Mr. Maloney:
Once again you have ignored my statement of conditions, and your argument is back to a straw man which I have not positied, while ignoring my basic argument.
This becomes a bit tedious, but perhaps I was unclear again. God knows I am not perfect. I will again try to be explicit and understandable - I hope you will bear with me like a gentleman.
The Warsaw Ghetto Jews lost because 1) they did NOT have enough people. 2) they did not have enough weapons and ammo. 3) Their uprising was not a Mass Uprising, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
The Hungarian Republicans of Imre Nagy lost because: 1) they did NOT have enough people 2) They did not have enough weapons and ammo 3) their uprising , although more mass based than the Warsaw Ghetto situation, did not have enough extensive outside support ( outside Buda and Pest ). Their uprising did not achieve the mass envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
The Mujahadeen DID win. Their ability to employ light ADA systems successfully was a big help, but the SAM's were used to attack the follow-on, or " cavalry to the rescue" Hinds. Nonetheless, a standard tactic they frequently used was the armor column ambush. This was a multi-step procedure where after they immobilized the vehicles, they destroyed the supporting infantry at dismount, using aimed rifle fire, from ambush positions. On numerous occasion, they used this method to eliminate to the last man BMP/tank- equipped company team sized elements. This was done with a couple of command detonated AT mines and then lots of Lee-Enfield rifle fire. The Mujahadeen were willing to die to complete their ops, but did not suicide and in fact functioned on the battlefield pretty much as any other citizen-soldier might - obviously unwilling to die, but accepting battlefield death as a risk to be incurred. This is no different from the behavior I would expect from any person bearing arms .
As for the contention that the SovFor were no good or were not operationally capable- this is certainly unsupportable during the first several years of the war, and even at withdrawal Soviet Forces were militarily functional. The fact they lost the political will to fight contributes to the success of the Mujahadeen.
As an aside, I wrote a professional paper on this specific subject several years ago. If I can find it, Ill send you a copy. Perhaps you would find it of interest. Or... mebbe not.
In a direct analog with the highly theoretical situation we are discussing here, the loss of "political will" by the regular forces is ( Surprise) a potential outcome of a conflict between " Second Amendment Constitutionalists" ( The Founders Last Resort) and a professional " anti-constitutionalist army of oppression".
At any rate, I hope I have myself clear this time.
An additional thought- several people have suggested that the Second Amendment "Then" was ok, but now it may be obsolete, because the arms were slow and and less capable then now. Thats a specious argument. Unless of course you will suggest that the Free Press of the First Amendment only applies to a manually operated manually typset press of the Guntenberg style, and not to high-speed offset lithography and Internet cmmunication.
Last thought- those who have bought into the "good - gun/Bad-gun" theology have surrendered their rights already, by agreeing that rights are conditional on perceptions or " majority opinions". That is " my pretty beautiful damascus barreled double gun is a good gun because its not a war weapon and its a thing of beauty", but your AR or Browning Auto-5 is evil because its a semi-auto, or shoots more than two shots without reload.
There are two fallacies there- Double guns have been used as weapons, so that isnt a "get out of jail free card" for our beloved doubles. Secondly- beauty is in the eye of the beholder - Rebecca Peters thinks your Purdey is ugly too, and wants to take it away from you as well. At least that is what she has stated publicly.
Ultimately in a world where there are sheep, and sheepdogs and wolves, some people are absolutely committed to being sheep. It is easier for them, and makes much less personal demand for fulfillment of their civic obligations. It seems incredible to me, though, that these sheep are so insistent that the rest of us must be sheep too. I guess we make them uncomfortable. Of course, it is likely that a eunuch feels uncomfortable in a locker room, too.
Regards to all
Gregory K. Taggart
