the articles of faith of the American gun rights fundamentalists - namely that a government that deprives its citizens of the right to possess any given weapon will eventually turn that weapon on its citizens, who will be left defenceless. So, obvious question - come the presumably inevitable day that the US government turns its stockpile of nuclear weapons on the American people, how will the Second Amendment and the right to retaliate with puny guns be of any help?
Whenever I've asked this question in the past, all I've heard back is that such a scenario is a "grandiose fantasy". That's as maybe, but it's also a scrupulously logical extension of the fundamentalists' own philosophy. So does anyone have a more satisfactory answer? I take it no-one is going to be crazy enough to actually welcome private ownership of nuclear weapons, since a touching faith in the general goodwill and trustworthiness of 'decent, law-abiding citizens' isn't going to be good enough when it would only take one rogue individual to cause the deaths of untold millions.
Lesson - there isn't a state in the world that doesn't restrict its citizens' right to own weapons, and it's impossible to credibly argue against the rationality of that principle. Negative freedoms must have their limits, otherwise by the wonders of modern technology everyone would end up dead. The only question is how far those restrictions should go - but that's not a question that will appeal much to those who don't like to view the world in shades of grey rather than black and white.
Checkmate, methinks...
ReplyDeleteInteresting false dichotomy, given that you are equating defensive pistols and long arms with nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile your country is banning knives, and has sent people to prison for carrying a milk bottle.
Are Brittons unable to act like grown-ups?
And once more - this most awkward of questions is studiously ignored. Let's try again. One of the central tenets of faith of the gun fundamentalists is that no government can be allowed to have a monopoly on the ownership of a deadly weapon, otherwise it will eventually turn that weapon on its citizens. In the US, the government has a monopoly on nuclear weapons, and therefore the citizenry have no conceivable means to defend themselves against their government - certainly not with 'defensive pistols and long arms'.
ReplyDeleteNo thoughts to offer on that dilemma at all?
Implying that the government would use nuclear weapons to suppress its own citizens.
ReplyDeleteDidn't think that one through too much, did you?
Didn't think that one through too much, did you?
ReplyDeleteTell you what, why don't you just have the words "YOU'VE STUMPED ME" tattooed on your forehead? Take a look at the previous threads on gun control - the likes of Joe Huffman were quite specific, and left no room for doubt or convenient exceptions. Weapons held on a monopoly basis by the government will INEVITABLY be turned against the defenceless citizenry.
Ahh, I see, simply declare victory and pretend it's true.
ReplyDeleteAren't you a little old for that?
Again, because the governments won't allow their people to own Nuclear weapons (which is actually more of a prohibition on fissionable materiel, than a 2nd Amendment issue) then its OK to throw a child in prison because he has a swiss army knife in his pocket.
Ahh, I see, simply declare victory and pretend it's true.
ReplyDeleteAren't you a little old for that?
I think you must be mistaking me for Kevin Baker. His trademark cry is "why isn't being right good enough for us?!"
I try to suppress the giggles, honestly.
Now, you're still refusing to properly engage with the issue I raised. Would you, for instance, concede that it not inevitable that a government that has a monopoly on a certain type of weapon (whether it be handguns or nuclear missiles) will eventually turn that weapon on its citizens?
For my part, I'll confirm that no, I do not think it is appropriate to be sending children to prison.
I don't recall any of us actually making the argument that any weapon disallowed to the citizenry will inevitably turned against them, and I certainly don't believe that to be true, either. In the case of nukes, that's because a government that nukes it citizens nukes itself. You can't separate out citizens from government employees with a weapon as indiscriminate as a nuclear bomb. It wouldn't make even the remotest shred of sense for a government, no matter how corrupt or power hungry, to unleash nuclear weapons on its own land, because would amount to voluntarily annihilating itself. Suicide bombers think like that; governments don't. It just defies plausibility.
ReplyDeleteBut to answer your question: no, I do not think that private citizens should be permitted to own nuclear weapons, and I will openly and honestly admit as much.
