OT: Seriously????

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Webstral

How interesting that New America came up! New America was in the back of my mind, too. They are the penultimate so-called Constitutional militia. (Going forward, I’m going to abbreviate “so-called Constitutional militia” as CONMIL.) Although New America is fictional, they provide us with a window on the problem of CONMIL in particular and the idea that the government is obliged to guarantee access to military grade small arms so that citizenry can make up their own minds how to employ violence without any reference to the body politic.


New America uses their Second Amendment rights (as commonly interpreted) to purchase military grade small arms. Once things fall apart, they use their firearms to rebuild the United States in their own image. And there’s the problem. New America deliberately does not recreate the Constitution-based federal republic within their own sphere. If they conquer the whole country, the previous republic is a dead letter. Racism run amok will be the order of the day. The law will serve an elite handful. Slavery will return, albeit in the form of the Elsies.

So one has to ask if the Second Amendment is serving its intended purpose if the Amendment is equipping a private army which exists to create a racist autocracy. New America is fictional, but CONMIL are not. Whatever ideas the CONMIL may have about the republic or individual liberties, they are contrary to the spirit of the republic if the CONMIL operates independently of the electorate.

The singularly most dangerous group I personally ever dealt with during my career were a group known as The Sovereign Citizens. They were known for attacking members of Law Enforcement at the drop of a hat. The problem was that they "invited" interaction with us by putting HAND WRITTEN license plates on their vehicles, driving without licenses, and doing other things to "demonstrate" their status as a "Sovereign State unto themselves." If these guys were the basis for New America; The post war future would be bloody indeed.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

It also enshrines the right to rebel against the Crown or said authority if the individual deems that their request for redress have been ignored. This includes seizing the Crown's property and armed rebellion. The only thing proscribed is physical harm to the Monarch or their immediate family.

<snip>

As to the Question if anyone ever sued King George for redress I'd give you this example: A group of colonists sought redress for taxation that they felt was unfair and believed that they were not given this redress, they therefore took up their right enshrined in English Law to rebel against the Crown until that redress either came or they freed themselves from tyranny. These people were rebels but rebellion is enshrined in English Law so the system was working as planned.

The problem, of course, is that while English Law may grant the right to rebel as a form of redress (and the philosophy of using a 'well-ordered' militia as a counter-weight to the military might of a tyrannical central government in the United States), it does not preclude punishment for those who rebel, rightly or wrongly.

From Watt Tyler forward, rebels against the Crown, once caught, are treated as criminals - imprisoned, transported, and/or executed, with their goods and property forfeit to the Crown (or to Parliament during the Interregnum).

So, rebellion against the Crown, or against the US Government (or any sovereign governing body I have heard of, from Pharaoh forward), is only unpunished if you win. :-)

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

Magna Carta Article 61

Hmmm. Actually, (and please correct me if I am wrong), it seems to say that you need to take your complaint to a body of some 25 Barons, and if they say your reasons are legitimate, and the Crown or its Justiciary has not offered redress within 40 days, then you may rebel - but only under the leadership of these Barons, or a subset of at least 4 of them.

Hmm But if you don't convince these Barons that your cause is just enough to require redress, you appear to be scrod (a New England past tense form).

Oh, and you have to give all crown property back after the rebellion, once the grievances have been redressed.

It could make for an interesting alt-fiction 18th century court-room drama:

Peoples of the United Colonies vs. King George & Prime Minister Lord North, tried before the House of Lords (at least 25 Barons attending...)

• subplots involving trying to remove some of the Barons from London on one pretext or another by the Crown
• the colonists are trying various offerings moral or immoral on various barons ('this is called "corn whiskey"...'; 'well, this stuff grows like tobacco, but tastes a bit different. has a remarkable effect on one's mind...'; 'how about 10,000 acres of land granted in Kentucky?')
• months of argument about the various other titles vs "Baron"
• John Adams as an extremely combative attorney representing the United Colonies (Franklin: "No, John, I don't think you should deliver our closing statement. You're obnoxious and disliked at this juncture. Perhaps Mr. Lee of Virginia could read it out to them...")

Hmmm. Perhaps I should not stay up to watch 1776 at 1 in the morning...

Uncle Ted

[simonmark6]

By the time of the Revolution, the Barons had been replaced by the Courts. That didn't preclude the Courts from being corrupt of course and much of the development of civil liberties in the UK came from principled men and women who refused to bend to said corruption.

In this way, the Magna Carta has become a series of guiding principles rather than specific laws. gain, that doesn't mean that English Law id right and American wrong or that I have an opinion that one is intrinsically better than another. There was however a specific method of gaining redress through the courts and Parliament. Whether it worked or not was another matter but that would be the same in any country where the method of redress is held in the hands of the power brokers.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by unkated

Hmm But if you don't convince these Barons that your cause is just enough to require redress, you appear to be scrod (a New England past tense form).

But the same holds true of the United States' federal court system. Just ask Dred Scott and Homer Plessy. In the case of the former, the Supreme Court ruled that he couldn't sue or even testify in court because he wasn't a citizen (by virtue of his status as a slave). They compounded this by declaring him to be the personal property of his owner, thereby upholding slavery, on principle and in practice, not only in the states, but in the territories as well. Yeah, so just having a system of redress doesn't guarantee that justice will be done.

[simonmark6]

I would agree with that wholeheartedly. When researching my post I read teh following leture. It is dated and for me too self-congratulatory, but one of its conclusions I thinks sums British Justice up (or what it used to be, don't get me started on what it is today)

https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/..._the_Law_1.pdf

In making these comparisons, we no doubt think
our system is better but we ought always to remember
that it is the system which suits the temperament of
our people. It would not necessarily be the best
system for other peoples. Remember that the jury
system has proved a failure in France. But one thing
is quite clear.
The system which has been built up
by our forefathers over the last 1000 years suits our
people because it is the best guarantee of our freedoms.
The fundamental safeguards have been established,
not so much by lawyers as by the common people of
England, by the unknown juryman who in 1367 said
he would rather die in prison than give a verdict
against his conscience, by Richard Chambers who in
1629 declared that never till death would he
acknowledge the sentence of the Star Chamber, by
Edmund Bushell and his eleven fellow-jurors who in
1670 went to prison rather than find the Quakers
guilty, by the jurors who acquitted the printer of the
Letters of Junius, and by a host of others. These
are the men who have bequeathed to us the heritage
of freedom. It is their spirit which William
Wordsworth interpreted so finely when he wrote :—
' We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spake ; the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held : In everything we are sprung
of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.'

