An ex-military man and I were talking about defending gun rights in the face of government tyranny. He considers all this “come and get ’em” talk regarding gun confiscation as nothing more than complete nonsense. “There’s only one way Americans can resist tyranny imposed by a highly armed and organized force: banding together into militias.” And then we discussed the Hutaree and the general quality of militia training. “It’s a joke,” he said. “They’re running around in tacticool gear and camo playing soldier. They need to learn about communications, command, logistics and then fighting tactics.” He insisted that a “proper” militia’s goal was not self-defense. “If it comes down to it, it’s going to be about liberating fellow Americans.” So, is he right? And would you pay this guy or some of his experienced cohorts cash money to organize, train and transform you and your buddies into an effective militia? Or is that crazy talk?
As long as such militias did not have to be “registered” by the government, I’d be down. I don’t want my name on some convenient list so that the Gestapo can pick us off first, before we have time to organize.
Although I’m sure the nsa now has a record of this comment, so whatever..
This is my concern. I am also aware that several states actually have laws making it illegal to organize militias, and further restrict / outlaw groups who behave with what the state considers to be “militia-like” behavior.
But the short answer is, yes, assuming it is legal, affordable, and accessible, and I am not “registering” with the state per se, I am very willing to participate in any such militia. Please take my money.
Also; he seems just another soldier stuck in 2nd generation thinking in a 4th generation war. How did that go for us in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam again, someone remind me. Oh, thats right, sometimes people can stand against the machine. As I like to say, even the tank driver has to get out to take a leak sometime, BLAM.
Bill, in the examples you cited those people had outside help and areas to run to when things got to hot for them. And the American soldiers where on foreign soil and just wanting to make it thru a tour so they could go home.
Where are American troops, fighting on American soil, going to run away to? Who will support an American insurgency from the outside? Especially if the American government still has its nukes?
That brings to mind another question – if there are women in combat, where will they pee? Will they maybe issue these http://www.go-girl.com/ in OD or camo?
Rich Grise, “where will they pee”? In combat, where-ever they need to, just like the men.
Or do they have some sooper-seekrit plumbing that needs to be kept sooper-seekrit?
Seriously? Are you five years old? And sheltered?
Womens’ equipment, if you’re familiar with it, doesn’t exactly function like a man’s. Unless they’re going to be wearing skirts into combat, relieving themselves will certainly require more time and finesse. They also tend to be a wee bit more sensitive about it than we are. There’s a reason why they typically sit down while we typically stand.
…and then there’s the whole “modesty” issue, though I don’t expect that will be too much of a problem, considering that virtue seems to be completely absent from the younger generations these days.
When does State Law trump Federal Law? Why do we allow this BS?
Actually, state laws trump unconstitutional federal laws, but nobody seems to be using that particular power – I guess everybody’s afraid to challenge them as unconstitutional, because the Supremes might vote with the grabbers.
Of course, in that case, the states would have to take up the mantle and invoke the Doctrine of Nullification and simply not enforce the un-law. Of course, we’d have to figure out how to deal with the storm troopers. Would the deputies and cops side with their friends, families, and neighbors and stand up to the feds?
“Actually, state laws trump unconstitutional federal laws, but nobody seems to be using that particular power – I guess everybody’s afraid to challenge them as unconstitutional, because the Supremes might vote with the grabbers.”
Rich, I am actually with you in that boat. The Nineth and Tenth Amendments are very clear about that.
If you bought a gun…your name is on the list.
Pam, does your co-workers sister wish to pay to be organized into a militia? She clearly has the money…
A militia scouts manual?
Yes, it, he and you are crazy even imagining an armed rebellion against the federal goverment. For people claiming to be intelligent, you are aligning yourself with a lunatic fringe. Be careful what you wish for.
You make our founding fathers proud with such rhetoric.
I’m not bashing our Founding Fathers, but they didn’t do it alone. There was once a time we went asking the French for help.
Yeah, but I’m told that that was to help with the British naval blockade. I think I’ve heard of the French on the ground, but that could have been the Canadian war or something.
And how would the feds fight a battle on 48 fronts simultaneously? Especially if there are patriotic military personnel that won’t follow illegal orders.
Imagine a mass mutiny!
“crazy even imagining”? Debate and discussion is now “crazy”? Do tell….
P.S. I urge you to Google the term “asymmetric warfare”. Then consider that we now have several hundred thousand Citizens with Post-graduate-level practical experience in such now in the civilian population. Think about that…. if you are capable of doing so.
Asymmetrical (guerrilla) warfare is indeed a major principal of the 2nd A.
RE: “Lunatic Fringe”?
Yes, it, he and you are crazy even imagining an armed rebellion against the federal goverment. For people claiming to be intelligent, you are aligning yourself with a lunatic fringe. Be careful what you wish for. — Jonathan
So the Founding Fathers were ‘lunatics’. Interesting.
As for ‘claiming to be intelligent’, show all of US your Mensa membership ID. Then you can declaim our ‘intelligence’.
[A closed mind gathers no intelligence.]
P.S. Yours is a closed as I’ve seen of late….
When did you graduate from high school?
I see a personalized memo-style response in your immediate future.
Edit: aha! Right on time!
I think he is right. A company element of infantry (about 100) has at least a battalion (typically about 4 companies) of support making sure that ammo, food, bandages and parts are there to help that trooper fight. Few of us could field ourselves for a week of hiking and camping unsupported, much less pack on a weapon, 300 rounds of ammo and additional kit needed to be an effective fighter.
A full combat load is expensive and heavy, and burning through ammunition in a fight does need a long supply chain. Think instead of a cheap hunting rifle with a dozen rounds. Maybe a few days worth of food. Take a shot or two and fade away. Ditch the weapon if you have to.
Remember, even if you have the same gear as the infantry company, you don’t have the crew served weapons, the artillery or air support, the encrypted radios, or the second company that is probably on QRF.
Most of the “militia members” I’ve met at gun shows seem a bit – “unhinged” to say the least. One dude was wearing Colonel rank and Armor branch insignia. I’m pretty sure his militia unit is not capable of fielding or supporting armor.
That said, if there were ever a time when the militias were engaged in combat operations, they would be operating as an irregular force, so their supply train would be the enemy supply train. And they wouldn’t concentrate to allow the enemy to apply his superior firepower and other battlefield shapers/force multipliers. If they didn’t, they would lose. That simple.
Based on what I’ve seen, I would never join a militia. I did play airsoft in Florida on a team where everyone was either military or law enforcement, and I would have happily deployed with those guys. There was nothing “tacticool” about it. Most of us showed up in a pair of 5.11 pants, polo shirt and boots while all the other guys were kitted up. We’d shove a couple of mags in a cargo pocket and go play.
Armor is where you capture or manufacture it…..
Not really, the USA makes it heavy and expensive with all of its ody armor and extra gear. The watering down of marksmanship training in some services in favor or high capacity low weigh rounds has breed our ingrain dependency on a giant logistics chain. Instead of one shot one kill it takes thousands of spray and pray rounds to tally up one KIA. Look at the Taliban, they’ve had us chasing them for ten years and questioning our doctrine with their light fighting ability. They live off the land and need very little in sustained support. Their poor and antiquated tribal leadership is what undoes them, not their light infantry tactics, which we are starting to emulate now by lightening our own combat formations.
A light force, fighting asymmetric warfare would give the current US military fits.
I see your point, and I hated the weight of the gear when I was in. However, it does a fantastic job of keeping our men alive. Yes, we use a tremendous amount of ammunition to kill one insurgent. Overall, though, we still kill a lot of them.
