Are armed citizens overrated?

The Founders also believed very, very strongly that we should have no federal standing army. Only state militias and perhaps a frontier force or a special purpose force like the Legion of the United States. So in this context, it would truly be impossible for a tyrant to take over. Because the very act of raising militias was a kind of democratic process involving votes of support or refusals to recognize authority.

Since WW2 our betters in DC decided they needed us to keep spending trillions on national defense and that we needed a huge standing army. Without getting into the merits of this, it has created a stress on the notion that an armed citizenry can block tyranny. But I don't see that stress as any reason to disarm. Hopefully we can find a way to avoid Rome's fate.

But didn't the Romans have a "temporary dictator" emergency power that Caesar took advantage of? Didn't he also have an army that was personally loyal to him?

Click to expand...

He has many of those powers right now. And he has a Praetorian guard in the form of the Secret Service. And he's very frustrated with the "failings" of the Senate. The parallels are certainly enough to give pause to any student of history. I know this much--now is not the time to lay down arms.

AR15 vs Apache Helicopter with thermal imaging; hmm, who would win? Worst of all this talk makes gun owners look paranoid and delusional.

Click to expand...

Apaches cost a fortune. Their weapons are expensive. Their crews are expensive. And when you're killing the people paying for those tools, the end result is a death spiral for the government. You cannot slaughter every tax payer. If the household guns do nothing more than give people the idea that they need not obey, then they have done their job. Because what really props up dictators isn't the bombs or jets, it's the belief that there is nothing that can be done. And what really brings them down is the belief among enough people that they CAN be brought down. Plus nobody is truly bulletproof. Helicopter crews have to sleep somewhere--in this case back in the same neighborhoods they bombed. They have families there. And every one of them has to think long and hard before deciding to back the hand of some nutcase wearing a crown, when all his neighbors can retaliate after the day is done.

I've seen enough supposedly powerful dictators put up against walls and stabbed in the backside in my lifetime to conclude resistance is never futile. And for every one of them who died screaming, a dozen took last-minute deals to avoid that fate and concede power to the rebellion. Believe me none of these guys wants to die with a knife in his fundament.

First of all, as others have said, even if we were to conclude that arms in the hands of citizens would have ZERO effect on the outcome of a dictatorial takeover, that is not a reason to disarm, any more than if you are running a race and have no perceivable chance of winning, you should stop running. I don't think this was the OP's point, but I know a lot of anti's use that rationale when arguing against us. "Your pea-shooter (which they call a WMD in another breath) won't do anything against a tank!" It is infuriating.

That said, I agree with others that more often than not, guerrilla tactics can be quite a thorn in the side of any would-be oppressor. And even if winning is not feasible, the mere threat of taking mass casualties would make any potential ruler a lot less ambitious, as well as those following his/her will. Really, the goal is not necessarily to WIN, but to not lose. And the battle is not lost until every man woman and child has laid down arms and bowed to their new overlords.

Another thing, I think standing armies and conventional warfare are OVERrated. Yes, they may have tanks and attack helicopters, but where do they get the fuel and the ammo? How do they transport it? Where do they get food from? All it takes is a few highly-motivated, decently-trained individuals to wreak havoc on the supply lines and manufacturing capabilities of the enemy. Someone earlier said that wars are not won with rifles anymore. That may be true, but they certainly aren't won by apaches or abrams either. Wars have always, and will always, be won by logistics. It sounds like a UPS commercial, but it is true. If the enemy is starving or running out of ammo, it doesn't matter how many they are or how powerful their weapons are.

But didn't the Romans have a "temporary dictator" emergency power that Caesar took advantage of? Didn't he also have an army that was personally loyal to him?

Click to expand...

Kind of like martial law? Something that can be used temporarily, in an emergency, where checks and balances are thrown out the window? Of course.

JustinJ said:

And in such a scenario each soldier who joined his corresponding state's forces would be issued a rifle.

What many tend to forget is that rebellions have probably established just as many tyrants as they have resisted. Communist revolutions around the world were generally fought for by civilians as well. Taking power by force when their is a democratic means in place is by definition tyranny.

Click to expand...

That's assuming the state in question has any to give. I'm quite sure some of the soldiers of the Confederate States of America were carrying their personal arms into battle.

No doubt many dictators have come to power in revolutions. Armed revolution is never the first option, and should be, in fact, the last option due to loss of life, and the risk of the power vacuum.

At any rate, it's a fun discussion to have, despite the long odds that any such situation would arise. I believe it (overthrow of a tyrannical government) was the main reason for the right to bear arms being explicitly protected in the Constitution. I don't know how likely the Constitutional authors believed such a situation would be, but they obviously felt it was important, nonetheless.

