Molon Labe Mathematics 101

[Don't Tread On Me]

Estimated number of gun owners in America:

60-65 million.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm




Total number of State, Local and Federal law enforcement officers:

~800,000

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/lawenf.htm


Estimated number of National Guard personnel:


~275,000

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02540r.pdf


US Military estimate of number of Iraqi insurgents:

~20,000 (up from the original 5,000 estimate in 2003)

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10086503%5E1702,00.html



OK, time for some super duper speculation....


Let's assume that the US holds a forced firearm confiscation across the entire nation for each and every weapon. This includes searches, raids, and the whole 9 yards. Let's assume they do it systematically, city by city, block by block (to work with the limited man power they will have for actual raids and searches)

Let's also assume that a revolt breaks out, an armed one against the government. The people actually fighting back against those who are executing the confiscations (Molon Labe) in its true form as intended.


Let's also assume the US government does not use actual military forces against the civilian population that is the USMC, USAF, US Army, and the USN.



They have all LEO agencies, people and the National Guard.


They all have orders to shoot or arrest anyone who doesn't comply. This is "the day" all gun owners dread.



We have to assume that not all LEO's or National Guard will stand up and take these unconstitutional and downright evil orders. Most will try to confiscate but most will not actually fire on Americans unless fired upon first. This isn't like that Marine survey...


How many National Guardsmen will actually report for duty to aid in national confiscation is unclear...to defend America is one thing, to report for duty against your own civilians is another. I will guess that 1/2 of them will actually go forth with this.



Now, we must also assume that the VAST majority of gun owners are totally full of Sh*t (which they are, sorry) and that a small, small percentage will actually risk their lives, sacrifice everything they have, give up life as they know it (family, work, good general living) to actually engage in what a tyrannical government will judge and consider as a homeland insurgency or terrorist act(s) punishable by death. That is of course IF the government wins. If they don't, you don't worry about the consequences of slaying officers or fellow Americans.


Hey! How about that, just what our founding fathers felt when they laid their signature on that piece of paper we call the Declaration!



Back on topic, now we have to guess at a number. I say less than 1% of gun owners will actually fight back, and that is a generous estimate. I will say 1/10% (one tenth of one percent) for this discussion for fun.



Now, Americans will be armed largely with semi-automatic weapons, pump action, lever, and bolt guns - as well as an array of pistols. Most American action will have to be related to precision "sniper" type assaults and actions. Fully automatic weapons are so rare, and cannot match the government.


The government will have air power in the form of helicopters and surveillance planes all armed with FLIR and all sorts of gadgets. They will have as many full-auto weapons at their disposal as they want. They will be fully organized by all means of modern digital communications. Their technological and equipment advantage will be extreme, so extreme.


Iraqi insurgents by contrast are no match for the US Military forces at all. They die by the truck load in each engagement, and they have the privilege of TRUE military small arms (Full auto AK's, Mortars, High Explosives, Mines, RPG's and even some anti-aircraft missiles)


Now, some say that not all LEO's will jump on the tyrannical government bandwagon. I will say less than 5% will actually resist the government. I don't give that much credit to LEO's like others do. It is a reoccurring trend for LEO's to justify just about anything prior to executing it.


Now time for some figures, all purely speculation, all purely estimates, all purely from out of my opinion based on nothing really.

Gun Owners
65,000,000 * 1/10% = 65,000

National Guard
275,000 * 50% = 137,500

Total Police:
800,000 - 5% = 760,000


I wouldn't lower the number of LEO's since even LEO's that do not actively engage in actual gun battles of confiscation still aid the greater "system" of police by manning computers, running police dept's and investigations etc...Like it or not, just being part of the operational system of LE in general aids to the fight.


760,000 + 137,000 = 879,000 uniformed people who will work to "preserve freedom, destroy domestic terrorists, militias, radicals, and other dangers to society"


879,000 vs. 65,000 gun owners IF that.


Add all the advantages of the State vs. the people and it doesn't look good at all.