80 pounds is not that heavy. That is IF you’re ‘trained’ to it.
That was the average weight of the Nam-era ruck I’d hump in the 82d
As for ‘cheap’ rifles…..what was the M16?
But not a dozen rounds. More the basic load of 270-300 rounds.
We packed 3 DAYS of rations. Not one.
We’d ditch the bedroll and food before ditching the weapon.
Who needs crew served weapons on a simple ambush? Such crew served weapons are used against multiple targets, i.e., a platoon of infantry or greater.
When and WHERE did you ‘sever’ US?
2005-2009 active Army, infantry, in a Stryker brigade out of Ft. Lewis. Only one deployment to Iraq. 2009-2012 Guard, no deployments.
50 pounds just on the body armor, plus whatever extra you wanted to put in your pack. Everything else could be left in the Stryker. Yes, men can and are trained to handle it, but it does slow you down.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. While I would make some minor changes in equipment if I was SecDef, I overall approve of the infantry combat load. For regular infantry.
For an insurgent force, loosely organized without formal training and logistical support, a collection of old pawn shop bolt or lever action rifles that you could buy for about $200 today would serve just fine. Such as the Mosins and Enfields the Taliban have been known to use at times. And if you’re not planning to stand and fight against regular infantry, then you don’t need the 200 plus rounds.
And while the M4/M16 might not be as nice to shoot or expensive to manufacture as an M14, it’s certainly not cheap when you fit it with a PEQ-15, M68, and add the cost of the PVS-14 to make the PEQ worth having.
And if I’m reading you correctly, the tremendous amount of ammunition does not come from use of crew served in inappropriate situations, but more often from men giving enthusiastic covering or suppressive fire with whatever weapon they have, without bothering to aim closely. Men were better trained in the old days as far as marksmanship goes, that’s certain.
Nothing more than mech infantry lacking the armor of an IFV.
No wonder you consider 80 pounds ‘heavy’. It’s the normal load for ‘light’ infantry.
[The light infantry ain’t so ‘light’.]
P.S. Two tours 82d Airborne. One enlised. One commissioned…..
…then off to 4ID(M) with an infantry company command in that tour….
P.P.S. And yes….marksmanship got REALLY sloppy of late. Starting with Nam.
An exchange officer at 4ID(M) HQ I worked with was an SAS type who’d served in the Falklands campaign. He had a poster on the wall of his office….something about one bullet….one enemy down.
If we had time and space here, we could have a long and entertaining discussion about the merits of different types of unit, equipment, and doctrine. Short version is I don’t like anything about the Stryker except the air conditioning. Put it in a real war against a real enemy, and you’re courting disaster.
I have a feeling we’d get along just fine in person. And while I bet we would agree on more things than disagree, I hope you’re not telling me that you _wanted_ to carry that much weight. Needed, were willing and able to, sure, could road march me into the ground, probably, but if you had been issued unobtainium versions that made your full kit weigh 20 pounds, my guess is there wouldn’t be too many complaints.
If we had time and space here, we could have a long and entertaining discussion about the merits of different types of unit, equipment, and doctrine. — Hasdurbal
Indeed. Best over fine tobacco and great scotch.
….air conditioning. — Hasdurbal
FOR CRY’N OUT LOUD!!!!
The tankers I’ve know have always bragged on their heaters. Now, with Strykes, the grunts got ‘air conditioning’???!?!?!?
Talk about the military form of one-upsmanship….
Or would that be ‘Keeping Up With the Joneses’?
[Life is tough. It’s tougher if you’re too coddled.]
P.S. It’s not that I liked carrying that much. It was just the way it was.
I’m reminded of various historical reports of the Roman Legionaires.
They packed more than that. And they were shorter to.
They referred to themselves as….
Yeah, I’m gonna have to throw in two instances of Afghanistan here.
First, yeah, the Soviets were pretty damn good at rocking Afghanistan, but it was still no cake walk for them. Once the Afghans got radios and better weapons, attacks were more successful. The real game changer was the Stinger missile. This was in the late 70s-80s.
Now we have Afghans running around with RPGS, PKMs, AKs, etc etc and they seem to be doing just fine without body armor and all that other crap 11Bravos have to haul everywhere they go. Yes, they got their asses kicked (REALLY BAD sometimes) and other times they kicked the piss out of Navy SEALs and Rangers. But the bottom line is: they haven’t completely lost. The war still rages on and it is a battle of political capital and attrition.
Now take all of that, add US service members, LEOs, etc who are gonna be like “Yeah, I’m not shooting Americans, and I’m gonna steal my own hardware from the base”, and you’ve got a real problem. Who’s gonna fly those planes or drive those tanks or Strykers or Bradleys if they drivers are part of the group that leaves and joins the Resistance? The US economy isn’t doing all that great either…such a war would cause SERIOUS economy fallout.
All this to say: Please don’t assume the US military would absolutely kick our ass as our population is just as passionate about defending Liberty as the Taliban is passionate about repressing their people, we are heavily armed, highly educated, trained soldiers go screaming for the hills sometimes, and everybody bleeds when shot. The Viet Cong didn’t care 120 pounds of gear and some of them had next to nothing, but everyone and their grandma knows how that story ended.
Exactly what are “we” fighting for in Afghanistan? What’s the mission statement? What are they expecting to accomplish?
Is it kind of a “I’m gonna keep assaulting you until you love me” sort of thing?
While my first instinct is to recommend FM 7-8, and exhaustive practice, a lesson learned by many thousands of dead foreign nationals over several decades is that attempts to meet the US military in the field are a recipe for disaster.
Communication, yes. Logistics, yes. Command? Maybe, but structured for an insurgency rather than a traditional battle. Train for marksmanship and a quick retreat, fade into the population. And don’t act so Hollywood creepy that you make your neighbors anxious to turn you in.
Mind you, I hope it never comes to that. And if it does, expect significantly more casualties than the Army takes.
Learn how to make thermite…..
Teach others how to defeat armored vehicles, even with supporting infantry, in closed terrain…..
Thermite is overrated. At least, without a good delivery system. One that won’t get you killed. To close the distance with a tank that has infantry support? You’re a braver man than me. It can be done, but the cost is high.
RE: Thermite? Over Rated?
You got a better way of taking out an MRAP?
I’d like to know about it.
[Thermite: When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed immediately.]
you want to kill tanks?
– camouflage a big f*cking hole in the ground.
– ambush fuel trucks
– molotov cocktails to the engine compartment (especially useful against turbine engines typically powered by jet fuel; they made T80s burn nice and pretty)
There are plenty of other ways. Research the Hungarian Uprising against the Soviets, The Soviet-Afghan War, US Armor lessons learned, etc.
Looking back at numerous exercises involving light infantry vs. tanks…..
We kicked their A$$E$ damn near every time.
Even with infantry support. It seems that when there are tanks around, the supporting infantry get overconfident.
Without infantry, the tankers think they are invincible and become easy prey for us sneaky bastards.
In one exercise, my platoon of paras crossed a bridge in plain view of a tank platoon. Then we lined up along the creek and assaulted their position. They didn’t realize we were there until we opened up on them, nailing their platoon leader and company commander who were having a chit-chat in the middle of their position.
Five tanks captured in working condition, with hardly a single casualty assessed against us.
There are numerous other such reports of paras against tanks. Including a humorous account of the battalion Support & Transportation platoon taking on a tank-heavy company ‘team’ and winning. The JCSX ref accorded them four tanks destroyed and the disorganized team thrown back five klicks.
By the way….
