|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> The Anti-tyranny Amendment /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1565698770 Message started by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 05:19:30 |
|
Title: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 05:19:30 Eegore and I have gone back and forth on the topic of what would happen if the government decide to take on its citizens. But it's gotten lost in another thread. So here's a new one. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure citizens we're armed with personal firearms in order to act as a militia. And as a militia, the possibility existed that they would in fact be asked to fight against their own government. As time has gone on, we've evolved in the way in which we define the words in the Amendments and Constitution. The classic case is defining the right to privacy which was the basis for the abortion decision, but there are certainly others. Some are saying that the weapon technology of the modern US military makes the idea of an armed citizenry taking a stand against them an impossibility. Therefore, the guarantees of firearm ownership are practically speaking negated. Also, some would argue the word 'militia' in the amendment throws yet another monkey wrench into the mix. I think that's a weaker argument. For now, let's focus on the first topic which is could a citizenry armed with commercially available weapons, fend off our government if it decided for whatever reason to turn our military on us. (also, for the purposes of this, set aside the possibility we are over run by a foreign invading force and our military has been routed) Could an armed citizenry make a stand against the US military? NOTE: let's lay off the personal attacks. We can do that in plenty of other threads. Also, no posting published articles of great length. Use your own experiences and understanding to answer. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Serowbot on 08/13/19 at 08:37:13 Nicely summarized. Honestly, it's hard to envision how our own government would take on it's own citizens. I can see a small uprising against the government,.. which would obviously be quelled by our military if local police couldn't handle it. But on a national scale,.. votes are more powerful than guns. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 08:55:05 Its a much, much different situation, but take a look at Hong Kong right now. It seems hard to imagine, but pretend. What if an administration 12 or 16 years from now began taking those steps. They interfered with election, local law enforcement and various other steps. Pretend things got bad, really bad. Pretend the left and right banded together and began protesting. It was growing and the government responded harshly. Things got out of control and boom....... Could an armed citizenry with commercially available weapons somehow fight back? |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by verslagen1 on 08/13/19 at 09:50:44 Besides Waco, Ruby Ridge, Wounded Knee and the like, standoffs with the Government won't fair well. However, were the Government is met with overwhelming resistance such as the Bundy Ranch standoff, the Gov's can suddenly be reasonable. But I don't think that will happen again. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Eegore on 08/13/19 at 10:01:10 "It was growing and the government responded harshly." What limits, if any, are imposed on the resources available to the US Government CENTCOM? |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by T And T Garage on 08/13/19 at 10:06:49 I personally think that the idea of a "Well regulated Militia" in this day and age is nonsensical. As Sero pointed out, the greatest power of the average citizen is the vote, not the gun - IMHO. The fight against "tyranny" in today's America is done by grassroots movements like the Suffrage Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the ERA, the LGBT movement, etc. None of those people ever raised a gun against the government, yet they changed the very core of our Country. Again, I'm not saying that the Second Amendment isn't important, and I think it should remain, but like the Eighteenth and Twenty-First - change is indeed possible in this country. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by T And T Garage on 08/13/19 at 10:11:10 487A7D6C6B7A6D527E6D741F0 wrote:
Honestly - no. The world where millions would ban together and fight against some sort of tyrannical government is fictional. It makes for great movie plots, but that's about it. I'll bring up the whole bundy militia thing again. Here was a group of people who had a lot of power in that area of the country. Even with that, they couldn't muster up much support. I think that's what you'd see all over. Apathy, not unity. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 10:47:39 58787A726F781D0 wrote:
