How effective would civilian gun ownership be against true government tyranny?

[LAGC]

Let's assume a real SHTF scenario here -- tired of longstanding "liberal" dominance and ushered on by hate talk radio shock jocks, the Republicans seize power in a coup and outlaw the Democratic Party and attempt to rewrite the Constitution sans Bill of Rights. A theocratic corporate military-industrial dictatorship ensues. Now, let's put aside the fact that there would be some serious resistance from within the military, as not all would go along with it -- but lets just say a majority did. What options would we have on the table to rectify the situation?

Mass protests, certainly. General strike by the labor unions, by all means. But what if that isn't enough? What if the military is used to crush the demonstrations, force people back to work -- ushering in scabs if necessary -- true fascism in action. What other means would we have at our disposal?

Now I know some would say that "untrained" civilians would be no match for the might of the military, but it is big and cumbersome, it couldn't be everywhere at once. Millions of individual gun-owners could still cause a lot of headaches for the tyrannical government, and I'd like to think even right-libertarians would be right there along-side armed Democrats fighting the evil powers-that-be.

Is it silly to even be pondering this? Could such a scenario never happen in this country? Take a look at Germany in the 1920s and who would have thunk: one decade later, Hitler in charge? History has shown that prolonged economic crises can create some terrible outcomes... I just think it would be foolish to think it could never happen here.

[MichaelHarris]

1. you guys

are just itching to shoot someone huh?

[Euromutt]

7. If that's what you need to tell yourself...

...so that you can feel superior enough to handle your own inadequacies, you go right ahead there.

[JonQ]

27. Just as much as the anti2nd folks

are itching to be oppressed.

[proteus_lives]

51. +1

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I must admit, jackbooted right wing facist thugs taking over the country

is right up there with World War Z, Zombieland, etc, for potential shoot-em-up games.

But that's as far as it goes. A humorous zombie apocalypse first person shooter on the Xbox.


The real thing would not be fun. Would not be entertaining. It would be the end of America as we know it, even if we won. Millions would die in the fighting.

[Chulanowa]

2. It would be hugely ineffective

Which is why I laugh long and hard at people who claim they need guns to protect them against the governemnt. Your guns can't even protect you from donut-munching pigs - they're sure as fuck not going to dent any organization with even a smattering of military training and weaponry. You don't bring a beretta to a missile fight.

[TPaine7]

4. "You don't bring a beretta to a missile fight."

Of course not. But usually you don't use missiles against your own cities. Usually.

And then there are the nukes. You can't beat a guy with a nuclear device. If you get him in a chokehold, he'll just deploy his hydrogen bomb defensively. He's guaranteed to win.

Another thing I love is the way all the people with military training line up with the dictatorship (or get discounted). That's very convenient. A submarine captain whose hometown just got obliterated with cruise missiles (because some people there had the temerity to brandish barettas) will certainly remain loyal. And none of his officers would ever get the idea in their heads to mutiny and avenge their towns' destructions with retaliatory strikes on the dictatorship. Ditto for generals and high officers who get orders to cluster bomb Dallas or Seattle.

A Republican overlord would never have to consider any of this--he would just march headlong into ultimate evil with nary a contrary consideration. And the fact that he was in open combat with American citizens--not citizens clustered in any one region, like the South in the Civil War--would not complicate his support any more than it would complicate his deployment of conventional and even nuclear cruise missiles. America needs new infrastructure anyway.

I've seen on TV (IIRC they played a tape of the phone conversation) where President Johnson predicted what would happen if he gave the order to bomb the SOVIET UNION:

"Fuck you sir, Mr. President." That is what he expected from Admirals and Generals ordered to preemptively bomb A FOREIGN COUNTRY--one capable of a devastating counterattack. But it would be a trifle to convince flag officers to bomb AMERICAN CITIZENS INTERSPERSED AMONG "LOYAL" SUBJECTS TO THE DICTATORSHIP? And the collateral damage wouldn't cause a backlash, even among "loyal" military brass?

Whatever.

The answer is that the transition is the tricky part, you have to slowly acclimate the people to the loss of their freedoms--boil the frog as it were. The problem is that too many Presidents, Republican and Democratic, have been slowly raising the temperature. Bush should have made us jump out of the water, but now Obama is back on the slow track.

[Chulanowa]

8. Why not?

Almost twenty years ago we were sending missiles down airshafts into Iraqi bunkers, weren't we? The technology has only gotten better since then.

And yes, the military does line up with the dictatorship. They always have in the past. In fact militaries tend to be the source of dictatorships. Even when they aren't, it's simply easier to go with the flow, get your pay, and not worry too much about what you're doing. I know it doesn't jibe with the heroic american soldier of movies, but really? There's no gigantic gulf that makes Americans vastly different from Germans.

next. You think all the armed citizens are going to rise against the government, don't you? No. In fact, I'm certain that right now there are a good many of them would, if they could get away with it, would kill you and your family, simply because you're not up to their standards - politically, religiously, ethnically, whatever standards they use. I know you understand this, right? I mean it's pretty basic logic that when the majority of "gun rights! Gun rights! Gun rights!" yahoos are, in fact, extremist right-wing fuckfaces, most of them won't be too perturbed by a fascist right-wing government. In fact said government would probably use them as military supplements.

Also consider that said government will almost certainly assert control over firearms and ammunition manufacture.

So then. You, and the rest of your small-town colorado football team are facing not just the overwhelming majority of the actual military, but also their little paramilitary buddies, while your ammo dwindles down to nothing. And... this is the scenario that you use to defend your right to own firearms?

"We need guns, because they'll be utterly useless if the gub'mint ever goes haywire!"

You're better off trying to assert bomb rights, in this scenario, TPaine. But you won't, because bombs don't let you fantasize about being a modern-day samurai.

[TPaine7]

9. You don't get it

Almost twenty years ago we were sending missiles down airshafts into Iraqi bunkers, weren't we? The technology has only gotten better since then.

Bunkers are stationary military targets with little danger of collateral damage. Collateral damage would be the big problem. Has the technology gotten so good that the bombs can distinguish between friendly civilians and guerrilla fighters blending in?

There's no gigantic gulf that makes Americans vastly different from Germans.

Agreed. Germany took time and special circumstances.

Also consider that said government will almost certainly assert control over firearms and ammunition manufacture.

Our current government asserts control over drug distribution. It requires licensing and prescriptions, among other things. How is that working?

So then. You, and the rest of your small-town colorado football team are facing not just the overwhelming majority of the actual military, but also their little paramilitary buddies, while your ammo dwindles down to nothing.

You don't know me. Let's not pretend you do.

And... this is the scenario that you use to defend your right to own firearms?

Not really. The right to arms predated the existence of government, and if government ceased to exist the right to effective personal arms--including firearms or their descendants--would remain. The security of the free state is merely a reason for the government not to infringe on the right, it is by no means the reason for the right's existence.

"We need guns, because they'll be utterly useless if the gub'mint ever goes haywire!"

