And that too has been considered and planned for. And I do hope they recall President Kennedy's words quoting John Stuart Mill that Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. I hope that is not their intent, since that would constitute proof of an intent to commit both premeditated murder and treason, and would constitute grounds for a regime change...and other Unintended Consequences.
In their eyes, they having to lose sending the troops in. They'll be enforcing the Federal laws the Free Staters nullified (restrictions on guns, drugs, etc. and which most sheeple support). They'll have the public support and the media behind them. The Free Staters will only have the guns they bring in and what they can smuggle. (They'll evacuate the Guard's heavy weapons first to prevent Free Staters from taking it over). As for the army, some will not follow orders to fire on their own countrymen, but I think most will. Most people join the military for financial benefits (GI Bill, medical benefits, job training, etc.) They have no self-interest to refuse orders.
That's the reason for picking a goal state that's not primarily populated with sheeple, just good folks who need an example set for them and a little assistance in getting their own inertia rolling.
They'll have the public support and the media behind them.
Don't bet the farm on that.
The Free Staters will only have the guns they bring in and what they can smuggle. (They'll evacuate the Guard's heavy weapons first to prevent Free Staters from taking it over). ,P. Oh no. Don't *just* think guns, though that's a part of the package. And don't *just* think of such things within the boundaries of the one state, either. Remember what I wrote in the earlier posts about fighting a guy while he's distracted, as by having his trousers ablaze...and turn about being fair play.
As for the army, some will not follow orders to fire on their own countrymen, but I think most will.
By gum, the fish 'n game wardens 'll arrest 'em for poaching!
Most people join the military for financial benefits (GI Bill, medical benefits, job training, etc.) They have no self-interest to refuse orders.,P. A lot of 'em anyway, and a lot in the *tail* of logistical support and facilities personnel who keep the *Army of One* clothed, fed, housed and up-to-date on his human relations counseling, and well supplied with beans, boots and blankets.
But I don't want them to refuse lawful orders. And any chief executive who sends US troops against an entire state's groundswell political movement just for opposing his party-line dictates could expect to replace Clinton as the most recently impeached president...or JFK as the last one to have died in office.
Remember that if the president uses US military personnel in an illegal action against his political opposition, he not only invites the probability that such actions will unite ALL his opponents, but can find himself facing charges of being a terrorist, as well... and there goes any moral high ground he ever once held:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
-- Federal Bureau of Investigation Definition
-archy-/-