Of course they would have defectors - and they'd have even more if the MM was unarmed. And while the Vietnamese were able to inflict some small damage on the U.S. war machine, their war was won by convincing the US population to withdraw their support from that machine - NOT on the battlefield.
This sort of cognative dissonance is what always amazes me about gun nuts. Take Waco: they moan and complain how those wackos needed their cache of weapons in order to defend themselves against tyranny.
Those people weren't even up against the major leaguers, just a bunch of trigger-happy FBIers and ATFers. A real military force would have flattened the place in 5 minutes. So what purpose do the weapons serve, other than contributing to senseless violence?
You are never going to beat the U.S. gov on the field of battle. Never. Shooting back only hurts you in the real contest, which is public opinion.
My god, I have to hear this nonsense on every other board on the internet, I never thought I'd hear it on LBO...
Jim Baird
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/