Not really. See above.

You're better off trying to assert bomb rights, in this scenario, TPaine.

Indeed, I do. In revolt against illegitimate government--government that does not enjoy the support of its people is illegitimate--the people enjoy the right to bombs, nuclear devices, aircraft carriers, (and even antimatter weapons and planet busters when those are developed).... This must be so, for these--and indeed the entire military--are the people's property, bought and paid for by their tax dollars. So I do assert the people's rights to any and all weapons in the state armory and any yet to be developed.

But you won't, because bombs don't let you fantasize about being a modern-day samurai.

That shows how well you understand my position. Let's keep it impersonal, ok?

[Chulanowa]

38. I understand your position perfectly

I'm not sure you do.

You're talking about how guns are needed in a valiant, righteous struggle against evil, to defend freedom. You're cooking up an unlikely scenario in which this need is evident, and are basically ignoring it when you're told that your scenario is not only flawed, but that even if it weren't, your sacred weapon would be one of the least effective weapons to use in it. What you're engaging in here is an attempt to validate your talismanic worship of this particular weapon, by imagining a scenario where your opinion that the item is essential to existence is justified, where it becomes an item of pure, unadulterated goodness, a magical icon that protects its weilder from evil by its very nature.

Thus the "modern samurai" statement.

But hey. At least I don't think you're compensating for penis size, right? :D

[TPaine7]

54. Utter drivel.

You're talking about how guns are needed in a valiant, righteous struggle against evil, to defend freedom. You're cooking up an unlikely scenario in which this need is evident, and are basically ignoring it when you're told that your scenario is not only flawed, but that even if it weren't, your sacred weapon would be one of the least effective weapons to use in it. What you're engaging in here is an attempt to validate your talismanic worship of this particular weapon, by imagining a scenario where your opinion that the item is essential to existence is justified, where it becomes an item of pure, unadulterated goodness, a magical icon that protects its weilder from evil by its very nature.

You are parading your lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking. The threat of government abuse is not the sole reason people have the right to arms, or even the primary one. The right to weapons exists because of their utility in defending against aggression. Government is a potential aggressor, and I will not pretend that they are not, but they are not primary in my mind. They are most definitely not the aggressor that my posts on DU focus on.

I have never argued that guns would be the most effective tool of resistance. (I would think IEDs would be much more effective). In fact, to the literate among us, I have made crystal clear my belief that the right to arms is not dependent even on the EXISTENCE of government.

My goal has been to show the flaws in certain arguments. Your point about precision guided bombs being used against bunkers, for instance, was totally irrelevant.

I am not seeking to "validate" the worship of guns or prove that they are essential to existence, though your resorting to such infantile ad hominem speaks volumes. Why would I try to justify my position to you? Your positions and mindset--of which lashing out at those with differing opinions is but a symptom--are rapidly approaching the abject political impotence they deserve.

Your personal opinions may well be impervious to facts and reason, so I am not actually aiming to change your opinions (it would be nice but it is not expected). I just don't think certain assertions should stand unchallenged. There are honest people on this board.

[backwoodsbob]

61. you're joking

bring a brigade against the folk here in SW Virginia in the mountains we know and watch what happens.

Forget your berreta ...we pop gophers with .223's at 500+ yards.

A bunch of people in the desert have held us up for 8 years...what do you think people who have a vast forest and kickass rifles could do?

[Euromutt]

I'll add my points to TPaine7's above

Almost twenty years ago we were sending missiles down airshafts into Iraqi bunkers, weren't we? The technology has only gotten better since then.

That tech isn't doing much good against the Iraqi insurgents or the "Taliban" (a lot of so-called "Taliban" right now aren't; they're just opposed to the Karzai government, or the dominant tribe in the province, or whatever). Precision munitions are all well and good when you know who the enemy is, where the enemy is, and when there's not too much risk of collateral damage and non-belligerent casualties, but if you don't have that, it's not that great. Hell, look at all those targeted strikes the Israelis have tried against Hamas leaders; a Hellfire or Maverick missile can hit a specific building, but it still doesn't distinguish between intended and unintended targets when it explodes. And you can point out that it's technically the target's fault that non-belligerents got hit because he placed himself in the same building, but a lot of people are still going to be outraged.

And yes, the military does line up with the dictatorship. They always have in the past. In fact militaries tend to be the source of dictatorships. Even when they aren't, it's simply easier to go with the flow, get your pay, and not worry too much about what you're doing.

The armed forces are a sideshow; there's simply not enough regulars to effectively occupy the whole country. Sure, you can call up the reserves and the Guard, but how long can you sustain that? Those guys and gals have lives, and jobs, and they're going to resent being dragged away from them for a prolonged period of time.

The main burden of enforcing the regime would fall on the civil authorities, specifically the police forces. But unlike in most European countries, American police forces don't ultimately answer to the central government (like the UK Home Office or the Dutch Ministry of Justice); they're agencies of their respective states, counties or cities. Unlike former Communist countries, the United States doesn't have Ministry of the Interior armed forces (like the Russian MVD or the Yugoslav MUP) specifically intended to deal with internal uprisings. How reliable will the fragmented police forces be?

You think all the armed citizens are going to rise against the government, don't you?

Speaking for myself, I harbor no such illusions. Certainly, the various "gun rights" organizations appear to have demonstrated quite clearly in the course of the Bush administration that, as long as you don't threaten their gun rights, they'll let you take everything else. They don't see it that way, of course; they think their civil rights are secure, not realizing that one the government claims the power to strip anyone of their rights, everyone else's rights are reduced to a privilege that they keep only at the government's sufferance.

In fact said government would probably use them as military supplements.

Very likely, but it's important to remember they're not evenly spread geographically, and they probably won't stand to be deployed to locations away from their homes for extended periods of time.

Moreover, bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of gun owners aren't necessarily "'Gun rights!' yahoos." The NRA has 4 million members out of an estimated 80 million gun owners, with the GOA and JPFO having far fewer. And even then, their memberships aren't 100% "politically reliable"; they include liberals (such as myself) and libertarians who are willing to hold their noses right now, but wouldn't be in the described scenario.

Also consider that said government will almost certainly assert control over firearms and ammunition manufacture.

Kalashnikovs aren't all that difficult to make from scratch. Ammunition is trickier, but I'll get back to that later.

So then. You, and the rest of your small-town colorado football team are facing not just the overwhelming majority of the actual military, but also their little paramilitary buddies, while your ammo dwindles down to nothing.

"Red Dawn" allusions aside, resistance movements have a time-honored tradition of acquiring weapons and ammunition from their opponents. As do criminals, incidentally, but I digress. No "'Gun Rights!' yahoo" is going to be co-opted into some paramilitary outfit without getting to keep his collection of weapons and ammo that he already has. That means the house of every such type becomes a potential source of resupply. It's one thing to secure National Guard armories and police stations, but every right-wing gun nut's house?