….I’m reminded of how, as a mech-infantry company commander, my anti-tank section wiped out an entire company of tanks that were using Soviet tactics with only the loss of one man….carried away by a tank main gun round as he stood up to watch the battle. He was the Assistant Gunner on one of the ITOW vehicles.
The TC—as the Section Leader—took that as his cue to get out of that battle position and move to the alternate.
In the running battle over several miles using MILES equipment, every tank was taken out….with no further loses to the ITOW section.
I will not question your skill and knowledge. It sounds like you also led some highly trained and skilled men, and that’s usually not luck, but rather the product of skilled leadership.
I don’t think this discussion is really about what trained regular forces can do, or what tactics they should best use. If the Iraqi insurgency had tried to operate the same way you describe, they would have been slaughtered. And they were, in every fight I heard about from the years before I was sent over there. By then, they had decided to be as sneaky as possible and fight with IEDs.
By extension, I don’t think a group of untrained American citizens could do a huge amount better against regular troops, in the field using standard military tactics. I do intend to read the book you recommended, but obviously I can’t comment about it here with any degree of knowledge.
RE: This ‘Discussion’
The capabilities and limitations of the US Army is part of this discussion. But not the principle focus.
RE: The Iraqi/Afghani Operations
A stand up fight by insurgents against a well organized military force is as much a farce as was depicted in Mel Gibon’s The Patriot.
Rather, the success of Francis Marion’s fabian tactics, as depicted in the same film, are what any insurgency needs to consider. Hence the Taliban’s use of IEDs.
However, consider the impact of a .50 cal sniper rifle on a electromotive engine and the impact of non-delivery of food to major metro areas. And that’s only one possible option.
Then there were places I’m familiar with that one bullet could knock out the electrical service in 90% of the state of Utah. [NOTE: Something to do with my last regular duty position, preparing State Area Commands (STARCs)—the state adjutant general and their staff—on how to prepare for national emergencies and natural disasters. Please don’t get me started on the Katrina fiasco.]
What American citizens could do against regular troops in a stand-up engagement, I’ve already addressed (above). However, I remember how easy it is to take out a tank. And that includes an MRAP with a bunch of ‘militarized police’ clinging to it like a scene from the classic silent movies Keystone Kops. Such have the idea that they are ‘invincible’. And they’re about as well trained as the ‘militia’ we’re discussing here. They may be able to storm a residence…..but that’s about it. They have no training in combat operations as we know them in the Army.
And then we have the National Guard units who are trained in such. And I don’t think the members of those organizations will take kindly to gunning down their friends and neighbors.
But again, logistics is the driving factor in all combat operations. At all levels.
However, remember that ‘fly over country’ is the nations bread-basket. What will the people in NYC or LA do when they don’t get enough food? Three guesses….first two don’t count.
And as Yamamoto warned the Japanese Imperial Staff, that if they decided to invade US…..
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
[For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. — Thomas Jefferson]
P.S. Hence our combat arms in the National Guard…..
RE: Killing Tanks
I’ve known how to do that since 1970.
However, this ‘d—-d’ system isn’t letting me reply to your stupid comment about doing such.
You don’t know squadoo about killing tanks.
[The Truth will out….]
RE: Command — Structured for Insurgency
May I recommend a good book? Its title is Total Resistance. Written by a Swiss officer on how his country can resist their invasion….or take over by a fascist dictatorship.
You can get it a Amazon, via….
It includes how to ‘manage’ an insurgency.
If you bothered to look up what makes up a shaped charge and why it is so effective, you would discover it REALLY doesn’t require a Ph.D from University of Army War College to take out a tank.
If an Iraqi goat herder can do it…
If these people who want to play soldier would spend just half the money and time they spend on hobbies to support Constitutionally sound candidates and get them elected; they would not need to think about fighting the government (and their ulcers would heal).
RE: ‘Constitutionally Sound Candidates’
If these people who want to play soldier would spend just half the money and time they spend on hobbies to support Constitutionally sound candidates and get them elected…. — Gregolas
Show US one.
There’s a new book out titled This Town about life in Washington DC.
It’s conclusion is that every elected official finally caves to the ‘system’ that drives politics in the national capital.
Look at Rubio.
These people continually either pervert their oath, the Constitution and/or do nothing about those who do such.
[Be Prepared….”There’s a storm coming…..”]
Chuck, I don’t think I was bothering to address you, since whatever pie-in the sky concept you have of a Constitutionally sound candidate is obviously so high and pure that neither the Founders nor Jesus Christ could satisfy your cynical and ultimately anarchic viewpoint. I was addressing rational people who live in the real world.
I’m just saying that according to reports, everyone who goes into Congress gets compromised. One way or another.
And I suspect the NSA has a lot to do with it.
[Every now and then an innocent man is sentenced to Congress.]
Let me apologize for the snarkiness of my reply. It was early Sat. AM. I’d gotten back at midnight Fri. from driving 560 miles in one day to the National Young Republican convention. I took a 16-yr-old friend to get his first political education. I went at my own expense to speak to a YR breakout session about the original meaning of the 2d Amendment.
It was well-received and some motivated activists learned a few things to help our cause. So when I saw your post I kind of blew my top, feeling like I was having a nice little cookout and you were peeing on my charcoal. Sorry.
So when I saw your post I kind of blew my top, feeling like I was having a nice little cookout and you were peeing on my charcoal. Sorry. — Gregolas
No need to beat yourself up too harshly. I’ve done that sort of think myself…now and t[h]en.
My grip about Congress is that they are doing EXACTLY what the ancient Roman Senate did to preserve their Republic against the Caesars.
I’m reminded of the comment from Gibbon about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire…..
A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possesed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises of an aspiring prince. — Edward Gibbon
An excellent read for anyone who wants to study History.
[The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind. — Livy]
Thanks! And yes, Gibbon is a great read.
That is why we need mandatory term limits. Yes, the good people get ousted, but eventually so do the idiots. Mutually assured destruction is an awesome policy.
I can’t understand why the people don’t simply limit their terms by voting for somebody else?
There’s a whole lot of people on the other side of the ocean that are fighting wars against their own governments and in some cases our government that don’t have “militia training” nor do they have access to all of the tactical molle trinkets that sell well at the gun shows. Not saying that some kind of training or planning is wrong, but I do agree that most of these “militias” that amount to fat winded guys toting their shiny ARs playing soldier for the day won’t amount to much if the real shit hit the fan.
I totally agree, but it does not just come down to logistics and communications, there is also drilling and organized gaming-out of scenarios, which helps people keep cool should a real situation arise. That takes a lot of time. Would I pay for it? Not if I could join the national guard or something. And, I am pretty sure that the FBI watches groups that do this very closely.
The biggest deterrent to tyrannical government is the Federal system with command over an organized militia element, i.e., the National Guard of the states. They form the base for the support and training of the unorganized militia. The fact that today’s National Guard is every bit as combat capable as the regular army is sufficient to keep the regular army in its barracks if the Tyrant attempted to seize power by force of arms. The Joints Chiefs are not going to take actions that will split the military between the contending factions. All this President has to attempt the kind coup that nut cases like Alex Jones see coming are some local and state police in friendly jurisdictions, Federal Law enforcement organizations and some street thugs.. Just to put federal LEO’s capabilities in perspective. The “crack” FBI HRT units would get crushed by a HQ company of any Army National Guard brigade.
