If the SHTF tomorrow

Do the people of this country stand a chance against a tyrant?

  • No way, we are seriously outgunned.

    Votes: 29 9.7%

  • I think we stand a good chance.

    Votes: 174 58.0%

  • I doubt it, but I am willing to die trying.

    Votes: 97 32.3%
  • Total voters
    300
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tecumseh 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

Why is the NRA fighting the rulers in England? Do you mean the IRA.

I also do not believe that the military would get to involved in a civil war, remember our opposition does not really trust the military either as they tend to vote conservatively. I think they would try to use large police forces and other government agencies to maintain their control. I then think that you would have a battle of the states, which we would win in the long run as long as the military did not take over.
 
Most people would not notice. As long as they have thier distractions- movies, tv, sex, alchohol, sports, they simply would not care. Freedom has come to mean the ability to purchase the amusements of our choice.
Now a big depression, that lowers the living standard of a lot of americans? That is a different story. Then the S will HTF.
 
Given the dichotomy of the country, and the ever-continuing schism, I suspect that we'll see more situations where cities attempt to dictate politics to the rural areas. It will be VERY interesting when the rural areas decide to cut off the cities...
 
Actually, right now, the government has in many ways sowed discontent and mistrust amongst the populace with it's recent... prerogatives concerning the "war on terror" "war on drugs" etc.

They have shown their hand way too many times. NOLA was the most recent and blatant example. That wasn't Waco or Ruby Ridge, that was American troops and law enforcement going after normal people.

And, look at the situation on the border. Americans who live in the border states are buying weapons and ammo in a rediculous ammounts. The kind of ammounts that would make you think they are preparing for a war.

No, I believe the government does wish some kind of chicanery, and fairly soon (within the next 20 years). But, they have already shown everybody what they are willing to do, and they almost seem to have pushed themselves past the boiling frog paradigm.

Why the timeline has been moved up, for what purpose, I don't know.
 
i think we've had this conversation a few times, but the question is about tomorrow, as in, the day after today, not some slippery slope in the future. tomorrow, the government would get its 'collective' ass handed to it. there is not even a chance that all the US military and LEO could beat the people.
 
In the 1770's the citizen had the same guns.(except cannon) as the army.

Look at the disparity of force we would face now. If the military decided to stick with the "New Government" ...it would be a done deal.

We couldn't fight ten minuets against what the Army has...unless a large segment decided to fight in favor of freedom.

Of course...this would be exactly why I've said we NEED to protect the RKBA.There is no way I could just stand by and whine about it. If I'm still able...I'll stand with you...probably next to my sons and grand sons. A scary thought.

Mark.
 
The military is from here. I don't think they'd attack their own communities.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the law abiding citizens that had their firearms seized by our own national guardsmen.......Had they shot back, how do you think it would have turned out.

All of you have to quit thinking our government is benevolent, it is not.

BTW - historically, guerillas always win. Don't think so, ask our military about Iraq, then ask Russia about Afghanistan.

jeepmor
 
Public Support

In order to wage war on a (significant) segment of the American population, the government agents would have to line up the support of the remaining populace.

If they couldn't get it done quickly, they would find themselves in -- you guessed it -- another "quagmire" where they'd be fighting an uphill battle against public opinion.

The last few times they've done that, they have ultimately chickened out. Even now, with a reasonably righteous cause in Iraq, they've managed to screw it up, unwilling to just finish the damned job and move on. The unrelenting bad press and aversion of the American people for such involvement has pretty much put paid to the whole deal. I look to the outcome with some trepidation.

On their home soil, fighting a woefully under-equipped force of ordinary Joes, if they couldn't get the job done in a real hurry, the media would do its pit-bull number and the eventual outcome would be messy -- not a clean victory for government forces.

Of course, something unprecedented might happen: the press could find itself completely behind the government's efforts to disarm and enslave the American population.

Boy, would THAT suck.
 
HardTarget said:
Look at the disparity of force we would face now. If the military decided to stick with the "New Government" ...it would be a done deal.

We couldn't fight ten minuets against what the Army has...unless a large segment decided to fight in favor of freedom.
Click to expand...

Respectfully suggest you make a closer examination of how sucessfully the opposition forces in Iraq have fared against that disparity of force. Yes, they are dying in significantly larger numbers than our Army guys are, but they've certainly lasted more than 10 minutes. Very irregular light infantry (which, from a purely technical perspective is what the opposition in Iraq is) with their light weapons and light explosives are doing a statistically significant job of slowing down an extraordinarily well trained and well equipped technologically advanced regular heavy infantry and armored cavalry.

A secondary advantage American Rebel forces would have against US Army troops; on American soil, Rebels can offer Army Grunts a good place to stop fighting. In Iraq, If the Army guys give up, they can't really fit in where they are. In America, if the Army guys quit fighting their own citizens, well, they're already home.

As for Mercenary forces, I don't think even the US Government can print enough dollar bills to hire enough of them to make a real difference.

ArfinGreebly said:
Of course, something unprecedented might happen: the press could find itself completely behind the government's efforts to disarm and enslave the American population.

Boy, would THAT suck.
Click to expand...

*cough* ;)
 
On its best day the government couldn't control 300 million people; probably half of which are armed. We can't even control Bagdad outside the green zone. The gov is in control as long as we all agree to believe it. Wolverines!! :)
 
IF the citizenry of the US ever decided "enough" -- there's no way the fed.gov would stand, army or no army.

The military isn't a faceless machine -- it's made up of good men and women like those here. They swore loyalty not to the country, but to the Constitution. The first President to actually try for a dictatorship would be out on his ear before lunch.

And even if the miltary didn't do it, they'd be outgunned by a hundred to one- and most of those hostile enough to grab rifles wouldn't be aiming for the military anyway, but them that styled themselves boss.

And what recourse is there, really? Nuke Idaho? Occupy the woods of Michigan? Our military is amazing. But I don't think they're capable of suppressing a general insurrection once it became big enough.

HOWEVER... if it became big enough to succeed.... all those folks could most likely get their way at the ballot box. If there isn't enough support to back a candidate for office, there's sure not enough support to risk life and limb. Nice how that works. :)
 
I pledge allediance to the flag....and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. Our forfathers never intended a democracy, they intended a republic. A democracy is corruptable and inevitably, Americans will at some point in the future will have to stand up to a corrupt gov't.
 
BTW - historically, guerillas always win. Don't think so, ask our military about Iraq, then ask Russia about Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

yeppers....thats how WE started.
Makes me think the people of iraq....just dont want what we have to offer. If the people of iraq (in a underground movement lets say) wrote a declaration....fighting for their independence....asking the world for help.........We would not be where we are today.

Just seems the guerillas have the support of the people of iraq......reguardless of how many pictures of US soliders laughing with the kids of iraq I have seen.

IF the citizenry of the US ever decided "enough" -- there's no way the fed.gov would stand, army or no army.
Click to expand...
thats why every america citizen needs a (sniper) rifle..............
 
It'd likely be a horrid and very bloody affair.

Though the trick is to recognize when it's time to stop talking and voting, and when to start shooting. And when a decision point is reached, it's going to be hell on earth.

In my OPINION, it'd likely boil down to urban vs, rural. The trend is increasing levels of urban polities dictating to rural areas. If anything happens to upset the applecart any, you'd likely see programs based on trying to centralize population in areas where they can be most easily controlled. And in that case, I wouldn't count on any help. Business, the national guard, and military are likely not going to desert en mass to the side of liberty. The media here at home are going to paint any rebels as the worst folks since the KKK, and abroad, to foreign audiences and to our troops abroad they're going to do their level best to paint rebels as the worst folks since Bin Laden and Saddam. Hell, if the rebels are lucky, they'll face rules of engagement like those currently in use in Iraq. But something tells me the state will reserve a special fierceness for "domestic terrorists". Family members WILL be targeted, friends WILL be targeted, they WILL joyfully kill kids, and joyfully set full towns ablaze.

But it is not hopeless. In a previous insurrection in US history, Gen. Sherman used tactics on other americans that were considered barbaric at even that time. But had a single person been in place with a suitable rifle, Sherman could have been killed for his trouble. Much is made of "but would the troops fire on civilians?" when an equally valid question, and one rarely asked is "Can a would-be rebel raise arms against Special Agent Joe Blow next door? Against Joe Blow's kid in the Army?" What is the final indignity to spark such a conflict? A valid question as we already suffer numerous indignities with complaining of no consequence?
 
I think things would follow more along the lines of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European satellite states, rather than an open insurrection with a little ballistic surgery here and there to help things along.
 
i think we could win, but only through the "human factor". the weapons and training available to the armed forces would pretty much decimate any ranks with small arms only. we would need to count on the soldiers not being hardened criminals, and their compassion for the people they are ordered to kill. did you ever wonder why they almost never are stationed near their home town?
 
Of course, something unprecedented might happen: the press could find itself completely behind the government's efforts to disarm and enslave the American population.
Click to expand...

:scrutiny: You mean they dont do that now?

Small arms are fine for a revolution/revolt. It worked in Vietnam, its working in Iraq at this moment. For all our military might, high technology, and bloated defense budgets we still cant handle a bunch of third world hobble armed with 25 year old AKs, and some leftover anti-tank mines. The reason for this is simple........you cant fight an enemy you cant see and the harder you try the more enemies you will make in the process. The problem in a all out power grab though is economics. As long as Joe Sweatsock has his cable TV, beer, central air, and football hes happy, if hes happy he wont fight. Its all about the circus and bread. Short of rounding people up and stuffing them into ovens, the only plausable thing that could incite that many people to take up arms is if economic collapse followed said power grab. As for me if enough people are willing to stand up and act I will as well, I have fought before and would fight again if need be.
 
i think we could win, but only through the "human factor". the weapons and training available to the armed forces would pretty much decimate any ranks with small arms only. we would need to count on the soldiers not being hardened criminals, and their compassion for the people they are ordered to kill. did you ever wonder why they almost never are stationed near their home town?
Click to expand...

Maybe because there is often not a base near their hometown?

I would not have minded doing a tour near my hometown, but NAS South Weymouth was closed in the 90's due to BRAC.

Having worked orders for many a Sailor, and also knowing friends that have done the same for Marines and Soldiers, "not stationing them near their hometown" is NEVER a factor, unless they request to not go there. I have witnessed and helped work quite a few sets of orders, where many Sailors wanted to get to the base nearest their home, and we did everything to get it for them.
 
I believe this kind of scenario would not end up in some kind of SHTF, post apocalyptic shootout... unless the objective to be heroically slaughtered by the oppressive regime.

I think it would would play out a lot more like either a lee harvey oswald or a praetorian guard event. (the roman empire's equivalent to the secret service assassinated a few bad emporers in their time. perhaps not enough, but it did happen)

I would think the only effective resistance would be sudden, extreme regime change by a small cell of individuals who were willing to die to complete the objective, but were also still competant enough to plan effectively.
 
Kaylee +1

Kaylee +1.

Besides, if one did, we could rely on the U.N. and/or N.A.T.O. to "help" us out, right? :scrutiny:

Doc2005
 
I doubt it, as let's face it, most Americans, even most Americans here, are fat armchair anarchists. When the people really need them, most gun owners will just give up as it would ensure their own personal safety.

Even if there's no chance of success, I'd be willing to die protecting freedom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Perhaps a Real Reason Brazil Voted NO in Gun Referendum
Replies
0
Views
316
TIZReporter
T
A
  • Locked
some interesting questions raised by the following
Replies
1
Views
309
Standing Wolf
S
S
  • Locked
Iraqi Strategy (LONG!)
Replies
22
Views
726
Zorro
Z
T
  • Locked
US Military Arming Insurgents....er...."Freedom Fighters"
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
LAK
L
B
  • Locked
2nd Circuit - Charge Padilla, or set him free
Replies
17
Views
725
Bob Locke
B
Back
Top