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yeah, so just having a system of redress doesn't guarantee that justice will be done.

That wasn't the point. The question was the legality of rebellion against the English Crown in the event of the failure of redress from the Crown.

Simon held up Article 61, that said you could seize Crown property and hold it until the King or his bailiffs provide redress. However, you cannot seize Crown property unless (and only under the leadership of) a body of Barons.

Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) said that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Political systems that allow the population to own weapons are those that trust that they are creating a happy enough society that the population that they will not rebel, and well-off (or policed) enough that banditry will not flourish.

Attempts in the United States to impose controls on weaponry - usually in an attempt to control banditry (armed crime) - are pushed back by political movements from the population decrying it as an attempt at tighter political control. Whether these are legitimate efforts against tighter political controls or disguised efforts to increase access to arms for criminal purposes is another question.

With a disorganized but armed population, it is in the interest of a government to satisfy the population that it has no need to from an organized opposition.

Uncle Ted

[Raellus]

I don't see legalized firearm ownership as being a "system of redress", if that's one of your arguments. I'm not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, but I don't buy into the whole "firearm ownership is a counter to tyranny" argument. What about the tyranny of gun violence? There are at least a dozen countries in Africa where firearm ownership- legal or otherwise- is widespread, and those are some of the most violent, horrific, unsafe, and unstable countries in the world (Somalia, anyone?). These "republics" routinely bounce from one tyrant to another and the proliferation of military-grade weaponry there means that anyone who can muster a few dozen supporters can launch a new armed rebellion/revolution/coup/putsch/liberation movement, etc. Does it really matter if these guns or uprisings are "legal" or not? More or less could also be said for the so-called Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

And I'm going to go back to the Whiskey Rebellion again. Armed frontiersmen couldn't stand up to a federal army- and that was when the disparity in weapon types available to one party or the other was much smaller (i.e. the rebels had muzzle lading muskets; the federal troops had the same, plus a few canons, plus some cavalry). Heck, look at the American Civil War. One of the reasons that the South lost is because of the North's overwhelming industrial capacity. The South was confident that its citizens' gun ownership/experience and fieldcraft, vis-à-vis the more urbanized, less well-armed Northern citizenry, meant that the rebels would win the war. In the end, the correlation of forces was just too much for the South to withstand. In a worst-case scenario, are mobs of citizens armed with assault weapons going to be able to stop federal tyranny? Assuming blanket military support, the feds can bring to bear incredible firepower (Apache gunships, Predator drones, M1 MBTs, etc.) which armed citizens are going to be hard pressed to stand against. Best case for the rebels would be a long, drawn out guerrilla war (like what's been going on in Syria for the last 3 years, or Afghanistan for over a decade). The idea that armed citizenry is a guarantee against tyranny is really a macho fantasy.

Compare these two lists. I know that it's Wikipedia, but it was the first hit and looks pretty reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

The list above is for civilian-owned firearms. Considering the nebulous nature of various African "armies", "militias", etc., I reckon their ratios of guns to people would be a lot higher on the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rmed_conflicts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_trade

As an exception that proves the rule, in Mexico, gun ownership is strictly limited by law, but look at what goes on there. If every Mexican citizen was constitutionally permitted to bear arms, would the violence likely be any less? I don't know. I'm looking forward to watching this doc. Perhaps it will change my mind.

http://www.vice.com/read/watch-the-t...artel-land-115

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't see legalized firearm ownership as being a "system of redress", if that's one of your arguments. I'm not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, but I don't buy into the whole "firearm ownership is a counter to tyranny" argument. What about the tyranny of gun violence? There are at least a dozen countries in Africa where firearm ownership- legal or otherwise- is widespread, and those are some of the most violent, horrific, unsafe, and unstable countries in the world (Somalia, anyone?). These "republics" routinely bounce from one tyrant to another and the proliferation of military-grade weaponry there means that anyone who can muster a few dozen supporters can launch a new armed rebellion/revolution/coup/putsch/liberation movement, etc. Does it really matter if these guns or uprisings are "legal" or not? More or less could also be said for the so-called Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

And I'm going to go back to the Whiskey Rebellion again. Armed frontiersmen couldn't stand up to a federal army- and that was when the disparity in weapon types available to one party or the other was much smaller (i.e. the rebels had muzzle lading muskets; the federal troops had the same, plus a few canons, plus some cavalry). Heck, look at the American Civil War. One of the reasons that the South lost is because of the North's overwhelming industrial capacity. The South was confident that its citizens' gun ownership/experience and fieldcraft, vis-à-vis the more urbanized, less well-armed Northern citizenry, meant that the rebels would win the war. In the end, the correlation of forces was just too much for the South to withstand. In a worst-case scenario, are mobs of citizens armed with assault weapons going to be able to stop federal tyranny? Assuming blanket military support, the feds can bring to bear incredible firepower (Apache gunships, Predator drones, M1 MBTs, etc.) which armed citizens are going to be hard pressed to stand against. Best case for the rebels would be a long, drawn out guerrilla war (like what's been going on in Syria for the last 3 years, or Afghanistan for over a decade). The idea that armed citizenry is a guarantee against tyranny is really a macho fantasy.

Compare these two lists. I know that it's Wikipedia, but it was the first hit and looks pretty reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

The list above is for civilian-owned firearms. Considering the nebulous nature of various African "armies", "militias", etc., I reckon their ratios of guns to people would be a lot higher on the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rmed_conflicts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_trade

As an exception that proves the rule, in Mexico, gun ownership is strictly limited by law, but look at what goes on there. If every Mexican citizen was constitutionally permitted to bear arms, would the violence likely be any less? I don't know.

I served in Somalia (RESTORE HOPE) and I can tell you that most African Nations are not "republics." They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful enough to assume control. Before and during the collapse; the populace were generally not armed as was the tradition in all Italian colonies. The primary perpetrators of the violence were former soldiers and policemen who "took their toys with them" when the country imploded. The arms that came into the country later were provided "en mass" to the clans by Al Qaeda working in Yemen in exchange for drugs like "chault" (the pronounced "shalk" or "caulk" depending on what region your in).