Obama knows this and has a better strategy to create his socialist dictatorship. It’s called incremental destruction of the productive class and its replacement by a single mother dominated welfare class. By turning majority of the population into takers and marginalizing makers he has no need to impose his vision by force of arms. His current stratagem is the destruction of marriage and the family in which our Libertarian “friends” are 100% board with. Single mothers vote for Democrats and welfare while at the same time producing fatherless males who join the gangs that create the conditions for permanent poverty and Party control.
tdiinva commented on Question of the Day: Militia Training?.
in response to Foghorn:
“… His current stratagem is the destruction of marriage and the family…”
Please tell me, how exactly are your own marriage and family threatened by the antics of a couple of individuals on the other side of the town, that you’ve never even met?
Red Herring. My marriage isn’t threaten by the antics of anyone. However, the institution of marriage is on the block. If you read anything that the LG lobby discusses among themselves you would know the object is the abolition of marriage not its inclusiveness. But like anybody who idea of a thought is someone else’s talking points you aren’t likely to have been exposed to this.
Anybody who argues that marriage is not the government’s business doesn’t know much about how societies function or the meaning of the General Welfare clause of the Preamble. General Welfare has nothing to do with a welfare check. It is about the health of the society. A society without families looks like the ghetto. Abolish marriage and you abolish stable families. No stable families, no civil society. This is the end point objective of the Progressive movement.
I am not interested in arguing with people who can’t beyond sloganeering and talking points.
Aimed at me or Rich?
Rich, I assume you were trying to be light-hearted. If not, your “reductio ab absurdum” wont fly. Its not about a couple old-hippies cohabitating across town.
Whether by design (google Cloward-Piven) or in my view, simple low-info voter self interest manipulated for decades by Democratic Party-liberal-progressive crooks, for popular but unworkable social policy, dating from FDRs New Deal (read Amity Schlaes book), to LBJs Great War on Poverty (welfare rolled back by none other than Bill Clinton to great effect) to the abject failure of the Obama Administration and Dem controlled Congress to even come up with a budget, much less balanced- when combined with the massive printing by the Fed…. well…in a word, we are screwed, and its just math.
Most voters, much less the low-info voter, simply dont have the ability to evaluate the data on the economics and politics. If tdiinva has the access he infers, my guess is he has come to the same grim conclusions many others have.
And, no, Robert- I would not join a militia. As many more qualified have noted, logisitics alone make them un-workable, even at the insurgent level. I retain faith in the honor and experience in the professionals in active duty military, and the current National Guard, and the experience of recent vets, among LEO, and civilians, most especially those with COIN training, for it will be those that like minded civilians will self-organize around if it ever got that bad.
My guess is its not going to happen like that. Think boiling frogs, and read your history for how long it took the Soviet Union to collapse from within, thanks to glasnost and Reagan, and what a basket case China is becoming… look at the quiet big money leaving that sinking ship…
Unfortunately, theres no country or leader out there to help us here, so our kids and grandkids are in for a very tough time, unless we responsible voters can turn this around soon. I have a feeling its going to be like reforming an alcoholic- have to hit a hard bottom first.
This is a lot of rhetoric, but you haven’t answered my question. Exactly what part of your marriage is threatened by what other people do?
“It’s called incremental destruction of the productive class and its replacement by a single mother dominated welfare class.”
This makes absolutely no sense.
Think about it. The last thing the federal government wants is more beneficiaries of social programs; it can hardly afford to pay for the ones we have now. The ideal citizen (in the eyes of government administrators and legislators) is highly educated, lives his or her life well within the boundaries of the law, and pays a boatload of income taxes while requiring the least amount of government services possible.
The ‘makers and takers’ rhetoric sounds great on talk radio, but like most areas of life, government policies are actually designed to be somewhat rational and efficient (even if they sometimes fail in implementation).
I know with all the President’s scandals and illegal actions the state of the Federal budget has faded from public view but the Administration’s budget policies are leading to exactly the state that you say is not rational. Under the current welfare state a woman working a minimum wage job with two children has more cash income than working family making $60k per year. More and more people are rationally choosing welfare over work. (see the big increase in SS disability payments over the last 4 years) The state of affairs that you say doesn’t make sense already exists. Why do you think we have trillion dollar deficits forever.
Obama’s goal is to recreate the demographics of the south and west sides of Chicago on a national level — 20% on Welfare, 75% working poor and lower middle class ruled over by 5% kleptocracy. The ultimate vision of Obama and the Progressive movement is Detroit where there are more people on welfare than working in the private sector. In case you didn’t notice Detroit is bankrupt and going out of business.
Yup. Look a youth unemployment at over 75% in southern Europe, where social democratic policy is about five years ahead of the US, and deficit spending is failing abjectly. Compare US deficit to GDP ratio to Greece, and our own 60% lacking full time job, under 30.
Read your history for what happens when it goes on long enough.
efficient???????are you effing [email protected] the agencies the government has and show me the efficiency in any of them.17 trillion in debt and he still has the spending pedal to the floor.unfreaking real
The first thing that will happen to any organized militia is infiltration by ATF or the FBI. They’ll know everything about you. And very likely your most enthusiastic members, and the ones advocating the most radical tactics, will be Feds.
A better use of our time would be supporting privacy advocates like the EFF, so as to prevent a future tyrannical government from being able to track us via cell phone metadata, read our email + internet usage, and all around treat us like potential felons. Any insurgency will be stillborn if the Feds can monitor us.
Also another concern of mine.
Old lesson from the 60s (according to friends who were there): the wild-eyed long-haired radical waving a copy of Mao and offering to come up with the explosives to blow up the ROTC building is either a Fed or a Fed informant. I’ve noticed this with several front-page “Islamist bomb plots” in recent years… it was just some alienated loudmouth flapping his gums, and someone agreed with him and had access to the means toward the ends. Invariably, the connection needed to form a conspiracy worked for one of the Alphabets.
Sorry to throw cold water on your support for EFF- I like them too, but as a practical matter, its way too late.
Just what we know from the NSA revelations and open source info on metadata tools, and what the phone and ISPs and software vendors have already revealed, the simple fact is “where you go, what you buy, what you do and say, on the phone, and on line, and where” is already recorded and has been for some time. Changing your privacy settings on Google and Fakebook is closing the barn door after the horses are long gone.
Better is principled free-speech, legal action, and most important- get to the voting booth. Thats what worked for the Dems in 2012, getting out the urban vote, and what didnt for the Repubs, when too many suburban voters stayed home, thinking rationally, that it was in the bag.
If there is a need for a conventional military action, the only recourse is state militias. It is impossible for any group of low organization and training to overcome the US military in a conventional fight.
But equipment and sophistication can be overcome by mass. That is, if you don’t mind a lot of people dying, and you still have a lot left over when the killing is done, then your side wins.
If you don’t have mass or sophistication, then insurgency is likely the best game, and logistics and communications are not too important. Ask the Iraqis.
Your friend is right, kind of. But the problem is that such organization and logistics is very expensive and cannot be done with private funds. What is the point of learning complex logistics if you won’t have the materiel to transport?
State governments are the best hope to thwart the vast expansion of federal power, and that won’t happen militarily either. We should hope. But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore the military skills of small units either. Militias are not only for internal threats, they are also to strengthen our country to defend from external threats. It may seem inconceivable that we would be invaded, but that is true only so long as we are strong, and strength comes from depth.
So I think your friend is out to lunch. You need tackles and guards, receivers and quarterbacks. The game is not won by only one type of skill. These militias are training in the one area of military strength where they are able, and I think that is a fine American trait.
Based on the Civil War, whoever has the upper hand logistically is going to win, irrespective of other considerations.
