The gun nuts are DELUSIONAL...

[Playinghardball]

[NightWatcher]

1. That's why I need the high capacity magazines

I'm sure that ten shots wouldn't work, but you give me 30...

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. That NRA inspired talking point

is also borderline seditious...

[Cary]

30. Borderline?

Nadinbrzezinski, my friend..."conservatives" are traitors. They value ideology over our nation. Their loyalty is to their ideology, not to WE, THE PEOPLE.

[CTyankee]

79. It's amazing how many times I encounter this kind of delusion with gun folks...

it seems to be a recurring meme. I can only imagine the narrative that goes along with it, like something out of a novel or maybe one of those futuristic movies where there is only this one guy who is left to fight the Enemy State that has taken over America, with only his trusty gun and his wiles. Kind of a tragic hero, doomed yet defiant to the very end...very romantic in its own way. I've heard this enough (only more fleshed out) to where I think it is a common fantasy, perhaps a wish to return to more heroic, noble times. Often it blends in with the modernization of the Civil War where the South wins, or at least goes down fighting to the end...then roll the credits and the lights go up in the theatre as the movie theme music surges...

[Undismayed]

3. Tanks, bombs, rockets, jets ..etc

All those things are useless outside of a combat operation.

Can a bomb enforce a curfew? Can a fighter jet conduct house to house searches? What good is a tank in a city setting? Will a rocket target only combatants? Those things couldn't be used against a homeland insurrection type movement because that's not what they were designed for.

[mike_c]

12. "a homeland insurrection type movement...."

[jmg257]

17. Homeland Insurrection Type Movement??? Well - good luck with that.

Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

"The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution."


"Have fun stormin' da castle."

[frylock]

35. can an ah-64 apache fly to an homeland insurrectionist's house..

and level it with an m230 chain gun? I think it could.

[Ikonoklast]

52. Can a neighbor or relative rat out the delusional insurrectionists first?

Oh Hell Yes.

[NickB79]

54. We already do that in Afghanistan, and kill children in the process

Same with drone strikes.

Is that something you're OK with all of a sudden?

[frylock]

57. no, i'm not OK with that ever or "all of a sudden"

but you'll have to forgive me if I don't give two fucking shits about some dumbass who threatens to overthrow the govt with his AR-15 or Mini 30. now run along outside and play with your red herring.

[NickB79]

60. How would the children of that "dumbass" be any different

Than the children of the alleged terrorists we kill every week?

The point of discussing civilian casualties was because Undismayed stated:

Tanks, bombs, rockets, jets ..etc

All those things are useless outside of a combat operation.

Can a bomb enforce a curfew? Can a fighter jet conduct house to house searches? What good is a tank in a city setting? Will a rocket target only combatants? Those things couldn't be used against a homeland insurrection type movement because that's not what they were designed for.

If you don't give a shit about killing said dumbass with a helicopter gunship strike, you clearly haven't thought through the ramifications of such a strike. You actually made my point for me: that the bulk of the weapons the US military has would be useless in such a fight, unless civilian casualties are considered an acceptable loss.

[frylock]

85. listen, i am not advocating for this..

I am merely pointing out the likely consequences of a so-called armed insurrection by teabaggers and gun humpers.

[billh58]

59. You mean all 1 million

NRA members against the other 297 million Americans plus the US Military? Really?

You're high, right?...

[Undismayed]

92. Contrary to your fantasies, the rank and file military would not blindly follow orders to shoot

citizens.

[billh58]

94. Remember a little skirmish

called the Civil War? Not only did they shoot citizens, but family members as well. When a bunch of "water the tree of life with blood" yahoos in cammos wearing wannabe rank patches even THINKS about taking up arms against our government, it won't be a civil war -- it will be mass arrests and martial law.

And you kind of missed the point of my post: there aren't enough 2nd Amendment crazies to make a difference anyway. The police should be able to handle any "rebels" with no help from the National Guard.

Fantasies? Good one Bubba -- look in the mirror...

[Undismayed]

95. I wish you luck in your authoritarian fantasies.

[billh58]

97. No need for luck, your

side simply does not have the numbers, or the support from the vast majority of Americans. As the OP states, "gun nuts are delusional."

Deal with it...

