Here is a discussion for you guys...your thoughts on a future...


PDA






SilentStalker
September 13, 2007, 02:02 AM
Ok, I have been thinking about something lately after having a little discussion with some of my military buddies. It all started the other night when we got into a debate about some feelings of ours about some of the decisions that this country has been making lately, be it about whatever, this is not important. What was important about this conversation was our discussion about certain things in this country heading in a southward direction and eventually some of the decisions being made today ultimately leading to a theoretical civil war in the future. I mean think about this, a lot of people are concerned about the government and about their right to bear arms lately. I agree that as civilians we should be able to bear arms. I mean it is the 2nd amendment to our constitutional rights. However, this leads me to the burning debate me and my buddies have been having. Technically speaking back when the constitution was written this amendment was made to keep the government in check if someone or some entity ever became too powerful. That is a great addition to the rights of the people and was probably a good idea back at the time the constitution was written, but that was also a time when the civilians and the government/military were also on a more level playing field, and I stress the words more level, if you catch my drift.

Again, I think the 2nd amendment is a right that should always be available to us in this country, but does that amendment really serve its purpose in today's world, the same purpose it served when it was first written? It would make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that a well developed and armed militia might stand a chance against the governments of today, but that leads me to my question. How do you think we would pan out as civilians with our little rifles and handguns, etc. against a military power like the U.S. in todays world? In my opinion, I don't think we would stand a chance today against our own government if it ever came down to a war between the two, and hopefully this would never happen, but we are speaking theoretical terms here. They have too many resources available to them and the technology that they have today would most definitely put the odds in their favor, not ours. In reality, in my opnion, it would come down to the hearts of the brave men and women in our military to not take action against the civilians of their own country. That would be the only thing that would even remotely save our butts in a civil war. Again this is just my observation. I mean do you honestly think we would stand a chance against a superpower of today with a few semi-automatic weapons? I don't think we would even remotely have a chance which leads me to my next two questions. Number one, knowing that we most likely would not stand a chance against a military superpower like our own, "Why would the government be so keen on keeping weapons out of our hands?" Number two, knowing the above, "Why do we care so much about having weapons in the first place in today's society?" We elect members of the government so should we not trust them to do what is best for us? Do we honestly think our government would ever abandon us, attack us, or do anything against our favor? it raises some interesting questions to say the least. Anyways I just thought that it was an interesting topic that I would bring to the board to hear others opinions on the matter. Remember this is just a friendly discussion, try to keep it as civil as possible. Later.

If you enjoyed reading about "Here is a discussion for you guys...your thoughts on a future..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MaterDei
September 13, 2007, 02:25 AM
IBTL

Some things to consider.

1. There are a lot more people that own guns, by far, than there are people in the military. Yes, they have the better arms but the sheer number of civilians that could join the fight would be hard to deal with if they were sufficiently motivated.

2. Many people within government and the military would not be on 'their' side. This would complicate things GREATLY for them.

3. We are still fighting in Afghanistan. Compare their capabilities and numbers to our own.

4. The rules of engagement would most likely be very restrictive if our military was fighting its own people on its own soil. The military would be less likely to destroy it's own infrastructure.

5. Don't underestimate semi automatic weapons or overestimate automatic ones.

You asked:

1. "Why would the government be so keen on keeping weapons out of our hands?". Because I believe your premise that we would stand no chance against the military is not one shared by the government itself.

2. "Why do we care so much about having weapons in the first place in today's society?". The state of 'today's society' is exactly why we care. Other than perhaps when American was a very young and vulnerable country we 'need' this right today more than ever.

3. "Do we honestly think our government would ever abandon us, attack us, or do anything against our favor?" Yes.

Shweboner
September 13, 2007, 02:26 AM
I think just being a 'civil war' it is implied that the military/govt/LE is divided as well, with different sides being chosen... Anything short of that, such as an 'us against the govt.' scenario is revolution, not civil war.

But I agree that it is a matter of when and not if. Civil war would be the only way things would change... a revolution would be crushed pretty quick, or public support of the revolution would erode quickly due to a massive propaganda machine, scare tactics and fear mongering... you would not be a citizen forcing change in your govt... you would just be a 'domestic terrorist' or even a 'home-grown terrorist' villified in the media and hunted down like an animal.


My question is this, What do you think the spark will be that ignites such a violent reaction from the populace? (civil war ot revolution) what would it take for you, average citizen & family man, to take up arms against your government? How do you see lines drawn up in a civil war? What are the issues at stake???

SilentStalker
September 13, 2007, 02:47 AM
Interesting and thoughtful replies guys. This is just the kind of feedback I was looking for. Keep them coming.

mb419
September 13, 2007, 02:58 AM
My thoughts run along the same lines as the above posters. I think that the military would have quite a difficult time trying to pacify the country in the event of an uprising or a civil war. Look at Baghdad today. They might be able to control a few of the larger cities, but, outside of that there would be alot of dangerous territory in the rest of the country.

I also think, and hope, that many of the soldiers would not fight against their fellow countrymen.