But allowing privately-owned nuclear weapons is certainly many, many steps removed from permitting common handheld small arms. The world is indeed made up of shades of gray and you are right that there must be limits to negative freedoms; my freedom to speak ends when I utter words that amount to fraud, for example. But I am not in favor of limits that for all intents and purposes erase the right in question.
"Would you, for instance, concede that it not inevitable that a government that has a monopoly on a certain type of weapon (whether it be handguns or nuclear missiles) will eventually turn that weapon on its citizens?"
ReplyDeleteNope, no more inevitable that an armed individual will "just snap". They both have a likelyhood of happening, but nothing in the world is inevitable, so that's a pretty poor litmus.
"For my part, I'll confirm that no, I do not think it is appropriate to be sending children to prison."
So can I take that as your dislike of your nation's foolish knife laws, or are you just being overly literal for the sake of stalling debate.
I'll close out here with one more large question.
What would you need to see to reverse your opinion of gun control laws?
I don't recall any of us actually making the argument that any weapon disallowed to the citizenry will inevitably turned against them
ReplyDeleteNate, here are a couple of examples of that argument being advanced -
Joe Huffman
Revenant
Does anyone else actually see that argument being made in those comments you linked to? I don't see any references at all to either nuclear weapons or governments turning any weapons disallowed to the citizenry against them. I do see people talking about wanting to be prepared to resist their own governments should an ugly case of state-sponsored domestic mass murder breaks out, but that is a very different thing from claiming that individuals need nukes or that individuals have to be armed just as well as governments. Both of the commenters in fact only ever talk about handheld arms.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, just so you know, I'm the Nathaniel in the thread you linked to. Different blog now, and Nate is easier to type. :p
"Both of the commenters in fact only ever talk about handheld arms."
ReplyDeleteOf course they do! That's the whole point. Neither can provide a credible answer when it's pointed out to them what their worldview actually means when taken to its absurd and logical extreme.
Nazi Germany had guns, the Jews did not. Alleged consequence - Jews could not defend themselves against Nazi guns.
But at what stage in the technological development of weaponry would it suddenly not have mattered that the Jews did not have the means to defend themselves? Are we expected to believe that the Nazis would never have considered using the atomic bomb on the Jews, or is it that the Jews could somehow magically have prevented the atomic bomb being used against them if only they'd had some guns handy? That question is important because Revenant and Joe Huffman can't seem to see any distinction between totalitarian and democratic regimes on this point - any government that monopolises weaponry will, according to them, turn upon its own citizens eventually.
"Are we expected to believe that the Nazis would never have considered using the atomic bomb on the Jews"
ReplyDeleteLiving in their own nation, and nations they intended to annex for the Empire? Again, you're not thinking this through very much, James.
You also, while ignoring my past post appear to have ZERO understanding of Joe's comment:
"In addition to all the home invasions prevented, as pointed out by unix-jedi, there were over 80 million civilian deaths (some put the figure as high as 262 million) by their own government in the last century in countries with strict gun control. Genocide by ones own government, does not occur in countries with widespread gun ownership."
Simply states what does NOT happen. Joe is 100% correct, there has never been a genocide in a government where the people were allowed to keep and bear arms.
I would think you were confused, but then again you've ignored my questions, so I have a doubt.
Ahh I can see in the linked Joe Huffman thread he already pointed out the fallacy of your "Nuke the Jews" argument.
ReplyDeleteSo can I assume you're being intentionally dishonest? That would explain why you won't answer my question:
What would you need to see to reverse your opinion of gun control laws?
Joe Huffman and Revenant never made the point you're claiming they did. They never said that a government that monopolizes any weapons will inevitably turn those same weapons against their citizens.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, you're arguing that mere infantry weapons stand no chance against the might of a technologically advanced first world army. Uh, Vietnam? Who won that conflict? It sure wasn't the army with billions of dollars worth of tanks, planes, and smart bombs, it was the semi-literate peasants with worn-out rifles and an amazing amount of cleverness, grit, and determination.