I can simplify this discussion.

If you were part of a tyrannical government hell bent on scrapping the Constitution and starting anew, would you prefer a unhappy populace of unarmed sheep, or a rebellious populace armed with over 100 million weapons?

I don't know how likely the Constitutional authors believed such a situation would be, but they obviously felt it was important, nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Even they knew that with the checks and balances built into the system that it was unlikely. But unlikely does not equal impossible. Reading federalist paper #46 gives some insight into their thought process.

JustinJ
Look at history and you will find that conflicts prior to WWI were heavily supplied by the individual soldier or people of means from the origin of the unit. Even the regular army that had issue weapons allowed improved or personal weapons.
As recently as Vietnam personal sidearms were not unusual.
With the millions of quality weapons held in the publics hands I doubt there is much disparity in what we have and they have until you hit the crew served weapons.

You really don't get it do you? Wars are won in the will. If you and your comrades are willing to die, if need be, while your opponent isn't, you're side will win, in the end, despite being outgunned. We won almost every military engagement of the Vietnam War. The Tet Offensive is widely seen as the turning point when the fact that the US was losing became undeniable. And yet it was a military disaster for the NVA. They achieved none of their objectives, and were quickly driven back, with massive casualties. The Tet Offensive was significant because it basically broke the will of the American people to keep up the fight -- LBJ, his administration and the Pentagon told the American people we were winning and the enemy couldn't launch an offensive on that scale. The American people, ambivalent about the war to begin with, now felt the government was either lying to them, or was simply running the war incompetently. Either way, they wanted out. In other words, when it became clear that the North Vietnamese were never giving up, no matter how many casualties we inflicted, there was no prospect for victory. We could go on, inflicting massive casualties, winning battle after battle, but they'd just keep on coming. So the prospect is endless bloodshed, with no hope of victory. They can't beat us. But they won't ever give up either. So either we go home, or we keep sending our boys over there to die forever. No thanks. Let's pack it in.

Click to expand...

No, i get it. I get that many convolute Red Dawn fantasies with reality. Claiming that it's "will" alone that wins conflicts is a grossly inaccurate over simplification. Will alone does not shoot down millions upon millons of dollars worth of airpower or inflict tens of thousands of casualties. If all it takes is will then why are we even arguing about guns in the first place? Of course the will to fight is essential but it's just one part of a very complex formula. All the will in the world does nothing if one lacks the proper means to fight.

And I refer you again to the example I cited in post #8. The Irish won their independence from the British by a guerrilla campaign where most of the Irish rebels had nothing more to fight with than rifles and handguns. How do you account for this if civilians resistance with small arms is hopeless. The British Empire was the world's foremost power at the time, with artillery, machine guns, tanks, airplanes, and thousands of veteran troops with recent combat experience from the first World War. And they lost! To a handful of rebels with small arms. Explain this, if your thesis is correct.

Click to expand...

Because the disparity in technologic force they were fighting was minimal compared to what exists today.

This is how insurgents win. They use guerrilla warfare, and outlast the enemy, until his will to keep fighting is exhausted. And if you think this doesn't happen, I think it is you, not Allan Gotlieb, who needs to do your homework.

Click to expand...

Again, in order to accomplish such against a modern army an opposition force must have far more advanced weaponary than just rifles. Hell, modern body armor alone largely negates the effectiveness of rifles on the modern battle field. I'm sure there is someone out there who is going to say, "we'll just take headshots" with no actual understanding of what it's like to make precise shots while receiving incoming fire.

The military has even implemented a new technology that actually pinpoints the direction of incoming fire so sniping becomes little more than a sure way to get one's self killed.

The fact is that technology has been ever broadening the gap between civilian weaponary and that of the military. If external military aid is not available a rebellion stands no chance against a modern military. And if the entire civilian population has joined the rebel side there is no essentially no need for armed conflict to begin with.

The people do not have to be able to defeat the federal government. They only have to deter it from taking action. We accomplish that every day.

I grant you that an external, conventional invasion (Wolverines!) isn't in the foreseeable future. Rather worry about World War Z than that one.

However, the defense against tyranny is not just a statement from the Revolutionary Past - here's Hubert Humphrey - a classic liberal:

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)"

Click to expand...

There's a recent book out on armed resistance from an African-American scholar that I'm going to pick up later about its history in the USA.

Recall that the laws against blacks having guns was because it was thought they righteously had a reason for armed rebellion. So someone thought that there was a threat from a armed citizenry.

