The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now.

 

What fucking dictatorship Ace?

Fuck. Anyone can change what you say but you have to say something????

 

That's what Obama said once,,they have done a swell job.

 

Founding Fathers ........

......... were the most liberal politicians in human history. They invented the strong central "federal" government.

 

You're losing it man,,what the fuck are you talking about

 

You can just quote things .......

......... you also have to say something even if its "!". And anyone can change that to what ever they want.

 

You clearly haven't actually read that document called the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's that document which limits the federal government to certain enumerated powers and has a 10th Amendment in it which reserves other rights to the states or the people. No wonder the liberals had a cow the other day when it was read on the floor of the House.

 

Liberal then is not liberal now,,,,,,,,,,and you know that.

 

LIBERALS/CONSTITUTION= oil and water.

 

Dumb shit

The States had all the rights under the Articles of Confederation. They were absolutely unworkable. Assigned to repair the Articles of Confederation, the delegates instead committed treason to their assigned task, locked the doors and windows, and in total secret invented both the Constitutiion of the United States of America and a central government powerful enough to override the states and state laws that had brought commerce, (you know dumb shit business) to a fucking halt.

You would not know the US Constitution if you wiped you ass with it.

 

I'm completely AGAINST gun control. Look at what happened to Austrailia when they gave up their guns....crime rate skyrocketed. And really if you were going to break into a house wouldn't you second guess it if you thought someone in that house owned and knew how to use a gun? I completely agree with the OP! I could become good friends with him lol.....Sally

 

My point still stands that the U.S. Constitution limits the federal government. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand?

 

By the time the military is called in, its domestic terrorism and the insurgents have already caused more damage than what local law enforcement can contain.

Owning a gun does not automatically mean you are:
A: an insurgent
B: suitable for infantry duty
C: In an area where even if you want to be an insurgent, you can join any form of unit

IED's go a long way, but insurgencies never win wars. See below

Deer tend not to shoot back. The basic american infantry squad sports two grenade launchers, night vision gear and 2 SAW's. A bunch of hillbillies with no military training, who stand out like a sore thumb to thermal gear, and armed with a few bolt actions aren't going to make a dent.

Deer also tend not to run over your fortification with an Abrams, call in 105mm on your position with pin point accuracy or simply say "fuck it" and let a few Bradleys tear up the bushes you sit in with their main guns.

On top of that, the guys shooting deer tend not to have to contend with shell shock, freaking out because a tank is coming, have to deal with screaming wounded, or contemplate whether that arty barrage just wiped out their family.

Guns are the last and least part of the battlefield.



I'd like to pose the following question:

In the last 250 years, when has an insurgency defeated a regular military without
A: Extensive foreign backing
B: Regular military aid, or forming a regular military force
C: Subverting significant parts of the military to aid the insurgency

 

And your point is...? To be fair, however, the only thing required for the military to be called in is for the President to declare a state on insurrection. Whether such a declaration is justified however, is another matter, and it is whether or not the declaration was justified in the first place that will have a greater effect on any American insurgency effort.

Nor does it automatically disqualify you, either. If you find the 60 million number problematic, let's reduce it then. Lets assume that each gun owning household actually owns 5 guns, rather than a single firearm, that each household consists of only a single individual, rather than the average family of 4-5. That still leaves 12 million gun owners. 25% would be ineligible for military recruitment (Why you feel this would stop a determined individual, I don't understand, but we'll accept it for the sake of argument.)

That still leaves 9 million armed citizens to the 3 million complete armed services, or 3:1 odds.

But wait!

There is only a little under 600,000 active members of the Army, or a little more than 1.1 million if we count the Reserves and National Guard in those numbers.

Well, except the National Guard aren't Federal Forces, but State Forces. Assuming a civil war breaks out, they're more likely to end up in the hands of their independent states. So the army loses another half million troops, leaving them pretty much where they started. We'll add in all the Marines and their Reserves, for another 240,000 troops.

So you've got 9 million gun owners (at the low end) up against a less than a million ground troops at the high end. And to get that number we've stripped all our overseas bases and deployments, put all the administration forces into battle rattle so there aren't even any cooks
left back on the base, which sucks, because an army runs on its stomach and hungry troopers aren't very happy ones. We've also assumed that there aren't any mutinies when troops are ordered to fire on US citizens, or simply defected themselves. I am, after all, giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

Wait, wait, who said they had no training? There are hundred of independent citizen's militias across the country, who regularly train themselves. Then there are the folk like our own Casanova who are ex-military, and are already trained for combat. As for simple bolt actions, that's... Well, that's wishful thinking. There's at least 4 million assault weapons legally owned inside the US, or four times the number of fieldable infantry. ind you, I specified legally. Its hard to tell how many illegal guns there are, since they are, after all illegal.

And don't let the fact that these are only semi-automatics fool you. The only time anyone ever uses a weapon on full auto is when they're trying to keep someone else from shooting back. Any shooter will tell you that a 1-3 shot burst is better, as it keeps the gun from 'walking' off target. But wait, the Army has Nightvision goggles! Surely that $100 price tag will keep them out of the hands of anyone else!

