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.
I didn't vote, because the are two questions, really:

q: Are the enough guns in the hands of citizens?
a: Yes

q: Would enough citizens be willing to use them to set things right?
a: No :(
 
I am a Neo-Macheivellian and convinced that there is no such thing as a revolution that is 100% "from below." However, if the orligarchy that rules over us (forget all that nonsense about Democracy--no such thing) should become divided or if the elites should lose confidence in their ability to rule then it is possible that some kind of revolt might succeed. I don't think it would necessarily result in a long drawn-out conflict. The poster who talked about the collapse of the Soviet Union was onto something.
 
Who would have ever thought, that the most heavily armed nation (USSR) would go down without so much as a pistol shot? :scrutiny:
 
I, for one, am not nearly as concerned with the prospect of facing down factions within my current government (democracy, oligarchy, whatever) as I am at the much more likely scenario of armed conflict with ideological revolutionaries that my country has permitted and even encouraged to immigrate and take root here. On the bright side, I'm fairly confident as to the ultimate outcome of that one.
 
Guns aren't the only way to wage an insurgency. Look at what's going on in Iraq.

Yeah, we'd stand a better than average chance.
 
For a tyranny to occur, it would be after a period of such social turmoil that we reject our basic values. Some emergency would lead those who believe in authoritarian expediency to go to the fore.

Unfortunately, flame suit on, I think many of the gun world have that view and would go along with the tyranny. If folks of different races, ethnic orgins, etc. were being rounded up - many would think that is just dandy.

The fantasy portrayed here is usual a left wing take your gun tyranny but I don't think that is the real threat. It is more a Hitlerian scenario of a majority going after smaller groups.

About the services - a story. I had friends in the Ohio National Guard. Their unit was called up after Kent State. They told their Lt. that if they were told to fire on college kids, he might just happen to take a round.

I wouldn't assume that our services would go along so easily without a dramatic social upheaval similar to what happened in Germany after WWI.
 
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?
After Gen Tommy Franks made his "martial law if we suffer another major terrorist attack" quote, it made me begin to wonder about some of the above. Watching the entire Katrina fiasco brought those thoughts back to mind. Knowing what the various factions are doing in Iraq, while it isn't a new technique, certainly shows that an unorganized militia can do real and mental damage to a larger force when willing to actually, you know, die for their cause and beliefs. :uhoh:

Could it happen? I suppose. It happened to our forefathers. It could happen again. They tried to build in a few safeguards which we all see being eroded by the courts, legislatures and executive branches based on the war on drugs, crime, terror, et al. :scrutiny:

Not knowing the answers, I'll just ask some stupid rhetorical questions that come to mind... knowing that not ALL attacks involve bloodletting...

The US Military has to get their supplies from somewhere. Can that supply line be attacked, slowed or shut down?

What if no one decided to pay their taxes to cut off said tyrants cash flow? Money, being based on confidence and output, I have to ask, "Can that be attacked?" The "Who is John Galt" theory at work...

Is the media on the tyrants side or not? Can that be attacked?

Which corporations or organizations are behind this tyrant? Can they be attacked?

The military forces have to get their people from somewhere. Can that supply of fresh bodies be adequately indoctrinated to do this or to think that prior to becoming a storm trooper or will their military indoctrination be stronger?

The miltary forces are manned by how many troops? Are these troops isolated from the day to day of the populace they're supposed to control or can they be enticed by children and shapely young females?

What carrot will the military get from this new tyrant to compell them to do his deeds? Can that carrot be attacked?

Passive/aggressive behavior can certainly have an affect on the day to day.

Know any good outside forces who'd want to assist the new rebel forces?

Be kinda hard to get from here to there if all the federal interstates have roadblocks w/ fed troops, all state hiways have roadblocks w/ state troops and local county/city/town roadways have roadblocks w/ local troops. Some might say those represent total control by government forces. Others might say, that there is a target rich environment.

Far, far better to effect control at the ballot box. The Jury box. Writing letters, actually meeting politicians and their staff (VERY important to know which staff members actually get the jobs done!). Far, far better to lead a moral life, work for moral business' and elect moral leaders. Nothing wrong with being prepared for natural disasters, the occasional terror attack and a little social breakdown here and there. Nothing wrong with holding the high ground and taking THR. Nothing wrong with knowing History.

No one lives forever, not even Republics.

I'd be more concerned if Bill Gates decided to take over the world based on his software. :D
 
Soldiers Attacking Citizens

There are many stories of the emotional trauma of soldiers having had to kill civilians in foreign countries.

What would it be like for sodiers compelled to act against citizens of their own country on their own soil?

Would .gov be obliged to call for help in blue helmets?

Would blue helmets be effective, given the various examples of their deployments in the world recently?

What would it be like to be in government and be told, "we have to put down a rebellion of Americans on American soil?"

Would the broadcast and print media play it along party/ideological lines? Would they instead conduct themselves as "embedded" media within a rebellion, playing to the sympathies of the "underdog?" Would they be conflicted about ratings-vs-ideology?