The Confederacy had a much better trained and equipped force (for the time, and comparable to the enemy) than any militia could field. Unless you’re actually talking about the National Guard, in which case – see above about logistics. The National Guard could only fight until they ran out of ammo or fuel. Small arms ammo might be easy to come by, but linked 25mm, 120mm main gun ammo, 155mm cannon shells and charges – those aren’t manufactured in every state. I also believe the Ammo Holding Areas the Guard’s ammo is stored in are all controlled by regular Army units. How would they fight their way to the ammo?
Without defection of significant numbers of line units, a hypothetical civil war is a non-starter.
Without joining a group, practice intermediate range marksmanship. Especially shooting from alternate positions and improvised rests. Just like hunting, not every shot will be from level ground in the prone, at the same distance you zero.
When bill clinton got elected I checked into militias. Granted, I was 1 man with limited time and resources but my search turned up a commonality amongst the groups. The ones I encountered were right wing religious fanatics with a bent towards racism. It’s hard to say you’re fighting for freedom when you have no intention of honoring freedom for all.
As for taking on the government in an armed rebellion. Call the founding fathers up as examples all you want, it’s not a good idea. 1776 America was facing foreign troops on their soil. And foreign troops always want to go home, especially when the fighting gets tough. And 1776 America had a powerful ally in France.
Where will Americans that wish to overthrow their government get outside help from and at what cost? What foreign government supports 2a? What foreign government will oppose the legally elected government of America that still has it’s nuclear arsenal intact?
The only real hope for an armed rebellion in America is to get the support of the military and police. And at least on this site we tend to be hostile to both.
In the past most military supported overthrows of government have not ended well for the people.
The French are given too much credit. The war had been going on for 15 months when the Declaration of Independence document was agreed upon in 1776. The French didn’t commit anything until well after The Battle of Trenton. Even then, there weren’t as many French troops engaged in battle. Lafayette was a young officer and commanded Americans. The French Fleet was the most important thing at Yorktown but was only there briefly before returning to the Caribbean, which is why Washington marched down there to join up with the Southern Continental troops to press Cornwallis. We would have fought without the French. It may have taken 2 more years.
The French were also supplying arms and ammunition. I realise every unit did not conform to regs but the official issue weapon of the continental army was the French Chareville .69 caliber musket. Some were produced locally and many were shipped in by the French.
The continental army wore blue for a reason also. french uniforms were supplied in standard blue.
I realise the French did not win the war for us. But their help cut the war shorter and saved lives and destruction.
In a modern scenario who would supply rebels fighting the US government? Where would fighters go for R&R, Mexico, Canada?
Anyone who knows this and agrees shouldn’t need to pay these guys to teach them. Those who should be paying these guys to train them, are the ones that don’t understand or agree.
In the unlikely event that widespread armed resistance would be required to prevent or fight government tyranny, the war will be won with IEDs, booby traps, hit-and-run tactics, sabotage, sniping, assassination and all the other tactics that the weak use to defeat or neutralize the strong. Until the strong military force is bled dry, meeting it head on would be pointless.
No too many Americans would care to train for that kind of insurgency. Until and unless the conflict was on our doorstep, it would be too debilitating and brutal. And Bill Ayers won’t be teaching anyone how to make bombs in their basements, because he’ll be on the other side.
Coupled with massive civil disobedience in the southern and some western states by LE and the public at large. Any insurgency would find support in TX, AL, etc.
As long as the insurgents stick to military/police/political targets and make strenuous efforts to avoid hurting noncombatants.
It would be impossible to avoid killing “human shields.” And if we’ve learned anything from Occupied France, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that the people have to be more afraid of the insurgents than the regular powers, or they’ll sell out a thousand freedom fighters for a Hershey bar.
War is ugly. Insurgency is ugly to the nth power.
The “cold, dead hands” types would be better served by getting in shape. I have yet to meet a milita type of person that wasn’t overweight and sedentary. Most of them are straight-up fat. Why should anyone respect them when they don’t even respect themselves?
I’ll take all this Oathkeeper and milita talk seriously when I start seeing some members that look like they spend more time doing crossfit than they do drinking beer, reading gun magazines, and watching the military channel.
There are plenty of them around, but it improves the media’s anti-freedom narrative to show off the OFWGs. The lean and hungry types tend to stay in the shadows anyway.
Far in the shadows, indeed.
There are more capable types out there than you think. They don’t get the attention in a large part because they don’t seek the attention. They may be the mild mannered college professor or the local SWAT team commander.
I’ll take them seriously when they start to vote with any regularity, and put up municipal and state candidates. Who cares if they win some big devastatingly catastrophic action and end up in charge? Assume they could ‘win’ tomorrow. Who are their candidates? What is their platform? If they have candidates and a platform, why aren’t they running for office today, locally? Do they think that after they win, a majority will want what they offer? I’m all ears.
The political game can never be won. It’s rigged. Whenever you have freedom of speech, inevitably, given enough time, the worst and most selfish and short-sighted ideas will end up holding sway over the majority. Decent Americans have been trying to prevent this for 200+ years now, but the base of good ideas just keeps getting further and further eroded. The only reason people speak of revolution and militias and such are because inevitably, at some point, not only is the political game not won, but it is completely lost, and then the only recourse is to bullets. (Spain, 1936, for example.) This is how life works, and always has worked, in almost every country. Ancient Athens and Rome are the historical precedents for America’s government, and goodness knows, in spite of their prestige, power, and influence, they had civil strife, coups d’etats, and all that on a regular basis. Blind adherence to the political process is not some panacaea for all ills, because entrenched forces make the political game far more one of backroom deals than of “honest citizens getting together to reasonably debate and vote on the pressing issues.”
There has to be a red line. Without an effective response to crossing that red line, would YOU be afraid?
In all your militia posturing, remind me again (be specific) on who you would be murdering? The FBI agent with a handicapped child? Your child’s teacher’s brother in the ATF? The policeman you’ve seen a hundred times at the coffee shop? It’s easy to organize and fantasize against an imaginary threat, but specifically give me the names of people you would shoot. You can’t, can you? Since when was murdering because someone is coming for your guns morally right? Even crazy Kokesh laid down like a lamb when confronted by a military-style superior force. Those who are even half his bravado and even consider such scenarios are out of touch with reality.
I don’t think they consider it murder – rather they see it as an act of defense, whether they are defending the constitution or themselves.
At any rate, your point is valid. I’m sure just about every commenter on this site has lived a life of relative safety and have no idea what it is like to take a human life. As a result, they are rather cavalier about the whole thing.
I seem to recall seeing the ATF carrying away there dead.
The loonies have totally taken over here and the site owners who should know better are hooked on the clicks of the deluded, the bonkers and homicidal fantasists.
I wouldn’t go that far, a lot of the regular posters seem decent (yes there are some loons, but it’s the internet). I would agree that I fail to see how the line of discussion accomplishes anything productive. “Militias” are exactly the types of groups that fuel gun control efforts.
As I previously stated, the only “militia” guys I’ve encountered are at gun shows, but I wouldn’t be comfortable sharing a range with any of them, much less trusting them to scan a sector if my hide depended on them being able to do the job.
Loonies say things like Bush blew up the WTC with help from Jews in Hollywood. Loonies say things like they hope war breaks out at home so they can rack up their kills. Reasonable people say things like they hope it never comes to open fighting here at home, and wouldn’t it be nice if the government stops passing more stringent regulations on every facer of life?
Sometimes, they also wonder what the best course of action is in the worst case scenario, where we wake up one day and find military checkpoints at state borders, or arrests for non violent political speech ala Soviet Union. Of course, with DHS checkpoints at train and bus stations being proposed, and the IRS suppressing political speech without arrests, some wonder how far a leap ir really is anymore.