Also, in Viet Nam the initial successes of the NVAF were overcome with proper training. By the end of the war they were not a significant air threat. Their tanks really didn't become players till we left.

the problem is, we thankfully have never had to test it.....Mainland America hasnt been invaded since 1812..

im willing to be should MadeUpakistan decide to invade now, we will be very thankfull for the millions of guns available for the common man thanks to the 2A.....

Click to expand...

I always remember a quote reportedly said by Adm. Yamamoto at the beginning of WW2 when discussing the possibility of invading the US mainland:

"I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

Originally posted by JustinJ

No, i get it. I get that many convolute Red Dawn fantasies with reality. Claiming that it's "will" alone that wins conflicts is a grossly inaccurate over simplification. Will alone does not shoot down millions upon millons of dollars worth of airpower or inflict tens of thousands of casualties. If all it takes is will then why are we even arguing about guns in the first place?

Click to expand...

I never said it was all it takes. Don't distort my argument.

Originally posted by JustinJ

Of course the will to fight is essential but it's just one part of a very complex formula. All the will in the world does nothing if one lacks the proper means to fight.

Click to expand...

And all the means in the world won't give you victory if your hearts not in it. We pulled out of Mogadishu, despite having massive, overwhelming advantage in firepower because we took eighteen casualties. We decided it wasn't worth it.

Originally posted by JustinJ

Because the disparity in technologic force they were fighting was minimal compared to what exists today.

Click to expand...

And if you think that was the reason, you are ignorant of history. Professional armies have ALWAYS enjoyed a tremendous advantage over citizens, all the way back to ancient times. Back in the days of the American Revolution, Washington didn't beat the British with militia. He couldn't, and knew it. He had to raise and train a professional army of his own (enter Baron von Steuben), and get artillery and better arms and equipment from the French. Yet he and the rest of the founding fathers still saw it as vital to keep the citizenry armed.

Getting back to Ireland, I repeat, when the Irish tried a rebellion using conventional tactics, in 1916, they were crushed in a mere six days. When they started again, using guerrilla tactics in 1919, they won.

We, with the most modern military in history, were nearly run out of Iraq by guerrilla fighters, and what saved us wasn't just the surge, it was the fact that Al Quaeda was so brutal, even toward other Iraqis, that it lost them popular support, and that support swung over to us. If they had been less fanatical, and had fought smarter, we would never have won.

Originally posted by JustinJ

Again, in order to accomplish such against a modern army an opposition force must have far more advanced weaponary than just rifles. Hell, modern body armor alone largely negates the effectiveness of rifles on the modern battle field.

Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time, guerrillas don't come out onto an open battlefield.

Originally posted by JustinJ

I'm sure there is someone out there who is going to say, "we'll just take headshots" with no actual understanding of what it's like to make precise shots while receiving incoming fire.

The military has even implemented a new technology that actually pinpoints the direction of incoming fire so sniping becomes little more than a sure way to get one's self killed.

The fact is that technology has been ever broadening the gap between civilian weaponary and that of the military. If external military aid is not available a rebellion stands no chance against a modern military. And if the entire civilian population has joined the rebel side there is no essentially no need for armed conflict to begin with.

Click to expand...

Our army consists of roughly half a million active, and another half million reserve troops. Our population is over 300 million people. How do you expect an army, even one as advanced as ours, to hold down a population over 300 times its own size, scattered and without unified strong points that can be taken to end the war, when that population is determined to resist, many are willing to die, many of the soldiers don't really want any part of fighting their own people, etc. etc.?

Rebels can and have overthrown armies with vast advantages in equipment and technology. Success generally relies on using guerilla tactics and not frontline combat.

And the clearest point here to make, is that the IDEA of having to fight their own people in an asymmetric war, that can drag on for years or even decades, should be enough to prevent a Government from turning tyrannical. It leaves them with nothing to gain.

That's why disarmament is always the FIRST step, not the last one.

This thread has provided me with some of the best anti anti arguments and quotes I have seem yet.

Thanks all.

Cosmoline said:

I've seen enough supposedly powerful dictators put up against walls and stabbed in the backside in my lifetime to conclude resistance is never futile.

Click to expand...

I cheer up a little bit every time I think about that.



With a stick!

As said by John Basil Barnhill (and often attributed to Thomas Jefferson) said, 'Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.'

An armed citizenry is THE reason for a government to fear its people.

This is also why disarming the populace is always the FIRST step to a full tyrannical government.

And make no mistake about it, tyranny has, and does exist WITHIN our system of government, checks&balances and all. Every single day that goes by that politicians don't direct the oppression of the people, Soviet-style, is directly because the 2nd Amendment still exists: The politicians in question either fear it, or believe in it.