[baldguy]

91. A drone flying at 1000ft can target you & kill you, and you wouldn't even know it's there.

They also can carry IR and very low light video sensors that can follow you anywhere & know exactly what you're doing.

You have no idea what you'd be up against. Your pea-shooter won't help you.

[Undismayed]

93. And when that drone strike kills an innocent child,

what then? How exactly will the government justify killing children? Doing that would turn the citizenry against them faster than anything else. Pressing the button to fire the missile is easy. Dealing with the consequences is not. This is what you fail to see. Could the government technically destroy any insurrection movement? Obviously, the weapons at their disposal are formidable. However, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Any such government would be torn apart by the citizens that it has wronged.

[billh58]

100. Actually, any "organized" insurrectionist

movement which would put a child in harm's way would be ostracized by not only the American people, but by their own members. The NRA is feeding you three meals a day of pure horseshit, and you have the audacity to come before sane, rational people on DU and try and serve it to us?

Once again, there will not be an armed insurrection in the United States of America, especially over the regulation of fucking guns. It is inconceivable that our government would allow any situation to develop which would trigger another Civil War in this country. We would not need the military, as the local and federal police forces should be adequate to contain any idiocy drummed up by KKK and skinhead wannabe soldiers.

The NRA bullshit talk about a "well regulated militia" of armed malcontents going to war with our government is seditious and anti-American. If we were invaded by Mexico, Switzerland or Norway, and the US military needed our help to repel them, then maybe, just maybe, the gun nuts' wet dream might come true and they would be deputized as block wardens.

Until that unlikely scenario, however, no sane, thinking, private American citizen will, or has a cause to, take up arms against our government. Then again, that does not rule out the NRA, nor its most rabid members, does it?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

101. Sure it can...tanks have been used in cities all over the world.

Tiananmen Square is in Beijing after all. Drones can enforce a curfew. When a population rises up against its lawful government it usually loses whatever protection citizenship conveyed.

[Undismayed]

103. Many people here have a very worrisome authoriarian streak.

If a population is rising up against its government, something is wrong. Your solution scares me.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

105. It's not my solution...

I was simply pointing out that your statement about tanks is historically incorrect. When a population rises up against a Democratically elected government, you're 100% correct something is wrong...with the nut jobs who think they have some constitutional right to do so.

[Bucky]

4. No, in their Turner Diary, die-hard-like imaginations, they just hold off the blue helmets...

until America WAKES UP!! and they all start gunning their way back to the Constitution of government that George Washington intended, in a sort of cross between Ruby Ridge and Red Dawn. You think I'm kidding, but that's exactly the sort of shit fantasized about by that guy who shot up that elementary in Newtown Ct (and his mother, too).

What they fail to remember is that George Washington probably wanted a government a hell of a lot like what we have now and he had his own version of the Tea Party to deal with. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and they were all bark and no bite too.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. You clearly understand nothing of asymetrical/guerilla warfare.

Please explain how a bunch of people living in mud/shit huts has been able to thwart two superpowers with no standing army?

I've explained it before, but here (just for your edification):

If you want to control a population with force, at some level you need to "control the streets". The people and neighborhoods and streets need to be controlled. Businesses don't run themselves, money doesn't do anything without people to work with it, and cities aren't valuable without their people in compliance. Governments and nations are built in a pyramid scheme, and without the populace, the rest of the governments sitting atop the people falters.

Your OP ignores the end game of a tyrannical government. The fact that the government has tanks, planes, nukes, and ships is irrelevant. They will not help to control a population at the street level. Those items only serve to make America stronger because we evidently don't give a shit if OTHER countries cities get destroyed... that's not our problem. I fail to see how the US destroying it's own infrastructure is productive to itself. You don't control millions of people in a city by destroying it. We're not talking about little pop-guns defeating a Soviet nuclear strike or anything.

At some point, to maintain or establish government control over The People, government boots will have to hit the ground. And what awaits government forces in the public jungle? Nearly 300,000,000 firearms owned by an estimated 80,000,000 people. If only 10% of gun owners are, as you claim, stupid enough to resist our Armed forces... they would STILL outnumber US ground troops 8 to 3. And the resistance fighters would look American, speak American, be smarter and more educated than other countries/enemies previously faced, and blend in to the rest of society 100%. The collateral damage would be so severe in such a campaign, that more enemy resistance would be created than destroyed with each military action.

