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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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 said:
Quote:
Do you think those soldiers would kill American citizens?
Jdude,

Yes. See cnorman18's post #22.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Don't underestimate semi automatic weapons or overestimate automatic ones.
Click to expand...

...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".
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Not so fast, there--

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.
 
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.
 
I agree with 81k5guy, the illegals in this country are nothing but sleeper cells ready to awaken and strike when they find an opportunity.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Not so fast, there
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Never underestimate a guerilla war in the age of the internet and wireless communications.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Just a few comments.

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
: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 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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
Unenumerated Rights
Replies
16
Views
889
RP88
R
D
  • Locked
Allright everyone, here it is.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
B
  • Locked
4th of July: Thoughts on the Future of Liberty
Replies
14
Views
923
funfaler
F
G
  • Locked
Thor Heyerdahl, Norwegian adventurer / gun control advocate?
Replies
17
Views
942
XLMiguel
X
Skribs
  • Locked
If our founding fathers had written the 2A "better"...
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
gunnutery
G
Back
Top