Also, you do understand that if Germany had The Bomb, nuking the Jews would have been nuking themselves, right? The Jews they herded into cattle cars were from their own land, i.e. Germany and the territory it had captured. Why in the world would the Nazis have wanted to nuke their own country?
And tell me this: would the Jews have been so easily herded into those cattle cars if the Nazis knew that each family had loaded rifles inside and the willingness to use them? Perhaps it would have happened anyway. But not without a fight, and that fight is what every human has the right engage in to when another human tries to take his life.
Ahh I can see in the linked Joe Huffman thread he already pointed out the fallacy of your "Nuke the Jews" argument.
ReplyDeleteOh, did he indeed? What he actually said - incredibly - was that in the event of the American authorities turning their WMDs on their own people, the survivors (in what state we can only imagine) would ruthlessly hunt down the perpetrators of the slaughter. That's the 'mentality of an armed population', he told me.
Certainly a vivid picture he's painting, but if that's his idea of 'self-defence' it might be an idea to wave the white flag while there's still time.
Why in the world would the Nazis have wanted to nuke their own country?
Very simple, Nate - to commit genocide in a far more quick and ruthlessly efficient way than even the gas chambers made possible. It's simply not the case that they would have been nuking themselves - the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs may have been devastating in terms of loss of life, but they were geographically localised.
What would you need to see to reverse your opinion of gun control laws?
ReplyDeleteStop playing around
I can only see one person desperately trying to change the subject at the moment.
ReplyDeleteNow you're just playing. You're seriously arguing that the Nazis would have dropped nuclear weapons on their own cities simply to exterminate the Jews living there?
ReplyDeleteIf ever a government turned so mad as to seriously consider using nuclear weapons to wipe out social undesirables regardless of the fact that great swathes of its own preferred citizens would be caught up in the fires, then there isn't a thing on God's Green Earth that could stop it.
No, Nate, that's not what I'm saying. The gas chambers were not located in German cities, and if atomic weapons had been used against the Jews, that would not have occurred in German cities either.
ReplyDelete"If ever a government turned so mad as to seriously consider using nuclear weapons to wipe out social undesirables regardless of the fact that great swathes of its own preferred citizens would be caught up in the fires, then there isn't a thing on God's Green Earth that could stop it."
Although I wouldn't agree with every dot and comma of that, broadly speaking that was my point to Joe Huffman and Revenant. The notion of physically defending oneself against a government gone wrong is an absurd fantasy in the modern world - the safeguards have to be political, constitutional and cultural, as they are in most European countries.
So, if Germans already had Jews huddled helplessly in camps miles away from populated centers, why would they need to nuke them? The whole point is that had they been armed, they would have engaged the soldiers trying to cart them off in guerilla warfare. Which, in my mind, is a tremendously superior proposition than being dragged out of one's house with no capacity to resist. maybe that's just me.
ReplyDeleteYou conveniently left out my Vietnam example. Why didn't we just nuke them? They didn't have defensive nukes of their own; why didn't we give them a taste of Captain Atom? Why did we lose?
You seem to think that the idea of defending yourself against a government is folly because they can just nuke you, but history doesn't hold up to that. Look at guerilla wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan (against the Soviets as well as us) for examples of nuclear-armed states peculiarly failing to nuke the populations in question, resorting to conventional weapons, and then losing against civilian guerilla warfare. Nations generally don't just nuke people when they feel like it, and not least of all on their own land. That's not the way it happens.
Look up the history of mass slaughter; what happens is that first the populace is rendered helpless, and then soldiers murder them. This idea that governments do or would use nuclear weapons to quash domestic insurrections is risible in the extreme.
"You conveniently left out my Vietnam example. Why didn't we just nuke them? They didn't have defensive nukes of their own; why didn't we give them a taste of Captain Atom? Why did we lose?"
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your first question is that a US nuclear strike on Vietnam would have been overwhelmingly likely to trigger a Soviet nuclear retaliation. As we saw in Japan (and as apparently Truman toyed with in Korea) when there was no risk of retaliation in kind the Americans had only limited qualms about using the most fearsome of weapons to obliterate an enemy.