And... this is the scenario that you use to defend your right to own firearms?

Speaking for myself, no. For me, the Supreme Court rulings in Warren v. D.C., DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales provide all the justification I need. Those rulings established that the government under almost all circumstances has no obligation to provide protection to individual citizens. That being the case, the government thereby abdicates any authority to deprive the individual citizen of the means to protect him- or herself.

That said, though, part of my "arsenal" was collected with a "Handmaid's Tale"-type scenario in mind, given the eliminationist rhetoric we've been hearing over the last several years from the O'Reillys, Hannities and Becks of this world. But not so much with an eye to mounting a stay-behind resistance, as making my way to the Canadian border via back roads with enough firepower to engage any roadblocks en route. But then, I have the luxury of living within a few hours' drive of British Columbia.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. That tradition is only in fantasy, not in reality.

"Red Dawn" allusions aside, resistance movements have a time-honored tradition of acquiring weapons and ammunition from their opponents.

For that to be true, the resistance movement has to conduct combat operations and make a profit on them. IOW, if they use up 100 rounds of ammo, they have to capture 100+ rounds. This can only be done when the resistance is operating at the lowest of Mao's levels. But as the size of your engagements gets larger, you start using more ammo than you capture. All successful guerrilla movements have an outside supply source.

[Treo]

21. In the last 9 months

Over one BILLION rounds of ammunition have been sold to civilians in this country. this doesn't include reloaded ammunition or ammunition components. That's a pretty big base to start from

[Euromutt]

22. Depends on your definition of "successful"

And on the objective of any given operation. An operation aimed specifically at capturing resources--such as ammunition--doesn't directly advance "the Cause," but it does keep the cell/team/unit in the field.

And I'll suggest that any resistance movement that manages to be a thorn in the side of the occupier without being identified and eradicated is successful, even if it doesn't achieve any strategic victories. To give you an idea, the Dutch resistance during the Nazi occupation was highly fragmented. The socialist branch of the resistance co-operated with the British SOE and mostly gathered and relayed intelligence, without taking much direct action; strategically important, but with little to no immediate effect. The Calvinist wing of the resistance movement, by contrast, hid Jews, forged identity cards, and organized knokploegen (lit. "brawl teams") which destroyed municipal population records (making it difficult to verify the authenticity of fake IDs), intimidated or liquidated collaborators, raided police stations for weapons and ammo, etc. Strategically unimportant, but a direct hindrance to the occupier achieving his objectives.

And I'm not sure the Irish Republican Army had much in the way of outside supply during the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921); German support ceased with the Armistice, and I don't think American sympathizers provided that much. Certainly, the Dublin Brigade was perennially short of arms and ammunition. But the IRA won anyway.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Success is defined as overthowing the goverment.

The various WWII resistance movements were heroic and were a thorn in the side of the Axis, but it was the Allied invasions that liberated the various countries.

[PavePusher]

48. I would offer up the thought...

that the relationship between the modern U.S. Military and U.S. Civilians, and the way the U.S. Military is currently trained, educated and organised, are vastly different from any such in the WWII era. You may wish to ponder that.

[Treo]

25. Another thing worth pointing out

Is that alot of "militia types" are buying 5.56/.223 rifles W/ the specific intent of raiding military stores for ammunition should the S ever HTF.

[TxRider]

63. Those resistance movements also started with an unarmed populace

Or relatively unarmed.

Not a populace with as many guns as citizens and billions of rounds of ammo distributed throughout the populace.

I can think of a couple of outside government that would more than happily provide outside assistance anyway.

[Chulanowa]

39. Well, let's be honest...

"That tech isn't doing much good against the Iraqi insurgents or the "Taliban" (...)and libertarians Hell, look at all those targeted strikes the Israelis have tried against Hamas leaders; a Hellfire or Maverick missile can hit a specific building, but it still doesn't distinguish between intended and unintended targets when it explodes."

And yet we and Israel keep shooting the things, without much care for "collateral" - or even perhaps with full intent of causing collateral. Government can engage in terrorism as well, you know.

The armed forces are a sideshow; there's simply not enough regulars to effectively occupy the whole country

Nope, there's not. But an insurgency isn't going to do anyone much good squatting in the woods in Colorado, is it? Major cities would be taken first, settled, and then the military would sweep out from there. Certain areas of the country would be written off and left to the insurgency, save for key resource points. The entire country doesn't need to be occupied. Take the major cities, reduce the minor ones, and keep a tight fist around manufacture, and you own hte country, even if you don't have boots in every inch of it.

Color me surprised that people on the gun forum don't actually know how this works...

they think their civil rights are secure, not realizing that one the government claims the power to strip anyone of their rights, everyone else's rights are reduced to a privilege that they keep only at the government's sufferance.

Actually, that's always hte situation - I don't know if you understand this, but all of our rights exist at the sufferance of the government - there's no such thing as an "inalienable right", they're all really damn easy to take away by someone who wants to do so. With that in mind, the people in this question are still unaffected - they retain their current rights and probably gain some new ones, while hte "other side" is screwed. It's not an equal situation at all.

Moreover, bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of gun owners aren't necessarily "'Gun rights!' yahoos."

Quite understood. Most of them are passive wastes of carbon who's main purpose would be food sources for large cats if nature had its way. They're a non-entity.

and libertarians

...Let's not pretend those fucks will ever be useful for anything. Put a bunch of libertarians in a death camp, and they'll spend their time arguing about the economic benefits of being a kapo and stealing food from the other inmates, rather than helping dig the damn tunnel (might mess up their manicure, you see)

"Red Dawn" allusions aside, resistance movements have a time-honored tradition of acquiring weapons and ammunition from their opponents.

Correction. They have a time-honored tradition of attempting to live off of their opponents. It only really works when those opponents are roughly the same power as the resistance, such as was the situation in Cuba and Kongo. Otherwise they have to rely on outside aid, as was the case for North Korea and currently Iraq.

That said, though, part of my "arsenal" was collected with a "Handmaid's Tale"-type scenario in mind, given the eliminationist rhetoric we've been hearing over the last several years from the O'Reillys, Hannities and Becks of this world.

Paranoid fantasy and guns. Kind of goes together like beer and high-speed chases, doesn't it?

[Euromutt]

62. Yes, let's

And yet we and Israel keep shooting the things, without much care for "collateral" - or even perhaps with full intent of causing collateral.

Yeah, partly because there's no better alternative, but mostly because the collateral damage isn't being caused in the relevant government's own country. It's one thing for the US government to blast a houseful of non-combatants in Paktia province, quite another to blast a houseful of non-belligerents in Michigan.

Take the major cities, reduce the minor ones, and keep a tight fist around manufacture, and you own hte country, even if you don't have boots in every inch of it.

"Reduce the minor cities"? As in "lay waste to"? How well is that going to play in Peoria (or what's left of it after the "reduction")?

Color me surprised that people on the gun forum don't actually know how this works...