Your example of the Whiskey Rebellion is a poor example because it involved a small number of PA farmers WITHOUT the support of the local populace. It should be viewed more like the incident at the Bundy Ranch a couple of years ago than an actual rebellion. Guns do prevent Tyranny because a government has to ask itself if it could survive frequent and possibly "long term" attack on it's infrastructure from well hidden "rebels/insurgents" within the population base. The US did not technically "win" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban were "dispersed," but immediately "reformed" as soon as the US troop withdrawls began. This is the one "Truth" of The War on Terror; IT CAN NEVER BE WON. Like the War On Drugs, and The War On Crime; There is now way to win without completely suspending ALL RIGHTS and engaging in a genocide against anyone you even SUSPECT of being involved. There is no other way to win the war. If just one or two individuals begin to perform the activities that you were trying to eradicate; Those individuals will find someone who is sympathetic to their cause.
Without trying to sound too harsh; Your assumptions about the North during the Civil War are wrong. The North OUTGUNNED THE SOUTH in both cannon and manpower in EVERY major battle of the war. What caused the North to lose so many battles was, in two words, poor leadership. The Northern commanders would "hesitate" and give the South time to take the "high ground." The North would then be forced into making an attack on well defended positions with good "interior lines of communication and supply."
The one time the North was lucky enough to take the "high ground" and hold it until the main body of the Army could arrive (Gettysburg); The North won and the South was put on the defensive from then on. It wasn't until strong commanders like Sherman arrived on the scene that the South had truly lost the war. This does highlight a point of war. Without GOOD leadership, victory will be elusive, no matter how well equipped you are.

[simonmark6]

They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful

Hm...

[Raellus]

I don't think that it really matters that much how the guns got there, Swag. Once they're there in great quantities, they're almost impossible to get rid off. The cycle of violence in many parts of Africa has been repeating itself for the last 50-60 years; in some cases the very same weapons used in the seminal post-colonial independence movements are still being used today.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Guns do prevent Tyranny because a government has to ask itself if it could survive frequent and possibly "long term" attack on it's infrastructure from well hidden "rebels/insurgents" within the population base.

I understand that argument, and I think it's valid to a degree, but it's too simplistic to really hold water for very long. Why are there so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa? There are plenty of guns there.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Without trying to sound too harsh; Your assumptions about the North during the Civil War are wrong. The North OUTGUNNED THE SOUTH in both cannon and manpower in EVERY major battle of the war.

How am I wrong when that's exactly what I said? "Correlation of forces" means manpower and war-making material (existing and capacity). I clearly stated that the North enjoyed superiority in the correlation of forces. It's a perfect example. At least 1/3 of the national population, much of which was already armed (thanks, directly, to the 2nd Amendment), rebelled against, and was defeated by, the Federal Government (in only four years). The idea that 100% of the civilian population would actively support any armed rebellion is simply not realistic. If that was indeed the case, then yeah, governments wouldn't ever behave tyrannically.

[Damocles]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful

Hm...

For the record, I'd assume you guys would still have better queuing and ale.

[swaghauler]

"I don't think that it really matters that much how the guns got there, Swag. Once they're there in great quantities, they're almost impossible to get rid off. The cycle of violence in many parts of Africa has been repeating itself for the last 50-60 years; in some cases the very same weapons used in the seminal post-colonial independence movements are still being used today."

It matters because who supplies the guns determines which party (not political, just a reference) has the upper hand in the violence. Several Muslim sects got very powerful very quickly thanks to Al Qaeda. This is also important elsewhere in Africa. Boka Haram can match the new Nigerian government gun for gun. Christian's in the Central African Republic are better armed; Muslims are dying in droves there.

"I understand that argument, and I think it's valid to a degree, but it's too simplistic to really hold water for very long. Why are there so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa? There are plenty of guns there."

Because there has been no clear winner. The evolution of politics in Africa works like this. Party one is very strong and takes over the country. Parties Two and Three decide, "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend" in order to prevent defeat and subsequent extinction. They defeat party one and form a new government. Someone decides the time is right for a change, and parties two and three begin fighting each other again or another party altogether. This continues because (pick one) 1). Outside forces such as Al Qaeda or The US begin/continue to meddle with the country for political reasons of their own. 2). The now ruling faction is too weak to hold the country together. 3). The now ruling faction in the country is oppressive to other factions within the country. Guns have nothing to do with the violence in Africa, politics does. In 1994 the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda by Hutu tribesmen was carried out mostly with machetes. The country was under a UN Arms Embargo and those Tutsis still died only because they were Tutsis.

"How am I wrong when that's exactly what I said? "Correlation of forces" means manpower and war-making material (existing and capacity). I clearly stated that the North enjoyed superiority in the correlation of forces. It's a perfect example. At least 1/3 of the national population, much of which was already armed (thanks, directly, to the 2nd Amendment), rebelled against, and was defeated by, the Federal Government (in only four years). The idea that 100% of the civilian population would actively support any armed rebellion is simply not realistic. If that was indeed the case, then yeah, governments wouldn't ever behave tyrannically."

I'm sorry for not being clearer here. I was in a hurry as I was next to unload. You state that the Northern Army was comprised of mostly "urban dwellers with a lesser amount of firearms experience." Most of the units in the Civil War were composed of units from Maine and PA. The bulk of these soldiers were farmers who had extensive shooting experience. The New York units were at least half comprised of farmers from Western New York until later in the war. the riots in New York City really did happen just about as they were depicted in the movie The Gangs of New York.
The South was "Outgunned" (artillery), and "Outmanned" (soldiers) from day one of the war; Yet, THEY WON EVERY MAJOR ENGAGEMENT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE WAR. It was only when the Union brought in commanders like Sherman that the Union began to defeat the outnumbered South. They fought a larger and better equipped army to a standstill until the Battle of Gettysburg. If General Lee had listened to General Longstreet instead of "believing his own press" (Lee's), The Confederate States of America might still exist today. This was a very effective demonstration of a military force being outmatched but still prevailing anyway. The Union performance (at least early on) shows us that even if you have superiority in numbers and firepower; Poor leadership will often result in defeat on the battlefield. Strong Leaders often act as a "force multiplier" for military forces in the field.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Damocles

For the record, I'd assume you guys would still have better queuing and ale.

LOL. This would be true until the supplies run out. What I meant by "it could happen in England and Europe" was; What would your civilian population do if your military was broken into factions and released upon the population with no government control, weapons, and a need to eat. I could see a 28 Days Later scenario occuring. How would your civilian populace stop it? Most of the fighting in Africa and the Middle East is based on the need for resources. In Somalia, the warlords would force cooperation from the populace by denying them access to food and water if they didn't "tow the line" for the warlord. I remember watching members of the 2nd MEU and the 24th Mechanized Division disarming land mines that the local clan fighters would put around the wells in the Moge. they would then leave a singular path to the well unmined and collect "Tribute" from the local population for water.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Guns have nothing to do with the violence in Africa, politics does.

