And who hasn’t had this morning? Dumpsters can be so comforting.
Food for thought:
Those who say that Americans who keep their arms in case they have to fight the government are delusional, since the government is so much better armed…
Isn’t that what Dorner just did? No, he didn’t topple the local government, but he took it on, and last I checked, his kill ratio was a lot better than theirs. And he was just using a rifle that millions of Americans already own. In the end, he wasn’t even found and destroyed by superior armaments – he made a stupid mistake and got in a fender bender in Big Bear, and was identified by some cops. Both of which he put in the hospital, one dead.
The idea that an armed populace couldn’t revolt effectively with the weapons we have is a silly argument.
People who are putting forth the “you can’t fight de gubbment” argument are rather stupidly assuming that you win a war by destroying materiel – tanks and so forth. These people need to read them some Sun Tzu. Dorner very obviously did when he was on active duty, and he’s got his enemy frantically chasing their own tails.
“last I checked, his kill ratio was a lot better than theirs”
Yes, but only because they’ve been incredibly fortunate not to have killed all the innocent people they shot at.
Wasn’t Dorner also a military veteran, though? It’s not just the weapon, it’s also the training and the discipline.
he was navy rotc… not sure what to make of that.
oops *reserve
There is a learning curve. But out superior force hasn’t rooted out rag clothed insurgents in Afghanistan yet.
^ THIS. (And similar things other people said below.)
If superior technology was all it took, we would’ve been out of Afghanistan 10 years ago and Iraq by 2005. There are insurgents using Mosin-Nagants, for FSM’s sake! Asymmetrical warfare depends a lot more on people than equipment, and history has shown this time and again.
Obviously, there are other factors. The simple fact is that an irregular insurgent force will have very poor performance compared to an organized and well trained army. However, the objectives are vastly different. To over-simplify, the army has to win–the insurgents just have to not lose. There’s also the issue that the army is readily recognizable, while insurgents often are not. Blatant errors in choice of target often hurt very badly in the court of public opinion. (You know, mistakes like hearing that a target is using a black Nissan and shooting up a blue Toyota being used to deliver newspapers.)
There’s also an implicit assumption in “the government is so much better armed” that neither internal nor external military forces will assist the insurgents. Historically, that’s far from a sure thing–uprisings (particularly when they’re successful ones) often include parts of the country’s military and supply (or even troops) from outside forces.
Do not be dissing Mosin-Nagants. Go read up on the White Death, he was a sniper who would take out targets at 1000 meters using iron sights on a Mosin. My eyesight isn’t nearly as good as it used to be so I couldn’t do it, but after some training I think I could be pretty accurate at 500 yards and I’m a lousy shot compared to other folks I sometimes hang around with.
I’m absolutely not dissing the Mosin-Nagant; I love mine. Hell, the thing throws almost as much lead in a single shot as an M16 does in a 3-round burst. However, a rifle that entered service in 1891 is pretty much the antithesis of “modern weaponry”. We’re talking about a weapon that predates .30-06, .30-30, 8mm Mauser, even the spitzer bullet. If it’s still used to fight off one of the best-equipped armies in the world, that’s a good indication that modern weapons aren’t the only factor.
We are vastly hampered in Afghanistan by several factors, the most notable of which is terrain. You can’t get anything anywhere without having to run the real risk of actual roadside bombs. This is much less problematic in the US, as there are fewer places to place such things without people seeing you and turning you in. We also did not commit anywhere near enough resources to the task–troop levels were tiny there compared to what an actual occupation would require for most of the last decade.
Any insurgency to be at all successful requires lots of support from the population. Even then, it is still difficult to actually win. Why? Well, you still have to take and hold certain objectives, and if you don’t have the forces to oust the occupiers, you aren’t going to go anywhere.
What you will get is a long, protracted stalemate of a situation. An armed uprising in the US would not go well, for a variety of reasons, one of which is simple finances. Who would keep them going? Domestic groups could be shut down quite heavily from funding by the US government, which would make the acquisition of arms and munitions quite difficult. Foreign governments are not terribly keen on intervening, for a number of reasons.