Says the guy who just ceded control of the countryside. I think I can cite you a few examples where that particular strategy didn't work out so well.

So you've ceded control of the countryside, the real estate you are occupying contains the highest density of people hostile to you (we know from the 2004 election results that Democratic voters are concentrated in urban areas), you've alienated a large segment of your support base by forcibly relocating them (to the dreaded FEMA camps, perhaps?) and burning down their houses, and you've abandoned most of the rest of your support base. And without the countryside, you have no source of food, and probably a very finite amount of raw materials. All you need to do now is change your last name to "Westmoreland."

Actually, that's always hte situation - I don't know if you understand this, but all of our rights exist at the sufferance of the government - there's no such thing as an "inalienable right", they're all really damn easy to take away by someone who wants to do so.

I disagree; a government can deny a right to its citizens, but that doesn't make the right cease to exist. That's why we can say that a national government is violating human rights, even when that government denies its citizens have any.

Most of them are passive wastes of carbon who's main purpose would be food sources for large cats if nature had its way. They're a non-entity.
<...>
...Let's not pretend those fucks will ever be useful for anything.

My point was that they're not going to be in the opposition's paramilitary forces; or if they are, they won't be particularly effective.

And as an aside, gosh, you do have awfully negative opinions about rather a lot of people, don't you? Maybe you need to reassess whether the problem lies with them, or whether it lies with you.

Correction. They have a time-honored tradition of attempting to live off of their opponents. It only really works when those opponents are roughly the same power as the resistance, such as was the situation in Cuba and Kongo.

The Irish seem to have pulled it off. And hey, you just abandoned a whole bunch "Gun rights!" yahoos and their stockpiles of ammunition and reloading supplies to the insurgency when you gave up rural areas.

And you know, for all the criteria set by various people in this thread that "success" can mean nothing less than overthrowing the oppressive government, I'd say that you're not doing badly if you can force that government out of certain areas, so that you have somewhere to live that isn't under its rule.

Paranoid fantasy and guns. Kind of goes together like beer and high-speed chases, doesn't it?

Well, I for one certainly wouldn't care to take part in a high-speed chase unless I'd had plenty of beer first. I mean, if you're going to do stupid things, why take half measures?

As for paranoid fantasies, at least I don't believe that the 2004 presidential election was "stolen" or that 9/11 was "an inside job."

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Actually, explosives would be the way to go.

Firearms would be of secondary importance, because there would be no stand-up fighting. Any sort of resistance would take on all the proportions of the Iraqi insurgency, only it would be in and around our own military posts, forts, airbases, supply lines, at Lockeed, Boeing, etc.

And I have to assume some percentage of our military would remain loyal to lawful government leadership.

[Treo]

12. Yeah , because the Military would pop a nuke in the SAME COUNTRY THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN

because the Military would pop a nuke in the SAME COUNTRY THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN. WTF are you smokin' man

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Missiles != Nukes.

[Chulanowa]

40. Who said anything about nukes?

That said... Really? Take the scenario TP came up with - evil republicans take over the country mwahahahaha.

You think htey would really mind dropping a couple megatons on, say, San Francisco? They don't actually lose much in doing so, and I promise you that nuking an American city would get that irksome resistance to quiet down. yeah yeah, you can say "it'll just make us angrier!" and then show everyone your fourteen-inch cock of +17 manliness... But that's not how it works. People are really easy to frighten. And a show of wanton, reckless destruction is pretty effective at getting that result.

[TPaine7]

55. I see the nuclear defense against a chokehold example went straight over your head...

And then there are the nukes. You can't beat a guy with a nuclear device. If you get him in a chokehold, he'll just deploy his hydrogen bomb defensively. He's guaranteed to win.--Me

Let me break this down a little. Say you're one of the Republican overlord's evil commanders. You nuke San Francisco. That will intimidate the hell out of the resistance, won't it? Every liberal city in the US will be shaking in their boots. But what about the soldier under your command, the one who is a true believer in the Constitution and who believes all that nonsense about rights and freedoms and who has little to lose? Do you really believe he will be intimidated into not putting a rigged grenade in your command Hummer?

Let's say you're a high ranking Senator who helped ram through the overlord's plans. Do you really think your neighbor--one of the deluded lunatics who still believe in the old America--will be intimidated? "I can't punch a couple of holes in that Senator's chest from concealment, because if I do the overlord will nuke this city too! Even though his loyal puppets live all around me! I certainly can't bide my time and fake loyalty until my chance to take some of them out without being discovered."

No one will challenge the overlord to a duel at high noon, I grant you that. People will bide their time and play along. But people will try to kill him; they even tried to kill Hitler. Hitler was oppressing a despised minority, however. Anyone who tried to outlaw the Democratic Party or liberalism would have many "fanatics" waiting for an opening.

Basically, there is no nuclear defense against a chokehold. If someone lives next door to you, you do not have nuclear deterrence. And you don't know which one of your neighbors to send your goons after.

... I promise you that nuking an American city would get that irksome resistance to quiet down. yeah yeah, you can say "it'll just make us angrier!" and then show everyone your fourteen-inch cock of +17 manliness...

This puts you firmly in the "don't bother taking him seriously, only answer his points if they're plausible enough to deceive honest folks" category.

[TxRider]

46. Dunno, a tiny country with a pop less than cali

That are almost stuck in the middle ages has given our military fits for 8 years now...

Would depend on how universal armed revolt was, if it was a large majority of the people half the military would likely be on the citizens side if not all of them.

At a minimum if a similar % of people went insurgent as they face in Iraq or afghanistan the military would be too vastly outnumbered, and american insurgents would be far far more effective than what we see in Iraq.

[Irreverend IX]

3. Opportunistic sniping and sabotage would be the orders of the day.

There's no way a rebel force could take the US military in a fair fight. If the insurgents formed ranks and marched on Washington, they'd be wiped off the map in a split second. The solution: don't fight fair. There are millions of people in the US with scoped rifles and the knowledge to use them, and if just a small portion started sniping the occupying troops, they could cause serious pain over a wide area. If there are 500,000 snipers and half of them get one kill, that's 250,000 dead occupiers. Five Vietnams' worth.

Snipers are one of the scariest things for infantry to deal with, as they create large areas where no one dares poke their head outside an armored vehicle. The only easy way to get rid of snipers would be to bomb flat the areas where they operated. If they hid in residential areas, this would kill thousands of civilians and be a cure much worse than the disease. Sniping would really screw with the occupation's ability to control the civilian populace and drop morale even further than it would already be if US troops were being ordered to attack their own people. In all likelihood many military units would defect to the rebel side.

Military defections would be a lot less likely if the civilian population was disarmed and defecting units faced the prospect of fighting the greater whole of the military with no support from the civilians. Kind of a prisoner's dilemma: many units and officers would want to defect but wouldn't for fear that others wouldn't join them and they'd be left alone. If there was resistance from the civilian side, the prisoner's dilemma effect would be reduced.

