Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know I've done the whole "gun argument" before but I just wanted to address one point...

People say that guns are there to protect their freedom, which gives me the image of "when da government gets too big for its boots I'm joining the American Resistance!"

Do these people really believe their AR-15 is going to defeat the US military?

It'll depend on the AR-15. Some are carbon copies of US Military M4's with identicle specs. And you can make anti-tank weapons with the ingredients under a kitchen sink.

It's the resistance man. No one ever said it was easy

Anyone remember the cadence.... "Here we go again...?"

Thats what this topic reminds me of.

One thing you have to remember, is that if the US ever has another civil war, good ol Uncle Sam's fighting forces will also be split up due to in-fighting. And if the middle east proves anything... if a man wearing a bed sheet with a diaper on his head who watches way too much Mcguyver can hold his own, imagine what our own backwater, corn fed country boys can do.

Plus once Uncle Sam runs out of fuel, due to workers walking off the job, the military machine will come grinding to a quick halt. Thanks to Big Government and our national policy of contracting everything out, no branch is truely self sufficient anymore.

Reminds me of a fight club quote:
" Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not "Fudge" with us."

The same rings true here.

jp400 wrote:
Plus once Uncle Sam runs out of fuel, due to workers walking off the job, the military machine will come grinding to a quick halt. Thanks to Big Government and our national policy of contracting everything out, no branch is truly self sufficient anymore.

Seems like that's not coincidental. It's actually kinda brilliant.

jp400 wrote:One thing you have to remember, is that if the US ever has another civil war, good ol Uncle Sam's fighting forces will also be split up due to in-fighting.

Not necessarily. In the US Civil War the US military was organized in a completely different fashion than it is today. Modern militaries are more disciplined and centralized in organization with respect to the federal government. There would likely be splits but most of the armed forces and their equipment would likely remain in the hands of the federal government.

Of course we wouldn't really know for sure unless it happened.

Plus once Uncle Sam runs out of fuel, due to workers walking off the job, the military machine will come grinding to a quick halt. Thanks to Big Government and our national policy of contracting everything out, no branch is truely self sufficient anymore.

You also shouldn't assume everyone would stop working. Only those in opposition to the Fed would stop working. YOu also assume the government wouldn't FORCE people to work.

LordofHats wrote: YOu also assume the government wouldn't FORCE people to work.

Isn't that what the guns are for though, theoretically? To resist being forced to do something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as to the original post, I think the idea is that it wouldn't be an easy situation in general, but that the situation wouldn't be as clean cut as "citizen resistor with AR-15 vs. U.S. military with Abrams tanks = U.S. military auto win."

Several reasons for that, but one being that the U.S. military would likely fragment in some way. Although the U.S. military is more centralized than the Civil War-era military, the National Guard units, although they can be called up by the Federal government like we've seen in the war on terror, are still generally controlled by their respective states. Plus in any civil war, loyalties are going to be tested, and our military men and women have families and friends that could easily be in the line of fire and many would have to ask themselves if their loyalty lies more with protecting the people of the United States or protecting the government.

Also, even if the military sided completely with the government, it is unlikely that the military would put its whole weight into crushing resistance with things like tanks because of the PR nightmare that would cause. We've already seen this in the war on terror as well. Use of heavy weapons systems is extremely limited now, compared to what it was during the invasion periods, and even then some restraint was exercised in certain situations.

So I guess the point is, could the U.S. military flatten a whole city or region with heavy weapons to crush all resistance? Yes, they have that capability. But will they use it against their own people? Since they don't even exercise their full offensive power in wars on foreign soil against terrorists, I find the idea that they would exercise it in a civil war against their own people pretty unlikely.

If you think that you could save yourself and your family from forced labour by facing off a platoon of soldiers with just your rifle... Well, doesn't need saying.

Henners91 wrote:If you think that you could save yourself and your family from forced labour by facing off a platoon of soldiers with just your rifle... Well, doesn't need saying.

The idea isn't about one person and one family saving themselves from forced labor by facing off a platoon of soldiers with a single rifle. It's more about organized resistance, i.e. lots of people. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. Just look at the resistance mounted by insurgent fighters in Afghanstan for a pertinent example of how it might work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I added a lot to my post. Judging by the time of my edit and your post, you might not have read it all, so feel free to check it out.

Al Qaeda doesn't have Abrahms...how long has it been now?

I'd rather be the one with a gun than those who gave theirs up regardless of my chances.

Ahem.......


"WOLVERINES!!!!!!!"

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Al Qaeda doesn't have Abrahms...how long has it been now?

I'd rather be the one with a gun than those who gave theirs up regardless of my chances.

Ahem.......


"WOLVERINES!!!!!!!"

Exactly my point. Well, the part about Al Qaeda not having the Abrams, not the Wolverines part.

Also I agree that I'd rather be the one with a gun than those who gave theirs up, for sure. Never tell me the odds!

With as many people that own guns as are in this country, and the fact that most are smart enough not do a stand up fight against tanks.it's plausible that they could stand against the government.
Add to that the fact that people in the military aren't mindless robots and are going to think twice about orders to burn a town in the U.S. to the ground.

Hordini wrote:The idea isn't about one person and one family saving themselves from forced labor by facing off a platoon of soldiers with a single rifle. It's more about organized resistance, i.e. lots of people. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. Just look at the resistance mounted by insurgent fighters in Afghanstan for a pertinent example of how it might work.

Home turf advantage applies to everyone in a civil war. The nature of the conflicts would be different. The US has full government controlled infrastructure. States don't have full control of the national guard, Federal authority over the guard supersedes theirs. It wouldn't be the same in the US as Afghanistan. Resistance organization would be similar, as the cell nature of the Taliban is classic for resistance forces, but open resistance wouldn't be possible in the US like it is in Afghanistan. Add to it that US resistance would be by US citizens defending their homes and families. It's very different from foreign nationals walking into another country and resisting an occupying force.

Don't assume that people will resist. People are cowards, and easily confused by situations or circumstances they aren't prepared for. There are countless cases when they know they're going to die, they do nothing to prevent it, even when means are at their disposal. If they don't resist knowing they'll die, I don't see how they'll resist in the way you suggest when all that's asked is that they shut up and work. Not everyone is ready, prepared, or willing to 'fight the power' even when the tools to do so are available.

Add to that the fact that people in the military aren't mindless robots and are going to think twice about orders to burn a town in the U.S. to the ground.

Mindless robots isn't part of the equation. There's a lot of control in the US military. It's not like we're going to see entire battalions defecting for the just cause of freedom. And who says the government would burn the town down? March in, neutralize resistance, it's fairly simple. No need to burn anything.

Henners91 wrote:Do these people really believe their AR-15 is going to defeat the US military?

It has to do with a lot more than just gun == freedom. Read up on the founding of the US, it's culture and how we in Europe have related to that during the last 200 years. You'll quickly see why the 2nd amendment is so controversial in the US (and in Europe).

Rightly so? I don't know, and to be honest I really don't care either. There are way more important things to worry about then the US and it's internal politics.

Oh, just so I don't miss the chance...

IBTL

Don't post images with ofensive words on them please. ta.

LordofHats wrote:

Hordini wrote:The idea isn't about one person and one family saving themselves from forced labor by facing off a platoon of soldiers with a single rifle. It's more about organized resistance, i.e. lots of people. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. Just look at the resistance mounted by insurgent fighters in Afghanstan for a pertinent example of how it might work.

Home turf advantage applies to everyone in a civil war. The nature of the conflicts would be different. The US has full government controlled infrastructure. States don't have full control of the national guard, Federal authority over the guard supersedes theirs. It wouldn't be the same in the US as Afghanistan. Resistance organization would be similar, as the cell nature of the Taliban is classic for resistance forces, but open resistance wouldn't be possible in the US like it is in Afghanistan. Add to it that US resistance would be by US citizens defending their homes and families. It's very different from foreign nationals walking into another country and resisting an occupying force.

