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

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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Civil wars come and go.

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.

"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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Never underestimate a guerilla war in the age of the internet and wireless communications.

------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.

I mean do you honestly think we would stand a chance against a superpower of today with a few semi-automatic weapons?

Click to expand...

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

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Here is a quote I found, that reflects what I just said, but better:

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"

Click to expand...

It's already happened

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.

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.

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.