OK, I see that we're done here. Seriously, I really enjoy an intellectually honest, thoughtful, well-informed debate. I am willing to concede when I am wrong and not argue every single point. I trust my opponents to hold to the same standards. However, I can't think of any way to respond to the above quote that isn't dismissive, snarky, or preachy, so I'll just stop right here.

Or here:

Originally Posted by swaghauler

The South was "Outgunned" (artillery), and "Outmanned" (soldiers) from day one of the war; Yet, THEY WON EVERY MAJOR ENGAGEMENT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE WAR.

Dude, how do you define "MAJOR ENGAGEMENT"?

Shiloh (1861) was a MAJOR ENGAGEMENT, and a Union victory. Find me a legit historian who disagrees.

http://www.americancivilwarstory.com...r-battles.html

There are others as well.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I understand that argument, and I think it's valid to a degree, but it's too simplistic to really hold water for very long. Why are there so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa? There are plenty of guns there.

I think this question is looking at the wrong reasons. The reason there are so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa has more to do with the makeup of their societies and their living standards than it does with guns (because if it wasn't guns, it would be spears, machetes and clubs and if not them, then it would be knives and rocks).
Guns certainly make the killing easier but they are not the cause of the violence, the violence is already inherent in their society. For example, when the Hutu majority decided to slaughter Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda, they were more than happy to use machetes even though they could have used their military firearms. Why were they more than content to use a more physical, personal method of killing when they could have kept some personal distance by using the range of a firearm? --- hypothetical question.

I understand where you're coming from with the question but I believe the bigger question is about the society and not so much about their means of redress (i.e. resorting to firearms). And while I generally agree with your point about how well (or not) a citizenry armed with only the basic weapons could stand up to a modern federal military, I can think of four examples where they did enough hurt to a federal military: -
Hungarian militias vs. Hungarian State Protection Authority and Soviet troops (Hungarian Revolution of 1956)
Viet Minh vs. French colonial forces in Indochina,
Mujahideen vs. Soviet forces in Afghanistan,
The militia of Mohamed Farrah Aidid vs. US forces in Somalia.

Even though the first ended in a loss for the citizens (although that did require a full scale invasion by Soviet forces) and the next two examples did involve outside support of those armed citizens, those examples also illustrate the effectiveness of good leadership or a strong common cause to unite the citizens to stand against the government.
I'm not trying to go off on a tangent here, hopefully I'm showing that the makeup of a society and the mentality of its citizens has more influence on how those citizens will act and if/how they unite to seek redress, than their possession of guns does.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

OK, I see that we're done here. Seriously, I really enjoy an intellectually honest, thoughtful, well-informed debate. I am willing to concede when I am wrong and not argue every single point. However, I can't think of any way to respond to the above that isn't dismissive, snarky, or preachy, so I'll just stop right here.

Or here:



Dude, how do you define "MAJOR ENGAGEMENT"?

Shiloh (1861) was a MAJOR ENGAGEMENT, and a Union victory.

http://www.americancivilwarstory.com...r-battles.html

There are others as well.

I actually enjoy your posts. I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. That's not my intention. I just feel that too many people place too much "faith" in the "power" of government. Guns make the populace safer ONLY AS LONG AS THE POPULACE DOES ITS PART. I can see The US breaking down under the stress of trying to provide for everyone and everything the government has promised aid to. Guns alone don't make you safe. Like every tool, they can't use themselves (yet). In the end, it is the population which will "allow" a Tyranny to occur, or prevent it. I believe that we shouldn't rule out the ingenuity of the human animal when he feels the need to commit harm for any reason. I have seen people murdered by cars, knives, bricks, boots, baseball bats, electricity, poison, bombs, and a microwave. You don't need guns to create mayhem; All you need is the determination.

You are correct sir. Shiloh was a victory. Why? Look who was commanding the Union Army. Ulysses S. Grant, another strong and innovative leader like Sherman. Imagine if he had been in charge of The Grand Army of The Republic at the beginning of the Civil War. I believe the war would have been MUCH shorter (with a lot less "General sacking" by Lincoln). This is what I was referring to when I talked about strong leaders being force multipliers.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I think this question is looking at the wrong reasons. The reason there are so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa has more to do with the makeup of their societies and their living standards than it does with guns (because if it wasn't guns, it would be spears, machetes and clubs and if not them, then it would be knives and rocks).
Guns certainly make the killing easier but they are not the cause of the violence, the violence is already inherent in their society. For example, when the Hutu majority decided to slaughter Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda, they were more than happy to use machetes even though they could have used their military firearms. Why were they more than content to use a more physical, personal method of killing when they could have kept some personal distance by using the range of a firearm? --- hypothetical question.

I understand where you're coming from with the question but I believe the bigger question is about the society and not so much about their means of redress (i.e. resorting to firearms). And while I generally agree with your point about how well (or not) a citizenry armed with only the basic weapons could stand up to a modern federal military, I can think of four examples where they did enough hurt to a federal military: -
Hungarian militias vs. Hungarian State Protection Authority and Soviet troops (Hungarian Revolution of 1956)
Viet Minh vs. French colonial forces in Indochina,
Mujahideen vs. Soviet forces in Afghanistan,
The militia of Mohamed Farrah Aidid vs. US forces in Somalia.

Even though the first ended in a loss for the citizens (although that did require a full scale invasion by Soviet forces) and the next two examples did involve outside support of those armed citizens, those examples also illustrate the effectiveness of good leadership or a strong common cause to unite the citizens to stand against the government.
I'm not trying to go off on a tangent here, hopefully I'm showing that the makeup of a society and the mentality of its citizens has more influence on how those citizens will act and if/how they unite to seek redress, than their possession of guns does.

Well said sir!

[Raellus]

I wonder if my attempts at providing evidence for my original point has confused people. It seems that the forest is being missed for all of the trees. My point- and I stand by it- is simply this: a well-armed population is not a guarantee against tyranny. Insurance policy? Possibly, but warrantee, no.

There are, of course, many other factors at play, especially in Africa. I agree with you both there. This reality, however, supports my main point regarding the United States. One can't simply assume that the Constitutional right of personal firearm ownership means that tyranny can't arise here. I don't even think that firearm ownership even guarantees the right to redress. Are you saying that enlightened western society with democratic, capitalistic values, is immune from tyranny? Surely, not. What about Nazi Germany? And please don't trot out the "if personal firearm ownership had been legal in Germany c. 1933, there wouldn't have been a holocaust" argument because it's simply a counterfactual, Reductio ad Hilterlium logical fallacy.

