https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1226627073055318017
Posted on 02/09/2020 6:24:37 PM PST by Crazieman
https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1226627073055318017
France did not resist the occupation that much. Try Yugoslavia. I think the Wehrmacht sent in 40 divisions quell that mess prior to Barbarossa.
It’s easy to answer that question. Anyone who argues that citizens with rifles can’t stand up to a conventional military hasn’t been paying attention to history for the last 75 years. Much poorer-armed populations than ours have frustrated the most powerful armed forces in the world, including ours.
Take Fallujah, for example. Population roughly 275,000, and it took two Marine regimental combat teams with heavy air and artillery support over a month to secure it against only about 4,000 armed insurgents.
Now lets take a moderately-sized US city with a significant gun-owning population, like Fort Worth. Roughly 850,000 population. Lets be conservative and say at least 150,000 are armed in some fashion, and at least 30,000 have something reasonably suitable for infantry combat, like an AR or AK. The real numbers are probably much higher.
If those 30,000 or so citizens were hostile to the government, how much combat power do you think it would take to subdue and occupy Fort Worth, even with air and artillery, and even assuming the attackers are willing to devastate Fort Worth in order to control it? I’d say at least two. Probably more like four, under the old principle that the attacking force wants to outnumber the defenders by at least 3-to-1.
Four divisions is 40% of the active divisions currently in the U.S. Army. At no time are all ten active divisions fully combat-ready, so we’re really talking more like 60 or 70% of the U.S. Army’s total combat power, tasked to take a single city. And that assumes the entire active duty Army is following orders in such a scenario. In reality, they will at least have significant morale issues and probably will experience at least some amount of desertion, if not mutiny.
Now lets say Fort Worth isn’t the only hostile city. You quickly see that the standing military of the United States lacks the combat power to impose its will on a hostile, armed American public. Which, of course, is exactly how the Founding Fathers wanted it.
So there’s your answer.
What percentage of those estimated 150,000 and 30,000 would actually fight?
Very true.
IF the French had resisted I don't think the Germans could ever have invaded Russia. Too many units would have been pinned down securing France.
Joe-us Bidenus Moros Megala said something like that to the Hasmoneans: “Your puny spears, arrows and rolling boulders are no match for our battle elephants.”
Impossible to answer without knowing the circumstances: why there is a fight in the first place, what is the government doing that the citizens object to, what has led up to the fight, and what forces are animating the insurgency? It’s essentially a political question.
Right now, the answer is “none” because there isn’t a fight. If III Corps was preparing to assault Fort Worth to do some sort of harm to its citizens, probably much more than “none.” Likewise, probably no one is willing to go to war to prevent the re-imposition of a national speed limit, as distasteful as it may be, but a lot would be willing to go to war if the government was rounding up Christians and Jews to put them in re-education camps. It all depends on the circumstances.
The point is that their weapons give them the ability to fight and, more importantly, to deny the government a blank check to impose its will by force. As long as the people have the means to resist the government, then there is some line the government cannot cross without giving the people the will to resist. Or, to put it another way, while governments derive their just powers from the “consent of the governed,” as Jefferson famously put it, the “governed” only has the power to withhold that consent if they are armed.
Although the buffoon seems barely conscious most times as well.
Reminds me of the old phrase 'dead from the neck up'.
Biden confirms Democrat’s will use military against citizens if they regain power.
It is a whole lot safer than trying to trim the disconnecter or the sear, or whatnot, to make a semi into a full. But you can do that, too.
Ok, I like that. But I see one major flaw in it. It wouldn’t be too long before the “citizens” run out of ammo. That’s the one difference between your analogy with Fallujah.
I mean, I own guns. Several. Not an AK or anything like that. And I have ammo too. But not THAT much.
Not to mention “bump stocks”.
The corpses won't need theirs.
> If you watch the video, Joe says “you can’t own a machine gun...you can’t own a bazooka...”
Well just because you can’t legally own an unregistered machine gun doesn’t mean you can’t own a machine gun.
Rebelbase wrote:
“That was the Adam Schiff Trump phone call version of what Biden said.”
OK, so this post by 17thMissRegt was satire/schiffty type exaggeration:
“And by God, if you raise your hand against the government while I am president, we’ll slaughter your whole family with F-15s and Hellfire missiles. Its only to protect our democracy!”
Need a “/sat” tag for satire...
Joe Biden has been in politics for a VERY long time....
And he still doesn’t know that the USA is a REPUBLIC.....
Disgusting.
Joe Biden has been in politics for a VERY long time....
And he still doesn’t know that the USA is a REPUBLIC.....
Disgusting.
His bazooka and machine gun points are frequently stated by anti-gunners. If they're wrong about them being illegal to own by citizens then 1) Joe's even dumber (and surrounded by equally dumb handlers) than we thought, and 2) these items' legality IS a tacit acknowledgement of the 2nd Amendment guarantee, in the spirit of the Miller opinion (which wasn't well-written) where legal arms under the 2nd Amendment should have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia (or be) any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
So did Alexander the Great.
I don’t think ammunition would be a problem. I think the average AR-15 owner owns several times more ammunition than the average insurgent has historically had at his disposal.
Modern small-arms ammo expenditure statistics are hard to come by. However, the “standard” US infantry loadout was around 200-210 rounds (6 mags + 1 in rifle, often loaded with less than 30 rounds if there was a sergeant around who believed in the spring tension myth). Many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan found that loadout insufficient for intensive combat operations and sought to carry more whenever possible, but they’re in a firepower-dependent conventional military.
Most insurgents don’t carry anywhere near that amount of ammo. For example, there was a unit of tough Chechen al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan who were known for being well-equipped but typically carried only 2 extra mags for their AKs. They certainly had access to more ammo if they wanted, but in their role and on that terrain, it was more important to save weight than to carry more ammo. After all, they aren’t usually interested in getting in prolonged firefights with conventional infantry unless they’re trying to get themselves killed.
Either way, I can’t imagine many AR-15 owners have less than 200 rounds of ammunition, and most probably have much more. Owning over 1000 rounds is probably not uncommon. 5.56mm NATO ammo is abundant and can be purchased cheaply in bulk either online or at many major sporting-goods stores. An insurgent with 1000 rounds for his rifle would be fabulously well-stocked by any historical standards.
If you don’t have an autoloading rifle like an AR or AK, then your ammunition expenditure would probably be much less. The standard combat loadout for a German rifleman carrying a bolt action Kar-98k in World War II was 60 rounds.
What’s the argument?
Ask them to learn about life in Syria for the millions of people not involved in the battle against the government. Assad's government is certainly "taking" most of the country back, but do any one of your friends and family members want to live through the experience of utter destruction, starvation, bombing, being under the control of various warring factions, and societal collapse caused by fighting between the population and the government?
Older people should be able to remember the suffering of people in Vietnam who tried to stay apart from the fighting.
The people that think the government will just win forget the suffering involved. Maybe they will win, maybe another group will win, the outcome of any fighting is never certain. But what is certain is that there will be a lot of destruction of things everybody takes for granted. And in modern warfare nobody escapes the suffering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.