If you doubt this is the case, look at Afghanistan. I'm currently stationed in Afghanistan as I type this. These are people who have little infrastructure, they live in mud/shit huts (the ones who aren't lucky enough to find enough trash and nails to construct a hard shelter), an have AKs and other remnants of 1960's technology Cold War souvenirs. Sure, we bombed the shit out of Afg to kick off this campaign. We tossed their fucking salad with billions of dollars of missiles, rockets, bombs, and jets. And what happened when it came time to actually take control? Ten years... over ten years they've resisted the Armed Forces of the most technology advanced and powerful military empire the world has ever known. I have little doubt that our Nation's millions of guns can adequately protect it from it's own government.

[Electric Monk]

8. Does your reading of the 2nd amendment include the right to bear car bombs and other IEDs?

IED deaths account for the largest share of U.S. in-action deaths in Afghanistan

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/30/bob-casey/bob-casey-says-non-ied-deaths-afghanistan-are-very/

We wondered whether non-IED deaths in Afghanistan are in fact "very, very rare."

We found a report issued by the Brookings Institution titled, "Afghanistan Index: Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security in Post-9/11 Afghanistan." Using the data, we were able to determine the annual totals for U.S. deaths caused by IEDs in Afghanistan, the total "hostile" deaths in Afghanistan and, ultimately, the percentage of hostile deaths that were caused by IEDs. The numbers are based in part on totals compiled by an independent monitoring organization called iCasualties.org. (Here’s some background about iCasualties.org and the use of its data by media outlets.)

2001: 0 IED deaths, 6 total hostile deaths, 0 percent
2002: 5 IED deaths, 41 total hostile deaths, 12 percent
2003: 1 IED death, 32 total hostile deaths, 3 percent
2004: 12 IED deaths, 29 total hostile deaths, 41 percent
2005: 18 IED deaths, 82 total hostile deaths, 22 percent
2006: 27 IED deaths, 86 total hostile deaths, 32 percent
2007: 33 IED deaths, 92 total hostile deaths, 36 percent
2008: 84 IED deaths, 135 total hostile deaths, 62 percent
2009: 142 IED deaths, 277 total hostile deaths, 51 percent
2010: 257 IED deaths, 465 total hostile deaths, 55 percent
2011 (through July 31): 112 IED deaths, 210 total hostile deaths, 53 percent

We also asked the Pentagon for the official statistics, and they provided them. The two data sets differ for varying technical reasons, but the overall pattern is similar:

2001: 3 IED deaths, 3 killed in action, 100 percent
2002: 6 IED deaths, 18 killed in action, 33 percent
2003: 1 IED deaths, 17 killed in action, 6 percent
2004: 14 IED deaths, 25 killed in action, 56 percent
2005: 23 IED deaths, 66 killed in action, 35 percent
2006: 32 IED deaths, 65 killed in action, 49 percent
2007: 34 IED deaths, 83 killed in action, 41 percent
2008: 68 IED deaths, 132 killed in action, 52 percent
2009: 168 IED deaths, 271 killed in action, 62 percent
2010: 268 IED deaths, 437 killed in action, 61 percent
2011 (partial year): 102 IED deaths, 202 killed in action, 50 percent

By either set of numbers, IED deaths account for the largest share of U.S. in-action deaths in Afghanistan.

[Recursion]

11. You know of a way to stop people from making those? (nt)

[Electric Monk]

62. Yeah, if you find someone building one, arrest em, fair trial, and jail time.

Totally *not* covered by the 2nd am.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. Irrelevent. Car bombs & IEDs are illegal here and illegal in the US.

I fail to see how that factors into the discussion of legal gun ownership.

The US's military might accounts for nothing in the streets of America, assuming that the US is unwilling to destroy it's own cities & towns. Our military is kickass because, generally, nations carpet-bomb the shit out of other nations without care or regard. Do you really think that the US would start dropping bombs on buildings because a few guys with popguns are hiding in there? At the end of the day, the US could not afford the infrastructure loss that such a campaign would cost. The kind of armed insurrection you describe would HAVE to be fought at the insurgent level.