As to what would cause a civil war to start, I'm really not sure. Maybe gun registration followed by confiscation then a few well-publicized seizures gone wrong would start something? Or else some kind of national "emergency" where martial law is declared. I don't know. It's hard to tell what the American public will think or do.

antsi
September 13, 2007, 03:12 AM
Hypothetical Future Tyranny Govt. vs. The People

IThese things always come down to numbers, perception, and support.

On paper, the Czarist State had overwhelming resources over the Reds. But the Czarist state had eroded its own support among the people. Most of the serving military were not loyal to the Czar. In the end, the loyalists were massively outnumbered.

On paper, the CCCP was pretty much invincible compared to the motely of Poles, East Germans, Czechs, and internal dissidents opposing them. But by the time it came to showdown, the CCCP had pretty much rotted from the inside and their own forces weren't willing to support it.

I have often heard the argument against the original intent of the 2nd ammendment that there is no way a popular uprising could overthrow the .gov if it became tyrannical. However, if it became tyrannical, it would alienate increasingly more of the people and its own uniformed servants. If it was unpopular enough to create a large mass of resistance and erode discipline in its own ranks, it could certainly be toppled.

Also, technology can empower the people as much or more than it empowers the state. The Czar didn't have black helicopters with night vision surveillance equipment, sure. But the Bolshies didn't have encrypted email to communicate amongst themselves, or cell phones to set off their IEDs, or YouTube to distribute their propaganda videos, either.

If the argument is that a modern superpower can always defeat an underground insurgency, I guess we'll be wrapping up that mess in Iraq any day now. If the argument is that the .gov can always propagandize the masses into supporting their use of superpower force, I guess the Pres. won't have to worry much about popular support for the Iraq war.

Sure, if we're talking about a few McVeighs against the US .gov as-is-now, the US .gov as-is-now wins hands down. But the kind of extreme tryannical metamorphosis of the US .gov that would need overthrowing would inspire a lot more competent and numerous resistance than a few McVeighs, and probably would have undermined its own popularity and support substantially.

Another concept here is reminiscent of Admiral VonTirpitz's Risk Theory. He figured that simply by having a substantial Navy, Germany could influence UK strategy. The German Navy didn't have to be strong enough to defeat the RN, it just had to be strong enough to pose a credible threat. Largely due to the Kaiser's blundering Tirpitz's theory didn't work out but that's more of a flawed execution than a flawed concept. By the same token, having 80 million armed citizens could pose a credible threat to President Tyrant-Wannabe. Even if he figured he could beat us in the end, he might look at the risks and costs of defeating us and figure there's only so much he can get away with.

That's the optimistic view, anyway.

antsi
September 13, 2007, 03:16 AM
one more:

"Why do we care so much about having weapons in the first place in today's society?".

This is another one people always say. "We have a fairly free society: we don't have to worry about needing to overthrow the .gov"

So far, that's true. And why is that so? Because we have, for the most part, maintained our essential freedoms including the freedom to speak our minds, protest against our government, and keep and bear the means of resistance if ever necessary. Take away those essential freedoms, and your relatively free society that doesn't need overthrowing would, pretty much by definition, have transformed into something that very well might need overthrowing.

justashooter
September 13, 2007, 03:26 AM
seldom is a war won in this generation by overpowering of an opponent. more often in the last 50 years wars have been won by making an opponent so uncomfortable they decide it would "just be easier to go home".

a guerrila style uprising in this country against a government that has usurped the powers of the people by overstepping the constitutional bounds would be succesful if fought along the lines of the teachings found in On Protracted War. this text by mao in the early 30's was based on the earlier chinese writings of such teachers as sun tsu, zhou tsu, and wu tsu. following their guidance mao suggests that even the water can cut the rock. it just takes a little longer.

the only way such a reactive effort could be suppressed would be in the model the british took in south africa about 100 years ago. mass deportment to detention camps in which 90% of the interred died of disease and malnutrition would reduce the initial activity. this would not sit so well with those who would witness, though, and would inspire even more reactive effort.

jungleroy
September 13, 2007, 04:26 AM
Roy carefully takes out his ten foot pole and proceeds to peck at the keys.

Because our borders are not as closed as we would like.
Because there are criminals to keep out of our homes and away from our loved ones.

It all depends who is the aggressor in this hypothetical war or uprising.
If the Gov, came to take away freely owned personal property. I believe gorilla warfare would work wonderfully.
Metaphorically speaking, saturation of skirmish areas in our own country by our own country would bring rebellious individuals out of the woodwork.
I also believe that These issues may rear their ugly head after the next election if we don't stick together.

Could we add to your hypothetical discussion the possibility of having the next president actually being of a dictator mentality?
Would they try to nanny govern us?
Would they say all firearms are no-longer legal?
Or would they for a better more incrementally plan, go to the homes of article2 item owners and try and take their personal property away.??

What would you do then? Would you sit idly aside and watch it happen, or take the side that represents the freedom of our country past.

Roy now sets the ten foot pole aside and wipes the sweat from his brow.
You get my meaning, there are alot of variables to consider.