The answer to your final question is that you lost Vietnam due to public opinion at home - America had the means to defeat the North Vietnamese, but ultimately not the will.
"This idea that governments do or would use nuclear weapons to quash domestic insurrections is risible in the extreme."
ReplyDeleteI'd say the idea that a government-gone-bad wouldn't use any means necessary to deal with the relatively minor problem of Joe Huffman and friends 'defending themselves against tyranny with their guns' is even more risible.
The answer to your first question is that a US nuclear strike on Vietnam would have been overwhelmingly likely to trigger a Soviet nuclear retaliation. As we saw in Japan (and as apparently Truman toyed with in Korea) when there was no risk of retaliation in kind the Americans had only limited qualms about using the most fearsome of weapons to obliterate an enemy.
ReplyDeleteA nation nuking its own people wouldn't provoke international nuclear retaliation?
The answer to your final question is that you lost Vietnam due to public opinion at home - America had the means to defeat the North Vietnamese, but ultimately not the will.
Of course that's what happened. That's all guerilla wars are supposed to do: grind down the agressors until it further conflict deemed no longer worth expending the resources necessary to win. "Winning" a guerilla war entails stopping the agression, not seizing enemy terrotory!
I'd say the idea that a government-gone-bad wouldn't use any means necessary to deal with the relatively minor problem of Joe Huffman and friends 'defending themselves against tyranny with their guns' is even more risible.
And you call us paranoid!
"A nation nuking its own people wouldn't provoke international nuclear retaliation?"
ReplyDeleteIf the American people are content in the knowledge that other countries would come to their aid if their government turned against them, what is the validity of Joe Huffman's theory that the firearms of private citizens are an absolutely critical line of defence against tyranny?
And you call us paranoid!
Oh, I certainly call Mr Huffman paranoid. It's his logic I'm pursuing!
Are you arguing against Joe or me?
ReplyDeleteIn the original post, it was Joe and those who take a similar view I was taking issue with. Over the course of this thread, I've agreed with parts of what you've said and disagreed with other parts.
ReplyDeleteI guess I just disagree with the idea that a nation would drop nuclear weapons within its own borders, especially modern ones, which are so powerful as to be able to wipe out some of the smaller American states entirely. After all, governments are made up of people, and were a government to ever do such a thing, it would be condemning entire wings and branches of itself to death. Nuking Rhode Island would indeed kill the Rhode Islanders in revolt, but it would also incinerate the Rhode Islanders who work for local and state governments as well as the federal government. It would be acting less like a government and more like a suicide bomber, because if there's one thing that unites governments in this world, it's the desire to stay in power.
ReplyDeleteSo will you answer my question now James?
ReplyDeleteWhat would you need to see to reverse your opinion of gun control laws?
Evidence that handguns aren't deadly weapons with no other meaningful purpose than to kill or inflict injury? Evidence that legally-owned handguns have not been used to kill innocent people?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your answer.
ReplyDeleteJust for clarification, you are opposed to the use of lethal force to defend your life or the life of an innocent person?
Yep, guns are deadly weapons, and so long as our society has Justifiable homicide in the law books, there is nothing wrong with that.
Second part, we both know the answer. But that answer is true for EVERYTHING. I mean legally owned swimming pools kill thousands of people every year. Lawfully owned cars kill far more than that. Kitchen Cutlery, boots, pint glasses, rocks, ect ect.
So you will ban EVERYTHING?
Or should you be telling the tattoo artist to write "YOU'VE STUMPED ME" in reverse so you can read it while you brush your teeth?
Forget the tattoo, it now seems to be right under your skin. The car point is dealt with on the other thread.
ReplyDeleteOh, and thanks for providing me with such helpful additions to my ever-expanding list of everyday items that the KBFC earnestly insist are tools for killing on a par with guns.
your core point seems to be that unlike other items like matches or cars, guns can be banned because they have no legitimate or useful purpose, no? I mean, you admit that more people are killed by cars and swimming pools, but it doesn't matter because they are useful things that result in good to society, right? All we really have to do is convince you that guns do indeed serve a useful purpose. For that, I recommend the other thread.
