Skip to comments.In a shoot-out, the feds always win
Posted on 05/03/2007 9:28:22 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
click here to read article
Oh so true.
This is one of two things the 2nd Amendment is EXACTLY about.
If the author would do a little research on the founding father's writings, he might understand this.
I love it when anti-gunners use the O.K. Corral gun fight to prove that guns cause violence. Tombstone was a gun free zone and the gun fight happened when the Earp side tried to disarm the Clanton side. The reason this fight is so famous is because there were so few gun fights in the old west, not because there were so many. An armed society is a polite society.
The real question is what percentage of the military will obey the orders to shoot American Citizens who are defending Constitutional rights. Even more important what percentage of officers will obey those orders.
I welcome replies from long term military men and women on this question.
Well, I don’t know about that argument, if one can take it off the table. I see that Osama bin Ladin just used airplanes that seemed to “do a job” on the government. And then, I don’t see the Islamic terrorists using tanks and so on over in Iraq, but they have managed to create an awful lot of havoc. I would imagine that the same kind of havoc could be created here, by those who might want to — if it ever came to that.
And talk about “nukes”, well..., you might not want to eliminate those from the discussion either. I heard that Al Qaida is actively working to get one or two into this country and set them off.
So, I don’t quite think that this argument can be taken off the table...
One word: Baghdad
I wonder if the author believes we’re winning in Iraq? I believe we are, but I have a feeling this guy thinks we’re losing — and if that’s true, I’d like to see him explain how asymmetrically armed terrorists can give us so much trouble, but asymmetrically armed citizens here would have no chance.
I am not encouraging or condoning anything of the kind — but his argument fails on that point.
“You simply can’t arm yourself adequately against a government that is rotten and needs to be overturned. Your best defense is the ballot box, not a pillbox.”
The Author is discounting Guerrilla tactics. Look at the Viet Cong for proof.
It’s hard to believe that anyone could be this dumb. ...is it satire?
Does 1776 ring a bell with this chap?
Bingo...you posted before I had the chance. GMTA.
Part of Old Glory and the writing “Since ‘76” sounds like a nice tattoo idea.
Rotten governments don't have an honest ballot box. That right there undermines the rest of what he has to say.
If these folks were preparing to "shoot it out" with the government, how were they arrested without a fight?
This sounds like a typical liberal straw man argument - knocking down a point no one is arguing.
If it were that easy to defeat a guerilla force armed only with small arms and some minor explosive devices then why are we having such trouble in Iraq and with the Taliban, why did the USSR leave Afghanistan? We have nukes and planes and MOAB’s for goodness’ sake!
If the govt. is for, by and of the people then how can the people not have the guns? Unless the govt. is no longer for, of or by the people but an elite political class with an exclusive divine right to use force to ensure the people are kept in line. Dismiss it as paranoid hype all you want (and it may be at this point in time) but things could change in a very dark direction in a decade.
This is a dangerous, defeatist mentality that is sure to make life much easier for tyrants who want to rule the people with an iron fist and deny them basic liberties.
This one must have been written close to deadline.
The government, united, with good intelligence, with competent and willing troops, has more firepower than you. But the government, riven with dissent, not knowing where its enemies are, trying to send soldiers who don't agree with it into harm's way, has a harder time. It's terribly expensive to put down a popular insurrection, and many insurrections don't even stay where they're put.
Politicians and the people who work for them don't like to be shot at. The threat of unpredictably applied, lethal force changes the atmosphere, even if government forces would hypothetically win on an imaginary level playing field. This is why terrorism is such a problem: With miniaturized technology and quick travel on his side, even one guy can cause a lot of trouble.
The writer's calculations are about 225 years out of date.
I agree with him completely:
“Nothing I can contribute to the general discussion will change anyone’s mind one way or the other.”
I don't have to arm myself against the entire government, just those few in government that want to take away my right to own a gun.
BS sophistry. Theyre not going to be lugging machine guns and bazookas around your neighborhood and doing it without being seen. They might pack a pistol (as they do now), but if they want to be "occupiers", everyone is going to know about and reject it.