Now, some will argue that the Iraqi's are going a good job of at least making a mess of Iraq. I'll give you that, but given what they are armed with vs. what Americans are - no comparison. Next, they have the advantage of close networks of loyalist fighters, in the US, we would all be individuals and divided. Also, the Iraqis have the advantage of their OWN controlled land/property. We do not, homes/farms DO NOT COUNT. Finally, Iraqi's have the advantage of having their own language which severely delays intelligence gathering and response time.



I seriously doubt even 65,000 gun owners would fire a shot at actual uniformed Americans. Especially knowing they will die doing it, or die after when caught. After giving up everything they have. I have not figured in "non gun owning Americas" who might join the fight when they see such atrocities happening. Right now, the only other anti-State pro liberty folks and activists out there are you green style liberals who want every civil liberty liberalized except guns....so no help there.



Amazingly, I do feel the greater "State" still fears and armed population. Who will have more balls to actually spill blood on American soil? The State who might fear an all out revolt, or a few gun owners who will fear being labeled "militia radical gun owners"


It is almost a game; the first to push the limit will lose the greater appeal of the America people. This is a lose-lose for gun owners, since the government can continue to push their anti-gun agenda while gun owners lose little by little.


Gun owners are losing in the schools, in the youth, in the culture and society of America. We are losing in politics and we are losing legislatively. Slowly but surely, the gun culture is dying. Perhaps the State will never have to fire a shot, they will just wait till we are such a minority, no one will care. Perhaps they will brainwash the masses and demonize us so that brutal measures are welcomed by the sheeple (sheep + people)


Anyway you cut it, I seriously doubt armed resistance will work. Sorry for being a pessimist, but I think I am being more of a realist.



You ask, is it pointless to resist? No. Imagine 65,000 gun owners all using Mohammed/Malvo tactics across America. The best strategy would be to hide the guns the best as possible, and conduct subtle domestic terrorist acts like these. It would have to be against all State and Fed people and buildings. Anyone who even goes there is game, anyone who associates is game, and anyone who is a supporter of anti-gun or anti-rights ideology is game.

Basically, they would have to make America an UNLIVEABLE place to be. It would have to become a terror zone, a place where paranoid and fear rule, a place so unsuitable that general revolution breaks out...

 

[sendec]

Wow.

Just, Wow.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I'm convinced. Where do I turn in my guns now, to avoid getting hurt?

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

LOL!!

Ya sounds crazy.....just making some analysis of all this 'molon labe' talk I hear.



There are a lot of folks who have these romantic images of fighting for rights. My whole point is, I doubt it will work out the way people think it will.



The best bet would either be the heinous domestic reign of terror, or the 100% peaceful method, aka a few MILLION gun owners marching on DC in a peaceful protest and hope to move legislation.



There you have it, either A] there will be violent bloodshed with the fate of America and the outcome uncertain, B] Americans petition the government by massive and peaceful means and hope they act in our favor or C] gun owners do nothing and just watch the gun culture and their Rights die by way of media, schools and government/legislative action in a SLOW sloooow painful and systematic death...



Right now, C is at work.

 

[Sistema1927]

Your math doesn't hold up.

Too much supposition, too little fact.

Only 1/10 of 1 %?

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Math isn't suppose to be real or based on anything real. Just wild guestimates at the huge numbers MOLON LABE resisters would face.


One tenth of one percent is what I think. And I think that is generous too.


I will be the first to admit that I will have a hard time saying to myself that I might die fighting off a government that has turned on me, I will give up my family, and start to kill other Americans. That takes a lot of guts.


Sure, a police-state America. That is worse than living. What I am saying is it will be very difficult for people to actually cross that invisable line from action with a pen, to action with a sword.


I don't think many will have the courage to do it. I don't think many see the value in it. They will weigh their kids lives, their wives, everything they have to go and attack a government that is taking their guns away, and nothing more (how people will see it, I know they will be taking away a lot more)


You can count on most of America (who doesn't give a damn about guns) to not lift a finger or care. See WACO.