If you're arguing that a western, democratic, capitalistic society with constitutionally guaranteed personal firearm ownership is immune to tyranny, then I suppose you're right. What's the historical sample size of the just-described nation(s)? Two? Three? Does that prove the theory?

Indeed, there are many examples of relatively poorly equipped guerillas defeating better equipped forces. It certainly can be done. That said, many of the rebellions you cited lasted for decades. Did they fix things? Is Afghanistan today a better place to live than Afghanistan under the Soviets, or under the Taliban? Maybe that's a bad example. How about Iraq? Its tyrant is dead and gone, right? It's a republic now, correct? Would any of us move there today? Hell no. Those places live under what I call the tyranny of the gun.

Yes, other factors besides the proliferation of military grade firearms are at play. I don't know... maybe we agree more than I think we do. To be quite honest, I myself am losing sight of how this debate got started. Perhaps I should stand down and wait for a reset.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I wonder if my attempts at providing evidence for my original point has confused people. It seems that the forest is being missed for all of the trees. My point- and I stand by it- is simply this: a well-armed population is not a guarantee against tyranny. Insurance policy? Possibly, but warrantee, no.

I agree with you on this and I think perhaps I could have expressed my idea in a better way so as something of an attempt at that - weapons alone will not stop a tyranny, the desires & motivations of the people are more of a factor.

Originally Posted by Raellus

There are, of course, many other factors at play, especially in Africa. I agree with you both there. This reality, however, supports my main point regarding the United States. One can't simply assume that the Constitutional right of personal firearm ownership means that tyranny can't arise here. I don't even think that firearm ownership even guarantees the right to redress. Are you saying that enlightened western society with democratic, capitalistic values, is immune from tyranny? Surely, not. What about Nazi Germany? And please don't trot out the "if personal firearm ownership had been legal in Germany c. 1933, there wouldn't have been a holocaust" argument because it's simply a counterfactual, Reductio ad Hilterlium logical fallacy.

Absolutely not, my argument is that the mentality of the people, their desire to condone or condemn or to simply not think about it at all and just accept it, is what makes or breaks a tyranny.

Originally Posted by Raellus

If you're arguing that a western, democratic, capitalistic society with constitutionally guaranteed personal firearm ownership is immune to tyranny, then I suppose you're right. What's the historical sample size of the just-described nation(s)? Two? Three? Does that prove the theory?

No I am not arguing this notion. In fact I would point out Australia as being a prime example of a western, democratic, capitalistic society with a long standing privilege of firearms ownership being open to the tyranny of government. In this case, when a minority enforced their views on the majority via the government.
Specifically, the Franklin River dam project that would have reduced Tasmania's reliance on coal powered electricity (with all the environmental impact from pollution and mining that it entails) by providing a hydro-electric source instead. Environmental activists coerced the federal government to over-rule the Tasmanian state government and the project was abandoned thereby saving a few forest valleys from being flooded -- and so they kept the environmentally "dirtier" coal-fired power stations. It was a short term win for a small sector of the environment but the overall affects of coal-powered stations renders the victory hollow in the long term. It is an example of a minority forcing their views on society irrespective of what might have been better for that society. I label it tyrannical because that minority used the federal government against the desires of the people (i.e. the majority of Tasmania's population). The federal government acted against the majority by forcing the Tasmanian state government to halt work on what should have been a state government matter.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Indeed, there are many examples of relatively poorly equipped guerillas defeating better equipped forces. It certainly can be done. That said, many of the rebellions you cited lasted for decades. Did they fix things? Is Afghanistan today a better place to live than Afghanistan under the Soviets, or under the Taliban? Maybe that's a bad example. How about Iraq? Its tyrant is dead and gone, right? It's a republic now, correct? Would any of us move there today? Hell no. Those places live under what I call the tyranny of the gun.

My point wasn't about whether they are republics, tyrant-free or even free societies, it was that a sufficiently motivated group can make a change - for good or for bad - and that the motivation, not the gun, makes that change.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yes, other factors besides the proliferation of military grade firearms are at play. I don't know... maybe we agree more than I think we do. To be quite honest, I myself am losing sight of how this debate got started. Perhaps I should stand down and wait for a reset.

I believe we do agree and my point was I believe, in line with your overall view. I was attempting to show that motivation makes the change. For example, the majority view of some Westerners that firearms ownership in the USA causes crime, is not just simplistic but probably dangerous as well. It is only a small part of the equation but the reason there is crime in the US is not because of such a simplistic answer.
I would ask, why do some people in western societies feel violence is an acceptable answer to their problems, what caused those problems in the first place and so on?
Again, I come back to the motivations of the people in causing (or not) change in their societies.

[simonmark6]