Typical, typical leftist misdirection. There could never be a Warsaw ghetto insurection with an unarmed populace, and the former is the last thing "tyrannical authorities" want. This writer is a nitwit.
But the government, riven with dissent, not knowing where its enemies are, trying to send soldiers who don’t agree with it into harm’s way, has a harder time.
One may not be able to defend themselves against a government. But they can defend themselves against a mindset.
If government wants to act upon a group, they will. Regardless of Constitution or due process. They know the resources of the “resistance” will always be smaller than what the government has available to prosecute, illegally if necessary, those they deem as threats to whatever ego stands in the way.
But if government is unable to act as in Katrina or other wide spread disasters, it may take persuasive firepower to defend, life, property, food, water or other items necessary to survival. One thing that is not guaranteed by government is that they will protect the well prepared from the unprepared. Except in the case of the government officials themselves. They can take resources now, and pass accountability off to a later date.
Government confiscated firearms from Katrina holdouts. Now they have been ordered to return those weapons, but only if a bill of sale can be provided. It don’t matter if the firearm has a federal registration assigned to the owner.
The result is that a mass confiscation of firearms has occurred because of a bureaucracy finding loopholes.
The ability to deem an individual, or a group of gun owners a threat by unelected government bureaucracy is a very treacherous loophole. A fight for the right to have firearms is very close to a life or death battle. Early Americans fought and died for the right to have individual rights and guarantees of liberty and justice. It is no wonder there is a mindset of opposition to government.
When government displays the tendencys of total disrespect for Constitutional law and due process, people have a right to be nervous. And when people are nervous about their government, that government is also nervous and looking for methods to further entrench their exertion of power over the people. Taking away their only means of self defense and preservation is a key to dependency that enslaves people to a government filled with corruption and total lack of respect for the people.
I knew a 2LT USANG MP who said he would.
You have, I hoped, noticed the remarkable reluctance of the insurgents to engage in gun battles with our troops, as opposed to the use of IEDs and suicide bombing.
Since suicide bombing is unlikely to become popular here as a defense against an oppressive government, that leaves us with IEDs as a lesson learned in Iraq.
Since it is generally agreed that weapons and ammo that can be easily converted to IEDs are not protected by the 1st Amendment, your argument falls apart. While one could doubtless develop IED-type weapons, whether you have a rifle or 27 in the basement is more or less irrelevant.
It's very simple. If you, or you and your neighbors, or you and your state, attempt to resist the government violently, you will lose, as the author says. If all gun-owning Americans resist in unison, a pretty unlikely scenario in itself, then there is some ground for optimism. But primarily because of troops or officers refusing to follow orders rather than because of the combat potential of the civilians.
If other troops remain loyal to the orders of the government in power, we are then likely faced with a civil war with the people and part of the troops on one side versus the government and the rest of the troops on the other. Such a scenario is unlikely to leave much of America standing.
I'm sure someone has already calculated this, but in 1775 the difference in combat potential between 1000 experienced British troops armed with state of the art military weapons and 1000 Minutemen armed with their personal weapons was perhaps 4:1. (?)
The difference between 1000 US Marines today and 1000 civilians armed with their personal weapons is 100:1(?), 1000:1 (?).
I have no idea what the number is, but I know the difference is at least several orders of magnitude.
Please don't take this to imply that I'm not a fan of the Second. I'm just trying to point out that due to technological changes it is not as effective at giving the people power against their government as the Founders had intended.
Lame ass argument on the part of the author.
He’s such a deep thinker.
And the reason it is wrong is this: The government has and will always have more firepower than you, you and your neighbors, you and your like-minded friends or you and anybody you can conscript to your way of thinking.But...as Al Queda has shown us, we can bring our government to it's knees with IEDs and patience. So, if the government needs to change, we will still be able to do it. IEDs are an already proven method.
If the government were to start grabbing guns, I suspect you would see military refusals.