ConfuseUs
September 13, 2007, 04:44 AM
The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to create a system for maintaining a significant force of ground troops without the federal gov't having very strong control over them or having to take financial responsibility for arming and training them. There also weren't organized police forces at the time either. The theory was that since the army is really composed of the people then the gov't would not be able to use the military to oppress the people. This is because many of the abuses that caused the colonists to rebel were perpetrated by a professional military which was not rooted in the community at all. The thought that the 2nd Amendment was written with the intent of oppressed citizens fighting back against a monolithic and oppressive gov't is somewhat off the mark IMHO.

The Civil War was rooted in the fact that this country started out with the proposition that all people are equal, but some people may own other people as property. Since the slaves were indispensable to the economy of the South the war started due to the looming possibility that the Federal Gov't was about to deprive the Southern states of a very valuable source of cheap labor. Essentially the Civil War developed out of the question of what powers does the Federal Government have to strip property owners of their property when a majority of the electorate has decided that the continued ownership of that property constitutes a blot on the nation's morals which must be removed? This leads on to a potential spark for another civil war.

The next civil war will also be rooted in the powers of the Federal Government to regulate property based on a moral outrage. I think the moral outrage concerning property this time will center on is it permissible for property and the corresponding economic, social, and political power to be very unevenly distributed? Also, shall private citizens be permitted to own property which is specifically intended for exerting force? Put another way, is "Life ain't fair, deal with it" to be accepted as integral to how our society functions? The fact that the Federal Gov't in the early '90s was banning assault weapons combined with the fact that the legislative and executive branches were controlled by persons who believe in using gov't power to forcibly redistribute wealth was leading to a breakdown in the debate. Fortunately the right to elect representatives averted that problem and it eventually subsided. Unfortunately, the right to elect representatives cannot forever avert a civil war based on moral outrage over socioeconomic differences as the Civil War showed: The South had the right to elect representatives to Congress, but that right meant less and less in the face of the growing legislative power of the Northern states coupled with Northern disapproval of how the South ran its economic affairs.

Just like during the 1860s, the big questions on what the Federal Gov't has powers to do have to be decided by blocs of voters. Unfortunately at this time there are some clear geographic divides between the potential sides but most potential adversaries live cheek by jowl with one another. This means that if it came to armed conflict over domestic political differences literally everyone would be considered a target by whatever side they disagree with. The sole objectives of the belligerents would be to wipe out the opposing voter blocs while not getting wiped out themselves.

I find it doubtful that the Federal gov't will have a monopoly on all the big ticket military assets though. Even if they did, many of those assets would be of limited value since their use in many situations would be counterproductive.

The end result of all this? No matter who wins open society, democratic government, and freely speaking one's mind will be gone.

1911 guy
September 13, 2007, 08:18 AM
I don't want to make light of the discussion, but civil wars happen in every society. There are a lot of things to be upset about, and rightly upset, but we've got a bit of fighting to do in the legal and electorate realms before we could possibly justify to future generations a real, live, shooting match just yet. Civil wars are the natural result of growth in a society that has changed too rapidly for it's constituents to assimilate the changes, be those changes good or bad. Change is change.

Few wars have been fought anywhere in the world, in the last three to four hundred years, based solely on survival. Most have been incited by political change, economic change or social change. The wars in europe that spilled over into the New World began with philosophical change and resulted in, among other things, our American Revolution. The coming Industrial Revolution and social change resulted in our American Civil War.

Having just come out of a period of great change (Age of Enlightenment) , our Founding Fathers put in writing the ammendments to the constitution which in effect gave us (among other things) the means to resist or support change as we saw fit. Suffrage, arms, speech, assembly, all are tools to be used in the cause of furthering our republic as we, the people, see fit.

As for the gov't vs. the people, the gov't is made up of those people and is often a cross section of society at large. If major division comes, the government will be just as divided as non-gov't.

desert_fox
September 13, 2007, 11:38 AM
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

I might not be able to 'defeat' the US government per se, but I'm sure as hell not going to make whatever it is they are doing that drives me to that point easy for them. Besides, guerilla tactics are extremely effective. If they weren't, Iraqi insurgents would have been captured a long time ago.

Bubbles
September 13, 2007, 11:52 AM
I have often heard the argument against the original intent of the 2nd ammendment that there is no way a popular uprising could overthrow the .gov if it became tyrannical. However, if it became tyrannical, it would alienate increasingly more of the people and its own uniformed servants. If it was unpopular enough to create a large mass of resistance and erode discipline in its own ranks, it could certainly be toppled.

Using this logic, could one state that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights as not only a check on government power, but also as a way to ensure the stability of our government?

Private gun ownership --> gov't doesn't get tyrannical --> no mass resistance --> gov't doesn't get overthrown.

Thoughts?

10 Ring Tao
September 13, 2007, 12:00 PM
Never underestimate a guerilla war in the age of the internet and wireless communications.

antsi
September 13, 2007, 12:47 PM
------quote---
Using this logic, could one state that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights as not only a check on government power, but also as a way to ensure the stability of our government
---------------

Sure - that's true of all the constitutional liberties. By enshrining the power of the people to protest, resist, and modify their own government, you are a lot less likely to see the government morph into something that needs to be overthrown.