What makes asymmetric warfare effective is you don’t have to hold territory. You simply have to make it costly for your opponent to hold territory. Insurgents also have the advantage of using anything they can capture to their advantage while weakening the larger force (why buy what you can steal or pick up off a battlefield). As to funding, each member of an insurrection brings direct funding with them. Plus skills and wares may be sold for additional capital. Then there are black markets such as drugs that allow such groups to rapidly raise funding, and black market arms dealers will happily supply you for the right price. The government on the other hand can only produce what it can pay for or risk injuring their cause. The only potential advantage the armed forces have would be training, which given the amount of territory that would have to be occupied constantly, could be largely negated. Also there are additional factors to consider such as desire to preserve infrastructure and prevent non-combatant casualties which limit assets that can be/are deployed. While the final stages of an insurrection will require public support, that stage can be years in the making. Most of that time spent utilizing guerrilla tactics and propaganda.
Such are the real-world challenges of countering an insurgency.
As to any potential uprising in America, keep in mind only about 1% of the total population serves in the military at any given time. And in any insurrection, a percentage of the standing armed forces can be assumed to support the insurgents. Also take into account state National Guard units which are more likely to support their local population than the federal government. The remainder of the federally controlled armed forces would likely hesitate to fight their countrymen.
Do they not realize that “grandpa’s deer rifle” will generally punch through their pistol caliber resistant soft body armor?
There are guys out there that do have .30-378s..and they will probably go through a couple of SWAT officers wearing body armor?
Nell’s bells the afghans kept out th soviets with WWI rifles, charging tanks on horseback
“kept out” is optimistic, but “kept occupied till drained and broke” sounds more relatable.
If this is who I think it is, please go away.
I’m not sure if you can use the case of one man sowing havoc as a rubric by which to determine whether or not an armed insurrection against the US government could work. One man is much harder to identify and locate than an organized band. They don’t roll out tanks and drone strikes for one psychopath but you can be absolutely sure that they would if there was an active, organized uprising. I’m not saying it’s impossible for such a group to win, but given the vast resources of the US government in terms of sheer information gathering alone, spy planes, drones, satellites, etc, any such revolting group would have an extremely difficult time of things.
Actually, history has show organized resistance is much harder to stop. As previously mentioned: Afghanistan (vs two separate governments), almost every terrorist group in the world and Vietnam.
Whenever someone makes the argument “you can’t take on the US government, they have machine-guns, tanks, planes, and missiles!” I reply thank you you just made the absolute best argument that the 2nd Amendment has already been infringed on, that current “civilian disarmament aka gun control” already has created a disparity of force that the founding fathers would have abhorred as they wanted the general population to have the ability to fight militaries whether foreign or domestic, it was quite common for what was then modern military equipment to be owned by local land owners who had the fiscal ability.
Local communities often would go together to buy and outfit their community “militia” who was used to ward off hostile indian, military, and criminal (pirate) attacks, these community watch style militia’s often had the most advanced for the time small cannon, rifled muskets, and pistols available for their use. When the revolution kicked off, the only things lacking were plenty of large cannon with the range and bore size to command a field of battle, though that was quickly rectified as the colonists were able to use their small arms and small cannon to effectively assault and raid british armories.
Now honestly do I think everyone should own a helfire armed drone or an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank? Not really, but then again the shear cost will stop 99% of people from buying one, much less shooting one regularly, however if a community had the need, and was willing to fund it there is no reason that a group of citizens should not be able to create and arm themselves as needed for their mutual defense. As needed they should be able to assault and defend from any aggression,foreign or domestic in nature, criminal, terrorist, or government in nature.
That said the intent of the 2nd Amendment was not for a lone wolf “whack job” to take on the government, but for a local/regional community to have the ability to stand up and defend themselves from aggression no mater the source. It doesn’t matter if they stand up a regular or irregular military force. Either way even with today’s advanced military technology the terrain will always favor the local indigenous population and small fighting force over the larger outside force.
I actually had a friend say “There is no way the armed civilians in the US would be able to take on the US military with drones and jets and tanks.” I said, “It’s ironic you would say that since your late husband served in Vietnam.”
To anyone making this argument I simply point out that the Afghans did a pretty good job with not much more than rifles against the Soviets for quite some time. The well armed and outfitted nva weren’t generally a big problem for the us in Vietnam. It was the poorly outfitted vc that were the problem. You don’t need all that stuff to f some stuff right up if you’re smart and you pick your battles.