If anything, they will support the government and feel the actions of the gun owners are extreme and violent and unjustified as they expect gun owners to petition the government in a peaceful manner to resolve their issues. Issues that most of America will not care about anyway.....


Like I said, it is one thing to talk about it, it is another to load your rifle and actually take a shot at the officers who come to your door to arrest you.



Now, how many tough gun owners do you think are ready to cross that line and actually DO IT?

 

[P95Carry]

Those figures represent a ratio of 13.5 Enforcement to 1 ''insurgent''!!

Much has been made before of the ''guerilla'' managing to keep maybe 7 to 8 regular soldiers ''busy''.

Even this ultra low estimate of yours is not a whole stretch away - such that if you allowed for 1/5 of the 1% (be gracious!) ... there is the ''guerilla ratio''!!!!!

 

[316SS]

Don't forget:

Those that originally coined the phrase "Molon Labe" were all killed.

If "the day all gun owners fear" comes about, its going to be touch and go, no guarantees.

Don't know how I'll react. One never does until the time comes.

316

 

[Chris Rhines]

Running these numbers is a good thing to do, but I think you need to revise some of your assumptions.

- Military aircraft and helicopters. I cannot see these being at all useful against an entrenched civilian insurgent force. The Israelis have spent the last twenty years learning this lesson.

Helicopters and military aircraft are useful for killing civillian noncombatants and pissing off the population at large.

- Modern communication systems are just as available to civilians as to the government, if not more so. I can, for cash (and not much, at that) purchase anything from unbreakable encryption software for my email to a complete secure packet radio rig. No government advantage there.

- Explosives and automatic weapons are simple to get if one no longer cares about obeying gun laws. The government advantage in firepower would be minimal in an armed conflict. Most of the really heavy stuff that the government has, they would not be able to use, due to political and social considerations (see the above comments about helicopters.)

In short, I disagree that the government would have any signifigant technological advantage.

A couple more comments -

- While I would agree with your estimate of ~0.1% of american gun owners willing to be shooters, I think quite a few more gun owners would be willing to support the insurgents, by providing shelter, intelligence, and supplies. My best guess is that for every shooter, there's two or three people who want to help, but won't pick up a gun themselves. Nevertheless, that kind of help would be both necessary and useful in an insurgency.

- You state that:

...[the Iraqi resistance fighters] have the advantage of close networks of loyalist fighters, in the US, we would all be individuals and divided.

I gotta take issue on this one. Gun owners have dozens of political groups and hundreds of clubs, scattered all over the country. THR is a perfect example. There are others.

- You state that:

Also, the Iraqis have the advantage of their OWN controlled land/property. We do not, homes/farms DO NOT COUNT.

This makes no sense.

To sum up - I agree with you that armed revolution is at best a last resort, to be avoided if at all possible. I further agree that the chances of a successful armed revolution against the government are not good at present. But I think that perhaps you are a bit too pessimistic in your overall view. You also give the government far, far, FAR more credit for competence than it deserves.

- Chris

 

[geekWithA.45]

In this "that day" scenario...

The original tactical meaning of the Molone Labe forces was that they were "tripwire" forces, whose early engagement of the enemy bought the time needed for the city states to get their act together, and muster the ACTUAL defense.

In a modern context, the deaths of the molone labe forces will create visibility and outrage that US government agencies are indeed firing upon, and killing Americans actively defending a Constitutional right.

The issue won't be decided with or by the first 300 of those 65k gunnies who drop hammers, and subsequently get wiped out.

The issue will be decided when the rest of America sees this, and decides to act or stand pat.

Sidebar:
----------
In light of the J. Reno atrocities, the enforcers have learned not to create martyrs, and have adopted tactics designed to avoid armed confrontation by "known armed troublemakers". For example, study the tactics used surrounding the arrests and search warrant service used on Rick Stanley. They nabbed him when he was away from his strongpoints, and in subsequent searches, lured him away using false calls. This is the emerging model, rather than the "surround and engage the compound" methods used @ waco and rr.