However, if we start chipping away at the people's power to protest and resist, then there is that much more risk of government getting out of control and justifiably needing to be overthrown - and paradoxically the people would be in a much worse position to do so.

SilentStalker
September 13, 2007, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by antsi

However, if we start chipping away at the people's power to protest and resist, then there is that much more risk of government getting out of control and justifiably needing to be overthrown - and paradoxically the people would be in a much worse position to do so.

:) Among other things that most people feel are slowly happening.

Prince Yamato
September 13, 2007, 01:15 PM
I mean do you honestly think we would stand a chance against a superpower of today with a few semi-automatic weapons?

Just pull the trigger more than once and you'll get more than one bullet.

igpoobah
September 13, 2007, 01:28 PM
It's the principle of the matter.

Perhaps an armed American populous can resist aggression by .gov, perhaps not. If we are armed they will never know until they try, and that is a BIG move on their part.

Without an armed populous, we are but lambs to the slaughter.

strat81
September 13, 2007, 01:28 PM
How do you think we would pan out as civilians with our little rifles and handguns, etc. against a military power like the U.S. in todays world?
The insurgents in Iraq seem to be putting up quite a fight.

There are some very thoughtful posts in this thread, so I won't bore you all with a long diatribe about the issue.

However, I will say this:
There will be no chance of Civil War as long as cable TV works and the shelves are stocked at Walmart. None.

PacketStorm
September 13, 2007, 01:36 PM
This question has so many facets that could be examined. I am impressed with the quality of analysis done already.

To answer your question, I also believe that a popular uprising could not be squashed very easily. When there is no formal opponent to fight, it turns into guerrilla warfare (which suits the guerrilla's). The people involved in fighting this type of conflict have to keep themselves assimilated with the other side. You can't have a large break up and groupings of armed resistance. Check out the book "JawBreaker - The hunt for Bin Laden". In this account of the search for Bin Laden, there were many instances where the SF soldiers (4 guys) were able to defeat hundreds of taliban fighters with the help of technology (SOFLAMs and Precision Airstrikes). Any time you have massed large numbers of fighters, the battle shifted in favor of the organized modern army. Small, isolated cells were/are very successful.

Will there be a civil war in my lifetime? Not sure. The mindset of gun owners and non-gun owners is quite a bit different. My side of the family is more the 'do it on your own - know how to hunt, fish and survive if you need to'. My wifes side of the family is much more rooted in today's America. They have so many other focuses (sports, movies, schooling...) that this question I don't think has entered into their mind at all. I think something pretty drastic would have to take place.

Katrina was an interesting wake up call for a lot of people. Still others don't get it. I sometimes get interesting looks from non-gun people when I'm buying hunting supplies in Boxmart. Their looks will really change if for some reason the SHTF and you need this stuff.

We are blessed to live in a secure society (relatively speaking, compared to most countries in the world). There have been many good men and women who fought and died to give use the freedoms we have today. I am really shocked at how the quotes from our founding fathers have such meaning again today. The one from Ben Franklin stand out right now..."Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In reading the works of our founding fathers, these were not stogy old men I remember from history class, but revolutionary, dangerous thinking men.

igpoobah
September 13, 2007, 01:43 PM
Here is a quote I found, that reflects what I just said, but better: :D

Paul Hager: "One of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldn't prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasn't true. Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity." Paul Hagar, "Why I Carry"

cnorman18
September 13, 2007, 01:53 PM
Not to put too fine a point on it, fellas, but the government has already attacked its own citizens, at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Note the specific issue involved in both: ALLEGED FIREARMS VIOLATIONS.

Also note that in both cases, the--let's say "subjects"--of the investigation/attack SHOT BACK.

Randy Weaver at least survived the attack, though members of his family did not, and stands vindicated and a free man today. The Waco massacre was far worse (and I was living less than 50 miles away when it happened, just for the record). Both were PR nightmares for the BATF and the Justice Department, and their trigger fingers are considerably less itchy today. So far, I judge we're breaking about even.

But I would fully anticipate that if our government ever does tip over into full-blown tyranny--or, rather, ATTEMPT to--the specific issue that precipitates rebellion, or at least resistance, will be abusive firearms regulations and/or abusive enforcement of same.

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny; where the government fears the people, you have liberty."
-- William Feather.

It would appear that we are still at a point of balance between these two extremes. Let's all keep writing and calling our congressmen, speaking out in public (like here)--and stocking up on ammo--and keep it that way.

bulgron
September 13, 2007, 02:02 PM
If civil war came to this country, it will be a fight over resources. The end of cheap oil and overtaxed water supplies are my two favorite reasons for why we might end up in a civil war.

No one's going to start shooting because the Dems are trying to tax people too much. That sort of thing just makes people go out and vote Republican.

Same deal with religious issues. Same deal with guns. Same deal with just about everything. People who care about this stuff find a safety value in the political process. Considering how close our elections have been of late, I'd say a lot of people are blowing off steam.

But if the water stops running, or the cars won't start anymore, well, then all bets are off.