The Afghans fended off the Soviets and were promptly taken over by the Taliban.
The side of the English-speaking North American continent that did not violently cast out the British crown is now the one with the socialized health care and not-too-horribly-regulated banking system.
Syria has about 70,000 dead and no end to the violence in sight.
And then even American exceptionalism is limited to the Revolutionary War, cf. the Civil War in which the rebels resoundingly lost and were on the wrong side of history and what they stood for is reviled today.
After Dorner… what? The LAPD will understand the error of their ways and reform? Other people will rise up and overthrow the California government? Or will they just do the we’re-under-attack-we-need-you-to-sacrifice-your-freedoms-to-help-us-protect-you thing all over again while the actual problems Dorner exposed sink back under the bullshit?
I’m quite inclined to believe a populace can effectively perform an armed revolt against any government, but I’ve yet to be convinced that the effect is any good.
Just to nitpick, it’s reasonable to assert either that socialized healthcare is a bad thing or that a religious fundamentalist government is a good thing, so your examples aren’t all that sound. For that matter, saying the South “resoundingly lost” the Civil War requires ignoring the first half of the conflict–things looked pretty bleak up until Antietam, and even Gettysburg and Vicksburg look more important in hindsight than they did at the time. For that matter, Antietam was probably more important for giving Lincoln the opportunity to point out that what the South stood for was reviled (even back then), thus cutting off the external support I mentioned above, than it was for the actual military victory.
I don’t think that Dorner is the start of a modern rebellion, nor do I think most people would assert otherwise. Jay’s comparison was in terms of the success of asymmetrical warfare, not because of tremendous changes from any of Dorner’s actions. If there’s any good to come of this, it’s that the LAPD may be under increased scrutiny (as it was following the Rodney King incident).
By that standard it’s “reasonable” to assert that the fundamental moral truth is to maximize suffering and minimize happiness.
Point taken about the Civil War though.
As for the aftermath of Dorner… I think in all likelihood the police will be portrayed as heroes who took out a horrible evil insane psychopath and if anything they’ll be subject to even less scrutiny. Maybe not, but I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t know about that – I mean, Dorner spared 3 innocent civilians before his last stand, which wound up being the cause of his demise. I think that will prove to enough people that he was not insane or psycho – just desperate to clear his name and prove a piont. The dolts in the LAPD almost killed two civilians in their quest to catch him. Where’s the sanity, or the heroism, in that?
Actually, the essential definition of a psychopath — someone who’s disconnected enough from standard human emotions and moral understandings to be capable of brutal acts, while remaining essentially sympathetic and apparently reasonable and charming in everyday circumstances — seems to be pretty well locked in by Dorner, who killed four people in cold blood — including two who’s only ‘crimes’ were being related to one of the people Dorner had target and being engaged to that other person — and injured four more. That he claimed he was just trying to “clear his name” doesn’t mean he was sane.
Obviously I’m not saying anything the LAPD has done in all of this has been reasoned or reasonable. But for God’s sake don’t talk about how a mass murderer was just ‘desperate to clear his name and prove a point.’ There’s a dead women’s basketball coach and her fiance who deserve fucking better than that.
And before anyone asks — no, I’m not claiming anything about gun control here. I’m a second amendment loving lefty much the same as our beloved artist. But there’s no way in Hell I’m going to let a guy who shot an unarmed woman dead for the crime of being the daughter of his ex-lawyer off as some kind of misunderstood folk hero. This guy was at best clinically insane, at worst evil, and the last thing people who want to continue promoting the legal and constitutional ownership of firearms by the citizenry should be doing is making it sound like they’re taking his fucking side.
Personally, I have been given no reason to doubt that Dorner suffered no mental illness with any physiological basis not directly connected to what happened to him, was competent and capable of making his own decisions, and was not suffering from any hallucinations or material delusions when he committed his crimes.
I say insane psychopath more as what they’d label him as to de-legitimize his grievances as thoroughly as possible. More systemic ostracism and mistreatment of people with genuine mental illnesses while the LAPD get off scot free.