 

[mountainclmbr]

Your arguement falls apart if you consider that any national leader to do this would be #1 on the list of the 1/10 of 1%. The grabbers always try to stay just outside the perceived limits that will put them in danger. I would be in the 99.9% sitting back and thinking that Darwin was right. But, I could be wrong and your mileage could vary. I only play a lawyer on TV.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Let's also assume the US government does not use actual military forces against the civilian population that is the USMC, USAF, US Army, and the USN.

This is a poor assumption. If by some fluke the government was "losing," they would not hesitate to use the military. As such, overthrowing an overbearing government with armed civilians fighting government forces is impossible. When the Constitution was adopted, the civilians were armed with at least equal, if not superior, weapons as the military. That is no longer the case.

Also, don't make the mistake of assuming that if armed warfare breaks out between civilians and the government over the 2nd Amendment, that the government would not violate the remainder of the Constitution. The government will not try to squash the rebellion using the PC tactics currently being used in Iraq. It will be done in the manner of the USSR ending the Hungarian uprising in 1956 or China smashing the uprising in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

 

[P95Carry]

Meaning Hkmp - goodbye Posse Comitatus ........

 

[Harry Tuttle]

posse comitatus does not restrain the navy

the math falls apart when you realize a large number of private gun owners are also LEO/Mil folke

nothing will happen in a decisive turn em in fashion

they will tax them into a high cost to benefit scenario

 

[jefnvk]

When the first few few citizens/LEO are killed, the media will look at it as resistance.

When many more start dying, people will start to wonder.

When that is all the news talks about, I imagine that many people will say enough is enough, and the government will lose its support.

And how will the United States look to the international community when it starts killing its citizens? Is being outcast of everything something its willing to risk?

 

[El Tejon]

jef, you don't think President Kerry won't invite the rest of the world here to help him?

One time, at gun camp . . . Went to gun skul with a couple of feds in the "Office of Planning & Research". The scenarios they are running spring forth from tax rebellion, which is just one of the reasons the feds are so set on disarming us.

Too many variables to consider. However, they did say that "overwhelming force" of the military would be the most effective way of crushing any potential rebellion.

 

[2nd Amendment]

A) The US government would use UN forces in place of our own military.

B) I firmly believe a more realistic figure for "resistance fighters" would be the same as the American Revolution: 3%, or around 2 million people. In other words, nearly even odds or a slight numerical advantage to the Citizenry.

C) Technological advantage goes hands down to the government initially. if the resistance survives the first few weeks then attrition on equipment, plus theft, begins to equal that out quickly.

I stick with what I have said before. Ther would be no clear victor in this day and age, and no US as we know it would survive.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Was it flight 93? The plane load of people that found that their plane would be used as suicide missles and chose to go out fighting? The first few flights just did what the govt. told them to do (be nice, follow orders and nothing will happen), but once the word was out, there was resistance.

Sure we are a bunch of complacent NBA or NFL watchers now, but when the neighbors start showing up gone during the night we will, unlike the commies, refuse to accept it.

Sorry and lazy as we are, we have been raised believing that we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. I firmly believe that Americans are genetically impervious to the "Shut up and do what you are told" type tactics.

Look who's winning the drug war.

edited to try and spell inpervious correctly.

 

[AZRickD]

Yeah, 13 to 1 is the ratio of military to gunnies who might resist.

However, 65,000 to (435 + 100 + 50 + 100) is the ratio of gunnies to congresscritters, senators, governors, big-city mayors. And only half of those will be the nasty rights-infringin' types.

If the resistance spends its time engaging troops, that's a lot of effort. If it spends its time dealing with the few who control the troops, that's asymetrical warfare.

Rick

 

[R.H. Lee]

Here's a quick alternate for 'ya, without going into a mathematically complex statistical probability analysis.