No one should be seeking civil war, btw. The last time we had one, the only true winners were the Federal government. It was that war that cemented the Feds' supreme position of power in our society. Want to see America become Communist or Fascist? Have another civil war. Doesn't matter who wins, the government that remains at the end of that will be more authoritarian than you can imagine.

SilentStalker
September 13, 2007, 02:33 PM
But if the water stops running, or the cars won't start anymore, well, then all bets are off.

You make a very good point there bulgron. People do crazy things when their luxuries are taken away.

No one should be seeking civil war, btw. The last time we had one, the only true winners were the Federal government. It was that war that cemented the Feds' supreme position of power in our society. Want to see America become Communist or Fascist? Have another civil war. Doesn't matter who wins, the government that remains at the end of that will be more authoritarian than you can imagine.

Nobody is seeking war of any kind here, just a discussion and for reasons above that you mentioned it is important that we keep everything in a nice balance. However, many people believe that the balance is slowly but surely tipping over in the favor of those who are in power.

81k5guy
September 13, 2007, 02:53 PM
First I would like to say I agree with some of the posters above ,its not a matter of if but when. I also believe that one of our biggest threats that are going overlooked are the influx of illegal aliens.How hard do you think it would be for them to start a war here.Everyone is so worried about the muslim sleeper cells(me included) that we seem to overlook how easy it would be for the illegals to attack us.

Now I admit this sounds kind of crazy but think about it .Just the shear numbers of illegals here in the country could cause alot of problems if they armed themselves and decided they are not going to leave without a fight.And they have already proven that it wouldnt be hard to get reinforcements from below the border.


I pretty much look at them as sleeper cells that the government is doing pretty much nothing about. I think all this talk of amnesty is due to the fact that they know trying to deport all of them is a winless battle.

Jdude
September 13, 2007, 03:27 PM
If the event became open rebellion, very likely there would be troops and commands who support the rebellion at all levels. There would be a strong division in the federal ranks.
Time and time again, the standing army has shown willingness to use force against American citizens. History has also shown, through Katrina, that the local forces (police) would desert to take care of their families. I suspect that this would be very probable with the military also.
But when it all boils down, look to your left and your right. Do you think those soldiers would kill American citizens? Generals and politicians are high up in their ivory towers. If the forces who actually do the real work in the army (E-1 to E-6 and O-1 to O-3) simply said "No", all those guys sitting around making decisions may as well give orders to an anthill. Then those who are in charge will also have to deal with sabotage and violence within the ranks. [No disrespect to the higher ranks, but think about it. When is the last time your Battalion Commander checked the oil in his M998?]
Look around at the soldier on your left and your right. Your duty as a leader (I assume so, most here seem to be educated professionals later on in their careers) is to teach them to do what is right. Sometimes, the right thing to do is to say "I won't". "I won't follow an illegal order". "I won't disarm Americans". You should teach them WHY these things are important and HOW to do them. This is our only way to defend America. Influence our own spheres. Teach those around us what we have and how fickle it is.


Personally, I have sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I wasn't crossing my fingers at the time, either. Take that as you will.

Leanwolf
September 13, 2007, 03:32 PM
JUNGLEROY - "... Could we add to your hypothetical discussion the possibility of having the next president actually being of a dictator mentality?"


You mean someone like Commandante President Hillary??

L.W.

JKimball
September 13, 2007, 03:45 PM
Do you think those soldiers would kill American citizens?

Jdude,

Yes. See cnorman18's post #22.

Jdude
September 13, 2007, 04:02 PM
Quote:
Do you think those soldiers would kill American citizens?
Jdude,

Yes. See cnorman18's post #22.

Sir, I have no doubt that there will be soldiers, LEOs, and anybody who thinks they would benefit attacking and killing Americans. Kent State, the Watts riots, Roosevelt gathering the Japanese up during WW2 and many other events specifically lay this out.
My post was intended to show that in widespread disaster, I am of the opinion that many people would desert such as the LEOs did in Katrina. It further used said logic to try and convince those in leadership positions to teach the values and fickleness of our freedoms and how one may be able to defend them.

yesit'sloaded
September 13, 2007, 04:03 PM
I think that all it might take is something like Waco only if the group involved isn't considered a fringe religious nutcase group. I can see a situation along the lines of "they tried to take our guns illegally so we shot back after they started shooting" followed by all who oppose the governments actions being considered terrorists. If Hillary was to get elected and help ban guns in general, somewhere there is someone who believes "from my cold dead hands" literally. An attempt to confiscate that individuals guns, especially if they have community support for opposing unconstitutional laws, could get nasty.

Werewolf
September 13, 2007, 04:56 PM
I have 5 grandchildren - all 5 years old or younger.

I fully expect that at sometime during their lifetime they will probably experience either ACW2 or ARev2. I consider ACW2 the more likely of the two. One or the other is inevitable. It's not a case of if but when? History pretty much proves that.

230RN
September 13, 2007, 05:48 PM
Don't underestimate semi automatic weapons or overestimate automatic ones.

...and...

seldom is a war won in this generation by overpowering of an opponent. more often in the last 50 years wars have been won by making an opponent so uncomfortable they decide it would "just be easier to go home".

Don't underestimate the power of a .22LR, either, to cause the latter.