I just wrote an e-mail off to this guy — to give him a “does of reality” ...
If that were so, we would have dispensed with the Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan by now.
You’ve got a fallacy in your argument.
You said — “And the reason it is wrong is this: The government has and will always have more firepower than you, you and your neighbors, you and your like-minded friends or you and anybody you can conscript to your way of thinking.
You simply can’t arm yourself adequately against a government that is rotten and needs to be overturned. Your best defense is the ballot box, not a pillbox.”
Well, that argument has been *thoroughly trashed* by now, just by observing what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, in addition, what you’re thinking of, in terms of “resistance” is simply what people see *today* as criminal elements, and nothing more. You haven’t seen a “popular resistance” — yet, except the last Civil War. Now, that would be a more appropriate example. Except that today, we have better examples of how to do this (against the government — by the assymetric warfare of the Islamic terrorists). And you don’t think that would be used?
Man, where have you been??!!
Nope, the war could be waged and it could be waged here in this country, if it had to be. That’s the bottom line. No one has taken it to that level, because, up to this point in time, it hasn’t required it, except for the last time we had a war — the Civil War. And if it comes again, it will be a war that will have a lot more knowledge of how to fight it, because of what the Islamic terrorists have added to the “knowledge” of how to do it.
And as a last point, you’ll note that Osama bin Ladin managed to very much attack the U.S. and the government, and even the Pentagon (and almost the Congress, too), with merely few planes.
Oh..., and mentioining “nukes” — well, I understand that he’s also trying to get them into this country, too. And you don’t think that there would be ways to get nukes into the hands of people who decided it was time to fight the government.
The bottom line is you’re not thinking like how a person (and an entire population) would think, in *actually* fighting a war. If you want an example of how a population would think, just look to Iraq. Or look to Afghanistan. That will give you an idea of how it would be over here, and how a segment of the population would be.
At that point (that such a war would break out), it would not be “criminals” doing it, in which the government would round them up. No, it would be widespread and a popular revolt (some on one side and others on the other). In the end, the “criminals” would be whoever lost (and that could be either side...).
Boy, you’ve got some more thinking to do, I would say. You sure don’t have *reality* in mind, that’s for sure...
And that’s the way it is....
An excellent point. Military officers swore an oath “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the orders of officers appoibnted over them.” It will be up to each individual officer and NCO to determine if those orders are “lawful”. See Lt Calley of Me Lei fame. See the numerous officers who resigned commissions in the Union Army in 1861-62 to join either their State’s militias or the Army of the Confederacy. Should there be something on the order of a national registration or confiscation scheme in violation of the 2d Amendment, a SCOTUS ruling affirming the “collective”, ie, National Guard only, right to keep and bear arms versus the individual right, or a total overturning of the amendment, I firmly believe there will be a third American Revolution. It is conservetivly believed that there are 28 million armed citizens. I believe they would eventually persevere.
I am reminded of the para military folks who kidnapped Elian Gonzolas. Did they give any thought to the Constitution or rule of law?
After the kidnapping they had celebration party.
Personally, If I ran the military, I would demand that the soldier stand in formation every morning and recite a portion of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They would go though each document thoroughly, in order, repeatedly, EVERY day!
If I had control of our government schools I would demand all government students do the same.
We are losing in Iraq precisely because of the availability of small arms (nothing fancy like tanks and nuclear bombs) and because of community support. Those two ingredients could easily be available here in the US to fight against some Hitlery crackdown on our rights. That’s why this guy is wrong. Basic arms and community support can beat back an imposing enemy.
You said — “I knew a 2LT USANG MP who said he would.”
He’s thinking in terms of criminal elements and a riot or something like that. Those are American citizens, too. But, it’s different when you come down to a “Civil War” like we did in the 1860s. However, even then, people decided to shoot at other citizens. Of course, maybe the “loophole” in that one was that they were no longer “citizens” since they “left”. And perhaps this the loophole, too — if it happens again, like “Well, they are not American citizens if they do that!!”
And so it goes...