ReplyDeleteYou've just lost, James, and look at you flounder.
ReplyDeleteThanks for playing.
There is no such thing as an honest supporter of Gun Control. You prove it well.
"I mean, you admit that more people are killed by cars and swimming pools"
ReplyDeleteI haven't said anything one way or the other about swimming pools - it wouldn't even have occurred to me to look up the rate of accidental deaths in swimming pools, because I don't see the relevance to this argument. Swimming pools are not tools for killing people.
Weer'd - Godspeed, my friend. I look forward to observing you being such an impeccable ambassador for the gun rights movement on many other blogs in the future.
If this is the first you've seen me, you haven't been looking.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Blog-Fodder.
http://www.weerdworld.com/2010/zealotry/
I must confess, you've got me there - I haven't been looking, Weer'd.
ReplyDelete"Oh, and thanks for providing me with such helpful additions to my ever-expanding list of everyday items that the KBFC earnestly insist are tools for killing on a par with guns."
ReplyDeleteWith 1,201 murders in the U.K. in 2002 and only 14 of them committed using a gun, people would have had to something else. (I hear screwdrivers are surprisingly popuplar.)
But wait, you claim people don't commit murders without guns. And that those murders were committed without guns "doesn't even begin to prove" that murders are committed without guns.
[the Black Knight continues to threaten Arthur despite getting both his arms and one of his legs cut off]
Black Knight: Right, I'll do you for that!
King Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
King Arthur: ...You're a loony.
It sort of surprises me that no one even bothered to mention the elephant in the room: That your entire premise is a false one.
ReplyDeleteYour entire argument is that, because we support armed citizens in any way, that we CANNOT logically support the control of any arms of any type.
That's just infantile logic.
I presume you support free speech, therefore, under your logic, I can slander you, libel you and engage in "hate speech" to my heart's content because if you support free speech, you must oppose restrictions on any speech whatsoever of any type.
Your "logic" doesn't even make sense.
As far as the claim that gun right supporters believe that the government's use of weapons against the citizenry is "inevitable"...nice straw man you built there.
If you ever put as much effort into actually evaluating the objective evidence critically as you do wrenching your brain coming up with convoluted ways to twist the points into caricatures that you can ridicule, you might actually someday reach an actual valid conclusion.
How utterly absurd it is to see people stick their heads in the sand and believe that just by somehow ridding the world of "bad objects" they will make the world a better place. How will that change the hearts of those who prey on others? It certainly won't disarm any of them... :-/
ReplyDeleteThank you, but I choose to live in the world we have, not the utopian figment of someone's daydream... and in the world we have, self defense is a necessity and will remain so as long as human beings are human beings.
Firearms handled by an educated, responsible, law-abiding citizen are nothing to fear... unless you are a predator or a tyrant, that is.
I would also say that reasonable limitations on firearm ownership are just that: reasonable. It should have little to nothing to do with the type of firearm, however, and everything to do with the prospective owner. I fully support the current restrictions that are meant to prevent those with violent histories or mental issues from legally owning firearms... BUT... that is nothing more than the splitting of legal hairs at the end of the day.
Laws intended to disarm criminals do little to stop the determined. Instead they become obstacles that prevent law-abiding, responsible citizens from being able to protect themselves. The path from citizen to subject to victim is a relatively short one paved with false notions of gun control.
Does anyone else actually see that argument being made in those comments you linked to?
ReplyDeleteNo, no such argument is made there, but then Mr. Kelly's reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.
With 1,201 murders in the U.K. in 2002 and only 14 of them committed using a gun, people would have had to something else.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet despite such obvious evidence Mr. Kelly will continue to claim that the GUNS are the problem.
The facts prove him wrong, but that matters not to him and his ilk.
No, no such argument is made there, but then Mr. Kelly's reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.