Hasdrubal commented on Question of the Day: Militia Training?.
“… some wonder how far a leap ir really is anymore.”
I think the leap has already been taken – now it’s time to find a soft place to land.
Facet. Still not good at writing on a phone.
Are you referring to Waco, GH. The ATF carried away their dead. What were there, 4-5 dead. Koresh’s group had what, 80 dead? That kind of math loses you a war real quick.
I think you are missing the scenarios. Martial law type of situation is one. Whether its post Katrina or some sort of coup.
Youre absolutely right…
What irritates me about Libertarians, strict Constitutionalists, and yes, militias, is that they have a propensity to throw the baby out with the bath water.
There are fiercely patriotic people in the alphabet soup agencies (It makes me think of “Bob” from a article on here, not Bob Bullard from “Enemies Foreign and Domestic 😉 ), the military, police agencies, etc. When the rubber meets the road, then yes, I have the utmost confidence that they will do the right thing.
We are still a nation of rule of law, the Constitution being the big daddy of them all, and the changes will have to be from the inside; individuals taking steps at their level to unplug from tyranny. Rule of law is a good thing since myself and others are not single, spring chickens with nothing to lose (unlike Kokesh and his fellow anarchists).
The next American Revolution, being long overdue, will be fought with the mind rather than the rifle, although I’m afraid that during the scary anger-phase of humanity and unrest, the rifle will be a essential tool.
“You cannot solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew” -Einstein
We have Green Berets for that. What makes anyone think they won’t be on our side? They take their oaths very seriously.
Oathkeepers are one thing and militias are another.
Sometime they do overlap. The problem is that the term militia has been tainted by the stereo typing by the media to draw up the McVeigh types etc. The forget that in many states, all able bodied people that aren’t in the N.G. etc. are part of the state militia.
We already are the militia.
We just need more members. Then, we will be feared again. More gun owners who will vote out the fascist pukes who have already overreached. Everybody wants a gun because guns are cool. Guns are fun. Now, if we could just get some goddam ammo, we could go back to having fun again and the newcomers can start having fun.
The only shots that we need to fire are at targets, bottles and cans.
Yes, the training, communications and logistics, strategy and planning are all essential to a successful military campaign – more essential, really, than the weapons available on the sharp end. If you want an effective fighting force, you need to concentrate on laying in supplies and developing a cadre of trained and dedicated officers, not barroom debates on the most effective form of short carbine cartridge.
But more than that, what a militia needs to be a counterbalance to the praetorian guard is popular legitimacy. That’s why state constitutions define the militia as all able-bodied male citizens. And when you get that far down the road of thinking about what the militia is, you’ve come back to what other people said above — the real way to fight government excess is to get involved in politics. In real life, your militia is the Tea Party and certain flavors of Occupy. Go work with them before you spend a lot of time and money on a glorified soldier costume.
The way I heard it, a major contributing factor in our victory over King George was actually guerilla fighters. The Brits would march in nice, organized military formation, while the patriots were picking them off from behind trees and stuff. At least that’s what I’ve been told.
In the case that revolution becomes necessary, there is really no chance of an outright military victory if military remains loyal to the regime. In the case of American Revolution it was not military might that won the day, but the willingness to draw out the battle and make the cost of maintaining control of a territory more costly than what it’s worth. The same situation happened to the USSR in Afghanistan and to us in Vietnam. In all three cases there wasn’t enough economic benefit to justify a never ending war. This type of victory could only happen if the country splits up as in the Civil War. In that case the South placed their hope in a military victory over a superior force rather than in a long drawn out bleeding of the Union. In the end they were crushed and lost the will to carry on the fight. But today the folks in Massachusetts might grow tired of sending their sons to die in Texas and exert immense political pressure to just let them secede. To topple the entire government though, the military must defect to the rebellion.
No amount of weekend warrior will make up for Militia’s lack unit cohesion. A common experience testing against one another over time, while molding the mind to kill and acceptance of leadership. End of the day Militia’s bitch about the government, then stand in line to cash their benefit check.
“They’re running around in tacticool gear and camo playing soldier. They need to learn about communications, command, logistics and then fighting tactics.” — Article
Amateurs study tactics. Professional soldiers study logistics.
[I don’t know what this damned logistics is. All I know is a want some. — Anonymous US General in WWI]
Yep. Logistics are both a weapon…. and a target.
That is crazy talk. Forming a militia prior to tyranny is a surefire way of ensuring that your militia will be known and targeted. Resisting tyranny would only work if a large portion of the country were actively against it. Chances are that the vast majority would be in support of the government. Any armed resistance at that point would devolve into a Taliban/IRA type of action. Maybe this would be acceptable to some, but not me. I would have no interest in using their terror tactics to try to force change.
Prior to ‘tyranny’?
What gives you the impression that what Obama has done is NOT ‘tyranny’?
And neither Congress nor the courts resist him.
Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. — Abraham Lincoln
I suppose that it depends on your definition of tyranny. I’ll use this one: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.
If government gets its power from the people then are we in fact the tyrants?
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. — Thomas Jefferson
John, they very much could be
You bring up a good point and could potentially open a can of worms.
A example is tyranny by majority, which the founding fathers adamantly warned us against.
I would guess it began in the age of stupid, aka, now, when millenials were being taught were in a democracy and now a Constitutional, Federal Representative Republic.
And, clearly, neither do you.
And you do? I must have missed the news about the new revolution.
You assume I think we live under a tyrant and, therefore, there is something to resist. I don’t think that we are living under tyranny. To think that means every person who has casted a ballot is a tyrant.
Neither do I WHAT?
I don’t think that we are living under tyranny. — Bystander
And when did you graduate high school?
[The Truth will out…..]
I’m inclined to think my graduation date is a non-sequitur. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that the definition if “tyranny” changes based on one’s graduation from high school.
Then I would be happy to answer your question.
I suppose you could be questioning my intelligence because I disagree with you. That seems to be a common tactic here.
I’m inclined to think my graduation date is a non-sequitur. — Bystander
Because you’re ashamed that you never learned History. Let alone Civics.
[The Truth will out….you don’t know squadoo…..]
P.S. I don’t question your ‘intelligence’….yet. I question what you learned in the K-12 range….which seems to me to be rather lacking.
It is potentially a valid question because the curriculum in public schools and the average political leaning of the teachers has changed dramatically over the last fifty or so years.
If you are a recent graduate, then it allows some understanding of where you are coming from for your understanding of American history, including the structure and philosophy of a represantative republic means of government.
Edit- Chuck, looks like I was typing as you posted your last reply, but I guess I understood perfectly. I graduated a little over ten years ago now, but I edumacated myself beyond what they wanted to teach me. Books are our friends.
I think it is a non-sequitur because it is a non-sequitur.
I had a normal history and civics education. What little conversation we have had is not sufficient for you to make a realistic assessment of my education, unless you are threatened by my seeing things differently than you. If that is the case, you will always believe I am wrong unless I think in lockstep with you.
I graduated long enough ago that pervasive left-wing ideology in schools was not yet a problem. I have, however, spent time in places that suffer under tyranny, and this country, while having some ridiculous laws, does not even get within seeing distance of that.
You are entirely free to disagree, of course. A less charitable interpretation of that disagreement would conclude that it is found in ignorance. I typically prefer to assume that some people just haven’t had the opportunities that I have had.
RE: Education & Learnings
It [education/graduation date] is potentially a valid question because the curriculum in public schools and the average political leaning of the teachers has changed dramatically over the last fifty or so years — Hasdrubal
Indeed it has. Hence my asking after such from some people here.