An armed revolt is not going to be effective unless there are several factors in place among the rebels such as organisation, determination, and a clear vision for the future. Effective being defined as ushering in lasting change.
Also, I might add, revolutions rarely if ever succeed without the government already having a large portion of its forces tied up and committed elsewhere in the world. This is one of the reasons (the main one actually) why we won the revolutionary war. England was busy with numerous other commitments around the globe. Other wise, they could very well have crushed us.
One other major point here. If we are going to conduct any kind of analysis, we need to avoid the trap you have fallen into; namely, comparing apples, pomegranates, and oranges.
Once we do so, we find things are a bit different than you put them.
1. “The Afghans fended off the Soviets and were promptly taken over by the Taliban.”
The Afghans were NOT engaging in revolution against the Soviet invaders, so this portion does not even merit discussion as a revolution, or even an uprising. Let me be more specific. The Soviets were not a legitimate government, they were an INVADING FORCE. The Taliban on the other hand was a revolutionary force that took over from a weak ineffectual Afghan government in the wake of the Soviet retreat.
2.”The side of the English-speaking North American continent that did not violently cast out the British crown is now the one with the socialized health care and not-too-horribly-regulated banking system.”
You say that like socialised medicine is a good thing. (it’s not. google it.) Also, non sequitur. Our revolution succeeded. The Canadians didn’t have one.
3.”…the Civil War in which the rebels resoundingly lost and were on the wrong side of history and what they stood for is reviled today.”
As far as being on the wrong side of history–Well, Hell’s Belles! History is written by the victors. Therefore it is SUBjective, not objective. The same is true for “what they stood for”. According to some the Confederates were defending their right to be slavers. According to objective study of the actual evidence, the Southern states were primarily fighting for the right to self determination, and economic freedom. After the war started of course, they were (like any rebels) fighting for survival and the right to remain free. The whole fighting to free the slaves thing is a lot of bullshit propoganda put forth by an embattled president trying to sell a dirty, costly, unpopular war to the American people. Want proof? Google it.
4. Syria has about 70,000 dead and no end to the violence in sight.
Syria is not a revolution. Syria is an uprising comprised of civil unrest, with no clear leadership, and no clear goals, most likey fomented nad supplied by a foreign power, for the purpouse of destabilising the region. According to some sources, it is also for the purpouse of keeping the sheep distracted, and giving the blow-dried morons on the news something to talk about, but that last is a little cynical even for me.
Ultimately, the effect of a succesful revolution is up to the people of the new nation. As Ben Franklin said after the constitution was passed,” A Republic…if you can keep it.”
1. That actually brings up a point I should have made more explicit before: between the Taliban, the Soviets, the Great Leap Forward, the Terror, Napoleon and the Puritans, the governments that result from violent overthrows are generally quite horrible, or at least treacherous and no friend of liberty. I consider the USA to be a rare exception, but as you say, history written by winners and all, and I’m sure a lot of repression and violent excess was glossed over in the version I learned (which is also the version where our country was founded in part by refugees fleeing the violence down there).
2. That was my point, actually; see 1. As for the other point, the USA spends more on health care than any other developed nation and yet has the most horror stories about people choosing between wasting away from curable illnesses and being able to obtain food and shelter.
3. There is nothing whatsoever you can tell me that will make me think of the South as having fought for anything unconnected to preserving its freedom to enslave others. Every single thing I have seen about preserving the Southern agrarian way of life (the only sense I can make of “survival” – the feds did nothing remotely resembling, say, the systemic rounding up of male, female and child noncombatants for processing as in 20thC Germany, or even systemic rounding up of all the children and “killing the Southerner in the man” in residential schools), collective freedom, self-determination, etc. included, at least implicitly, the continued ability to own, enjoy and trade in a labour force as property, combined with a guarantee by birthright that oneself would not be owned. This all, of course, goes back to point 1.
4. Point taken. However, I strongly suspect any mass violent uprising that could happen in the USA now would be exactly like that, in which case this particular purpose of the 2A (and I am quite convinced that the 2A was made to facilitate a violent overthrow of a domestic ruler) has long been frustrated.