I'm not saying that gun toters can defeat the US military or government. That's absurd. But the Government/military would be equally unable to defeat civilian militias for no other reason than civilian militias would employ guerrilla-style evasive tactics. It would be a stalemate because neither opposing group would attempt to face the other on equal terms.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Take a good look at Atlanta

Circa 1864.

A civil war, full blown, would see that infrastructure destruction.

Yes, even in the US.

[FiveGoodMen]

40. "Do you really think that the US would start dropping bombs on buildings ..."

Wouldn't be the first time the US bombed its own...

Eleven people, including five children, perished in the blaze. Sixty-one houses burned to the ground. As this article goes to press, for the first time ever the men who ordered a satchel bomb dropped on the home of MOVE members at 6221 Osage Avenue in Philadelphia, and let the resulting fire burn, are answering in court for their actions on that infamous day: May 13, 1985.

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/hougland_move_massacre.htm

[NickB79]

49. Yeah, no one would ever make car bombs in the US

With easily available materials found in any rural area:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=oklahoma+city+bombing&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=A59498C677EBED4E26B367DFA0209FF3BA357CC0&selectedIndex=4

[Electric Monk]

61. Illegally, and not covered by the 2nd am. Find someone doing it? Lock em up. nt

[NickB79]

65. No, that wasn't my point

My point was that, in such a hypothetical civil war, it would be easy for rebels to make and deploy powerful IED's using locally available materials.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Do you think rebels would be concerned about the law? N/T

[Electric Monk]

81. The old "why have any laws at all, then, because some people will still break them" canard.

You're making it progressively clearer (pardon the pun) which side you're on, for those who still may have had some doubts.

[tama]

107. Which side are you on?

MIC, banksters, imperialist resource wars, domestic police state fascism, etc. what defines current US state apparatus?

Or are there more than two sides?

Which side is "Civil Disobedience" of Thoreau, Gandhi, MLK and Occupy? Those who believe that non-violent forms of resistance are most efficient at least under current circumstances, but make no absolutist commitment to pacifism?

[Electric Monk]

108. Reality based, not faith based. nt

[jeff47]

9. The problem with your analysis is the military hasn't lost those conflicts

The military has been extremely effective. The failure is in politics.

The military can only remain on foreign soil for so long before people in the US tire of it, so a political victory has to take place before that point is reached.

However, that same dynamic does not occur when you're talking about a domestic deployment of the military. How do I know this? The "war on drugs". We've been fighting it for 50 years now, getting more and more paramilitary, with more and more collateral damage, and the public still overwhelmingly supports it.

If only 10% of gun owners are, as you claim, stupid enough to resist our Armed forces... they would STILL outnumber US ground troops 8 to 3.

And given the difference in training and equipment, I expect the military to be successful against at least 20-to-1 odds. Meaning your 8-to-3 would be easily annihilated.

And the resistance fighters would look American, speak American, be smarter and more educated than other countries/enemies previously faced, and blend in to the rest of society 100%.

Because Taliban-supporting Afghanis look entirely different from non-Taliban supporting Afghanis.

[Recursion]

13. Err... the Taliban is winning, you know? (nt)

[jeff47]

16. Again, there's two parts to winning a war, military and political

The Taliban was soundly beaten militarily, and US forces continue to do well militarily.

But you don't win a war just militarily. You also have to win the war politically. Diplomats and other political types have to win the political side of the war, and they've failed to do so in Afghanistan, and failed in Iraq and Vietnam.

In those three wars, the "insurgents" just wait out the erosion of political will in the US, which causes the military to be withdrawn.

Which is why you have to go into the war not just with guns and soldiers, but also with diplomats - the latter actually "win" the war after the former wins the fighting.

[NickB79]

51. And I'm sure every US soldier would be fine

With policing and possibly shooting the citizens of their own nation, right?

There's a reason we dehumanize our enemies. The Germans were Krauts, the Japanese were Nips, the Vietnamese were Gooks, the Iraqis were ragheads and haji's.

This is part of the psychological conditioning to allow soldiers to sleep at night and delude themselves that they weren't killing people just like them, that they're not the bad guys. They were killing the Others, the Not-Us, the Enemy.

When the people in that soldier's crosshairs look like Mom, or Dad, or his little brother or sister, how long do you think the US military's will to fight will hold?