I graduated high school in 1969. Back when they taught everything from English to Math to History to Civics. And they taught it all well. As opposed to what I’ve witnessed in the vaunted American public education system of late. [NOTE: The distaff and I judge high school forensics events here. Even state championships.]
I enlisted in the US Army in 1970. I retired LTC in 1997: Infantry, Airborne, Ranger.
People like Bystander and John come across as ignorant….bordering on my working definition of ‘stupid’….
Stupid, adj., Ignorant and proud of it.
And I blame the vaunted American public education system for making them that way: juiced on high self-esteem, but without the knowledge they need to be a success in this world.
[Use to be that education replaced an empty mind with an open one. NOT ANY MORE!]
I can see we will never see things the same way. You seem to like to rely on the quotes of great men, so I will leave you with this:
“The arrogance of age must submit to be taught by youth”. – Edmund Burke
You can display your wisdom by considering this quote next time you feel superior.
I can see we will never see things the same way. — Bystander
Only because you fit the description of what comes out of the vaunted American public education system regarding ‘closed minds’.
You seem to like to rely on the quotes of great men, so I will leave you with this:
“The arrogance of age must submit to be taught by youth”. – Edmund Burke — Bystander
Well….if you could substantiate any of your claims and be honest about your educational background you just MIGHT be able to teach someone more experienced than you something useful.
But as it is, your obfuscation and lack of cogent argument leaves much to be desired as far as teaching people like me something new and useful.
[Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; Easy to govern, but impossible to enslave. – Lord Henry Brougham]
P.S. And based on all you’ve demonstrated here, you’re ready to be enslaved…..
I had a normal history and civics education. — Bystander
….by post 1980 standards.
That’s pretty obvious to anyone with a REAL education.
[The Truth will out….]
Congress and the courts have resisted the administration, but Obama et al. thumb their noses at the law. For example, the supreme court told him that his “recess” appointments made while the senate was actually in session were illegal, and that the appointees must go. The admin’s response was basically “blow me. Don’t like it? Take it up with the AG.”
Right now, Holder and Obama are propping each other up. Checks and balances have broken down, and the Executive branch is almost totally lawless. Congress screams about it, but Holder won’t prosecute anyone, and congress doesn’t have power to prosecute. It’s horribly dysfunctional.
I can’t see joining a militia. But being trained to an equivalent standard of Basic and AIT would be nice. Knowledge is power, and being trained is even better.
But like other countries having a civil war, soldiers in the military will be on the front lines. Militia types would probably end up as an armed version of the Neighborhood Watch.
I think you kind of missed the entire point.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 29 talks in detail about this, where he says that it is impossible to expect the militia (the general population) to have the level of training of government troops. That all we can expect is the militia to possess arms. Where the population being armed serves as a counter-weight to the government is through its sheer numbers.
And I do not believe that even a well-trained military could run roughshod over an armed population. For example, what is one of the reasons it would be considered insanity for the U.S. to invade Iran? One big problem would be how to control such a huge population (about 80 million people). The Nazis ran into the same problems with their empire. One of the reasons back in the 1990s that General Colin Powell gave for not sending ground forces into Europe where there was trouble (I think the former Yugoslavia) was because the people ere armed and it would be a blood bath.
Look at the hell Assad’s forces caught in trying to crush that resistance. He only has been winning as of late because of help from Hezbollah and Iran and Russia.
Interesting fact: passive revolutions (such as The Ukraine) have a higher success rate than armed ones. As others have mentioned the key is going to be which side has public legitimacy. That side will get the support of the population (and possibly the bulk of the military) and ultimately probably win.
If the American people want an effective independent counter to the military/police you will need state governmental support and financing AND a change in perception of the “militia” from fat racist lunatics to “person performing a civic duty that may include resisting tyranny”. Lots of luck getting that change in perception broadly. This isn’t to minimize the role the 2A plays in resisting tyranny, but just to be realistic.
A better avenue would be working through the political process to ensure that the military and police are thoroughly inculcated in a view that any order to restrict citizen’s rights is invalid and must be resisted. I’m sure lots of folks think this already but they probably thought that going in. I mean that is what they are taught after joining and the incentive structure rewards that while in the service.
Another change that would help prevent a true tyranny is a return to civil society and community. It would be one thing if, when they come to kick the door in the neighbors come out and raise holy hell (even in a non-violent way), but if your neighbors don’t know you they will assume that the government’s action is legitimate and you were a bad dangerous person. People are less likely to take a stand and resist, violently or non, if they think they will be all alone. If they see they are not alone people get bolder, and I don’t think online communities count.
Ultimately we should all work through the political process and hope that it never comes to that, because no matter who wins it will be BAD for all involved.
Note that, as you recognize in your first paragraph, even “passive” revolutions are backed by the recognizable threat of force. This has little to do with “public legitimacy”, if you actually read a bit of history.
I should add another avenue we should pursue to minimize the danger of tyranny is to pursue political means to reduce the size of the military and police. This is not meant as a slight to them but a tyranny is far less likely without the means to enforce it, and our current numbers exceed what we need for a rational national defense and law enforcement of a reasonable number of laws.
You speak only in terms of prevention. Tyranny is already upon us relative to what the constitution dictates. But the same things you mention as solid ways to deter could also be used to roll back government overreach. I agree with those who say that voting the bums out is the best and most promising way to restore the Republic to what it was meant to be. I hope that is possible in this society geared toward punishing the productive and rewarding sloth and apathy.
Nonviolent civil resistance can work, and thus should always be tried first before any violent resistance. Violent resistance is for a last-ditch option.
The simplest thing to do is just be free. Harry Browne explains it well in “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.”
I have a better question, seeing what happened in Egypt, would our military stand for us or the government?
The military would stand for whoever pays it.
Militias have a place. That said, they cannot go one on one with the US military in a traditional combat scenario. Leadership, training, equipment, logistics….. the list is endless and they could not compete. From what I have seen of militias they cannot execute simple company level maneuvers. But that is what they are not needed for, they should be looked at like the afghans. The afghans have held their own against us, as well as all other invaders of Afghanistan. The British had two bad wars there in the 1800s, as well as the Persians and Greeks. Militias utilized in that manner would be quite effective. Just my.02
. Leadership, training, equipment, logistics….. the list is endless and they could not compete. — John
Not much of a student of history are you.
• The Saratoga Campaign
• Francis Marion in North Carolina
• Jewish Ghetto Uprising in Warsaw
• Balkan Partisans vs. the Nazi War Machine
• Chechnyan Rebels vs. Russia
• Afghani Rebels vs. Soviet Union
• Viet Cong vs. US
You need to read more history.
[The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind. — Livy]
One thing though, but the Afghan rebels stood no chance against the Soviet Union until the United States began financing and supplying them. Similarly, the Viet Cong stood no chance against the United States except that the Soviets and the Chinese financed and supplied them. In addition, the United States also was reluctant to invade North Vietnam out of fear that it would start a second Korean War (as North Vietnam borders China just as North Korea does). In hindsight, it would not, but at the time, the U.S. didn’t know this.
Thats not necessarily true on a number of levels.
The mujahideen were still inflicting significant losses on the Soviets, even before the introduction of US supplied arms through Pakistan.
The Vietcong? no different.
Most importantly, you have to look at Chechnya. Chechen secessionists inflicted horrendous losses on Russian men and equipment and they received little or no support from the outside world until later, when a jihad was called and Islamists began to infiltrate Chechnya from the number of Jihad warzones worldwide.