Your 65k 'resistance fighters' hit the highways and byways, blending into the population (which is going about its daily business of commerce). They 'seek and destroy' (assassinate) any and all government personnel they encounter. The higher value, the better. They look for anyone, anywhere connected to any kind of government agency, local, state or federal, and kill them. Up close, far away, makes no difference. They create an atmosphere of terror because they strike without warning and show up everywhere. They puposely avoid the predators of the army looking for them, instead strike at other parts of the organism. How long do you think that will continue before all commerce and industry come to a complete and crashing halt economically paralyzing the entire country? My WAG is that everything would stop within a week.

 

[Warren]

Why would commerce stop in the absence of gov types? I would think it would get stronger and more dynamic.

Of course my worldview is that the government, through regulations and taxes causes far more harm than good.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Why would commerce stop in the absence of gov types? I would think it would get stronger and more dynamic.

OK. A more graphic description. Your on your way to work, stuck in traffic during the morning commute. A car is in front of you with .gov plates, say "G-10". Out of nowhere you hear a CRAAACCKK!, his windshield shatters, and his head explodes into a fine pink mist. This happens several thousand times over the course of the day, all over the country. Are you and all the other commuters gonna continue your daily routine, or will you be calling in "sick"?

 

[Warren]

I'm a delivery guy. If people stay in their homes I would stand to make a lot of money. If we got busy enough we could double (or more!) our fee and make out like bandits.

Though I would be sure not to deliver to any government buildings.

Of course if the resturant workers stayed home I'd be out of luck.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Here2Learn said:

Why would commerce stop in the absence of gov types? I would think it would get stronger and more dynamic.

Ah, a free market man. Good for you, we need more of you.


RileyMC said:

They look for anyone, anywhere connected to any kind of government agency, local, state or federal, and kill them. Up close, far away, makes no difference. They create an atmosphere of terror because they strike without warning and show up everywhere.

I agree with that. I think that would be the only viable solution. Even then, I don't know if it would work. That plan assumes that the initial attacks happened and that mainstream America did not care to defend the gunowners. Also, it might assume that there might have been some resistance and that no one helped or at least the gun owners are in a state of rebellion...in which case I would guess that mainstream America still doesn't support them and this home grown anti-government terrorism will just piss off people more, and not in your favor.


AZrickD said:

However, 65,000 to (435 + 100 + 50 + 100) is the ratio of gunnies to congresscritters, senators, governors, big-city mayors. And only half of those will be the nasty rights-infringin' types.

If the resistance spends its time engaging troops, that's a lot of effort. If it spends its time dealing with the few who control the troops, that's asymetrical warfare.

That is certainly a good idea. BUT, I seriously doubt anyone will get even close to anyone of power - period. DC is defended like you wouldn't believe (if you haven't been there) and god only knows what other security they have that we don't know about. Also, in the event of armed rebellion, the leaders will be on high alert and will not be accessible by the public. I think it will be next to impossible to even get 1 of them.


Cropcirclewalker said:

Was it flight 93? The plane load of people that found that their plane would be used as suicide missles and chose to go out fighting? The first few flights just did what the govt. told them to do (be nice, follow orders and nothing will happen), but once the word was out, there was resistance

Bad comparison bro. I see what you are trying to say, but this is nothing like flight 93. For one, the government is NOT out to kill anyone, their mission is to disarm the American people. That can be achieved without bloodshed - if everyone complies. The people of flight 93 knew they were going to die, they were threatened with death.....in our scenario, main stream America will not be affected by this. Your average soccer mom run family will probably applaud this mission to make the streets safer.


Many Americans are of the school of thought that only their Rights should be preserved. That is, if you don't care for a certain Right or even activity, you won't care if it is banned. Like people who don't smoke don't bother defending smokers (just an example, I know there are unique arguments there)


Most Americans don't care for guns, and won't be bothered since they never intended to have one themselves.

 

[carebear]

I think you're writing off the military too quickly. Look what happened in Russia and China. Our military is probably the most free-thinking and independent in history. The officer's are wedded to civilian control because they know it is the only way to prevent tyranny.

If they see tyranny occurring, I think most or a signifigant portion would abide by their higher oath to support and defend the Constitution over obeying a tyrannical civilian gov.