[jeff47]

63. The majority would be

In my experience, active duty soldiers are far more patriotic than tea party. Demonizing the rebels would be pretty easy - after all, the rebels started it.

Or do you think soldiers in the civil war were utterly unwilling to fight?

[GreenStormCloud]

69. The military tends to be strongly RW, as is the TP.

Large parts of the military might join the rebellion if it was an RW rebellion.

[jeff47]

71. There's a long ways between RW and open rebellion.

And I assure you, lots and lots of soldiers think rebellion is treason, not a goal.

[Electric Monk]

72. Right. How well did that work out for Randy Weaver or David Koresh, for example?

And just as importantly, their poor deluded followers who believed those talking points?

If you raise a gun against the U.S. government, then you're pretty well fucked. See the OP to this thread for further details.

[tama]

110. During WWII

after the Depression and lot of talk about socialism and internationalism, many if not most American soldiers didn't point their weapons towards other humans, but when required to shoot missed on purpose.

Sure, the efficiency of psychological methods of conditioning people into killing machines have developed and professional army is much easier to condition that way than drafted citizens. But that and robocops instead of officers of peace is hardly something to feel proud of.

[stevenleser]

19. You clearly dont understand the idea of a tyrannical government with the USA's weaponry

Without the bounds of Constitutionality or any morality or ethics or adherence to UN and Geneva Convention treaties, the US easily wins all of those conflicts.

Arm drones with tactical nuclear weapons and biological and chemical weapons, and the guerrillas are toast.

Your AR-15 armed guerillas are at the mercy of the tyrannical government you seek to overthrow obeying numerous conventions of war. But thats the problem, you are overthrowing a tyrannical government because you feel they have problems playing by the proper rules in the first place.

[A Simple Game]

41. The people of Afghanistan have a feudal structure, we don't.

There are very few afghan traitors, there would be many American "loyalists".

There is too much money to be lost in America, with an insurrection the value of the dollar would drop to near nothing. The real powers that be would make sure any insurrection was snuffed and snuffed quickly.

Apples and Oranges my friend, the reason Afghanistan can shrug off a super power (or two) is because they don't have a strong central government. They don't have to live like insurgents, they live that way every day.

If you put Joe six-pack up against an Afghan insurgent, let me know. I know who I would bet on. I'll even spot you a single shot against a semi.

As you are military, do you know how much training our soldiers get in urban warfare?

[jberryhill]

76. Living "in mud/shit huts" actually has a lot to do with it

Because they sure as hell aren't living in suburban developments. Nor would they be for long.

[tama]

106. Also

Pashtun are de facto anarchists.

[tama]

104. Fair point

Also Syrian governemnt had quite big army against first peaceful demonstration, then insurrection by not much weaponry, and it's losing.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. Little Known Fun Fact

Tunisia is the least-armed country in the world, with one firearm for every 100,000 residents. Yet it 2011 they managed to overthrow a military dictatorship.

[RedCloud]

39. And the USA with 5% of the population has 50% of all guns.

And we cannot otherthrow the robber barons.

[Recursion]

7. Iraqis did pretty well with rifles and small explosives

They fought the world's largest superpower to a draw, and eventually kicked us out.

[JohnnyBoots]

10. IRA in Ireland

as well. Also, why is it assumed that the entire military will stay together? I would think most of the trigger pullers are Republican and at least half would fight for the rebel side, taking arms and artillery with them. Is the US Army going to bomb whole neighborhoods to kill one rebel who is not wearing a uniform?

[stevenleser]

18. They kicked us out like Japan kicked us out. Like Germany kicked out USSR, US, UK and France

You keep repeating this nonsensical talking point.

We wiped out the existing government in Iraq and replaced it with one we liked, then we left. That isnt being kicked out.

[Recursion]

20. We're still in Germany. And Japan (nt)

[stevenleser]

21. By that definition, we're still in Iraq. We have a large embassy there. nt

[A Simple Game]

45. You do know we have military bases in Japan and Germany, don't you?

And yes we are still in Iraq militarily. I doubt we will leave for a long time.

[Electric Monk]

78. Over? Did you say over?

[stevenleser]

88. Not only do I know that, I can name them without looking that up. It doesnt change the point. nt

[A Simple Game]

89. I reread your post and the previous ones, I get your point now. n/t

[bongbong]

15. Don't call them gun-nuts

They are super-sensitive about labels.