Well, all I noticed is that the guy in BDU cammies on the right has a chaplain cross on his uniform. So the militia’s have their own non-combatant chaplains now?? *sarcasm*
Also, the main problem with militias is that they’re tainted by the 90’s era hate groups that were trumpeted by the media. In a SHTF scenario, a militia’s first problem would be presenting a favorable light towards the general population. For this to be an even remote possibility, any hint of white supremacists, neo-nazis, anti-semetics, racists, anarchists, commies, etc. would need to be ruthlessly expelled from the organization. They would also need to spend considerable effort in community outreach, such as supplying food and water to communities affected by fighting, as well as repairing and then controlling critical infrastructure like roads and electric grids in hard hit areas. Proper rebellions/insurgencies are generally doomed to failure if they can’t recruit sufficient numbers into their ranks to both grow the organization and replace casualties, and recruitment requires a significant amount of the populace to view them in a favorable light. Thus the importance of community outreach.
I think uscrow.org is working on this.
I had occasion, when overseas, to train locals in military skills but they faced adversaries who were of an equal skill level. As stated in the Article there is far more to war, especially winning a war against a vastly superior opponent, than combat operations. The Founding Fathers would NOT have won the Revolution had it not been for the centuries of animosity between France and England
And don’t forget how the Soviets and Chinese helped North Korea and North Viet Nam.
Or how we helped the Afghanis against he Soviets.
Or how Iran is helping the Shiites in Iraq and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya.
I knew this conversation would eventually come to this question.
Who would come to our aid and how do we create the foundation for such aid?
Louis, easy answer
Those that would jump headfirst in line to hurt the anglo-american banking consortium controlling our government and most of the world.
The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). They all have one thing in common: They produce some awesome weapon systems. Given the opportunity to upset the global balance of power, they would gladly do anything to do this.
Trouble is, what are their ulterior motives?
The best thing any resistance could do is pay them in gold or silver and end the discussion right there.
RE: Who Indeed
Who would come to our aid and how do we create the foundation for such aid? — Louis
I doubt if any nation-state might. However, there is a possibility of tacit/passive support from Canada. Especially if Mexico took advantage of our situation.
We’re a rather largish nation. And a new civil war would be fought more along the lines of political values as opposed to geographically driven ones. That would be a situation where the Northeast would be hard pressed to get food for their over-populated states, as the grain belt states would not be shipping them anything.
Even California, with its Imperial valley would suffer.
Peace is always better, but if the so-called liberals can’t get what they want through ‘peaceful’ means, then things are going to get ‘interesting’.
[May you live in interesting times……]
I believe that.
I think the French were absolutely instrumental to the victory of the American Revolution against England.
Certainly at Yorktown, where they kept Cornwallis’ army bottled up from the sea.
Certainly the French were instrumental in the final British defeat.
However, they refused to jump in until the Colonists had proved that they could stand up the the British Army on their own.
The Continentals fought the Brits to a stand-still, but couldn’t prevail on their own, then the French stepped in and tipped the balance against King George.
There have been Legislation passed at the Federal level and in some cases the state level to “out law” the formations of civilian militias. They would likely categorically classify any neighborhood militia groups such as the Lexington Minutemen, Concord Minutemen, Ethan Allen’s Green Mtn Boys and the Over The Mountain Men as domestic terrorists.
Of course. Preparation is everything and this is another step in that direction. Today’s terrorist, is tomorrow’s patriot. Depends on who wins.
He is absolutely correct. And if y’all wanna be the next Ruby Ridge, step right up.
There is another way, a non-violent way that remains so because of the implicit threat of violence.
I think TTAG is part of that path. GuardAmerican expressly wants to be part of that path.
There is a way. And that way does not involve freeing fellow Americans from The State, or a mob. Not yet, anyway.
And it need never be.
“Militia(s) against tyranny” is extremely one-dimensional.
Traditional, Constitutional Militia included every able-bodied man, and I suggest (19th Amendment, etc.) woman also.
Logistics IS the achilles heel of a militia, but I propose that instead of thinking of “a militia” or “militias,” we adjust our point of view to “THE Militia” which is ALL of us not currently serving in the “standing army” and some elected officials. I propose that THE Militia be all-inclusive regardless of age, gender, fitness/infirmity, ethnicity. That those who can’t hump can still contribute in the logistics chain so necessary to any emergency/disaster. (In some places, these people have been referred to as “auxiliaries,” though they are vital to success.)
Now let’s look at the threats: I propose that we identify the spectrum of threats, especially the most likely and most dangerous ones to our selves, our communities, and our region. These threats include natural, man-made, and combinations of both. In my area (Pacific Northwest), the most usual “emergency” is the ice storm, of which we may have one or more annually – these shut down roads for several days until the ice thaws. The most dangerous threat here is the coming 8+ earthquake, which might dwarf Katrina in its concequences, including the lawless looting and rapine to follow. Red Dawn is on the scale too, though not likely.
To prepare for the above spectrum; organizing, equipping, stockpiling, and training will help you, your neighbors, your community, and ultimately the nation. IF your community is prepared for these threats, government tyranny cannot happen in any effective way – because you are already prepared for it through being self-sufficient against other threats.
Training/prepping/organizing must become a habit of the community – and not only makes people more self-sufficient, but more community-sufficient.
Other then the point that they are, (as myself are) government trained; it will be hard pressed to find someone who isn’t U.S. Gov. military trained that’s worth beans here in the States. Maybe get an SAS group from England would be the best bet.
Either way, keeping the Government out IE. state and fed. I would join. That’s the trick though, even though our constitution, bill of rights, and the separation of the US from England all say that we the people have the right to form our own militia to protect us from not just invaders, disasters, but also a tyrannical government.
It would also be beneficial to ensure that the majority or a third of the federal military would not fight people from their own country… In the interest of not having another costly civil war over the idea’s of to many liberals in-charge. Who if allowed would take away our rights to protect our self’s from our self’s because we are all lowly uneducated children and NEED to be governed by people who make decisions based on their emotions or react based on emotions. Fact’s and logic just cause indecision and violence, that is if you believe what they preach…
But this is all my own opinion and I keep it to myself to protect myself from those in the government who are zealots in the above mentioned type of people… LOL
If there is no discipline, no chain of command, just little bunches of pissed off people running around with guns, I want to be away from there. Remember, even if you could form an effective militia, not saying you can’t, it would have to be absolutely no tech stone age, for starters.
“If there is no discipline, no chain of command, ” Then this would be the Garden of Eden, with toys.
“Discipline, comrades! Iron discipline!”
— George Orwell, Animal Farm
The 2nd Amendment militia is a reality. It has “standing” because it
is formally recognized in the Constitution. It also has historical standing
because of it’s purpose. Logically, since it is recognized, all that remains is
to identify it. Does is exist today? Yes.
Disarming the 2nd Amendment Militia is not possible and should not be attempted.
It may be that disarming the general population or parts of it may be
necessary to actually maintain law and order in the event of a huge natural
disaster (Yellowstone) or a CME/emp/gammaburst event where the welfare
of the population reverts to chaos and rioting and killing, but even then,
the 2nd Amendment (hoping that there is one) militia will not be disarmed.
In this worse case, it will be the 2nd Amendment Militia under the leadership
of Sheriffs that can restore order. A large scale natural disaster will tax
government resource well beyond its ability to help. It will be left to the
2nd Amendment Militia to restore order and a responsible local government
and to support the Sheriff.
The 2nd Amendment Militia is well-regulated, trained, obedient to their
principles, and ready to serve the people. Those who are 2nd Amendment
Militia will know history, law, responsibility, and accountability not only to
the Constitution, but by it, so to the People.