ConfusedUs touched on the .gov possibly taking property.

This was one of my big problems in the Keno v New London case, where the Court deemed it OK for governments to take property because of the benefit to the greater society.

Who's to interpret this "beneficial" taking, where governments decide that taking your firearms is of a greater benefit to the community as a whole under this Decision?

And in the event of a "real" civil rebellion, you can bet the whole internet will be shut down, so there goes your wireless connection and your encryption.

Any silversmiths around who can still ride a horse?

Can anyone still read smoke signals?

SilentStalker
September 13, 2007, 06:16 PM
230RN You bring me to my next question for you guys to discuss. In the event something like this were to ever occur how would you exactly mobilize enough civilans willing and ready to take on such an entity? I mean as pointed out most of the technology that people use today is more or less controlled by the government or a private entity that has some pull or is pulled by the government in some way. So, you can bet your ass that the internet, cell phones, most lines of communication would be shut down and that would be the first action into getting any rebellious forces to settle down. So, again how would you communicate with one another in this situation? That is a clear advantage that the superpower would have over the populace. Back in the day during our revolutionary war everyone was on a level playing field as far as communication was concerned, but not today. So, again if all known forms of communication were shut off what would you do? Most of us do not ride horses or even own horses anymore and even if that was an option I doubt you could come up with enough horses/carriers to do much good. I mean you could go back to the old handwritten and horse delivered communication form but that is not very feasible when your enemy has a much more advanced means of communication. Does that make sense? One real means would be code and a radio but then you still have to have a way to inform your friendlies of what your code is since radio can be monitored, just as I am sure this site is montired constantly, actually I know it is. Anyways just something else for you guys to think about. It is easy to say that guerilla warfare stands a chance and I am not saying it doesn't since its power has been proven many times over. However, it is not as easy as some make it seem. So, again I ask, "How would you inform and mobilize if all current methods of communication were cut off?" I miss little discussions like this from college. I took a special studies course in school on George Washington and man I loved to hear the discussions that we had daily in class which is another reason I am bringing this up. I just like to hear the ideas and opinions that others have.

cnorman18
September 13, 2007, 06:20 PM
Guess I'd better ring back in here and correct a misperception.

The Waco and Ruby Ridge raids were carried out by FBI and BATF, not by the Army. Cops live and work in an "us vs. them" environment, and they are trained and ready to go after CRIMINALS. Tell a cop, "The people in that house are crooks," and they're ready to go. That's as it should be.

Soldiers don't do any of that. They're trained to go after the ENEMY, and they're likely to be MUCH more reluctant to go after Joe Citizen, who looks and acts just like him, on an officer's say-so. I think if American troops were ever deployed against ordinary citizens who are resisting draconian anti-gun legislation, you'd see soldiers, noncoms, and more than a few officers deserting en masse.

Don't forget--the overwhelming majority of military personnel are conservative, not liberal, and Republicans, not Democrats. There were no Marines at
Ruby Ridge.

mpmarty
September 13, 2007, 06:42 PM
Inasmuch as we are given an opportunity to stage a bloodless revolt every two years, I hope this method of blowing off steam will suffice to see us continue to peacefully coexist for another two hundred years.

SilentStalker
September 13, 2007, 06:59 PM
^^^Let's hope so!!

revolverman357
September 13, 2007, 07:11 PM
I agree with 81k5guy, the illegals in this country are nothing but sleeper cells ready to awaken and strike when they find an opportunity.

Geronimo45
September 13, 2007, 07:14 PM
Can anyone still read smoke signals?
Only if they're written in binary.

esmith
September 13, 2007, 07:29 PM
It would take some serious brain washing and manipulation strategies to convince the people in the military to attack their own country. Especially when almost all of those soldiers are as pro-gun as they are. Which, if i understood the topic of the thread, was one of the issues that was brought up. You don't join the army if you think guns are evil and killing is evil, etc. Aside from that, with the past knowledge of the civil war, the two sides of the coin would be scrambling for supplies and whomever had the upper hand would probably prevail. California supplies is one of the U.S's most agricultural progressed states. Im guessing if people had stopped working and rioting had broken out, our country would be in trouble.

JKimball
September 13, 2007, 07:38 PM
Not so fast, there

cnorman18,

I see your point, and I took that into consideration when I posted earlier. And maybe you're right that cops, FBI, and BATF are more comfortable with killing americans than the U.S. military is. But humans are humans, and history has taught us that even well-intentioned humans can be mislead in the name of some apparently worthy cause to kill their fellow humans. The moral decision to cross that line is likely made easier when it is known that their fellow humans are ready to shoot back, though the tactical decision may not be easier in that case.

I've never been in the military, though I highly respect those who serve. But I imagine they live in an "us vs. them" environment too. It only remains to persuade them that the "enemy" is now a group of treasonous rebels who refuse to give up their arms to keep peace and safety in the country.

Having said that, I completely agree that many, if not most, in the military would see the need to choose sides and would make the freedom loving, correct decision to defend the constitution, not the commander in chief.