Although they are at the same time super-tough (in the Rambo sense, at least in their fantasies), they demand RESPECT for the opinions that the NRA has filled them with. So, to let them know you acknowledge their super-sensitive feelings, call them something sweet & innocent, like "Delicate Flowers".

[derby378]

22. Brady Campaign playbook, page 16

Snark and sneer and paint gun owners as thin-skinned in order to deflect away from your own insecurities.

[bongbong]

24. LOL

> ct away from your own insecurities.

If I was insecure I'd get a gun! Like the Flowers do!



Got any more for me?

[samsingh]

27. do you have anything that can deflect bullets?

[Robb]

50. I'm not insecure. I'm just tired of folks on your side of the argument shooting kids.

And frankly, if it were me in your shoes -- having to defend that -- I'd be more than a little insecure.

So don't feel bad, it's not about you in particular. You're just in an untenable position.

[Skittles]

23. the occasional massacre is just collateral damage

but they sure get their panties in a wad being called what they are

[samsingh]

28. there is never an emotional caring response to gun massacres

but even a rumor of gun control gets emotional posts within seconds.

[rightsideout]

67. "but they sure get their panties in a wad being called what they are"

Like (meaning I like that response)

[samsingh]

26. it truly is a delusion

better to protect democracy through:
1. the ballot box
2. education - every important because an educated poplulation will vote for the betterment of the country
3. no single issue voting
4. don't let yourself be seduced by those using your fears to further their own interests (usually economic, or bigotry).


But, good luck with the knee-jerk responses that violate point 2, 3, and 4 above.

[reteachinwi]

77. +1 and then some

like civilized people do. Like the constitution was written to do.

[Shrike47]

29. I think they see the military as joining them, after a few days.

I do not think they imagine having to fire on American troops, really. In their imaginations, the majority of the military joins them in taking back America for 'real Americans' from the weak, effeminate Left and the shrill but useless Feminazis.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Yes they do

And in a full blown civil war some troops, even units, will.

See Oathkeepers as an example.

[samsingh]

44. some might, but not all. it would be a free for all with deadly consequences

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Oh I did not say most

But some will.

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. It's an exceedingly scenario-dependent thing.

If the scenario of insurrection was anywhere over in "a few whackjobs taking to the hills with their rifles" territory, then the OP's graphic is pretty valid. It would be Waco on a slightly larger scale, basically. If, however, it's a much more general sort of rising, with at least a significant minority of Americans willing to do violence against the government, then all bets are of in terms of the military's willingness to suppress the insurrection. There is no reason to believe that the military's response to whatever provoked the insurrection would be all that different from that of the general population. there would be loyalists and rebels alike.

Such a scenario pretty much guarantees a fragmented military. A fragmented military's first breakdowns would be in logistics...and without solid logistics, complex weapons and communication systems go offline in a big hurry. Those systems constitute a modern military's biggest advantage over armed civilians. One of their other biggest advantages, man-portable force multipliers like mortars, grenades, and light automatic weapons, would end up on both sides of the conflict (due to defections). In this sort of scenario, civiian weapons are far from trivial.

I make no secret of the fact that I think this nation (as currently constituted) has only got 15-30 years left before it fragments into smaller, regional polities. But dear gods, not like that, not by civil war...

[samsingh]

43. the troops would initially follow the Commander-in-Chief

[NickB79]

53. I wouldn't go that far

I'm sure that, in such a theoretical conflict, there would be soldiers switching sides (in a military force of millions, there are bound to be some). But I don't think there would be tanks driving into rebel camps with white flags on top.

I do think, though, that the act of turning US cities into warzones, complete with firing on fellow US citizens, would be incredibly demoralizing to American troops, so much so that their ability to be an effective fighting force would be seriously compromised.

[Xithras]

55. If not joining, at least being hesitant to resist.

I've had this discussion with genuine nutters before. The presumption is that U.S. soldiers might have no problem following "unconstitutional" orders if it doesn't hurt anyone, but that many in the military may have serious problems actually killing their fellow Americans in order to enforce "unconstitutional" orders. At a minimum, they assume that the military would "stand down" rather than kill fellow citizens who are simply engaging in a bit of "patriotic rebellion".

