GET A GUN: Militia’s May Again Save the Republic!

The Federal Observer ^ | 18 November 2002 | Geoff Metcalf

[45Auto]

When war has come to American soil, it is folly to continue to try to disarm the citizenry.

"Only tyrants, criminals and demonRATS fear the armed citizen."

[Fiddlstix]

Bang

[MrJingles]

Excellent article. Bump!

[Dick Bachert]

A number of year ago, I attended a speech by one Arkady Shevchenko, then the highest ranking Soviet official to defect to the West. He had been their top guy at the UN.

He spoke, interestingly, at KENNESAW COLLEGE (and we all know what Kennesaw is famous for!).

His talk dealt with the clear intent of the leadership of the old Soviet Union to somehow take America. He mentioned their ICBMs and the nuclear blackmail threat THEY posed.

Then he broke from his prepared remarks and offered this:

"The leaders of my country are as AFRAID OF YOUR 200 MILLION PRIVATE FIREARMS as they are of your ICBMs. NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS."

Frankly -- and, while he had to be careful as he was under FBI protection at the time, Shevchenko alluded to this in his remarks -- I'm as concerned about some domestic tyrant (say, Hillary or Chuck Schumer) as I am about some foreign enemy.

[irishtenor]

Yes, I disagree. Granted, the military has much more ability to wage war, but I can't see but only a few American soldiers who could be brainwashed enough to kill other Americans. I fear a U.N. Army or our kids directed by foreign officers.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It depends. Do you believe that ALL U.S. troops and N.G. would be loyal to the crown and fire on its own citizenry? Personally, I believe that if it got to the point of sending troops against the general public that many would desert and bring their heavy equipment with them and many more would simply refuse to obey the orders of the tyrants.

[Tawiskaro]

I disagree. You may recall a while back, two evil bastards who wrought havoc with a .223 and a beat up Chevy. Imagine a couple of hundred (pick a number) similarly armed citizens sniping at anything in a uniform. I don't know how a tyrannical government would call in airstrikes. One doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say. IMHO.

[Future Snake Eater]

Granted, the military has much more ability to wage war, but I can't see but only a few American soldiers who could be brainwashed enough to kill other Americans.

Absolutely. Sorry, I love my country and the Army way too much to go along with some bogus orders to shoot some American protestors. I'd be much more inclined to shoot the people giving the order.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Two words. Viet Cong. They were outnumbered, out gunned, and out classed but they were fighting for what they believed and for their homes. Going head to head with trained troops in APC's would be suicide, but geurilla warfare doesn't go head to head.

[MrJingles]

I am a skeptic concerning the ability of the militias or citizens to fight the US gov't if it should become tyrannical, or the militias oppose it.

I must repectfully disagree. True, in a convetional war,( with armor, aircraft, and battle-lines)the fire-power of the U.S. Army would likely roll over anything in its' way (see: Persian Gulf War.)

However, the might of a standing army may be counteracted through the use of unconvetional warfare. (see: Vietnam War.) God Forbid anything of this sort becomes nessicary, we wouldn't need eqivalent firepower; just enough to resist.

Using force multipiers (high ground, suprise, entrenched positions) it is possible to conduct a sucessful gurilla war. Small groups of infantry, using hit-and-run tactics, would make air-strikes and the like virtually impotent.

A few years ago, 5,000 Chechen rebels armed with rifles were able to hold the city of Grozny from 20,000 Russins, who were armed with T-80's, BMPS's, and Hinds. They used hiding and manuver to make the superior fire-power of the Russians worthless.

FReegards;

MrJingles

[Caipirabob]

AR15s, and Colt 1911s are no match for Mini Guns, Hellfire missles, disciplined troops, Black Hawk Helicopters, Sophisticated communications, jet aircraft.

It's tough to argue against that kind of arsenal. Still 80,000,000 guns might make a pretty good dent. That, plus even a tyrant has to sleep now and then. Someone's bound to get lucky.

When the Redcoats fled from one of the earliest battles, the description one of the troops recorded was "A gun from behind every tree and bush". I imagine an event that would stir yet another such reaction would yield very similar results.

[CygnusTheSwan]

I am a skeptic concerning the ability of the militias or citizens to fight the US gov't if it should become tyrannical, or the militias oppose it. AR15s, and Colt 1911s are no match for Mini Guns, Hellfire missles, disciplined troops, Black Hawk Helicopters, Sophisticated communications, jet aircraft. "We" would be mopped up in a minute. "Call in the airstrike". Does anyone disagree?

Well, maybe just a little.
I remember hearing somewhere (sorry, I can't source it, don't recall where), that it was estimated that only 10% of the military would actually follow orders if told to attack civilians in a all out 'war' against it's citizenry. I'd guess the other 90% would be helping us oppose that 10%.

[error99]

Those who are in power are too smart to ever let anything like this happen. They do not and will not come after us with guns and tanks. They have and will continue to come at us with laws and rules and regulations. And they do it little by little. Like boiling a frog. What will any of us do? Mount an assault upon a law-book in a courthouse? There will be no visible enemy. There will be no target to attack. Our liberties will be taken without firing a shot. There will be no rebellion. The sheep willingly give away their freedom so the shepard will protect them from the wolves.

[mamelukesabre]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the author goofed when he typed "The King Philips War".

I think he meant "King Philips' War"

[Billthedrill]

In your scenario irregular forces wouldn't stand a chance, but that isn't anything new in warfare - it's been true since Sun Tzu and before. That is, after all, why they are irregular forces.

The idea is to spread force over an area, both geographic and demographic, too wide for any centrally-controlled force to dominate by focusing a superior but smaller force toward. There are actually, IMHO, reasons to be optimistic in regards to the dispersion in the United States of a number of factors necessary to constitute armed and unarmed resistance, certainly in comparison to many other areas of the world. One of these is the permeation of firearms and ammunition, and of knowledge of their means of employment. Another is the highly decentralized and redundant means of communication. A third is a national tradition of skepticism toward, and resistance to, authority. A fourth is the wide dissemination of technical expertise necessary to circumvent technically-based means of control.

There are disadvantages as well - a civilized reluctance to resort to force, especially as it regards the taking of life, in order to resolve political problems. It is an unfortunate lesson of the 20th century just how easily overcome this reluctance is; no tyrant would be wise to depend upon it. But it is there.

I think, frankly, that the likelihood of the necessity of widespread armed resistance to any central authority in the United States in my lifetime at least, is vanishingly small. As vanishingly small, say, as the odds of World War I happening. But happen it did. We would be fools to act as if the odds were nonexistent.