Don't assume that people will resist. People are cowards, and easily confused by situations or circumstances they aren't prepared for. There are countless cases when they know they're going to die, they do nothing to prevent it, even when means are at their disposal. Not everyone is ready, prepared, or willing to 'fight the power.'

Add to that the fact that people in the military aren't mindless robots and are going to think twice about orders to burn a town in the U.S. to the ground.

Mindless robots isn't part of the equation. There's a lot of control in the US military. It's not like we're going to see entire battalions defecting for the just cause of freedom. And who says the government would burn the town down? March in, neutralize resistance, it's fairly simple. No need to burn anything.

I'm not assuming people will resist, I'm looking at it more from the angle, "If people were to resist, how would they do it, since the military has things like tanks?" My answer is basically, the same way they do it in Afghanistan: guerilla warfare. And I realize that the states don't have total control of the National Guard. The point isn't about who technically has control from a legal standpoint. It has more to do with loyalties and the idea at some point, some people might stop refusing orders. I'm simplifying here, but if, for example, in a civil war type situation, the federal government tells a National Guard unit to do something, and then the state governor tells that unit to do something different, or even opposing, at some point the officers and enlisted men in that unit are going to have to make a choice. While yes, technically the federal government has the legal authority, but if there is a civil war situation and people are getting killed and things are starting to get weird, it's not hard to imagine that parts of the military might start swaying different ways.

I'm not sure people say that guns are there to "protect their freedom" so much as "protect them."

The most obvious example of this is a situation like hurricane Katrina, where a large area becomes lawless for a period of time. In this situation, being well armed will absolutely be of use.

There are also smaller scale situations, where maybe you just want to protect against burglars or mugging. You might not want an AR-15 for that job, but it wouldn't hurt, either.

There's also the idea of assassination. It's maybe a bit wrongheaded, but some people like the idea that their leadership knows that the populace is armed, and they can be taken out any time by anybody that thinks it's appropriate. I think that tends a lot more often to be a nutjob than a legitimate patriotic act, but whatever, some people are motivated by that "idealistic" view of things.

Another reason that comes to mind, is the fact that if the people are armed, even if they're not armed as well as the military, they're still armed, and thus will force the use of the Abrams. At that point, anybody who wants to control that population will have to use an Abrams to do it, which will in turn be on the internets in 15 seconds. It's not good for a political career to use an Abrams tank on your own citizens.

For me, the biggest reasons that "guns protect freedom" is that when government has to find a way to not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, it thus has to think hard about how to do its job without controlling the populace and turning us into a bunch of de-horned livestock.

Since most gun discussions come back to Texas, think of a Texas Longhorn. This is an animal with a big set of huge, sharp horns. Clearly a farmer (being a human) can kill the longhorn before it can use those horns on him, so much like the Abrams vs. AR-15, yeah, the Abrams will win. But, if you see a longhorn with his horns sawed off, you know that the farmer that owns that longhorn has elected to keep him in decidedly un-longhorn-like conditions, otherwise he wouldn't have need his horns off. If you see a longhorn with his horns, you know he's living a more free, longhorn-ish existance.

LordofHats wrote:
Don't assume that people will resist. People are cowards, and easily confused by situations or circumstances they aren't prepared for. There are countless cases when they know they're going to die, they do nothing to prevent it, even when means are at their disposal. If they don't resist knowing they'll die, I don't see how they'll resist in the way you suggest when all that's asked is that they shut up and work. Not everyone is ready, prepared, or willing to 'fight the power' even when the tools to do so are available.

Add to that the fact that people in the military aren't mindless robots and are going to think twice about orders to burn a town in the U.S. to the ground.

Mindless robots isn't part of the equation. There's a lot of control in the US military. It's not like we're going to see entire battalions defecting for the just cause of freedom. And who says the government would burn the town down? March in, neutralize resistance, it's fairly simple. No need to burn anything.