To which I normally reply, "Hey, to the guy in that bomber, or the lady manning the joystick controlling that drone, you're just another dot on a computer screen. No different than any other enemy."

[NickB79]

64. Hmmm, that assumes a level of disconnect from humanity

That I haven't seen in any of my friends who've served in the military, and we're pretty young (28-32 yr old). It's one thing to blow up funny-looking people in weird clothes that don't speak your language in another country far away; quite another to bomb a subdivision in downtown Atlanta or a Walgreens in suburban Dallas.

It would also assume that they couldn't see the results of their actions. Would the videos and pictures of smoldering craters where US neighborhoods once stood be censored from TV and the Internet? Would this military campaign be over in a matter of days, or would it drag on for months or even years?

[L0oniX]

32. Something is delusional...

[samsingh]

46. it's very frustrating

the amount of money spent on weapons and wars could eliminate poverty, illiteracy, and probably some of the most common diseases.

[SunSeeker]

33. Can't topple the government, but they can topple 6 and 7 year olds.

[BlueNoteSpecial]

34. "Experts" debating wha?, above...freaking hilarious

[onethatcares]

36. if having healthcare counts as a reason to

overthrow our government, I gotta get out of this place.

what the fuck is so wrong with people that they would want to kill others just because they had to have "health care insurance"?

something is very fucking wrong with this scenario. I would feel so much better if they threatened to revolt because their voting rights
were shredded, their jobs were shitcanned to somewhere else, or because there was too much homelessness.

but no, they threaten to revolt because they can't have multi capacity killing machines in their own homes..............we as a nation are truly fucked.

[samsingh]

48. i think its about bigotry

[FreeBC]

38. Wouldn't the Air Force side with the gun nuts?

The Air Force is a bunch of Jesus freaks.

[shadowrider]

56. - Sigh -

That is all

[aristocles]

58. THIS is delusional, and scary

Thoughts of open rebellion:

http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/12/what-youll-see-in-the-rebellion/comment-page-1/


Fantasies of a coup against Obama:

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/what-i-saw-at-the-coup/

[rightsideout]

68. It's delusional but will backfire on them

First you have to consider who these people are. Obviously, paranoid schizoids. They don't trust anyone and that includes their own kind. With their big egos, they'll turn on each other and their little rebellion will implode in on themselves. Hopefully they won't take innocent people down with them in the process. Let them waste their lives playing Army in the woods and stew over something that will never happen. Bunch of whackos.

[kimbutgar]

66. Isn't this considered treasonous to advocate to overthrow the govt because you don't like

Who is president? I think the FBI should investigate this facebook poster and their group. This is so crazy it needs to be investigated, the person arrested and have their firearms confiscated for attempting to overthrow our government.

[Glaug-Eldare]

111. No.

Treason is defined in the U.S. Constitution. Look it up.

[Jenoch]

73. The point you are attempting to make

with this thread is either disingenuous or ignorant. I don't believe anyone that supports RKBA actually believes they can hold off the U.S. military iif the mlitary is willing to use WMDs upon their own citizens. That's rhe thing, it would not come to that. Nobody thinks they can hold off the force of the entire U.S. government. A local insurrection has actually happened to overthrow corrupt politicians.

http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens

[X_Digger]

74. Yeah.. no.

I've seen a lot of similar memes lately talking about how individual firearm ownership poses no challenge to the US military.

The problem with such a position is that it makes a lot of unwarranted and untenable assumptions.

Probably the biggest wrong assumption is that a group of people wearing similar uniforms would line up toe to toe with the military to fight on an open battlefield. That hasn't been a standard tactic since Korea. No, think Viet Nam. Think Afghanistan (either in the 80's against the Soviets or now with the US .mil).

Now imagine that the "battlefields" are the same places where the soldiers live, not "over there somewhere". No geographic distinctions, no 'line' where you can say, "those from this side are okay, those from the other side are not." Unlike in the second world war, there wouldn't be one factory producing munitions for the "loyalists", and another factory on a different side of a line producing munitions for the "rebels". Same range of skin colors, no religious ornamentation to differentiate "us" from "them", no language differences.