Purely a point of order — the United States Revolution did not overthrow any government. The British government kept right on being British and government after 1783, and for the most part, the local and state governments that were in place after the end of the Revolution were the same ones in place before said revolution (or at least before the Intolerable Acts). The Revolution forced Britain to acknowledge their former colonies’ independence. It didn’t involve hauling George III up to the gallows with Parliament in line behind him. Compare the American Revolution in this matter to the French — a Revolution which did indeed involve violent overthrow that led inexorably to the Reign of Terror.
Cathryn, you and I clearly differ on objective study of the available evidence. I’ve often heard “the South was fighting for States’ Rights!” In fact, that’s what I was taught in high school (in New England). However, things I’ve learned since then point out that the South only supported states’ rights when those states’ rights involved slavery. For example, see Southern reaction to the wave of personal liberty laws following Prigg v Pennsylvania, or reaction to Douglas’s Freeport Doctrine.
You might also want to look at the various states’ Declarations of Causes of Secession, particularly Mississippi’s, which gives its reasons as, “We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.” I’ll let you guess what the “property worth four billions of money” was that was an important enough reason to be mentioned explicitly, and also point out that the only explicitly declared “right” in the document was “the right of property in slaves”.
“The Afghans fended off the Soviets and were promptly taken over by the Taliban.”
Wasn’t it more that the afghans held the soviets at bay, until the USA created and funded the taliban, who then kicked out the soviets and took over as the ruling class of the country?
And on the other hand, you have cops (in fairness, mostly chiefs of police and other political wienies) whining about how they’re outgunned. So which is it, guys?
Cops are not the military. Apples and oranges.
Also, angry civilians aren’t organized gangs and drug cartels.
…we’re going to see Omar get Pegged at some point…aren’t we?
A Samoan prostitute might well be a man, so I’m not sure that would be ‘pegging’. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine
The other thing that gets left out of those arguments is that if the situation deteriorated far enough that Americans as a group were to openly rebel against the government then it is a good bet that s significant portion of the American Citizens that make up the armed forces would either join in the rebellion or at the very least refuse to fight against their kin and neighbors.
Likely so.
Or, possibly, there are other groups loyal to government policy and families are friends are lost as things get increasingly polarized, until when finally mass violence happens it’s just this big slugfest between and among two or three or more interest groups several of which claim several of the others is “the government” that must be overthrown, and several others of which claim to be the “legitimate” government that must quell this “terrorist insurgency” for the sake of the Union.
And strangely enough, neither side took the field with civilian weapons.
In any case, it was not for the purpose of overthrowing our own government, but defense against foreign invasion. At the time the militia acted as a trip-wire and rapid response force, as well as local defense, giving time for the regular army to be called up. While there are several quotes going around saying that to overthrow tyrants,etc., was the purpose, those quotes all seem to be fake.
But speaking of intent, the Founders hated the idea of a strong standing army. How do you reconcile that with what we have today?
Just curious, here fake how? Are you telling me that The Declaration itself says nothing about casting off tyrants? Are you telling me Jefferson, Washington, Mason, and many others never said anything in their writings about remaining free?
If so, more research is required on your part, sir. The words are there in these people’s writings.
The second amendment exists for several purpouses, and one of them is indeed taking back the nation from a tyrannical government IF NECESSARY.
Regarding standing armies; it has been observed previously here the founders were not a uniform voice on any issue. Many would be apalled by what we have today, while others would practically commit indiscretions of ecstasy in their breeches (like Alexander Hamilton, the power loving fink.)
This was one of the primary dividing lines between the Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists. Hamilton was one of the Federalists, adn in love with power, and a strong central government. Jefferson, Anti-Federalist, and favoring a small, decentralised government if there were one at all.
Pardon the fluky punctuation and spelling in a couple places. Chalk it up to being distracted by the new kitten climbing my leg.
The Declaration is not law, it is a press release. In any case I am referring to several quotes purporting to be from Washington and Jefferson, stating that the main reason is to overthrow a tyrannical government, or how wonderful it is that the American people own so many guns. In point of fact however, one of the first uses of the militia by the Federal government was to put down an armed insurrection.
You are quite correct regarding the lack of uniformity. That of course calls into question just about any issue where someone talks about knowing what the Founders thought on that topic, as if they were united for his pet theory.