I forgot to add that it’s because we (and the Iraqi insurgents) are not attacking the big force— because, yes, they’d be slaughtered that way. They are merely resisting occupation.
Which is why the insurgency was so easily defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan.....
What difference does that make? If you are going to resist an occupation by the government that wants to impose its unconstitutional will on you, you're not going to be concerned about whether the weapons you can get a hold of or create are legal.
It’s the principle of the thing.
Besides, the righteous have God on their side. And more lopsided triumphs have happened.
The ballot box and the soap box are nice but delicate concepts that cannot exist in reality without the threat of the ammo box as a last resort.
Our Founding Fathers were revolutionaries in the truest sense of the word. The Second Ammendment exists as it does for just that reason.
You said — “Please don’t take this to imply that I’m not a fan of the Second. I’m just trying to point out that due to technological changes it is not as effective at giving the people power against their government as the Founders had intended.”
Oh, I don’t know about that. And I am talking about a serious revolt in the U.S. and not merely some criminal elements or a riot or a “compound” where people are holed up. It’s something widespread and has some “staying power” (like in the last Civil War).
In that case, I would think that these Marines and/or other soldiers would find it quite disconcerting and demoralizing to find fellow citizens shooting and killing them and calling them traitors for operating under government orders. In time, this would cause a certain amount of falling away of this segment, and these people who did fall away, would become an insurgent group against that same government they did work with. They would also grab supplies from that same government, probably heavy hardware, if not capture entire bases and maybe even nukes. So, it’s not simply citizens against a military, but it’s citizens against citizens and military against military...
Heck, I bet there’s a good number of cops and feds who’d styand for such blatant treason.
It's worked before.
Yea that whole thing against the British what a joke that turned out to be? Were the Vietnamese better armed than us?
well we can start by asking FBI and ATF agents if they'd burn small children alive and then bulldoze evidence that could show evidence of government wrong doing.
You'd be surprised on just what somebody wanting a paycheck and security for family would be willing to do. I'm sure the Gestapo and SS were originally patriotic Germans that saw a "threat" from Communists, Jews and lunatics/defectives that were bleeding Germany dry during the depression.
Once you start dehumanizing the threat as "right wing kooks" , "Christian kooks", "gun loving kooks", "white supremacist kooks"....well then it's easier to kill them. Cause they "deserve" what they get.
I think that society has to get to the point of hopelessness that an actual insurrection would occur.
If you doubt me, do this. Look in the mirror at home and ask yourself, "Am I willing to lose everything I own, everything I've saved and risk incarceration or death in order to 'fight the government'?"
One of my grandfathers fought in the Mexican revolution and told us that until a man is unable to feed his family he will bend to the will of the "patron" that pays him in order to feed his family.
My other grandfather made all 7 of his sons join the military in order to show loyalty to the United States of America, kinda like "blood in" in a gang. My point is that fighting a war or insurrection "sounds" noble and great, but I'd hate to live through a time like that in this country. It would take a catastrophic economic downturn in order to make people hungry enough to fight to the death.
Our citizen soldiers are a violent, stubborn and noble lot. That's why our civil war was so costly. I can't imagine fighting against brother Marines or soldiers from different parts of the country. God help us if it came down to that.
There would be no horror movie that would show the destruction and violence of such a civil uprising.
Can I n3wbi3 stand up to the army if they want to strip me of my liberty? Not a chance! Can a small percent of well armed citizens (say .5% or 150,000) using guerrilla tactics cause a tyrannical government a whole lot of pain? you bet.
And in such an even the nutbag who owns enough guns for 15 people will be real popular..
At Waco after killing so many children the ATF ran their flag up the pole in celebration of such a "victory" also.
Legitimate governments do not leave their sovereign borders wide open to millions who enter illegally, where the ballot box is left wide open to be compromised and undermined.
There were a few bedraggled farmers at Concord who disagreed with you. They don’t ALWAYS win.
Since the writer is from Alabama, he should have heard about a bunch of Rebels that came pretty darn close to defeating the US Government.