Apart from attacks on occupiers, sabotage of infrastructure would be another effective tactic. Thermite is easy to make and can burn into the ground and destroy buried power, water and telecommunications lines. Roadblocks are super easy; the US is so big there's no way to police every important piece of infrastructure. Of course, this would lead to starvation, mass riots and all kinds of other nastiness. No one in their right mind would ever want this to happen, because a second American civil war would be horrible in ways that can hardly be described, but if they were pushed to that extreme I suspect the US population would prove to be a very difficult nut to crack.

[Treo]

65. Look at what just two amateur snipers did in DC NT

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. Um... I think a bunch of third world "Towel heads" are doing a

pretty good job of making the "most powerful country on earth" look pretty inept.

And oh by the way, I bought several thousands of rounds of ammo for the very reasons you highlighted, especially when I thought a McCain/Palin win was a possibility.

[Euromutt]

6. Germany's not a very good model

Take a look at Germany in the 1920s and who would have thunk: one decade later, Hitler in charge?

Quite a few people, I suspect. Bear in mind that the Weimar republic was Germany's first experiment with a democratic form of government, and it was plagued not only by economic crisis (brought on in no small part from the expense of World War I and subsequent reparations), but by constant running battles between the Nazis and the Communists, the only good point about which was that fighting kept both gangs of totalitarian goons too busy with each other to overthrow the government by force. In short, this was a very unstable society, in a country which didn't have a particular attachment to the form of government.

To answer the question, though, I don't think an insurgent armed citizenry is sufficient by itself to overthrow a tyrannical government. That is, open revolt isn't going to work; we have no shortage of historical examples (Yugoslavia 1949-1955 and Iraq 1991, to name but two examples). Instead, something more like the IRA's clandestine actions during the Irish War of Independence should be envisioned, though in that example, it should be borne in mind that the British had the luxury of being able to withdraw from Ireland. On the other hand, the IRA was severely hampered by lack of weapons and ammunition, which is a problem that the American civilian population does not have.

Armed insurgency can only go so far; ultimately, what brings down governments is lack of support from the general population, though insurgency can bring that about, especially if the government's response is inept.

Basically, I'd say I'm highly skeptical of the idea that an armed populace can keep tyranny in check, but if such a situation were to arise, it never hurts the resistance to have large amounts of weapons and ammunition stockpiled.

[Tim01]

10. It would be civil war. Some states would quit the union.

When it came to state against state that is where the rifles would become useful.

Little pockets of of patriots would most likely just be squashed.

[spin]

42. I agree., but...

what you would have to watch for is a trained individual or small group of trained individuals who could attack the infrastructure of the country. For example, the power grid.

We spent a lot of money training people to do dirty jobs in foreign countries. These people are VERY good and could prove to be a real pain in the ass to a tyrannical government.

Note: I can't see these well trained individuals considering Obama to be tyrannical. They might be watchful and they may even have buried weapons caches. But all the bullshit being spread by the far right might cause nut cases to do something stupid. While nut cases could cause problems they are no way as dangerous as some individuals we have trained.

[Tim01]

43. Totally agree about the far right and nut cases.

After being exposed to the opinions, societies, and cultures of other countries, I just can't believe how worked up some people get over differences that are not such a big deal in the bigger picture.

How many people here just want a "nice" dictator as opposed to a mean dictator?

I'm not sure how effective the power grid tactic would work. The govt would declare martial law and seize the media. They would claim they were just trying to restore order and a bunch of terrorists were trying to destroy everything. A lot of people would believe them and help them find the "terrorists". Lots and lots of people would quickly cave to the pressure of the govt as soon as they lost electricity and running water. They would beg the govt to return things to normal no matter the cost.

[spin]

45. Good point...

I don't have the training of the people I described as being extremely competent. The power grid may be a very bad target.

They may use entirely different tactics.

Still, they are trained to work in small groups and do a lot of damage.

It's very difficult to say how things would play out. Most armed citizens would probably obey any command to turn in their firearms. The militia groups would declare war, put on their camo and be rapidly overcome by a government who already knows who they are.

Some citizens would refuse to turn in their firearms and some would bury their firearms and ammo in weapons caches. (Some people already have.) Many in the military would refuse to obey orders to shoot fellow Americans and would desert with their weapons Some military units may decide to actually resist and a attempt to overthrow the government.

Several states would attempt to break away from the union. (Some states already seem to be considering this.)

We would have basically a total cluster fuck on our hands. It's impossible to predict the final winner. Unlike a lot of pro-gun supporters, the mere fact that U.S. citizens are well armed may not be the determining factor. Still, it's an important factor.

In reality, I would suspect that if our government moved toward a dictatorship, the military would simply overthrow it.

[pipoman]

11. A hell of a lot more effective than a disarmed civilian population..

[Statistical]

13. The military isn't made up of robots.

Some would simply desert and go home to protect their families.
Some push a pistol against the head of the officer who told them to open fire on American civilians and pull the trigger.
Soldiers take an oath to the Constitution not Congress.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Some soldiers would feel their oath to the Constitution makes them duty bound to engage troops violating that oath. Some unit commanders may even convince entire units to revolt and join National Guard units is "loyalist" states.

One third of combat forces are in the National Guards which are under control of the state Governors. Some Governors would keep control of their military and use it to protect their state. National Guard units have virtually every time of arms from artillery, to tanks, to high performance aircraft.

The US military has a huge logistical tail. Thousands of metric tons of spare parts, bullets, gear, replacements are sent to Iraq each day. The logistical tail is protected because it is located in the US, however a war in the US would expose that tail. Destruction or sabotage of certain plants would cause critical shortages.

Lastly US civilians are not completely untrained. A deer hunter is a sniper who kills deer. Any weapon capable of kiling a deer at 200m can kill a man at 200m. There are about 20 million hunters in the United States. When I was in Iraq the danger from snipers became acute causing us to change tactics and procedures. There were an estimated 12-30 snipers in greater Baghdad area at the time. Say 5% of hunters in US joined an armed resistance taking long range shots from covered positions or city buildings. That is 1 million hunter/snipers. Now they will be no where near the capability of a special forces sniper but remember 30-60 snipers in Baghdad caused substantial cost to war effort. 1 million hunters across the country. Say on average they are only able to kill 1 soldier each. The entire ground military is only 1.8 million troops and combat troops are more like 500,000 - 600,000 range.

Between public uprising, sabotage, hit and runs, ambushes, city fighting, and snipers an armed resistence could cause considerable damage to US military.

[Treo]

14. Now they will be no where near the capability of a special forces sniper

Except, of course, the ones who were special forces snipers (or just plain old 11B snipers). Other than that I agree 100%.

Somewhere, in an alternate cyber-universe, this thread is taking place on a right wing gunboard. The only difference is they're talking about U.N. troops instead of American because they know that getting American troops to fire on American Citizens would be a logistical nightmare.