In the situation you describe, Swag, we'd be lucky if we had armed factions running around to extort food and terrorise people. We aren't a Third World country used to scrapping along on the bottom of the barrel and subsisting on what we can grow. We are a nation of nearly seventy million people in a country that you can walk across in less than ten days and walk the length of in two to three weeks. No area apart from a very few are more than a week's walk from a population concentration of ten million people or so.
Add to that the fact that we have about three weeks' of food in storage and the capacity to feed at best a tenth of our population off our farmland then any situation that led to a breakdown of our armed forces into warring factions is going to mean that we have seventy million starving people swarming the country in search of food.
I doubt that any amount of guns is going to be able to stop that. If you are positing a situation where society breaks down militarily yet we are still able to feed the population for long enough to be oppressed and terrorised by factions then I can't see what circumstances would lead to that.
The 28 Days later scenario needs some sort of major disaster hat kills off large numbers of the population before they can use up all the supplies. That means a disaster that kill 99% of the population in less than two weeks. If we have faced a problem of that magnitude, we're going to be more worried about the sixty million rotting bodies spreading disease amongst the survivors than a few squaddie survivors with guns terrorising a population of survivors.
That said, I have no problem with Americans bearing arms: it is the will of the people that the population can go armed and I support that with every fibre of my body.
I also respect your right to express your opinions about the political system that I live under and support. It is the will of the majority of our population that guns are regulated. There is no right or wrong in either system just different although I am a little fed up with the attitude of some American pro-gun supporters (Not anybody on these pages I hasten to add) who state that the British are some sort of sheep who are terrorised by an oppressive government who deny us our God-given right to carry weaponry around wherever we wish. I am a proud participant in our democratic process and whilst I disapprove of many of the policies of the governments that represent me I fully support the rule of law presented to us by our democratically elected representatives, just as I would support the same establishments in America and as I support your right to bear arms and engage in democratic lobbying ad discussion should you feel those rights are being eroded.
In short, I am not criticising the American ways and I would appreciate it if such courtesies were reciprocated.
As for my earlier posts, people from America expressed an interest in a UK resident's take on whether there was a right of redress established in English law before the American Revolution. There was, it may not have been ideal or easy for the common person to access, but it was there. That does not suggest that I feel it was better than the American alternative, it merely means that it existed.
Personally, I feel the American system was fairer from the start but part of that stems from the fact that the drafters of the Constitution were able o build upon precedent and correct the perceived injustices rather than try to work within a system that had been evolving through the use of interpretation and precedence over several hundred years.
I have nothing more to contribute to this debate and I'm worried that I'm getting combative therefore I'll bow out. This isn't because I have been offended by anything anyone has said, the quality of debate is, as always, excellent but I can feel my passions rising and I try to never post angry.
I will continue to watch the posts with interest.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't see legalized firearm ownership as being a "system of redress", if that's one of your arguments. I'm not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, but I don't buy into the whole "firearm ownership is a counter to tyranny" argument. What about the tyranny of gun violence? There are at least a dozen countries in Africa where firearm ownership- legal or otherwise- is widespread, and those are some of the most violent, horrific, unsafe, and unstable countries in the world (Somalia, anyone?). These "republics" routinely bounce from one tyrant to another and the proliferation of military-grade weaponry there means that anyone who can muster a few dozen supporters can launch a new armed rebellion/revolution/coup/putsch/liberation movement, etc. Does it really matter if these guns or uprisings are "legal" or not? More or less could also be said for the so-called Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

And I'm going to go back to the Whiskey Rebellion again. Armed frontiersmen couldn't stand up to a federal army- and that was when the disparity in weapon types available to one party or the other was much smaller (i.e. the rebels had muzzle lading muskets; the federal troops had the same, plus a few canons, plus some cavalry). Heck, look at the American Civil War. One of the reasons that the South lost is because of the North's overwhelming industrial capacity. The South was confident that its citizens' gun ownership/experience and fieldcraft, vis-à-vis the more urbanized, less well-armed Northern citizenry, meant that the rebels would win the war. In the end, the correlation of forces was just too much for the South to withstand. In a worst-case scenario, are mobs of citizens armed with assault weapons going to be able to stop federal tyranny? Assuming blanket military support, the feds can bring to bear incredible firepower (Apache gunships, Predator drones, M1 MBTs, etc.) which armed citizens are going to be hard pressed to stand against. Best case for the rebels would be a long, drawn out guerrilla war (like what's been going on in Syria for the last 3 years, or Afghanistan for over a decade). The idea that armed citizenry is a guarantee against tyranny is really a macho fantasy.

I've recently been reading about the armed conflicts that arose in West Virginia from 1912 right through the 1920s, as a result (from my interpretation of events) of the free market capitalism system running completely amok. The Battle of Blair Mountain is one example. Coal miners were being treated EXTREMELY poorly by the coal companies of the time, and when they tried to seek redress they first had quasi-legal hired thugs set on them, then at one stage an armored train being driven past tent cities with machine gun fire pouring out indiscriminately, and eventually when thousands of miners armed themselves and tried to fight back, the Federal Army was sent in and suppressed all dissent.

In those events the US State-Federal system, the judiciary, the police and eventually the professional military were all used to back the tyranny of powerful business interests, and the hard-working working folk were brutalised into submission. Any opportunity for redress under those circumstances were slim at best, utter fantasy at worst.

Dark days in the history of American industrial relations I'd say.

[stormlion1]

There was a time after World War 2 it went another way. Some Veterans went against the established family controlled police and government due to there rampant abuse of power and when that established government seized the voting ballots and boxes to keep them from being counted the veterans fought back. And won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Targan

I've recently been reading about the armed conflicts that arose in West Virginia from 1912 right through the 1920s, as a result (from my interpretation of events) of the free market capitalism system running completely amok. The Battle of Blair Mountain is one example. Coal miners were being treated EXTREMELY poorly by the coal companies of the time, and when they tried to seek redress they first had quasi-legal hired thugs set on them, then at one stage an armored train being driven past tent cities with machine gun fire pouring out indiscriminately, and eventually when thousands of miners armed themselves and tried to fight back, the Federal Army was sent in and suppressed all dissent.

In those events the US State-Federal system, the judiciary, the police and eventually the professional military were all used to back the tyranny of powerful business interests, and the hard-working working folk were brutalised into submission. Any opportunity for redress under those circumstances were slim at best, utter fantasy at worst.

Dark days in the history of American industrial relations I'd say.

Robber Barons bought the U. S. Govt at one point during that era, thier influence soiled policies and politics even today.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Well said sir!

Don't forget tires and gasoline necklaces, man alays finds a means to an end. BTW, long, strong and CIVIL thread in an age where internet facelessness breeds horrid conduct. BRAVO to all involved!!!

[Webstral]

The Battle of Athens is a unique circumstance in which the veterans in question outbluffed a crooked law enforcement establishment. I realize that “outbluff” seems an odd word to apply to a pitched battle involving firearms. I use the term in that each side faced the prospect of state and federal reprisal. The veterans ran the risk of being rounded up and charged for the crime of using deadly force against law enforcement. The law enforcement agency in question had the option of calling in reinforcements from higher up the chain. They didn’t call in reinforcements or undertake to arrest the offenders because any counteraction by the law enforcement body in question would have led directly to an investigation of their illegal activity regarding the ballot box. In this instance, the cure (involving sufficient manpower and firepower to overcome the veterans in question) would have been infinitely worse than the disease (losing control of a ballot box they had no legal claim to control in the first place). This the veterans turned the usual threat of reprisal for breaking the law around on local law enforcement. Were the law enforcement establishment in question to have had greater faith in the positive outcome of bringing in help from higher authority, the outcome for the veterans would have been quite different.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I actually enjoy your posts. I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. That's not my intention. I just feel that too many people place too much "faith" in the "power" of government. Guns make the populace safer ONLY AS LONG AS THE POPULACE DOES ITS PART. I can see The US breaking down under the stress of trying to provide for everyone and everything the government has promised aid to. Guns alone don't make you safe. Like every tool, they can't use themselves (yet). In the end, it is the population which will "allow" a Tyranny to occur, or prevent it. I believe that we shouldn't rule out the ingenuity of the human animal when he feels the need to commit harm for any reason. I have seen people murdered by cars, knives, bricks, boots, baseball bats, electricity, poison, bombs, and a microwave. You don't need guns to create mayhem; All you need is the determination.