Remember the chaos caused by Lee Boyd Malvo in the beltway in 2002? Imagine that times a hundred, or a thousand. Imagine the same number of guys with chain come-a-longs misaligning railroad tracks at railroad yards or even worse- out in the sticks where a derailed train would be screwed. Or the same number of guys taking pot shots at power substations or transformers. Or a concerted effort to snipe workers at the Port of Los Angeles and Miami- how much chaos do you think *that* would cause?

Stochiastic actions such as these are not designed to 'win', but to make maintaining the status quo impossible.

Such a meme also assumes that the military is a monolithic entity. As if, were there serious civil unrest, all the military would remain loyal to whatever party was in power. As if a unit from the Mississippi National Guard would act the same way a unit from the New York National Guard would, if the orders were to subdue a population in New York City. Preposterous. No, you'd see widespread fracturing and dessertion.

No, a person with a rifle can't take on a tank, but tanks are thirsty / hungry beasts, driven by thirsty / hungry people. You don't have to take on a tank, just the tanker truck feeding it or the guy driving it.

There's a saying that, "In battle, a handgun is what you use to fight your way to your rifle." Well, a logical extension of that would be, "A rifle is what you use to fight your way to heavy weaponry."

No, if a "Prophet Nehemiah Scudder" were to be elected and declared himself permanent ruler under a theocracy, it wouldn't be a band of men wearing red armbands calling themselves the "Cabal" who resisted. It would be the same guy who fixes your cable, the cute waitress you make sure to tip well at lunch each week, or the car wash attendant who snaps his towel to get your attention.

[CTyankee]

80. wow, when does the movie version come out?

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Never, I hope...

[onehandle]

86. Diagnosis: Red Dawn Complex. nt

[LAGC]

83. +1000

That's about the only scenario I could ever envision where people would be justified taking up arms against the U.S. government -- should a Christo-Fascist theocracy arise and take hold.

Unfortunately, its also the most likely tyranny scenario, considering the way one of our major political parties is headed now...

[Elmergantry]

84. Exactly! I quote a fellow DUer Sylvi who has said it better than I could:

What's also striking is how many of the same people predicting, or even tacitly condoning violent
upheaval in society in response to government apathy and oppression a couple of years ago now
respond with a page full of rolling smileys at the very thought that society might one day be
in a place where it must defend itself against government. Even more striking is that after proclaiming the government to be an oligarchy, teetering on the edge of fascism, and the police being violent, corrupt tools of that oligarchy interested in saving only the 1%, many of those same people are willing to turn over the the citizens' last line of defense, their personal firearms, to that same corrupt oligarchy and place sole responsibility for their security with them.

[onehandle]

87. Those basement dwellers get winded lifting their bag of cheetoes. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

90. I'm perplexed by DUers telling other DUers that the US Government is going to send all four branches

of the US Military after them if they refuse to give up their small arms. The strangest part is they are probably part of the large group who's always screaming about military personnel and their propensity for killing and how they're monsters who only joined the military TO kill.

Fucking unbelievable, and worthy of hiding if you ask me. Maybe even more.

On the other hand, I'm guessing the gun-grabbers have already figured out they had better grab all the guns BEFORE they start gutting the military budget...

[tabasco]

96. I'm perplexed that you missed the "overthrow the government" statement

in the original OP. It's rather obvious.

[Takket]

98. just curious

we see stories all the time of guys who are "holes up" with a gun in a building. how many times have those guy ever successfully fought off the police and escaped?

Using this as a mini "citizens vs. government" example.

[krispos42]

99. And how useful were fighters and bombers and artillery during the occupation of Iraq?

Not much. Order, such as it was, was imposed by soldiers with guns, who had the unaffected resources of the United States to draw upon. The source of the arms, ammunition, food, pay, raw materials, vehicles, fuel, and other necessary items of war were able to flow, unimpeded and inexhaustible, from the US to Iraq.


What is the Air Force or Navy going to bomb? Our own bridges? Our own power plants? Our own train yards? Our own harbors? What is the Army or the Marines going to shell into oblivion? Cities and towns in America? Our own factories and farms? Our own oil pipelines and airports?



There's not going to be an armed rebellion because there is no mood for it. Americans as a whole are fat and happy. The macho bullshit is just that... macho bullshit.

[Glaug-Eldare]

102. I'll bookmark this so I can check if North Vietnam's surrendered a year from now. n/t

[samsingh]

109. yes