I could tell you how to resist a highly technically advanced government that has tremendous surveillance and law enforcement capability, but you'd probably consider me dangerous or paranoid. Which I probably am, but would never admit on a public internet forum. I am, however, heavily armed, and a sneaky bastard. People that know me will tell you that.

Red Dawn is surely fantasy, but so is the notion that high tech has rendered rifles moot. Aside from the number of armored soldiers killed and wounded by small arms fire, we left Iraq in the middle of the night without any advanced warning. I suspect we'll leave Afghanistan the same way. Now I would not call that defeat, but it sure isn't victory over those guys with old rifles. They're still there, after all. We aren't.

Armed and organized citizens met vastly superior* government troops at Lexington Green, and some of them died that day before they withdrew. Then, other armed and organized citizens withdrew across Concord Bridge in the face of that same vastly superior* government force. When those armed and organized citizens saw what they believed to be the deliberate firing of Concord Town. Spurred on by what they mistakenly saw as the unwarranted destruction of the town, those armed citizens confronted the vastly superior* government troops and forced them to withdraw. Over the course of that withdrawal to Boston, the vastly superior* government troops were harassed, harried, and decimated, probably only saved by the arrival of reinforcements. At that, they lost many more troops than the armed civilians lost. That started our American Revolution.

Are armed citizens overrated? Perhaps on an individual basis if one is talking about resisting government oppression, because the government can bring much more force to bear on individuals and small groups than they can resist. However, with millions of firearms in civilian hands and millions of armed citizens, including many well-trained and experienced combat veterans, the ability of the government to effectively oppress the people becomes doubtful. A general insurrection could be crushed, but at the cost of thousands, if not millions of lives on both sides, and whatever was left may well be ungovernable.

Imagine a SWAT team investing a house where a perceived anti-government individual or family is "barricaded." The SWAT team wins. Now imagine that the SWAT team invests that house and finds that it isn't just one house that presents a threat. An every day deer rifle is the equivalent of a sniper rifle in power and accuracy. Can the SWAT team handle an entire neighborhood? Can a police department pacify an entire city? Would military forces be needed to "restore order?" Would they obey orders to attack their friends, families, and neighbors?

I am not advocating insurrection. I am merely discussing a hypothetical situation.

ECS
Captain, Armor
United States Army (Retired)

Along with the British invading in 1812 the Jappanese invaded the Alutians during WWII. They were defeated by the weather as much as the small group of soldiers there and the local residents. Are armed citizens over rated? Absolutely not we are in fact under rated. The military and police have rules and regulations to abide by during their operations. They have to play "fair". the armed citizen has no such rules or regulations. We don't have to play fair. Also our enemies are not only from outside but a good many are already on the inside.

No band of citizens could stand and hold ground against a military, it would be stupid to try. Saying that, no military force today could stand against the number of armed citizens in the US. It would bleed them dead. Even worse what makes you think that citizens would just be shooting at soldiers? The government with all its bureaucracy is not 5,000 miles away and across an ocean. Its right here, in range of a citizen with a good rifle. A hundred good men with bad intent can shut down a city from functioning by destroying infrastructure. Think what would happen if a hundred men just drove around every night shooting transformers. Snipers can make the interstates near impassible. They can wipe out government offices. They can kill an unsympathetic press. They can post government reactions to the internet.

As an aside, I would like to point out that during World War 2, we had the bulk of our ground combat forces outside the Continental United States (CONUS). If one of our neighbors (to remain unnamed) had decided that it was a good time to regain lost territory and launched a major ground attack across the border, what forces would have been available to resist? Armed civilians organized into state guard units or resisting spontaneously as levees en masse. Red Dawn? Hardly, but unequal combat to start with since many of the neighboring country's senior soldiers had experience in what seemed to be near continuous revolutions. However, there were many veterans of World War One among the armed civilians who would have been called to resist.

I don't think armed citizens are overrated.

ECS
CPT, AR
USA (Ret)

No. It was enough to concern Janet Reno and others of her totalitarian 'bent' (who would like to seize private guns, as she stated), and the citizens' guns still trouble them.

On another note, we might need most of our citizens with rifles on the southwest border.

Among huge masses of people who infiltrate via the border areas, we have no idea whether some could be very dangerous people with specialized 'technical training'. Look at what only two young men achieved in Boston. How about in ten cities at once?

One of the illegals who was associated with a smuggler's tunnel had a tattoo in the Persian Farsi language.
At least many volunteers are helping to watch over some areas, in addition to the paid Border Patrol officers.
We could use a huge militia running the length of the border where, according to Janet Napolitano, "security has never been better".