Friday, February 21, 2014

You really think an armed rebellion would succeed?

The violence in the Ukraine is once again fueling the claims that sometimes it's necessary to fight the government (despite the Constitution's plainly saying that it wrong).  But, are armed revolts a good thing?

Max Fisher writes in the Washington Post:
When civil resistance movements popular uprisings adopt small arms use, they become much more likely to fail and the government becomes more likely to survive intact. That was a conclusion I reached, anyway, as part of my graduate research on government crackdowns against popular democratic movements. I surveyed 20 attempted uprisings over the past century and found overwhelming evidence that when protesters take up arms in large numbers they make their movement far likelier to fail. Within those cases, the chance that a popular uprising would "outlast" the government and ultimately secure its goals was cut almost in half if the protesters took up arms.

There a few reasons for this. One of them is that shooting back makes the conflict less about politics and more about simple force, a contest of strength that disorganized civilians are often bound to lose. Probably the biggest is the military: when protesters start shooting back at security services, it makes the military much more likely to intervene against them. And if the military intervenes against protesters, that usually ends things pretty quickly.
Seriously, you are delusional if you think you are going to take on a trained and well-equipped military with an assault rifle.  And the military doesn't need to bring in the drones or MLRS on you as an article in Forbes pointed out:
Benson and Weber (the team sounds like a cigarette brand) explored how the military might domestically apply its concept of full spectrum operations, which cover everything from all-out war to counterinsurgency and nation-building. In fact, the Army’s operating concept for 2016 to 2028  considers highly likely a future where the U.S. is threatened by “radical U.S. citizens operating domestically and abroad”. The Pentagon was probably thinking of Al Qaeda sympathizers in the U.S., but radicals come in all flavors.
There are a few things a successful rebellion needs and one of them is popular support, despite the delusions of the Three Percenters:
To a lesser extent, when protesters take up arms it appears to ultimately reduce popular support for their movement. The hardcore coterie of activists might see the need for armed resistance, but most civilians tend to value their physical security highly, and are more likely to support the government if they believe the opposition is sowing violence. To shoot back is to risk alienating your own "quiet" supporters.
The real point to take away from the WaPo article is that you need both popular support and the backing of the military if you expect to have a serious rebellion.  And despite the so-called oath keepers, the real military oath of allegiance is:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Which means a few important things here, with the most important one being that they had better resign from service if they have problems with President Obama.  That is especially true if they want to fall back on the Constitution since Article II, Section ii says:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
I've also mentioned that Article III, Section iii of the Constitution defines the crime of treason (the only constitutional crime) as:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
That means you had better get it straight as to WHERE your loyalties lie if you are in anyway going to claim to be a "constitutionalist" and "oath-keeper".   The real lesson is:
But the military is the big factor here. The protesters need the military to some extent, even if it's only for troops to stay in their barracks. If protesters take up arms, they're much less likely to have military support or even acquiescence. Worse, the military becomes more likely to intervene against them – and the rest of the population becomes more likely to support that.
 See also:
Gun-Rights Activists Ask: What If Ukrainians Had More Guns?
This debunking of the Gun Control =Genocide


  1. Tell that to Jesse Jackson who calls for "assault weapons" bans as a matter of national security because they can shoot down airplanes and blow up railroads. It seems the most delusional people in this regard are in your camp.

    1. His remarks did sound a bit over the top, but to say our side has the most delusional people based on that is a stretch.

    2. It's your side that grossly exaggerates what a pistol grip can do. That's all you.

    3. Mikeb, I'd rather believe that you're insane instead of evil. Insanity I can feel sorry for.

    4. I'm neither one Greg. An unlike yourself, I'm not a liar either. My side of the argument is strong enough in and of itself that I don't need to resort to excessive exaggeration and outright lies like you do.

    5. Pull the other one!

  2. This is all a bunch of meaningless twaddle. To start with, the military has not defended the Constitution since WWII and has merely served as the personal army of the resident at 1600 Penn Ave.

    You may as well take that word 'Constitution' out of the oath.

    And what about the oath the president takes.
    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will FAITHFULLY execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
    Who was the last tyrant calling himself prez that did that?

    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It established the three branches of government, and it delegated “all legislative powers” to Congress. American law rarely uses the word “all.” Yet the Framers chose that word precisely to confine law writing to Congress and to prevent a president from altering federal law by the selective manner of his enforcement of it and thereby effectively rewriting it.

    What it boils down to is that we have a dictator with a potted plant for a Congress and a bunch of people in uniforms acting as the dictators enforcers. That's it. Period.

    orlin sellers

  3. Laci, you are worrying this bone a lot. What is your point that the Constitution wouldn't authorize revolution against it? Of course not, but by the same line of reasoning, neither did British law authorize our revolution. Unless you're claiming that the United States has no right to exist as a soverign nation, your argument falls apart.

    But as always, the glee that you express about the idea of the U.S. military attacking our civilian population shows the world what's wrong with your side.

  4. Why exactly do you have an attraction to contemplating people rising up against the federal government? Or do you just fantasize about the rebellious peons being crushed by federal forces?
    One problem with your suggestion that they resign is that only officers have the option to resign their commission, however, resigning their commission doesn't get them out of the army. If they still have an obligation, they just continue as an enlisted person.
    Soldiers and officers alike also receive training in the laws of war and what constitutes lawful orders. And of their obligation to not follow unlawful orders. So as the article you cited mentions, if there is the potential that the President starts pushing the envelope regarding limitations of the use of the military on American soil, there lies the potential that some might believe the orders to be unlawful.
    At some point, the hope would be that calmer heads would prevail, much like what happened in Ukraine. After all, do you think that they might have an armored vehicle or two sitting around? Or perhaps a helicopter? Thankfully, the President, saw that taking that step in escalating the conflict would be a losing proposition.
    You should consider having more faith in the citizens of this country.

    "Laws like the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus are designed to tightly restrict using the military against the American people. But if there were a rebellion, I wonder if the President would stand on legalities. Lincoln is remembered for winning the Civil War, not suspending habeus corpus."

  5. The oath that you show is the Oath that the enlisted take, the officers Oath is a little different. No mention of President is made only the constitution.
    Most enlisted that may not be sure which way to go WILL follow their officers.

    1. You are correct Z, in fact we discussed this about two weeks ago. Laci likes to repeatedly replay the military can't be defeated message whenever he can.

  6. Laci makes three ginormous errors:
    (1) Laci assumes that all of the U.S. military will blindly follow orders and annihilate thousands of citizens. He is absolutely wrong. He would know this if he had actually talked to dozens of current and past service members in the U.S. military.
    (2) Laci assumes that citizens who resist a tyrannical government are stupid and will try to go toe-to-toe with the U.S. military. He is absolutely wrong on this point as well. Armed citizens run the gambit from the simplest of people to very complex people, from people with well below average I.Q.s to people with genius level I.Q.s, from people who live in abject poverty to fabulously wealthy people. If a good number of these armed citizens finally decide that enough is enough and the gloves are off, their enemy will lose. It is only a question of how long.
    (3) Laci assumes that people who resist government tyranny will bring violence to fellow citizens who have no part in the tyranny ... and that will rapidly erode public support. He is absolutely wrong to think that armed citizens will bring violence to fellow citizens who have no part in the tyranny. Thus there will be no significant erosion of public support.

    Only Laci's arrogance exceeds his ignorance. And that will be the downfall of a tyrannical government if the gloves come off.

    -- TruthBeTold

  7. In the USA the answer is short and simple. YES!