And, for lack of a better way to phrase it, reality has favored the Federalists.
“one of the first uses of the militia by the Federal government was to put down an armed insurrection.”
Using an issue created and pushed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. That doesn’t make it right, BTW.
“And, for lack of a better way to phrase it, reality has favored the Federalists.”
Agreed. Sickeningly so.
Since you did not see fit to provide a cite or sample proving your allegation of faked quotes, I did some research, (about 90 seconds worth) by googling “Jefferson gun quotes”
After some research, I found there are indeed some few fake quotes circulating. One of them even tripped me up. (Washingtons quote about government being a tricky servant and terrible master)
They can all be found here. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
However, there are also PLENTY which DO support the idea of the second amendment being about overthrowing or preventing tyrannical government. Those can be found here: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
A sampling:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined”.–Patrick Henry, June 1788
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”
—George Mason, arguing in of the second amendment during the Virginia ratification convention.
“[At some future point, government]shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection.”–William Symmes–Massacheusetts Ratification Convention
Regarding standing armies–“if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?”–Theodore Sedwick, Massacheusetts Ratifying Convention
Right or wrong, it is what happened, and part of history.
I happen to think it was a good thing.
And yet again, what some think does not really indicate what all thought. One of the goals was a government that would not need overthrow in order to protect the people, and so far we have actually managed to accomplish that. And losing an election does not mean your rights have been taken away.
As I’ve said before, I’m not terribly worried about things like the proposed AWB or magazine ban. Neither has any chance of passing in Congress. I am concerned that things like the proposed closure of the private sale loophole won’t pass, even though a strong majority of the people favor it, because the NRA has far too much influence for a group that doesn’t reallly represent America’s gun owners (and a majority of their members support closing it too, in fact the NRA supported it until Obama did).
It’s not about the loophole itself. It’s that closing the loophole itself CAN be used for de facto registration. The ATF DOES come in to gun stores and copy the form 4473s. They aren’t supposed to, but they do. And you’re confusing the two. The NRA supported closing the loophole, but only with the compromise(see the real use of the word) that it would not extend further. See the thing is, if you look at the history of Gun Control in America, it’s a series of steps towards a total ban. That’s what people like Pellosi, Feinstein, and Bloomberg want. We give in on background checks, it doesn’t stop criminals from getting guns(because criminals who don’t care about laws against murder or theft are even less likely to care about some stupid gun law), so they then push for mandatory registration. That doesn’t work, because criminals don’t register their illegally obtained firearms, so they’ll begin taking firearms from people. You know… the ones who registered their firearms. I would be all for it IF there was a provision that the next person who pushes any further legislation restricting firearms to the public has their home and all of their family’s finances seized, lose their position in congress, and may never speak publicly about firearms again.
The Ballad of Chris Dorner
One more thing to consider is sheer numbers. The number of gun owners in the us is a staggering number. Even if all you do is look at deer permits issued last yearin the us (14 million!) That is larger than the five largest standing armies on earth combined. That’s men who have a rifle, camouflage, woodcraft and stealth enough to be a real pita to any forces they got sideways with.
The government wouldn’t stand a chance against numbers like that. And they know it. That’s why they ate trying so hard to disarm and neuter us.
I get the 14 million deer hunters emailed and facebooked at me constantly. If you think 14 million fudds are going to square off against local law enforcement (let alone US Armed Forces) you’re deluded. I also think your assessment of the the abilities of many American deer hunters is overly optimistic.
Not to say a much smaller number couldn’t wreck utter havoc on the news cycle.
The point is the numbers. 14 million is 10 times the size of the standing US military. Let’s say only 5% of people with deer permits (and nobody else) actually decide to revolt. That’s more people than the Army and Marine Corps combined.
I don’t know about the deer hunters you know, but I know too many that have the woodcraft of drunken elephants.
I think we’ve seen recently just how well armed but untrained civilians do against the US military.
But that’s neither here nor there. I seriously doubt we will ever see even a minor insurrection, much less a new civil war. The ballot box works, the only ones whining are the losers. I just wish that those desiring a civil war would just get it over with and go tactical, so we can get their trials for treason over with and move on.
Thanky you.