I disagree in large part with you. Some people are cowards, but events have proven time and again, when their backs are to it, enough people will rise to the challange to make a difference, which in turn inspires other people. Look at various resistance movements throughout history to see the truth of this.
I think, from my time in the Marines, you underestimate the intellegence of the average current military personel, and overestimate the ability of the government to control them to the degree you put forth.
Just march in and neutralize with no burning? You are apparently working from an assumption that the resistance in the town will not fight.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:I'm not sure people say that guns are there to "protect their freedom" so much as "protect them."

The most obvious example of this is a situation like hurricane Katrina, where a large area becomes lawless for a period of time. In this situation, being well armed will absolutely be of use.

There are also smaller scale situations, where maybe you just want to protect against burglars or mugging. You might not want an AR-15 for that job, but it wouldn't hurt, either.

There's also the idea of assassination. It's maybe a bit wrongheaded, but some people like the idea that their leadership knows that the populace is armed, and they can be taken out any time by anybody that thinks it's appropriate. I think that tends a lot more often to be a nutjob than a legitimate patriotic act, but whatever, some people are motivated by that "idealistic" view of things.

Another reason that comes to mind, is the fact that if the people are armed, even if they're not armed as well as the military, they're still armed, and thus will force the use of the Abrams. At that point, anybody who wants to control that population will have to use an Abrams to do it, which will in turn be on the internets in 15 seconds. It's not good for a political career to use an Abrams tank on your own citizens.

For me, the biggest reasons that "guns protect freedom" is that when government has to find a way to not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, it thus has to think hard about how to do its job without controlling the populace and turning us into a bunch of de-horned livestock.

Since most gun discussions come back to Texas, think of a Texas Longhorn. This is an animal with a big set of huge, sharp horns. Clearly a farmer (being a human) can kill the longhorn before it can use those horns on him, so much like the Abrams vs. AR-15, yeah, the Abrams will win. But, if you see a longhorn with his horns sawed off, you know that the farmer that owns that longhorn has elected to keep him in decidedly un-longhorn-like conditions, otherwise he wouldn't have need his horns off. If you see a longhorn with his horns, you know he's living a more free, longhorn-ish existance.

During the L.A. riots, people were told by law enforcement that they were on their own for a while. It was the armed people that fared better than the ones with no guns in protecting their homes and businesses.

Phryxis wrote:

Since most gun discussions come back to Texas, think of a Texas Longhorn. This is an animal with a big set of huge, sharp horns. Clearly a farmer (being a human) can kill the longhorn before it can use those horns on him, so much like the Abrams vs. AR-15, yeah, the Abrams will win. But, if you see a longhorn with his horns sawed off, you know that the farmer that owns that longhorn has elected to keep him in decidedly un-longhorn-like conditions, otherwise he wouldn't have need his horns off. If you see a longhorn with his horns, you know he's living a more free, longhorn-ish existance.

Or there's anyone of hundreds of other reasons why the rancher/farmer decided the animal needed the horns gone. Horns are decoractions (and I should note totally irrelevant as to whether or not the darn thing can kill you). Sometimes with cattle the horns have to be removed for the animals protection.

With or without horns he will still live a happy bovine life, so long as he has food and some companions.

Sometimes with cattle the horns have to be removed for the animals protection.

Right, same with guns. "We're just protecting you from yourself."

Perhaps cattle aren't the best analogy, since they've seen a lot of breeding, but if the animal was given those horns by nature, then they're a natural feature of the animal.

Regardless, my point remains the same. Taking guns away from the populace is a shortcut to solving problems. A population of sane, happy, successful people will not shoot each other (much). All a government says when it takes away guns is "I decided this would be easier than addressing the root cause."

Hordini wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Al Qaeda doesn't have Abrahms...how long has it been now?

I'd rather be the one with a gun than those who gave theirs up regardless of my chances.

Ahem.......


"WOLVERINES!!!!!!!"

Exactly my point. Well, the part about Al Qaeda not having the Abrams, not the Wolverines part.

Also I agree that I'd rather be the one with a gun than those who gave theirs up, for sure. Never tell me the odds!

+1

jp400 wrote:

Anyone remember the cadence.... "Here we go again...?"

Thats what this topic reminds me of.

QFT.

We really don't need to go over this tired old ground again.