One thing seems likely: whoever sits in the president's seat when that starts would certainly not get re-elected, so it would be a second-term pres, or one who didn't care, or one who was too desperate to worry about it.

Just about anybody in an elected position would be treating an ulcer.
 
Well, the strategic and tactical outlook would be good in most ways:

Yeah, we have small arms, but what is in most American kitchen sinks would be used to make IEDs.

Much of the military would be on the government's side. But, plenty of it would not be.

Any attempt to bring in outside troops would be counterproductive to pacification, and only help the insurgency.

Various nations would play ball in terms of arming Americans. RPGs would appear out of Eastern Europe (who will sell to anybody).

While many Americans would not fight for an insurgency, many would however not fight against it. And apathy is a double edged sword.

While much of the fight may be urban vs. rural, much of said fighting would be in urban areas, and nearly impossible for the government forces to supress.
 
No need to worry about our American servicemembers in the US military, huh? Guess no one here has heard about the infamous question on the Combat Arms Survey from a decade or so ago.

And then there's this. Care to guess what the percentages of foreign-born servicemembers in "our" military might be in a few years?

lpl/nc
==================
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w.../26/military_considers_recruiting_foreigners/
--------------------------------------------

Military considers recruiting foreigners
Expedited citizenship would be an incentive

(JULIA CUMES/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
December 26, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.

Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.
The idea of signing up foreigners who are seeking US citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year.

The proposal to induct more noncitizens, which is still largely on the drawing board, has to clear a number of hurdles. So far, the Pentagon has been quiet about specifics -- including who would be eligible to join, where the recruiting stations would be, and what the minimum standards might involve, including English proficiency. In the meantime, the Pentagon and immigration authorities have expanded a program that accelerates citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the military.

And since Sept. 11, 2001, the number of imm igrants in uniform who have become US citizens has increased from 750 in 2001 to almost 4,600 last year, according to military statistics.

With severe manpower strains because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and a mandate to expand the overall size of the military -- the Pentagon is under pressure to consider a variety of proposals involving foreign recruits, according to a military affairs analyst.

"It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American immigration," said Thomas Donnelly , a military scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, the Pentagon has warned Congress and the White House that the military is stretched "to the breaking point."

Both President Bush and Robert M. Gates, his new defense secretary, have acknowledged that the total size of the military must be expanded to help alleviate the strain on ground troops, many of whom have been deployed repeatedly in combat theaters.
Bush said last week that he has ordered Gates to come up with a plan for the first significant increase in ground forces since the end of the Cold War. Democrats who are preparing to take control of Congress, meanwhile, promise to make increasing the size of the military one of their top legislative priorities in 2007.=================

Continued... follow link above for full article
--------------------------------------------------
Edited to add- link to Combat Arms Survey post on THR- http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=643625&postcount=164
 
Live free, or Die! I take the paranoid view, expect the worst and pray for the best. I will Die Free! In the end, it is the best end we are entitled to.

The Second Amendment and our small arms it protects, is the trip wire. Anyone who believes these are our primary weapons is not paying attention.

Yes, I would go about armed, but my more effective weapons would be priority. Communications and interception end runs, Mobility issues, Financial issues will attack the infrastructure. It is the unanticipated "weapon" that will magnify the basic Second Amendment defense.

My computers and other communications equipment will be more effective than my 1911, or AR. My cameras will be a part of it, as well.

How many engineers do we have in the fold? They possess critical knowledge. These are also our "weapons". If you expect the inevitable gun battles to determine the outcome, you do not study history well.

I would expect to see movement of obvious "offensive resource" to be used as a distractive ruse to cover a more effective attack with lesser known "weaponry".

In the bottomline, dealing directly with Jackbooted Thugs is romantically satisfying, but ineffective. You got to put a hurting on their employers. You need to threaten the employer in every aspect of their daily lives and make them know, THEY made a mistake! You need to hurt them in the pocketbook AND the personal survival aspect. I suspect the money means more to them.

Jerry
 
No one could just come out and declare themselves Supreme Ruler because the corporations that really run this place would crap their pants and have the problem "taken care of". Remember, its the corporations that are in charge. The politicians are just puppets. Now as for a few CEO's deciding to do it, that is already happening. They are just held up by the slow process of keeping it under the table. If they don't keep it under the table, the stock market would crash and they would still be rich, but rich without any power.
 
Lessons

I guess we do not learn from history.

The Romans did a similar thing in the latter days of the empire when they recruited various of the Gothic ribes to protect the outer provinces. Citizenship and land grants were offered as an inducement. It did not work. The Goths retained their tribal loyalties and eventually the Western Empire fell apart.

I believe that the same thing will happen in this case. Our multi-cilturalism simply does not work. A nation need commonality of culture including language fot it to survive as a nation. We have ceased to be a melting pot and have become a nation of special interest groups with no common purpose.

As much as I hated the draft and its inequities, it is a better solutution than recruiting non citizens into the armed forces in large groups. Universal service whether it be in the military or other publc projects might be just the thing to get our youths away from their video games, cell phones and addiction to fast food.