Gunnerpalace
September 13, 2007, 07:38 PM
IF (I cannot stress that enough) a day should come for a "situation" (trying my best to phrase correctly) then yes a large portion of the military would side with us and of course local law enforcement, and I'm sure we have a few friends in the ATF. But if the End days of Revelation arrive then might as well just wait.

Kimber1911_06238
September 13, 2007, 07:41 PM
sadly, I think that our second amendment rights will be taken away in the next 100 years.

I sincerely hope I am wrong about that, but our country is getting more and more anti-gun everyday. Look at England....a country with a rich sporting heritage, hardly the case today.

def4pos8
September 13, 2007, 08:01 PM
Never forget this point: the Second Amendment only restrains the federal government, should that government attempt to limit a Right to Arms that G-d gave to you, an individual.

The military would be VERY divided in your scenario. Many of us take our oaths of enlistment or commission with DEEP conviction. (See second "line" of my signature.) Domestic tyrants must be just as wary as the foreign types, like Saddam. I'll stop my comments now, in order to keep this on The High Road.

Werewolf
September 13, 2007, 09:07 PM
I mean as pointed out most of the technology that people use today is more or less controlled by the government or a private entity that has some pull or is pulled by the government in some way. So, you can bet your ass that the internet, cell phones, most lines of communication would be shut down and that would be the first action into getting any rebellious forces to settle down.Sorry - but that just wouldn't happen. Corporations wouldn't put up with it. People loyal to the government wouldn't put up with it.

That action would almost certainly double (maybe more) the numbers of those who would take up arms against the .gov and quite probably incent some money rich corporations to support the rebellion themselves. NO. Cutting off all forms of electronic communications for the masses would be a way stupid thing for the .gov to do.

That said - even if they did it wouldn't be that big of an impediment to an irregular force of Freedom Fighters.

Believe it or not there are myriad ways to communicate without electronics. All electronics does is make it easier and quicker.

Besides we're not talking organizing a force that could take on the regular army. Small groups of no more than 3 freedom fighters each could wreak havoc on regular forces and demoralize them more effectively than any regular force of freedom fighters that tries to play by a conventional army's rules ever could.

And believe it or not Americans do know how to fight using unconventional warfare. Heck - that's pretty much how we convinced the British to pack up and go home.

Tom Servo
September 13, 2007, 09:39 PM
Never underestimate a guerilla war in the age of the internet and wireless communications.
Exactly right.

It's possible to force a major policy change without an out-and-out war. Look at the resources it took to carry out the Waco siege. Now imagine the gov't having to handle ten or twelve of those simultaneously.

Now imagine that a few politicians and upper-management types meet with "accidents" at the same time.

The Federal government has become far more centralized than was ever intended, and therefore easier to destabilize. A few guys with bolt-action rifles could seriously change the direction of this country.

True, the public, at least the ones who are willing to peel themselves away from the TV long enough, don't stand a chance on a linear battlefield. Nor would Red Dawn style guerella tactics work against a military base.

However, the modes of communication have changed, and it'd be alot easier to form and manage cells in an atmosphere of disposable cell-phones and the internet. Things can be organized anonymously and it'd take too much time on the part of the NSA to track everybody down.

Sooner or later, most LEO's and soldiers (at least the few who haven't already) will start defecting. The gov't will have to hire mercenaries and promote people previously deemed unfit, and neither group will last long.

If this sounds like terrorism, well...someone once said the difference between treason and patriotism is ten years' hindsight. True, I'm cribbing some of this from Unintended Consequences, but it's quite feasible.

ROMAK IV
September 13, 2007, 10:23 PM
I'm not commenting specifically but on general considerations on the subject.

The current situation: In most of the major urban areas, the 2nd Amendment is already gone. While a victory in the DC ban appeal would have some ramifications, the overall situation wouldn't change much. The liberal spin machine is already preaching "reasonable restrictions" as a pre-emptive strike against an adverse decision. Anyway, the 2nd Amendment "should be respected by the government, because it is part of the Constitution, ans we are a nation of laws, not a nation of politics. When Amendments are ignored, laws are ignored, or the nation is governed by those who are not elected nor accountable, the society is at risk. We are already overtaxed, overregulated, and largely governed by a bureacratic/judicial oligarchy, and there is wat too much intervention into personal lives. And unfortunately, the major media is part of the conspiracy.

With that in mind, I still believe a civil war or major uprising isn't likely. Those politicians who wish to establish a ruling permanant ruling ideology or party, don't really understand the system. They somehow believe that they can rule over us without destroying the basic structure of the country. I cringe when I think of the destruction that such people are willing to unleash for a potential power grab. It isn't physically possible for the entire LE apparatus and the entire military to enforce the laws that they wish to inflict upon us. At the present time, the people are actually pretty tolerant of what they are trying to impose upon us. I am sure much is simply people being ignorant or stupidly following what they hear, but it is increasingly more difficult to keep the American people fooled. A nationwide gun confiscation would be pretty pathetic. I'm sure that there are some who would obediantly shpw up and turn all their guns in, but way too many would just ignore it.