Personally I think anything like this would be more along the lines of Texas, Montana, Alaska or Maybe Canada seceding.

Seriously we'd be screwed if Alaska went because we'd either have to do an amphibious/ airborne assault or get permission from Canada to stage troops out of their territory

[Statistical]

15. Yeah that was the point.

Most of these civilian snipers will fail. Many will die before killing a single soldier. However even a sniper who doesn't kill someone inflicts a lot of fear in ground troops.

Some will be effective though and certainly effective against demoralized ground troops in urban environment engaging their countrymen who had ranks affected by internal conflict, summary executions, desertion, and loss of key leaders.

Our military is very small compared to the size of the population so each civilian resistance fighter doesn't need to be very effective.
The military is 2.8 million people including all reserves which is less than 1% of the population.

However that number belies the much smaller ground combat forces.

The army & marines have about 750,000 troops. The reserves make up another 500,00.

Combat troops (actual trigger pullers are only about 1/3 of that).
250,000 + 150,000 = 400K or so.

Of those 100,000+ would likely desert.
Thousands more would be killed in internal conflicts.
Even more would follow orders of state governor instead of tyrants in DC.

So civilians outnumber ground forces by 1500:1 to 2000:1.

[Euromutt]

16. Difference is that American troops exist

The right-wing ZOG-fantasists who conjure up notions of "UN troops" have absolutely no idea of how the UN works. There's no such thing as "UN troops"; the personnel assigned to UN peace-keeping operations are on loan from their respective countries, and those countries maintain almost complete control over those troops. Many of the big contributors in troops (e.g. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ukraine) do so as a revenue-maker, because they get $50-150/day for each soldier (rich countries actually pay the UN pay to the soldier, poor countries don't), but the fact is that somebody has to stump up the cash to pay for those guys, and the US is major financial contributor (in order to avoid having to contribute troops).

The ZOG-head fantasies of "UN troops" massing just over the Canadian border only work if you believe that "the UN" (also a fiction, since the member states are rarely united on anything) has Old Republic-type clone vat operations and munitions factories, capable of pumping out a fully equipped mechanized division in a week. That's not even plausible science fiction.

[nccomms]

26. This subject came up one day

while talking to one of my military friends. His knee jerk response was i wouldn't do it & everyone he knew would not cary out those orders either. so I think its safe to say that having to take the government by force probably isn't going to happen. The only thing i disagree with you on is the whole hunters/snipers not being as affective as a special ops one. Remember in the civil war at one point the most affective soldiers were the local hunters because they knew the areas better. I think you would have some unexperienced hunters that would be easy targets, but i for one have been hunting my state & the two north & south of it for years & think i could make it , at least long enough to inflict serious damage. Not that i want anything to happen. Just saying if the shit hit the fan & we had too.

[Ready4Change]

57. My thoughts exactly

The part of the original post that made me laugh:

"Now, let's put aside the fact that there would be some serious resistance from within the military,"

That's like talking about making better automobile engines and saying "let's put aside the laws of thermodynamics."

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Many civilian guns would be turned against the left.

Lots and lots of RW types own guns. The country is about evenly split between liberal and conservative, with a huge hunk of middle-of-the-road types. Considering that liberals tend to be more anti-gun, and conservative tend to be more pro-gun, it is likely that the left would be outgunned.

It is an odd curiousity that the right dreams of rebelling against a liberal Washington government, and the left dreams of rebelling against a conservative one.

[benEzra]

23. Around half of privately owned guns are owned by non-repubs.

Lots and lots of progressives own guns, too, and a lot of corporatists and Religious Right types don't. The "all Dems hatez gunz" meme is mostly a Rovian construct, though it is certainly a useful one to the MSM, the DLC/Third Way types, and the repubs at the Brady Campaign.

Personally, I think the level of animosity between ordinary citizens of different political stripes is vastly exaggerated. The media-headline-grabbers on both sides are a minority of hardcore activists, sometimes even paid professionals. I think most Americans just want to live their lives, make a decent living, and be happy, and don't carry a lot of personal animosity toward others.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. Mostly I agree.

However, the Dems as gun-grabbers predates Rove. We got bashed in 1994 over the AWB. Anne Richards lost to Bush over her veto of Shall-Issue in Texas. Imagine is she had signed that bill.

Personally, I think the new model for revolutions is the New Russian Revolution of 1991.

My comment about the guns held by conservatives was because the OP seems to think that all the guns would be in the hands of leftist revolutionaries.

I definately agree that most citizens would be against the extremists of either side. I don't want either side to start shooting.

[slackmaster]

18. It seems to be working just fine

Along with the daily rituals I perform to keep wild elephants from stampeding onto my property.

[rrneck]

20. Strategically speaking

the most important factor is the fact that millions of Americans own firearms. It is reasonable to assume they will be willing to use them against somebody, no matter how ineffective their use might be. The guns themselves are much less important than the message their ownership will send. If you're willing to shoot back, political activism and regular voting can be assumed and that fact will not be lost on the authoritarians at the top.

The real power of a firearm is not the bullet that comes out of the barrel, it is the potential of its use. An individual who would do you harm will make a risk assessment regarding how difficult it will be to assault you. If it looks like you will put up a spirited defense he will look elsewhere for a victim. The same holds true for the powers that be. If the population looks like it is willing to rip the entire country to shreds to defend itself to the uttermost end, victory under those circumstances would a Pyhrric one at best. There certainly won't be any money to be made out of it.

It is a very long road to the extremity you describe. That road will be littered with various armed factions, corporate goons, rampant criminality and civil unrest. If you have to start shooting you will have to shoot thugs, contrary partisans, hired mercenaries, criminals, lunatics and neighbors before you ever put your sights on a soldier in the United States military.

Owning a gun says, "I'm willing to do whatever it takes to defend myself and those around me." That willingness should include shouldering our moral and civic responsibilities as well. If we do that, then we will only ever have to shoot paper targets.

[LAGC]

58. Indeed.

And I'd be perfectly content with only having to shoot inanimate objects for the rest of my life, as well. I've never shot a living thing, and hope I never have to.

[Treo]

24. We need to drop this Left/Right worldview

And realize that as gun owners we hold more common viewpoints than separate. I see names here (Ben Ezra. One Shooter) that I all over the place on THR and we fit in just fine over there because we agree on the issues of personal responsibility and personal freedom more than we disagree over who's in the Whitehouse (Personally, I think that anyone who WANTS to run this country shouldn't be allowed to). Hell, this thread even shows that we have the same TEOTWAWKI fantasies (W/ slightly different team rosters)

If we must divide ourselves I think it should be along the lines of Gun owner V. Anti more than Right V. Left

[Tim01]

49. I totally agree. But I think our numbers are few. nt

[Treo]

50. Legal gun owners make up a third of the country NT

[Tim01]

56. I'm talking about the number of people who see what we have in common.

Humans just LOVE to pick teams and then scream about how much everybody else sucks. REpuke and democRAT. I honestly think that most or many people intentionally ignore what they have in common with other "team members" because they prefer to be hostile and separate. Some tribal thing or something.

