Frustratingly stupid strawman argument that won’t go away. Direct confrontation is not how asymetrical insurgency works nor how Americans would react. It also presupposes invulnerability on the part of dependents of tyrants, a difficult and tenuous achievement.
To this ridiculous and arrogant posturing, I would respond with the equally blunt and unpleasant question of whether the confiscatees are willing to sacrifice their wives and children as well.
“What do you mean?”
“Will the municipal police chief move his wife and children into the police station to protect them? How about the college age daughter of the occupying colonel? Will she have a 24 hour protective detail? Congressmen have grandchildren, you know. Senators have staff, and they have lovers and children too.”
They would be enthusiastically murdered without pity in the event of circumstances this editorialist describes. Cafes where law enforcement congregate would be firebombed. Businessmen who engage in commerce with them would be decapitated in the night and left to be found in the street the next morning.
It is called “reprisals” among other things, And the writer of that inane screed forgets that ugly and miserably tragic reality cuts both ways.
Make resistance bloodily impossible, and it will rise ferociously to the occasion. Simple truth. Ask and serving front line officer.
Resistance is like life; “it will find a way”. That quote from Jurassic Park, of all sources, is quite true.
This is how it’s always worked, through all of human history. One should not assume that Americans are any less capable than the rudest Pashtun in the crudest hut in the lowest valley of Bagram.
“Stripping motivated people of their freedom and dignity, and rubbing their noses in it, is a very bad idea.”
Another truth statists and their aroused and enchanted advocates pretend isn’t a historical, present and future reality.
Just sayin’.
Roger roger. You are correct.
“It is called “reprisals” among other things”
They don’t see it that way. No one is doing those things now, and they feel like they would be in absolute control to prevent such things. To be a liberal is to be very, very dumb, delusional, and live in a fantasy world where there are no consequences.
Great tagline material.
Didn't John Ross say something to that effect?
Direct confrontation is not how asymetrical insurgency works nor how Americans would react.
Most certainly not. I've been thinking about this thread since last evening and I've come to the conclusion that the author is unacquainted with the nature of insurgency. Not much excuse, really, inasmuch as the body of work on the topic has expanded hugely since Vietnam.
In the first place, the logistics necessary for a full-flood door-to-door campaign in even a single city are staggering. We know because we've tried it. And if you don't flood the zone right away the targets simply flow elsewhere. I hear about a forcible confiscation in, say, Bigtown and the suburbs. My course of action is (1) sit tight, lock and load, and wait for the SWAT team to come knocking; (2) throw on a set of camos and hit the sticks for some snooping and pooping until the power bars run out; (3) distribute my contraband to where I can get at it and they can't, and look innocent. Option (3) sounds mighty attractive, low-risk, and leaves me in a position to seize the initiative at will. And the gun sweepers can't camp out in my front yard forever.
That's how insurgency works. Because I'm talking to my neighbor in the meantime, who's talking to his. His cousin knows where there's some ammo stashed. My brother-in-law has a friend with a boat. My ex-service buddy has a cabin in the weeds. No Internet or phone lines necessary, nothing for a drone to see. This isn't fantasy macho chest-pounding, it's how an insurgency really works because we've observed it ourselves.
I am inclined toward pessimism concerning the generation to come - their soft upbringing, their indolence, their general unwillingness to put forth an effort to free themselves. That is a very common outlook in history (especially American history). It is also always mistaken.
Nor would the issue be firearms exclusively. A government aggressive enough to devote the sort of resources necessary even to begin such a campaign will be after far more than firearms. And you don't need a firearm to be an insurgent, all you need is a pair of eyes and ears and the ability to pass information. This is not new knowledge, and I am a little surprised at the tendency of persons such as our author to ignore a body of experience that we have gathered at such expense.
Well stated; thank you for posting.