Well, ok. So you're "untrained hillbillies with deer rifles" are not only out numbering the US army, but are also trained by the US army in many cases, but are often just as well armed. I'm sure there's hope for you yet!

I kinda hate to break it to you, but the kind of open battlefield warfare you just described hasn't really been practiced since WWII. Even Vietnam and Korea were more raid/patrol type combat. And what you'd be looking at in the US isn't going to be tanks ripping up Farmer Brown's fields, but urban combat more akin to what we've been seeing in Iraq and Afghan style insurgency. You know, where people dressed up in civilian clothes take a few shots or plant a few bombs, duck around the cover and blend in again. And again, as pointed out, quite a number of the people who'd be involved in such an insurgency do, in fact, train for just those kinds of situations. Hell, I'm trained for the kind of situations you're describing, and I'm just a Boy Scout!

So in other words, if we discount all the successful insurgencies, when have there have ever been successful insurgencies? Any successful insurgency is either going to have form a regular military force and/or subvert significant parts of the military. That's how you know they've won!

So, even if I deliberately handicap the figures on one side, and give you the benefit of the doubt on the side of the military, allowing reality only to intercede on the battlefield... It still doesn't work out. The US military would be no more capable of immediately preventing a second civil war than they were the last time one broke out.

As it currently stands, if the people of the United States decided to remove their government through a dedicated force of arms, then it is unlikely the government could stop them. The only thing that will decide any future American civil conflict will not be the strength of the guns, but the strength of the causes and their leaders.

 

View attachment ​

 

The federal gun control act of 1934 made possession or transfer of automatic weapons, silencers, shotguns with a barrel length of less than 18 inches and rifles with a barrel length of less than 16 inches illegal unless the weapon and the owner were both properly registered with the BATF and all the appropriate taxes are paid.

Of all of the automatic weapons (defined as either fully automatic or selective fire weapons) currently inside the borders of the United States, less than half are in the possession of the U.S. military, federal law enforcement or state or county or local law enforcement. The rest are in the hands of legally registered civilians like you and me. The registration process requires about six months and a couple hundred bucks and involves the FBI and local county and state law enforcement doing extensive background checks. Once all the hoops are jumped through you can leagaly own a machine gun.

The number of crimes commited with these legally registered automatic weapons since 1934 number less than a dozen.

As for civilian legal semi automatic military assault weapon look alikes...very few have ever been used in a serious crime but substantialy more than of the federaly registered "class three" weapons.Not many criminals choose a large, bulky, expensive and rather complicated weapon system as thier weapon of choice. Handguns are and will always be king of the hill when it comes to being chosen by criminals for being light weight and easily concealed and generaly easy to opperate.

Frankly, a hunting rifle possesses far more power per round than any of the so called "assault weapons," and produces a much more devestating wound. As does a common hunting shotgun although at much shorter ranges.

Okay...thats all for now...

 

View attachment ​

 

It should be mentioned that were this to happen, it would not be surprising if martial law were to be taken place first. Because the military will not go in unless martial law is called upon. There have been numerous times in which martial law has been called upon in the United States throughout history.

If martial law were to occur, you can pretty much guarantee three things occur. Military will replace all forms of security and law enforcement. Everyone will be tried by courts which are controlled by and administered by the military. And all people caught can pretty much say good bye to the use of habeas corpus. Because under martial law, habeas corpus is thrown out the window, because a civil war would be a form of rebellion or an invasion that the public safety might require it.

But the military will not be like hunters, we will have rules of engagements and other rules and laws to abide by. So, in this instance, the hunters might have an edge considering they would be able to use guerrilla techniques and the soldiers would not be so fortunate with the bureaucratic red tape tying our hands together.

And on a final note, it does not matter what job a soldier has in the military, they always have two jobs. Their job that they go to school to become and infantry. All soldiers can be called upon at anytime to become infantry, so all those members of the military who are not infantry, might as well count them as infantry as well.

 

Gun control is holding it in both hands, period.
If your afraid of them don't own one.

Guns helped make America a free Country, and they help to keep it free. Ask any Iranian how their lack of gun ownership is working out for them, especially after their last mock election.
LOL, they throw rocks in protest, and their Govt. shoots them down with GUNS! Now if they all had weapons do you think they would have been so easy to control like that? Us gun owners have no intention of ever winding up in that type of country living like that.

He who has a gun has the power to be and remain free.
Just because some wack job kills a few people on a rampage isn't reason to try and take law abiding peoples weapons.

 

Yeah, there's a bunch of steps that have been glossed over if it comes down to a full scale rebellion in this country, unlikely as it may always be. Its why I expect the reasons to matter more than the actual combatants.

On your final note, of this I am aware. However, while I understand they are trained to handle themselves as infantry should the need arise, I can only imagine the sort of nightmare it would be if the Pentagon had to order the crew of an aircraft carrier to vacate ship and line up as line infantry. Or doing the same thing for the air force. Then there's the requirement of what, 5-10 people running logistics to make sure the shooters have everything they need when they need it? Who is organizing fire support if all the command staffs are in the trenches next to the artillery gunners? Forget air support, who is flying the medevac choppers? I'm trained in first aid, got the badge and everything, get checked out every couple years to make sure I'm up to date. Put me in a hospital and I'm just in the way.