[Treo]

59. True

But I think if the government (regardless of party) went nuts the party lines would drop off the population (except at the extreme ends of the spectrum) real quick

[JonQ]

28. Good question

I think history has shown that small arms can be effective against a better funded and equipped military if they are sufficiently dedicated and organized.

But the main benefit to the 2nd, in my opinion, is the deterrence effect. Knowing that we have as many guns as people is certainly a deterrent to any would-be dictator in the US as he would face numerous assassination attempts, as would any that go along with him. For that goal small arms are quite effective.

And it is unlikely that the entire military would side with the government against their own people, or that they would be able to use the same tactics in the US as they did in say vietnam (carpet bombing american cities would likely prove counterproductive to their aims of staying in power).

So I'd say that the 2nd does not guarantee a tyranny free life for us, anymore than the 1st does, or any of the others. But in conjunction with the others it gives us a pretty good shot.

Ultimately the only proof against tyranny is a population that refuses to be tyrannized. And that can't be legislated, so we put in many roadblocks in the path to dictatorships, privately held guns being one of them.

[krispos42]

34. The military would fragment

And in fact the branches might take sides... the Air Force has a lot of Talibornagain in them in the officer corps and would probably go rightie. Dunno what the Navy or Army would do. The Air Force can lay down a lot of firepower but they're short of "boots on the ground" and their equipment operated from fixed bases and is easy to find.

Regardless, units, ships, and bases would split off and take sides. The advanced weapons would be used quickly, while there are still well-defined targets to attack and before the supply of spare parts dries up. Command, communication, intelligence, and logistical sites would be targeted. All the "gee-whiz" stuff that we're used to, all the "force multipliers", will be drastically reduced. Securing an area will be a lot more old-fashioned roving patrols and very little new-style UAV patrols. Massive numbers of troops will be required, and they will have to be fed and supplied. And while they are fighting, they aren't producing either food or materiel.

The sinews of war would be affected as they have not ever been. Unlike every other war we've fought in, our ability to make the food, fuel, and ammo to make and keep an army in the field will be severely diminished by war, with units fighting to seize or destroy critical resources of "the other side". Imagine Sherman's march on Atlanta... although on both sides of the conflict.

Imagine, for example, wildfires roaring through the wheatfields of Kansas or the cornfields of Iowa. Food would be destroyed. Livestock seized. Rural agrarian states are unable to get their food to market while urban commercial states starve because the transportation system is shot to hell. Disease and epidemics sweep the torn nation as water becomes unsanitary and sewer systems collapse.

In fairly short order the clean, well-equipped soldiers of the Army and Marine Corps will resemble the ramshackle ranks of the Afghan National Army.

Needed imports from overseas will slow to a trickle as shipping companies refuse to risk their vessels to piracy, or because port terminals are occupied, damaged, or destroyed.


The entire thing will turn into a brawl. Until the Chinese and/or Europeans intervene militarily. Or the Mexican or Cubans or Canadians. Almost certainly foreign forces will act to secure our nuclear weapons during the chaos. And I can see certain regions of the US begging for foreign help once the situation has truly gone to shit. After a year of civil war, the people of southern Florida might well welcome a Cuban military occupation. For example.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Actually, the military would fragment at the level of the individual servicemen/woman.

The military would be instantly useless if an attempt was made to use it against the American populace. It would be just like the Russian military refused to act against the Russian people in 1991. In fact, Machiavelli predicts that you can't get troops to fire on their own countrymen.

One uncoperative serviceperson can be extremely disruptive. During the Vietnam War, some salior dropped a wrench into the spinning reduction gears of a carrier, disabling the carrier and requiring lengthy and expensive repairs in a shipyard. Imagine a military with a huge number of such resistors, on both sides.

[kilo729]

36. Funny

Two things.

1. Both sides seem to think the other is going to overthrow the country and rewrite the constitution sans Bill of Rights. I find it giggle-tastic.

2. Vietnam. They didn't have jack shit compared to what our military had, and they still beat us. Now, a good portion of the blame for that could be placed on LBJs hands though.

[Francis Marion]

37. An unlikely peril, but Liberty always needs capable allies

How effective...?
It depends on the level of determination of the people, and the amount of repression by government. Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Vietnam all offer examples of what resistance can accomplish. Chechens won a high level of autonomy after their first (modern) war with Russia, and inflicted heavy losses on the invaders just as they sustained heavy losses. Nationalistic and religious motivations multiplied their will to fight and mitigated equipment and supply shortcomings to significant extents. Few people accomplished extraordinary results with spartan equipment. These people fought a modern military and the security aparatus of a major world power. Subsequent Chechen war however broke the Chechen resistance. Miracles and extraordinary effort by comparatively few are difficult to sustain.

Afghan resistance to US and Afghan government is motivated by religious, economic, and nationalistic factors. Depends who you ask; whether they work for a drug grower, Al Quaeda, Taliban, or nobody... But here it's worth noting that the national temperament, land mass and terrain favor resistance. They have a mountain sanctuary at home, friendly border state sanctuary, money, supplies and manpower flowing in from outside, and a long tradition of resisting occupation. Soviet Union failed to crush the resistance after a decade of fighting, and Communist prosecution of the war was both ruthless and haphazard. But significant numbers of militia retain the will and means to fight, and the territory to do so nicely for a long time, now as then.

Vietnam teaches that the key determinant for victory is for one side to retain the will to fight. We tired before the North did.
Just as the British tired before we did during the Revolutionary War. Although I find Vietcong tactics, politics often morally repugnant, what they did right was to simply show up every day. Even after being shot to hell after Tet. Show up every day, and one day your enemy will decide to leave. Emboldening their will to fight was the US antiwar effort, and perceived (in many cases, real) sympathy. Too many Communist fellow travelers in academia? Likely yes. Plus the fact that they had foreign weapon and supply chains and cross border sanctuaries to shelter and move supplies. So they had weapons, and had the will to fight, and thought that eventually their divided enemy would tire. Interesting parallels to conditions of our Revolution.

So if the American people have weapons, have a land mass to shelter, train and fight, have foreign sources of resupply, have a robust will to fight, they have the same tools that other people have used to prevail in guerilla warfare.

However, we are far from the Americans of 1775, distant in temperament and less inured to hardship. Anybody today think they could withstand a New England Valley Forge winter, without even shoes? Anybody here willing to march over frozen roads barefoot and leaving a blood trail? Without being properly paid, fed, or clothed? Would anybody today stand resolute after receiving a volley of British musket balls, then a shouting, furious line of Redcoats charging with bayonets fixed? And may I remind you, there is a very good chance that you, as an American, DO NOT even have a bayonet to meet this threat, especially early in the war, and especially as a militia member. Does Patriot blood course through your veins? I wonder if this is true of our average American today.