ReplyDeleteThe obtuse routine suits you rather well, Mike.
Sailorcurt - "As far as the claim that gun right supporters believe that the government's use of weapons against the citizenry is "inevitable"...nice straw man you built there."
ReplyDeleteScarcely a straw man - it's a claim made directly and repeatedly by the likes of Joe Huffman.
And where did Joe make the claim that the government's use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS against the citizenry is "inevitable?"
ReplyDeleteHe didn't. Your entire premise (and the title of this post) is a strawman.
Mike, this is pretty obvious troll-like behaviour and I'm getting to the point where I'm not going to bother with you. The answer to your question is up-thread, if you bother to look.
ReplyDeleteI read Joe's comment and he made no such claim, as I already pointed out. Therefore, you did not answer my question. Your position remains a straw man.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you have reading comprehension issues you should resolve before attempting to debate folks who clearly have the upper hand.
I'll point out this again for you,
With 1,201 murders in the U.K. in 2002 and only 14 of them committed using a gun, people would have had to something else.
Of all murders committed in the UK in 2002, only a bit over 1% of them were committed with a firearm. It should be obvious then to any rational person that guns are not the problem.
I read Joe's comment and he made no such claim, as I already pointed out. Therefore, you did not answer my question. Your position remains a straw man.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you have reading comprehension issues you should resolve before attempting to debate folks who clearly have the upper hand.
I didn't direct you to Joe's comment, I directed you to my own comment up-thread where I addressed the issue you asked about. If you need a hint (you don't, as everyone can see you're just playing tedious games) the relevant comment starts with the words "Of course they do!".
Now, you'll have to excuse me - you clearly don't need my assistance in your ongoing mission to come across as a total berk across multiple threads all at once.
Still running away when presented with inconvenient facts eh Mr. Kelly?
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised. It's sad but predictable.
I didn't direct you to Joe's comment, I directed you to my own comment up-thread where I addressed the issue you asked about.
Your comment wasn't at issue, what was at issue was whether or not Joe made the claim you say he did. This means Joe's comment is the relevant comment, and he made no such claim, despite your insistence that he did otherwise.
By the way, what is a "Berk?" Were you trying to insult me but mistyped?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to disappoint you, Mike, but it was in fact an impeccably-typed insult. As for your previous point, it appears you've quite simply 'decided' to misunderstand. Kind of sums up your general approach, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteAnd it would appear you are still running away when presented with inconvenient facts eh Mr. Kelly?
ReplyDeleteThat is your general approach is it not? Deny reality, deny plain facts and scream "la la la, I can't hear you."
"it appears you've quite simply 'decided' to misunderstand. "
ReplyDeleteWhat a classic example of psychological projection!
No kidding Ed, he accuses me of exactly that which he has consistenly demonstrated.
ReplyDeleteOf course that's easier for him to do than to try and actually offer rational counterpoints.
What, like this one, which you're still innocently pretending not to have read or understood?
ReplyDelete"Both of the commenters in fact only ever talk about handheld arms."
Of course they do! That's the whole point. Neither can provide a credible answer when it's pointed out to them what their worldview actually means when taken to its absurd and logical extreme.
Oh, by the way, Ed - you and your links...
Wow, given the simple concepts you continually fail to grasp here it's no wonder you find Kevin's uberposts incomprehensible.
ReplyDeleteWhen those simple concepts make logical sense in roughly the same way as "mauve apples are the capital of Taiwan", continually failing to 'grasp' them may well be in my own best interests.
ReplyDeleteBut lovin' the "wow".
how will the Second Amendment and the right to retaliate with puny guns be of any help?
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall a ragtag bunch of freedom-loving folks armed largely with their own personal arms who decided to throw off the chains of a tyrant an ocean away. They were facing the world's best military at the time and still managed to prevail.
There are similar examples all throughout history (including the Scots)
Oh, and insurgents with "puny guns" and IED's seem to be tying up the today's best military at the moment and have been doing so for years now. They did the same to the great Soviet Army as well.