Replies

Tbey are dwarfed by the army that marches on Minnesota each year that numbers more than 800,000 strong, as they seek to take down bambi.

That’s 800,000 men and women, some chilun, who are well practiced, have excellent arms and plenty of ammunition.

That’s ammunition for the long guns they carry in search of their prey and doesn’t include the total number arms tbey own and corresponding ammunition for them.

They are further dwarfed by the more modest army of Oklahoma, who each year number more than 200,000.

If we use Oklahoma as a baseline and extrapolate that times 48 states, it’s possible there are around 10 million troops who are active each season.

The feds have 170,000 armed personnel and local law enforcement numbers about 1 million.

The combined forces of the feds and local LEO are not only overwhelmingly out numbered by a factor of nearly 10-1, that factor makes them an irrelevant force if only 5 million other Americans, who don’t hunt or rarely do but are excellent shooter, decide to join in.

The feds can only intimidate us but, realistically they would never be a match.

Particularly since that 170,000 could never coalesce into battalions, while citizens could easily form battalionsx many lead by vets, who are experienced and could construct sophisticated strategies.

Let’s take Oklahoma again. The most the feds could hope to bring together is a mere 20,000, maybe 30,000.

Again, the seasonal army of 200,000, for Oklahoma alone os 200,000.

If the combined forced of Texas Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas formed flanks, the citizen force would number over 1 million.

We would have tbe advantage of numbers, resupply, logistics of food, water, supplies etc, as their families would engage as non-combatants.

If the number of support personnel equals the number of armed men, then the feds would have to cede ground kr surrender.

It wouldn’t even be close.