The problem with the draft has been that our presidents rely on a large miltary force to fight their pet wars without regard for the "rightness' of that war. When their is universal service, the average citizen is touched more by what is going on and takes a more active political role instead of being complacent. If you are not going to have to serve, you do not really care what is happening and become apathetic.:fire:
 
Phew I hate to even comment on this pole...what with big brother cruising this site.

It would be rather easy to render local governments inoperable with a well thought out plan.

Once the feds got involved I would hope most of the soldiers would see things for what they are and a coup would take place.

Ive tought my kids..."aim small and miss small".

I love my country and wouldnt even wish for this sort of thing to happen, but if it did, I wouldnt live to see the result Im afraid.
 
Q: Would the US government use the military to put down a rebellion or insurrection in the conus, and would the military comply?
A: See Whiskey Rebellion and Bonus March.
 
Q: Would the US government use the military to put down a rebellion or insurrection in the conus, and would the military comply?
A: See Whiskey Rebellion and Bonus March.

... and Waco
 
What so many of you forget is the VERY strong loyalty that many ex-military, or law-enforcement (don't you love that discriptor) have towards the STATE.

They get a HUGE portion of their self-identity as being protectors of their "country", when in in fact, what they fought for was the power of the State.

I have relatives that are LEOs and I can absolutely tell you that no matter what happens, they will be on the side of government. As many in the military, their alliegence is to the GOVERNMENT.

I was banned from one board from speaking to this truth. But it is a truth. It will come down to those who view the GOVERNMENT as the "country", against those who view the nation as some other than the leaders of the "conservative" Boot On Your Neck party, or it's supposed oppenent. (Not that it matters...the current two-party system provides a false dichotomy of viewpoints, an Hegelian pi$$-pot of false arguments to tyranny).

The day will come when those that dare not risk their pension, their job, or the opinion of the guys in their unit, will open fire on Constitutionally-minded citizens.

And if you don't know who they are, I can suggest several other gunboards where you can find them.
 
The day will come when those that dare not risk their pension, their job, or the opinion of the guys in their unit, will open fire on Constitutionally-minded citizens.


When has it ever been any different? The difference will come when they realize they're up against more than an isolated group. Then a few less will be willing to fight for the Tyrant.

Look to the first Rebellion to see my meaning. There were Tories then and there, too. There was a mass emigration of Tories from the United States after King George was given the boot. Well and good.

Jerry
 
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs

This topic has been on my mind the past couple of days. It kinda bothers me but that is likely because a lot of the discussion has real merit. Last night I went home and watched Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" because of this.

I don't think just 19 terrorists are enough to rile a free people enough to bring them to bear arms against so few... or even a single tyrant. Now, if we're talking an army attacking an American city, that would likely be something different! If there was a group of people going city to city bent on rape, pillage and plunder, you can bet your 30WCF that The American Rifleman would be out in force. So, I voted I doubt it, but I am willing to die trying.

Levercaster
 
The United States military is composed of 1.4m active troops, 2.7m total. I BELIEVE there are roughly 900k law enforcement officers(full-time sworn in) in the US. The total citizenship of this nation is roughly 300m.

There are many other factors to consider when discussing this topic. What percentage of troops and law enforcent would defect from the military/LE agencies and join ranks with the rebels? Would the tyranny have the wearwithall to sustain a long, drawn out, perhaps even permenant occupation? Consider that many(if not most) busineses would negate paying taxes to the tyranny; consider that small busineses pay most of the total intake of tax money comming into the federal government (99.7 of all American busineses are small busineses). Would the government be able to pay its troops, and keep up with the supply demand? Also, the fact that the military relies heavily on many of these busineses must be taken into consideration. What happens when some of these companies decline to supply the military with thier product? These are all important factors to consider.

On the resistance side, will we be able to gather enough ammunition, medical supplies, and equipment to sustain a fight? Owning firearms is one thing; but what happens when the government outlaws the sale of ammunition, and reloading supplies to civilians? Also, what percentage of gunowners nationwide will decide to stand and fight? What percentage will hand in thier "duck-guns" so they can keep living thier sheltered life? Sad to say, but I believe the majority will be with the later. Still, I belive ther would be enough people will take up arms to make an effective stand.
 
The Bill of Rights is in a particular order for a reason. In the case of the OP, the first amendment would be more important. If not enough people know or care about the situation, the resistance will never happen. It's all in the motivation.
If communication and right of assembly are shut down, the proverbial frog in the pot will stand no chance. McCain-Feingold, anyone?

Dan
 
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.
Sounds like the current situation to me.

One thing seems likely: whoever sits in the president's seat when that starts would certainly not get re-elected, so it would be a second-term pres, or one who didn't care, or one who was too desperate to worry about it.
Sounds even more like the current situation to me. :uhoh:
 
Q: Would the US government use the military to put down a rebellion or insurrection in the conus, and would the military comply?
A: See Whiskey Rebellion and Bonus March.

... and Waco

And Ludlow...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top