With that in mind, waht could spark a civil war? Consider the LA riots. That wasn't an uprising, that was criminals taking advantage of the absence of police. The same thing happened years ago when there was a major power outage in New England. Most of the violence from Katrina was also from criminals. What confiscation did take place was very limited and FWIK, no shooting of police or military occured as defense of the 2nd Amendment. More likely, I would think, a war or major uprising would occur from an economic disaster and would start as a result of people being unprepared and unable to cope with the result. The possible crisis from shortages of petroleum and energy generation, made critical by decades of governmental neglect, is one I could think of. A major terrorist attack, could also trigger something similiar.

As for prevailing, there is little doubt that such a domestic insurgency would succeed. We are not Europe, we don't have large paramilitary police forces. The Waco raid pulled on the resources of the ATF from at least 3 states, and look at the result. When confronted with limited resistance from the Branch Davidians, they failed utterly. It took 50 days of psycological warfare and several tanks to end the ordeal. Imagine 100 Waco's and 20 or so LA riots from the lack of regular police work, and you get the idea. The most ideal solution is not to have one in the first place. The government should rescind most gun laws, stay out of things that they have no business doing, and quit taxing us to death.

revjen45
September 13, 2007, 10:31 PM
Do we honestly think our government would ever abandon us, attack us, or do anything against our favor?

Absolutely. The Founders never intended that the People should blindly trust the Fedgov, or any other level for that matter. Unfortunately the Govt has degerated into a cabal of weasels whose primary interests involve the aggrandizement of wealth and power. Note that the U.S Military put the Iraqi Military on the trailer in a few weeks, but 4 years later the populace has not been subdued. The earlier post that said the People won't get off of the couch until something happens to stop their way of life. That's probably true, but the weasels in power are terrified of therir wrath when when they finally get fed up and angry enough to rise up. Do I want to see this happen? No- just look at Bosnia. I like what we have a lot better. Unfortunately I don't think anything will stop the downward spiral before the situation becomes desperate. Maybe it will take being forced to decide whether to go quietly and climb aboard the cattle cars enroute to the gulag or shoot at the oppressors and possibly die as a result.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . ."
A. Solzhenitsyn

meef
September 13, 2007, 10:40 PM
:cool:

My version of what would pass for a civil war in this country nowadays:

Millions upon millions of people sitting at home watching it happen on their televisions on the nightly news.

Then getting out their cell phones to text for what they want the outcome to be this week.

Then changing the channel to see what else there might be on tonight.

:cool:

I LIKE IT!
September 13, 2007, 10:49 PM
I agree with the intent of the 2nd ammendment, the only real problem with trying to pull off such a revolt if needed would be organization and perhaps communication of the American people.

The country shares great distances not only in land mass but in thought and believes of eachother.

I don't see whites,blacks,hispanics,asians all thinking along the same lines should the SHTF, maybe I'm wrong but the culture gap will be one of the many bumps along the way.

My .02

45mike
September 13, 2007, 10:50 PM
What makes you think we would be fighting our army in a civil war?:confused:

wally
September 13, 2007, 10:51 PM
I think that the military would have quite a difficult time trying to pacify the country in the event of an uprising or a civil war. Look at Baghdad today.

Iraq would seem to show if the anti-government rebels managed to kill a few weeks worth of car crash fatalities in five years the Dems would be ready to surrender.


And in the event of a "real" civil rebellion, you can bet the whole internet will be shut down, so there goes your wireless connection and your encryption.
Unless the whole PTSN was also shut down, which would shut down the economy -- no cedit card verification or ATMs etc. plenty of us old timers could dust off UUCP and reactivate the store and forward network that predated the public internet.

--wally.

Sharps-shooter
September 13, 2007, 11:29 PM
It happens from time to time, in any society. That's what history teaches us. Maybe not in my lifetime or yours, but you never can tell. Remember the boy scout motto, be prepared. (in the meantime, don't forget about being clean, courteous, kind, reverent, and all that other stuff).

AS for needing firearms in "the current state of society", that's an interesting question. Lots of europeans and no small number of americans think that we don't need guns anymore, because society is more peaceful than it used to be. What they fail to realize is the fact that these societies are peaceful because would-be tyrants are kept in line by fear of Americans with rifles.

cnorman18
September 14, 2007, 12:36 AM
Not even the federal government can shut down the Internet, except by totally shutting down the power grid and ALL communications. There is no central hub for the Net.

I think the political winds blow first one way, then another. It wasn't so long ago that the Republicans were very much on top. Maybe they've learned a few lessons and can do better next time they're on top again.

And I think they will be. Nothing is more likely than that the Democrats, if they win in '08 and keep control of Congress, will assume a "mandate" that they don't have and go too far for the voters.

Most Americans are basically conservative--that's why ALL candidates pretend to respect gun owners, hunters, etc., till they get elected--and the people just won't accept a comprehensive gun ban. The Dems will probably just keep on doing what they've been doing--nibbling away at our rights a bit at a time. But if they don't--if they think the time has come to really go for it--look for them to be out in '12 and for a long time to come. An attempt at a BIG ban might be the best thing for the Republicans and for gun rights since Jimmy Carter. It will backfire big-time. You heard it here first...

If you enjoyed reading about "Here is a discussion for you guys...your thoughts on a future..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!