You are correct sir. Shiloh was a victory. Why? Look who was commanding the Union Army. Ulysses S. Grant, another strong and innovative leader like Sherman. Imagine if he had been in charge of The Grand Army of The Republic at the beginning of the Civil War. I believe the war would have been MUCH shorter (with a lot less "General sacking" by Lincoln). This is what I was referring to when I talked about strong leaders being force multipliers.

Lack of participation, and a desire that someone else be bothered with the work of managing things is a wide spread problem.

[Webstral]

I echo the sentiments of others that the debate here has retained a gentlemanly character. I expect that here, but my expectation should not diminish credit due.


I think we can generally agree that capacity is no guarantee of delivery. Mere possession of arms does not necessarily lead to a commitment to republican values by those possessing arms any more than mere possession of wealth leads to thrift or good investment habits. Possession of arms without responsibility of service is a[n Alexander] Hamiltonian idea that gained traction in the early 1800’s. The logic given at the time was that the yeomanry couldn’t be bothered with something so unprofitable as reserve service.


As with all things dependent on human psychology, the Framers worked with likelihoods. There’s no guarantee, for instance, that a given man will be able to stand his ground on the battlefield or execute his orders under fire. However, the United States Marine Corps has concluded that three months of Boot Camp executed in a certain fashion will yield a very high proportion of disciplined and cohesive new Marines. On balance, a regimen of discipline and training will yield troops superior to those who have not undergone such a regimen.


By the same token, a body of troops accustomed to taking orders from a popularly elected chief executive through the officers delegated his authority is more likely to retain a commitment to this republican modality than a body of troops who authority is derived from their own capacity for violence. Training and experience powerfully influence behavior on the battlefield.


The Civil War illustrates my point about the checks and balances built into a states’ militia and its potential for armed rebellion against the federal government. I’ll back up a bit and reiterate a couple of my earlier points. What follows is rather a rough draft and so will be a bit disjointed. I’ll try to close the loop by the end.


The State cannot guarantee the citizenry the right to access arms optimized for military operations against the State. It’s inconceivable. Individuals have the opportunity to seek redress through the courts. Larger groups have the opportunity to seek redress through the courts or through the legislature and executive by voting. These means of redress are adequate, according to the premises upon which the republic is based. Equipping individuals for alternative means of redress implies that the Framers did not believe in the ability of the republic to function as intended. Moreover, equipping individuals or small groups to seek redress of ills by means of arms makes a farce of the entire idea of representative government and the social contract associated with republicanism.


This much said, the State—in this case, the constitutional federal republic of the United States of America—can equip its citizenry to overthrow a successor state in the event the republic is transformed into a tyranny. In other words, the State cannot logically equip its citizens to overthrow it. The State may, however, equip its citizens to overthrow a successor State which may have replaced the republic. The logic for this is that the State exists, in part, to secure the rights of its citizenry. Those rights presumably exist whether the State is in effect or not. The State therefore is within its purview to equip its citizens to restore the republic for the purpose of defending their rights in the event that the republic ceases to function as a consequence of becoming a Tyranny.


How do we determine whether a successor state, which I will call a Tyranny, has replaced the State? That is up to the electorate through their legislature. If a majority of the legislature of the State of Franklin pass a bill declaring that the federal government has become a Tyranny and that Franklin shall no longer be bound to the federal government in its Tyrannical form, that bill becomes law in Franklin. The same is true of each and every other state.


This goes back to the militia in that the militia as defined in 1787 takes to the field on the orders of the state chief executive. The militia is funded a regulated by the legislature. The militia is the primary arm of the military of a small republic, many of which comprise the federal republic. While there is no ironclad guarantee that under every circumstance the militia will execute their orders from the governor, training, discipline, and habit are powerful forces.


A logic of probability applies. A force of reservists who are equipped with military grade small arms and who are properly drilled in their use is more likely to successfully combat opposing professionals than a force of non-regulars with military grade small arms or a force of reservists lacking military grade small arms. A militia organized and trained to fight under the command of an elected chief executive is more likely to continue taking orders under stress and confusion than a force of non-regulars unaccustomed to operating under the command of an elected chief executive. Militiamen fighting as the military arm of a small republic (a state) are more likely to fight to reinstate a fallen federal republic than armed citizens fighting for their perceived rights as distinct from the will of the electorate. Troops with unit cohesion and discipline derived from long experience together are more likely to prevail on the battlefield than troops without such unit cohesion and discipline. The same body is troops is more likely to retain its integrity following a reversal on the battlefield than troops lacking in unit cohesion and discipline. Trained and disciplined reservists are more likely to behave in a fashion befitting citizen-soldiers than any other body of non-regular troops; thus militiamen are less likely to turn to settling old scores in the event of a seismic shift in political or social stability than other types of armed civilians. While none of what I have written can be called certain, warfare offers no certainties. One deals in likelihoods.


Getting back to the issue of the militia versus the professional force, a rather elegant set of checks and balances exists. The federal government of the early United States possessed the means to combat one state but not the means to defeat a majority of states acting in concert. Within each state, the militia can be put into the field against federal forces under the command of the chief executive (using the authority derived from the electorate) based on a declaration by the legislature (using their authority derived from the electorate) that the State in its incarnation of a republic had become a Tyranny. A majority of legislators, presumably representing the will of a majority of the electorate, would be required to create the legal basis for the forces of the state to be used against the forces of the Tyranny.


Beyond the actions of a single state would be the decisions of a plurality of states. Systemic abuses of the rights of the citizenry might be perceived by the citizens of Franklin to be sufficient evidence that the republic had become a Tyranny. However, the citizens of Jefferson or Baja Arizona might not agree. In order for the various states to amass the combat power to overcome the professional forces of the federal government, the abuses by the Tyranny would have to be sufficiently systemic and widespread to arouse the citizens of a critical mass of states for enough militia combat power to take to the field successfully.


All of this goes back to the Civil War. As we all know, a number of states seceded from the Union. Their legislatures went through the necessary proceedings. Their militia took to the field. They captured federal troops and facilities within their borders. So far, so good.