For this exercise, no limits...... To which I assume you'll reply as you did in the other thread and point out the biological capabilities of the government and they could simply introduce pathogens into the air, water or food source and end this pointless rebellion. However, I respond again, why didn't we do that in Afghanistan? Why not on any of the numerous countries we've been involved against? There are two answers, one applies more than the other but both are applicable. 1) universal condemnation 2) but the bigger reason is some variation of the 'you don't $hit in your house" philosophy. There would not be widespread killing of a general civilian population. Hell we haven't done that since WWII, I can't see The Feds carpet bombing Omaha, NE into a second Dresden...... No, it would be door to door battles much like the Vietnam, Afghanistan and War on Terror battles we have or are currently in. And on that battlefield, I don't think the outcome is certain. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by pg on 08/13/19 at 10:47:42 243A353439243F22500 wrote:
Yeah, I bet they said that in 1776..... And in Russia in 1917..... And unfortunately many more to cite..... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 10:51:13 2E303F3E332E35285A0 wrote:
What if some President refused to leave office? What if he was perhaps a popular ex-military officer? What if this left/right divide we have grew to the point over the years that only right wingers joined the military and gradually controlled most major ranks? |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by T And T Garage on 08/13/19 at 11:25:39 7067616D6272000 wrote:
Yeah, I bet they said that in 1776..... This isn't 1776 and we're not fighting for our independence against a bunch of guys standing in a row with flint-locks. And in Russia in 1917..... This isn't Russia and it's not 1917. And unfortunately many more to cite..... None in the Modern era and none in the US. Moreover - no reason in America. Best regards,[/quote] |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by T And T Garage on 08/13/19 at 11:29:13 6F5D5A4B4C5D4A75594A53380 wrote:
What if some President refused to leave office? What if he was perhaps a popular ex-military officer? What if this left/right divide we have grew to the point over the years that only right wingers joined the military and gradually controlled most major ranks? [/quote] I think "what ifs" are fun, but not practical. trump has whimsically threatened not to leave office. I think if that were to happen, cooler heads would prevail. Believe it or not, there are some people in Congress that still follow the Constitution and would have someone like trump removed if he refused to go. I think it's fun fodder for a movie script, but that's about it. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 11:51:18 would have someone like trump removed if he refused to go. The whole point of this is to a mental exercise. Run with it. Could an armed citizenry make a stand against a US military? |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by T And T Garage on 08/13/19 at 12:08:42 4F7D7A6B6C7D6A55796A73180 wrote:
I won't buy into that concept. But if you ask me straight out - there's no way an armed militia could stand against today's military. No chance whatsoever. Moreover - I think that America, as it is today, is beyond that kind of scenario. Look , I loved Red Dawn as much as anyone. But to think that you could replace those bad guys with our modern-day government is just fanciful thinking. I understand the concept of a mental exercise - but even if it is just for fun, there still has to be logic. And there's just no logic in thinking that we'd ever get to that point in our country today. Of course... this is just my opinion. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Eegore on 08/13/19 at 12:51:50 "However, I respond again, why didn't we do that in Afghanistan? Why not on any of the numerous countries we've been involved against? " I will answer that again: The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/993/text Also there is a considerable difference between US use of force models in other countries and on US soil. For instance we may show restraint against Afghanistan insurgents in Afghanistan but if they came in through Mexico and attempted invasion in El Paso we would use totally different guidelines for engagement. To ask what would be done here, on US soil, to US citizens then comparing those actions to Foreign combatants on foreign soil is a futile exercise. We don't kill enemy combatants the same way anywhere, so comparing Afghanistan to an imaginary US Rebellion is no different than comparing Afghanistan to Germany, Kuwait, Korea, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Honduras, Vietnam, etc. That conversation will be never-ending as there are too many variables. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 12:58:48 For instance we may show restraint against Afghanistan insurgents in Afghanistan but if they came in through Mexico and attempted invasion in El Paso we would use totally different guidelines for engagement. I agree. But that's not the exercise. The exercise is based on our own government vs us. Imagine a slow turn towards communism that quickly escalated. US citizens protested in mass. That's different than an invasion of foreigners through El Paso. It seems highly unlikely whatever remained of a US government would turn the full force against a civilian population. What would be the point? It's like $hitting in your house. Sure, you could, but then you've got nothing. It would be a door to door style battle instead. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 12:59:51 But if you ask me straight out - there's no way an armed militia could stand against today's military. No chance whatsoever. They did it in Afghanistan, Somalia and dozens of other places. Why would this be any different? |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Eegore on 08/13/19 at 13:07:10 "They did it in Afghanistan, Somalia and dozens of other places. Why would this be any different?" Implementation of Use of Force models with a very large restriction on available resources. They weren't allowed to use armor in Somalia for instance. Again, asking for comparison about why we didn't do something in Afghanistan (or any country in the world) is a futile exercise unless we impose the same restrictions upon CENTCOM in the US. You say "For this exercise, no limits......" then compare to a very limited resource environment on Foreign soil like Afghanistan. Which is it? Comparison to foreign engagements, or a no limits attack on the US citizen? Door to Door is a complete disaster. Nobody prefers "Urban Warfare" on the invading side. So if there are "No Limits" then door to door is not an option due to the high-resource, high-time, high-casualty rate. It would make no logical sense to implement a high-casualty strategy if a low-casualty strategy is available, and approved. So are we talking the entire US, or a portion? Are we re-establishing control of physical property, or eliminating active human presence? Is there a time limit, or suggested time frame for the operation to succeed? |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by T And T Garage on 08/13/19 at 13:57:31 192B2C3D3A2B3C032F3C254E0 wrote:
Yes... in Afghanistan, not in new Mexico, or California, or anywhere else. Afghanistan lacks a key element that we have in the USA - the Constitution. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Serowbot on 08/13/19 at 14:30:10 Somalia and Afghanistan were being propped up by the US, against civil unrest,... and terrorist groups. ... as usual, a sort of policing action. In the case of a civilian uprising against our own government, well... they failed against Lincoln, and that was a much more even fight. Imagine Lincoln having tanks and drones, tear gas, and guided missiles... fighter jets, and A10's... The military could shut down your communications, power and water and still keep theirs. Take away your gasoline. The question isn't could they win,... just how much force would be needed. US military force is virtually unlimited. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 14:44:21 I don't think so. I think we'd put up enough of a resistance that they'd be forced to CONSIDER escalating out of their comfort level. They would have a line they wouldn't cross and we'd adjust to that line and drag the fight on. I think it's a fight an armed citizenry could in fact win in the sense they didn't lose. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Serowbot on 08/13/19 at 14:55:28 Where was that line in the Civil War?... It was a pretty nasty business. This time would be worse. US military is unimaginably stronger. All the civilian population has is multi shooter pop guns instead of single shooter pop guns. (Civil War had some multi shooters,... I know)... |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by WebsterMark on 08/13/19 at 15:44:18 Yes, it would be ugly. But we would not go quietly. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Serowbot on 08/13/19 at 15:52:36 You'd get quiet once they zipped you into the body bag... ::) |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Eegore on 08/13/19 at 16:02:03 "They would have a line they wouldn't cross and we'd adjust to that line and drag the fight on." How are you establishing this? I've never heard of a situation with "unlimited" as in there is no limit or line or situation where application of available resources is not to be used. How are you defining "unlimited"? To me that means use small nuclear warheads, in areas where the fallout is manageable. Use gas, like chlorine. Use Anthrax. Poison water, food, livestock and people. Start with children. Shut down power as long as needed. Why on earth would an apposing force choose to use a method that is less effective if there is "no limit" to where when and how they can use those methods? It sounds to me like you are establishing limits. Guns only. Military rules of engagement for domestic use of force only. Now if we go the national epidemic scale, most civilians would die in days without a single gun fired. So are you saying physical violence with kinetic rounds only? |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Serowbot on 08/13/19 at 16:23:01 I wouldn't expect viral agents,... chemical agents could be more selective without the danger of spread. This really is an absurd thing to contemplate. Going quietly or screaming like mad, makes no difference. You lose... This is David and Goliath in a pea gravel pit. |
|
Title: Re: The Anti-tyranny Amendment Post by Eegore on 08/13/19 at 16:54:00 "I wouldn't expect viral agents,... chemical agents could be more selective without the danger of spread." Agents approved for weaponization have short lifespan to eliminate mutation over time and have reliable vaccination. The objective is to get people to vaccinate voluntarily which means leaving their homes and communities to quarantine centers. No guns, just a trip to get a shot, or death. Your choice. "This is David and Goliath in a pea gravel pit." Agreed. This idea that there would be some 1960's style boots on the ground invasion is very outdated. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |