If the SHTF tomorrow

[grahamstein]

I am posting this poll over various forums to try and get a more accurate "feel".

If tomorrow, Politician X took power and declared the U.S. a military state, and began taking the actions of most past tyrants (disarming the populace, arresting/executing political dissidents), do you think the people of this country stand a fighting chance against our own military?

 

[GoRon]

Now for Natives, who make up roughly 1% of the US population, what good does a democratic system do when your population has been decimated?

That just is outside the realm of possibility.

We are/will lose or freedom slowly and with the majorities consent.

Probably off topic for this forum also.

 

[thumper723]

Considering a good chunk of the Military is overseas, and more of us would not follow unlawful orders (executing political rivals), pretty good the tyrant would lose.

A systematic chipping away of rights by legistlation is the more likely route.

 

[Brian Williams]

TRY AND KEEP THIS FIREARMS RELATED OR IT WILL CLOSE AGAIN

 

[Manedwolf]

The military is from here. I don't think they'd attack their own communities. Mercenaries, though...

As for mercenary forces, what Yamamoto said still applies. Every old deer rifle would suddenly become a sniper rifle, and literally millions of homes could have one poking from an upstairs window with someone looking through a scope, ready to take a shot at an incursion force. It's just not possible, still.

Thankfully.

 

[Kali Endgame]

Our Rights will die a death by a thousand cuts not a violent enslavement by the Military. The Service Personal are people and most are Citizens. The worst thing immaginable is for our Military to turn on us and us on them.

This did happen. It is not a piece of fiction.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think a majority of the military would end up happily serving under a tyrant. Of course, they won't think he is a tyrant, just someone tryingto keep us safe from terrorists or the like. And they won't think of themselves as violating our rights, but simply doing what has to be done to keep us safe. Our rights would be violated with the best of intentions.

The civilian population would be basically the same. Most would go along with the tyrant if its all done in the name of public safety, anti-terrorism, and the national defense. Those that don't will be marginalized as lunatics or traitors. Most people would not have to have their guns collected at all; they would freely hand them over when the government asks.

 

[jnojr]

Our "democratically elected" government is just going to get slightly more tyrannical, year after year. There will not be a sudden, jarring occasion like an outright power grab.

Now, give 'em 20 or 30 years. Keep increasing various gun bans. Keep kids going through the indoctrination mills known as "public education". All of the "gun nuts" will be old men and women. The majority of the country will be in a Socialist stupor. PATRIOT-USA and similar acts will have destroyed not only most of our personal liberty, but our sense of self-reliance and ability to think for ourselves. Then, some sort of a political crisis could lead to a power grab.

I think that, by the time things get to the point that we would say "That's it, time for Box #4", it's going to be too late... we'll be a few marginalized kooks with no real firepower. Multi-round and autoloading firearms will be a thing of the past. The few guns buried in PVC tubes will stay there, or bring the wrath of God down when unearthed. Only a coordinated revolt could work, and any method that could be used for coordination (phone, Internet, shortwave/ham, mail) will be thoroughly penetrated by the government.

Yes, I have a pretty bleak outlook. I just hope to be able to save enough to retire to a very out-of-the way spot and avoid the worst of it.

 

[longeyes]

You're assuming a future revolution/insurrection would be conducted by small arms. Highly unlikely.

 

[Speer]

A systematic chipping away of rights by legistlation is the more likely route.

Oh, hell yeah. Shave a little off the edge here, cut a little piece there, and the next thing you know...

Our rights would be violated with the best of intentions.

Does make you wonder.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Watch Out For This:

For such a scenario to start, lines of communication will become reliant upon a system that can be shut down with the flip of a switch - like cell phones, the Internet, ...

Fuel to run small generators will disappear with the advent of electric vehicles reliant upon a power grid....

Interstate travel will become reliant upon a few interstate highways, replacing the myriad smaller highways - like Route 66 - that have slipped into disrepair...

Our children will be indoctrinated by "zero tolerance" in the public schools, desensitizing them to the advent of the police state...

Our children will be asked to spy upon their parents and report how many guns are in the home...

Political speak will not be tolerated - especially within 30 to 60 days of an election...

Access to weapons effective against Jackbooted Thugs, military vehicles, armor plating, and large troops will be infringed...

Major media outlets will side with political factions bent upon control of your every move, every recreation, even the food you eat...

Expression of your faith will be belittled, toilet paper will be treated better than the Constitution, drug dogs will sniff your car every time you are stopped, your arms will be confiscated when ever it rains too much or the wind blows too hard, yadda yadda yadda...

Aside from all that, I think we're pretty secure. Don't worry about a thing...

Woody

Oh yes, and buy those arms you've always wanted and a goodly stock of ammo. The time may come that all we'll have is how we've prepared ourselves today. B.E. Wood

 

[Zero_DgZ]

I can bike pretty far and shoot pretty good.

Bring it.

 

[byf43]

Brian wrote:

TRY AND KEEP THIS FIREARMS RELATED OR IT WILL CLOSE AGAIN

In keeping with the spirit of the forum, I don't think that OUR own military will take up ARMS (firearms) against us. I do, however, believe that some military under the guise/cover of the blue helmets will take up ARMS against us.


I do hope that it is at least another 200 years before this happens. (I am an optimist, too!)

 

[The Deer Hunter]

I'm pretty sure the population would be divided in half. The people with guns and the people without guns.

 

[Manedwolf]

I don't think that OUR own military will take up ARMS (firearms) against us. I do, however, believe that some military under the guise/cover of the blue helmets will take up ARMS against us.

Not worried about our military, or the blue helmets. I AM worried about the mercenaries, who are loyal to whomever gives them their paycheck.

Corporate armies make me nervous. I don't ever expect to see volunteer American soldiers facing me in a hostile manner. Blackwater and DynCorp hessians? Perhaps.

Hence why civilians need things that can pierce armor. Because money talks, all those private merc companies get to have stuff that "ordinary citizens" would be hard-pressed to aquire.

 

[Art Eatman]

IMO, the basic premise of a Tyrant is flawed. Anything a sitting President tried, via Martial Law as a for-instance, would not survive the political infighting between Congress, career bureaucrats, and the Pentagon.

Odds are that the military would sit it out. Without the military, too much political and physical power then is available at the state and local level. Any overt effort at a takeover would be bad for business, and the phones from corporate folks to state and local officials would be really, really busy.

Creeping incrementalism of a beneficient Big Nanny has been and will continue to be far more viable.

Art

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Lets Make An Investment

Who here would be willing to put up a few hundred thousand bucks along with a hundred or so others and buy an aircraft carrier and anchor it in international waters so we can buy and keep any arms we want on it? We wouldn't need to worry about a Congress or several state legislatures infringing our right to keep and bear arms. We wouldn't need to worry about neighbors complaining about our target shooting.

There wouldn't be any doubt if some force came to disarm us that their intent was malicious. At least we'd have unfettered access to the arms that our access to here is infringed.

Bad idea. One torpedo could take it all out. Better we unfetter our rights right here and have those arms spread across the country in the hands of very many citizens.

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859

Seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. Some still do.

 

[Autolycus]

I dont think it would be an outright war in the streets. I suspect it would be a lot more like the NRAs war against their rulers in England. Small guerilla attacks, assassinations, bombings, and a lot of guerilla/terrorist attacks. I dont expect a Civil War 2 or anything because the government has to much of the upper hand.

And there are a lot of people who will support the government simply because that is how they always have. Their will also be a lot of people supporting us who would be "on their side". LEOs and service men, some not all. It would be a very terrible existence and event to happen in our country. I dont expect it to come to that.

However I think everyone else is correct, it will be creeping incrementalism that destroys us. Not a dicatorship or tyrant in the oval office. It will be done to protect us from terrorists/criminals/ourselves. Expect lots of "common sense", "for the safety of the children/community" and "reasonable compromises" to be the justification for these laws.

Both sides will have to make them. In the end we will loose. And it is sad becuase we could have won had we decided to not accept it. That is just my $0.02

 

[kengrubb]

I'm pretty sure the population would be divided in half. The people with guns and the people without guns.

Might not be a bad way to divide up the United States. Two Americas. One with private arms and one without private arms.

 

[JohnBT]

"disarming the populace"

It hasn't worked so far in numerous U.S. cities including NYC and DC, and quite a few foreign ones, so I have to believe it won't work next week or next year either.

John

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

However I think everyone else is correct, it will be creeping incrementalism that destroys us. Not a dicatorship or tyrant in the oval office. It will be done to protect us from terrorists/criminals/ourselves. Expect lots of "common sense", "for the safety of the children/community" and "reasonable compromises" to be the justification for these laws.

Both sides will have to make them. In the end we will loose. And it is sad becuase we could have won had we decided to not accept it. That is just my $0.02

Does it really matter if it hits all at once or over time? It will destroy us nevertheless. So, we stop it now. We draw the line in the sand and stand on it. Each little increment toward disarmament, dictatorship, and tyranny is one step less the despots will need to take later. Each step toward disarmament, dictatorship, and tyranny is a step away from freedom and the easier it gets for the despots and the harder it gets to remain free.

There is no "common sense" or any form of compromise when it comes to our rights and freedoms - especially when it concerns the one and only right that has the power to save all the rest. Not only do we need to stand on that line, we need to push it back to the Constitution and take our stand right there. Ever since the beginning of infringement, there has been just cause to remove it.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[10-Ring]

I think we stand a good chance...I doubt it would get that far as to see someone of that ilk get into power here, but if it were to happen, I doubt it would last very long...

 

[.45&TKD]

I think we stand a good chance because the majority of our military would not follow a tyrant/dictator.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Catalyst

If it came to violence, I believe there is a significant portion of the population who would support, directly or indirectly, those fighting against tyranny.

This is, in my perception, a country whose citizens -- indeed whose military -- would be difficult to mobilize on any scale against another major portion of the population.

At some point, the perceived injustice would, IMO, catalyze a sypathetic reaction. You'd have families and even towns offering succor to those besieged by the government forces.

This phenomenon has occurred in other countries, has it not?

It's one thing to snuff a few dozen people in a place like Waco, it's another to persecute hundreds or thousands on a (necessarily) large scale.

Americans tend to sympathize with a) the underdog, b) those who show some spine, c) anyone battling the government.

The USA could well be reduced to 2nd or 3rd world nation status by such a conflict, but I believe the victors would be the common folk, and I likewise believe the legislators and judges -- not to mention a president -- who brought this on would not be able to hire enough protection to save their necks.

I could be wrong, but I doubt you could get the American soldier to engage the American population on any scale. The likely outcome would be soldiers deserting and joining the "rebel" forces.

I like to believe I would have the courage to stand and fight. Having never been put to that test, I do wonder, could I do it?

I would have to try. I don't think I could live in a USA where the public had been entirely disarmed.

Of course, there is always the underground rebellion concept.

 

[cbsbyte]

By the time this scenario played out only the military and Police will have firearms. Few people will have the means to wage an war on the tyrannt, and fewer will actually care enough to do so. I say pack your bags and flee the country.