It should be noted, however, that the goal of the Confederacy never was to replace the federal government. Secession serves as a frank admission that what the Confederates perceived as systemic abuses of the rights of the citizens (or, more precisely, the interests of the people who controlled the state legislatures in the Deep South) was not perceived the same way by the majority of the citizenry of the United States. The war that followed was the outcome of the failure of the Deep South to carry majority opinion regarding the abuses of their rights. Had the Northern states been in agreement with the Confederacy, the federal government would have been swept away. In a very real sense, then, the Civil War conformed precisely to the balance of power built into the states’ militia establishment. The superior industrialization of the North reinforced the decision of the majority that the federal government was not trampling on the rights of the citizenry.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Indeed, there are many examples of relatively poorly equipped guerillas defeating better equipped forces. It certainly can be done. That said, many of the rebellions you cited lasted for decades.

This is a critical idea in the rebellion-against-tyranny interpretation of the Second Amendment. Just as rebellion by Whoppers [WOuld-Be Patriot Revolutionaries, or WOBPR] is the 800lb gorilla in any discussion of why the average American has the right to own an AR-15, the type of war to be fought is the 800lb gorilla in the room of the war of popular liberation. The question is not what the Whoppers would like to believe. The question is what the Founding Fathers believed.

Let us engage in an exercise of compare-and-contrast. I will use two examples to set the right and left margins of a spectrum. The first example will be a revolution executed by a well-established militia movement—a well-regulated militia, if one will. The second will be a revolution executed by Whoppers in possession of firearms but no other military qualities.

A well-regulated militia established in all 50 states and disposing manpower equal to 10% of the population with suitable personal equipment would field some 31 million combatants. In reality, the number of militiamen is never likely to approach 30 million. I’m setting boundaries, though. As the emergence of a Tyranny became more apparent, and assuming that the massive ballot box power of 31 million men under arms was insufficient to prevent the rise of a domestic despot, the militia would drill at lesser intervals. Plans for seizing federal assets and otherwise neutralizing federal advantages in combat power by sheer, raw numbers of light infantry attacking 100,000 targets in rapid succession need not be especially sophisticated. Coordination would be a problem, of course. However, the logic of throttling federal bases by shutting down all the roads in and out of federal facilities ought to be self-evident. Execution would be highly uneven. However, the overwhelming weight of adequately equipped, adequately disciplined, and adequately trained light infantry units operating in their own states would serve to offset the advantages that otherwise would accrue to the professional forces.

At the other extreme would be Whoppers with guns but no organization, training, or discipline. Control of many locales—even important locales—would be imparted to them initially. However, without planning, organization, or discipline, masses of armed civilians would be completely incapable of securing any given area against the overwhelming combat power of federal forces capable of concentrating virtually at will. In full possession of the initiative and operating against lightly-equipped forces will all of the coordination and cohesiveness of grains of sand, federal forces would soon inflict massive losses on the Whoppers wherever the logic of circumstances dictated. Without cohesion, discipline, or any sort of operational plan, the Whoppers would quickly fragment.

In short order, a relative handful of survivors would flee to the woods to act out their “Red Dawn” fantasies. Even if their guerilla war ultimately were successful, it would take years—perhaps decades. Loss of life would be enormous. Loss of property and productivity would be staggering. The nation would be in tatters by the end.

So we must ask ourselves what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Would they prefer the rapid application of superior numbers to achieve a coup de main resulting in the prompt restoration of the republic, or would they prefer an agonizing guerilla war like the one waged successfully by Mao or the Zimbabwean communists? We should bear in mind that the second option would always remain open if the first option failed, but the first option cannot present itself if the assumption is that the Founding Fathers preferred Mao’s solution. I think the answer is obvious. No one who calls himself a patriot can possibly believe that a drawn-out war of liberation by Red Dawners is preferable to a coup de main by a massive militia establishment.

None of what I have written in favor of a robust states’ militia establishment should be interpreted as lack of awareness of the obstacles involved. Even assuming 31 million men and women could be put under arms as modern militiamen, the ability of such a force to execute a coup de main against the United States military is very much in doubt. No one in 1787 could have foreseen the stupendous growth in combat power that would accrue to professional forces. Federal forces would possess huge advantages in firepower, mobility, survivability, flexibility, communications, logistical support, training, and discipline. Regular infantry and armored units of the Army and Marines would eradicate their militia counterparts. However, the support people who would have to get out on the road to keep the maneuver units fighting would be highly vulnerable. The rules of guerilla fighting would take on a whole new meaning as federal support columns attempted to navigate a virtual sea of militia infantry operating with some measure of organization, discipline, and training. Losses on both sides would be terrible, but the militia would get the worst of it by far. The militia objective would be to bleed the federal forces through a thousand cuts, all delivered over a short period of time.

None of the above is particularly original. What can separate states’ militia from the standard guerilla experience is their pre-existence. Whereas the usual guerilla movement builds slowly, enabling the opposition to adapt as well, a coup de main by a massive militia movement would have the advantage of striking at multiple critical points. Ammunition factories could be seized, sabotaged, even destroyed while federal forces are busy securing other important facilities. Bridges can be blown, etc. Federal forces might find themselves without ammunition in one place, without fuel in another, and without the means to connect the islands under their control in a sufficiently systematic way to keep their efforts from winding down across the theater.

What I’m proposing is a tall order. One can raise a myriad of objections to the idea that a massive militia establishment might ever build to the point at which such action is possible. I freely acknowledge as much. What I will assert, though, is that the Whopper-Red Dawn vision cannot possibly deliver a coup de main. An extended an agonizing war of liberation is the only option they can deliver, whether such an effort ends in success or failure. Would the Founding Fathers have preferred at least to have the option of a coup de main with its limited duration and cost in lives and treasure? I believe the answer is a resounding yes.

[Anna Elizabeth]

I think that there is a tendency anymore for groups of people to withdraw into self-made bubbles of thought and talk. Right-wing, Left-Wing, or whatevers, if all the data you absorb and conversations you have re-enforce your worldview, you can get locked into very negative thinking.

I think that is a big part of these conspiracy theories about Jade Helm, FEMA, and the like.

I'm not meaning to insult people, more to just say I think we all owe it to ourselves to question what we know, look at alternate viewpoints, and ask ourselves if we are wrong. I used to know a guy that thought GW Bush would refuse to step down after 2008, but later went on *epic* rants if you criticized Obama in the slightest way.

My .02 cents, anyway.

~Anna