OK, you don't know the big difference between the British in the War for Independence or the US in places like Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Let's say it takes a lot more than guns to win a war: not to mention the cost is prohibitive in more than one way.
The problem is that you are fighting a civil war--not a foreign invader. You will be the person starting the war, not the government. Additionally, you will be trying to persuade people to join your side after you have made efforts to destabilise society.
Look a the reactions to Oklahoma City and Boston to get an idea of what you will be facing: more Boston than Oklahoma City.
And don't think your opponent isn't more than ready for you.
So, don't say "molon labe" if you can't deal with the reality of that scenario.
Of course, you all know way more than I do about this. I can see that from your comments.{1}
See also:
{1} I should make this clear that this is sarcasm since you lot are too stupid to catch that on your own.
Laci, why do you go on and on about something we've already stipulated to? How about addressing the points that we've raised?
ReplyDeleteLaci - is there anything the government could do that you think would justify an armed violent resistance to it?
ReplyDeletePlease note, I speak only for myself. I've spoken to enough people who graduated from minor institutions that study war in depth (the Navy War College, for instance) to know there are those equally qualified who disagree with the conclusions of the cited study. While I did not attend the Navy War College, I spent a military career that included significant time in and in support of operational units (including operations planning courses, training and drills...and the real thing). One of the characteristics of military operational planning is the expectation that you'll find a way to fully and successfully support any and all decisions made by those in charge, starting with the command element and going all the way to the CIC. There is little to no tolerance for "Sir, we just can't find a way to successfully carry out the mission you've given us". When this is combined with the military leadership's tendency to be supremely self-confident (you want that in a military) it's not surprising that the Army feels fully capable of handling the scenario used in the study.
ReplyDeleteThe assumption made in this study is that military officers and troops will follow orders to fire on and kill their fellow Americans. This is far from assured. I've met enough people who privately say "yes", "no" and "I don't know" to recognize circumstances will play a huge role in their decision. And this is without asking the same question of National Guard officers and troops.
I suspect that ultimately, if such a thing were to occur, the view of the American people would be a huge factor. The view of the American people would be determined by (at least):
1. The behavior of military troops and rebels
2. Who has the most compelling narrative? Narrative is not the story. It's not the media used to share the story. Narrative is the telling of the story. It's interesting that many gun control folks, who at different times have crafted very compelling narratives, want to discount the power of narrative in this scenario. It may well be, that in the event of armed revolt, narrative becomes everything.
3. The event or events that precipitate any uprising.
4. What will various National Guard units do?
Given the importance of these 3 things, the outcome of a popular uprising is far from assured for either side.
"The problem is that you are fighting a civil war--not a foreign invader. You will be the person starting the war, not the government. Additionally, you will be trying to persuade people to join your side after you have made efforts to destabilise society." This is probably the most important statement you made as it has the potential to positively or negatively impact either side. It highlights the importance of the 3 items above. Shifting even one of them (especially #2 or #3) just a little either way could have a huge impact on the outcome. And, again, no one has factored in the views of the members of the National Guard.
I suggest you spend some significant time (several months, at least) talking, privately, with active duty and retired U.S. military members (enlisted and officers) rather than relying so much on things you find on the internet.
Note: I added #4 after the initial draft so it should read "Given the importance of these 4 things..."
DeleteLaci,
ReplyDeleteWhy exactly do you think that an armed rebellion would resort to tactics used by Chechen islamists in targeting civilians? There are many other ways to topple a government. Remember President Reagan's call to tear down that wall?
Considering what appears to be a fair sized representation of readers here with real military experience, I likely speak for most in that the last thing any of us want is an armed conflict with our own government.
I dont believe we are anywhere near this point. The american government has a remarkable series of checks and balances at both the federal and state level to insure that overall the citizens get the type of government that they want. The country has recovered from times we strayed off that path, take prohibition for example.
Americans are quite willing to speak their mind on whatever subject they hold near and dear. Sometimes that speech becomes distasteful to some. That happens on both sides. Take for example you constantly refering anyone who disagrees with you in the area of gun rights as a "gun loon".
For the most part though, we are willing to use the political process and the courts to secure our liberties. For example, there were very few armed rebellions during the time when the second amendment was considered a collective right instead of an individual right. I tend to think that the gun control industry has misinterpreted the peoples' wishes in the area of legislation limiting gun rights and the perceived power of the NRA.
I do have one observation. I've noticed that often those who dislike people owning or carrying firearms make the derogatory comment that the person with the firearm is compensating for physical shortcomings. You seem to be waving the all powerful government controlled military in everyone's collective faces pretty frequently. Very hawkish.