I wonder if Americans can identify anybody who stood against all odds to fight for Liberty in 1775. Who is John Parker? Who is Isaac Davis? Samuel Whittemore? Who is David Lamson? Of course these people are unknown if we don't even know who Paul Revere was!

The most costly time to medicate the body politic is when that body is racked with neglect and disease and injury. You can't train when your legs are broken and you've fallen unconscious. The time to prepare to meet hardship is when you're well and sound. Then, little effort provides large benefit. In contrast, an anemic body musters even a little effort at high cost. I think we're far less determined than our forebears to fight and endure hardship, especially if it lasts more than a day. I'd exempt the military from this assessment, but it's true of the unwashed American masses.

I also think it's unlikely that we will have to use combat or violence to resolve political conflict or to restore a toppled goverment. Unlikely, but not impossible. And if it happens, it means that we fell asleep in a critical area of our civic duty. It means that we voted carelessly, expected no accountability of officials, and had probably seen considerable political violence leading up to the coup.
But the Founders wanted us to know how to use small arms, and to have them at hand at all times. Not for hunting, but to safeguard the Republic. ("It's a republic, if you can keep it." Jefferson) Arms are not only for a professional military or for a militia, but for THE PEOPLE of whom the milita form a subset. "...THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE... shall not be infringed." Diagram the sentence and decide what is the object of the verb to infringe. Although one may or may not infringe a right, it makes no sense to infringe a militia. The right shall not be infringed, the right of the people. The right to keep and bear arms.

The Founders had just witnessed what a determined, armed people could accomplish to secure Independence. And they wanted the American people to have always at hand the means to preserve, if need be win back, Liberty.

I am puzzled that too many persons of laudable Liberal sensibilities will often shrink from support of the Second Amendment's plain grammatical, historic and political meaning. Don't they know that the blood of patriots courses through their veins? A fog seems to shroud both the intended meaning and its implication of the 2A, a fog which doesn't seem to similarly cloud the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Folks, Liberty is a blessing, is very good nourishment for the Body Politic, and you should serve your family a heaping portion every day. And if Liberty is worth defending, it must also be worth knowing how to defend, in the manner prescribed by the 2A, among all other means.

Do you own a rifle? Do you know how to shoot it? Sitting at a bench, resting on a sand bag, generating smoke and noise is not shooting. Can you hit what you aim at, from field positions, up to 500 yards away? These are the performance parameters within which a 20 century or newer rifle can operate effectively. If you know how to shoot, you can hit a military sized target up to 500 yds away, AND you can articulate how to do this. You can demonstrate how, and why, and distill the procedure into steps. If you can't do all this, you don't know how to shoot in the way that the Founders intended. And you aren't ready to defend Liberty with the tools provided by the Second Amendment.

How unlikely is it to need the Second Amendment, surely that can never happen in the modern world. Think again. Grandparents alive today wondered whether or not the Japanese would invade the West Coast. As just another stop in Japan's Pacific rim conquests, and after crippling our Pacific fleet. We might have met the same fate as the Philippines.

Surely the modern US can't be struck by a foreign power. Well, after 9/11, we're not immune from attack. History once again has a way of nastily surprising us, and we'd do well to be prepared for bad situations. One aspect of a free people's preparation is to know how to shoot the arms that they own. To acquit themselves in defense of Liberty as well as the New Englanders did on April 19, 1775.

So if you own a rifle, that's not enough. Seek out marksmanship instruction to learn how to effectively use it. If you don't own a rifle, consider accepting this part of your American civic responsibility. You can buy ammunition, an M1 Garand rifle or a 22 target rifle from the Civilian Marksmanship Program, at very reasonable prices.

www.odcmp.org

One of many suitable means to acquire knowledge, once you have a rifle, is to attend a weekend Appleseed marksmanship clinic. This is not some right-wing effort, by the way. It's an American People effort, grassroots and community sponsored, and affiliated with NO political party. No politics are preached at events, just marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. Has to be that way as it's run by a nonprofit group. Persons of all stripes of the American political cosmos form the volunteer instructor staff: Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents... or persons of no ascribed political party. Varied points of view provide worthwhile insight and are needed. Politics are besides irrelevant to the biomechanics of good shooting, and we are all Americans first. No party owns the Bill of Rights, the American People own them.
Attend and learn how to shoot well enough to teach friends and family. Attend so you can teach your fellow Americans what you have learned.

www.appleseedinfo.org

[SsevenN]

41. Fracis, that was a great post. NT

[Statistical]

44. a rifle behind every blade of grass

The power of the second amendment comes from the fact that is likely will never need to be used.

Just as simulations quickly showed both sides during the cold war that nobody wins in a nuclear exchange the large number of civilian firearms ensures no govt could maintain order in the US without the will of the people.

It isn't a magic talisman against tyranny.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."

A more successful tyranny is one that enjoys the will of the people. If you can manipulate people to not see it as tyranny but rather protection & patriotism they won't rebel and likely will use arms (and be called heroes) against those who do.

[billh58]

47. And that

is the angle that Dubya, Cheney, and Rove were working.

[krispos42]

66. Exactly

If nobody thinks it's tyranny, it's not a tyranny.

Being well-armed means that the tyranny will come from another direction, that's all.

[proteus_lives]

52. I like that quote and I agree.

With the points you make.

[Francis Marion]

60. Some seed fell in good ground, some in hard ground...

You're half right- I don't see any crosses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw4_xmUgo3w

I watched Reifenstal's Triumph of the Will awhile back. Thus it was absolutely chilling to see that same poison alive and at work here in our country. There were roughly 50,000 members in the 30's. Now that is not a tremendous phenomenon in a nation of hundreds of millions, but still, thank God this effort imploded.

Authoritarianism as a modern religion of state, power and pageantry, scourge of the 20th century.

[proteus_lives]

53. There many examples of a bushwhackers and irregular groups holding their own.

Silly "Red Dawn" jokes aside I don't know if this type of takeover could ever happen in America.

The military would fragment and it would be a general civil war.

[Buzz cook]

64. Two things

The greatest revolutions in history happened in the twentieth century. In each case a virtually unarmed populace over threw the greatest dictatorships history has known. I am of course talking about the overthrow of the USSR and its satellites.

Secondly in the one nation where there is a vast amount of weapons in private hands; the majority of firearm owners have sided with the oppressor over the oppressed. The use of private firearms to kill and or intimidate minorities, labor, and anyone labeled as un-American is pretty darn common place.

[LAGC]

67. The fall of the USSR and Eastern Bloc satellites...

Had more to do with the Communist leaders' unwillingness to shed their own people's blood to restore order than it did with any other factor. You can't assume that a fascist takeover in this country would be so merciful towards its "own" people.

And while its true that we've seen many abuses of firearms in the hands of the right-wing in this country's short history, is it wise to allow them to have monopoly over popular firearm possession now? Should civility break down and things get ugly, I sure as hell wouldn't want them to be the only ones running around with firearms imposing their will on everyone else!