The US since Reaganite deregulation shows that, even when quality of life goes shitty, the victimized head for self-destruction, hence the opioid deaths in flyover country.
“Blending in with locals” is usually pretty hard on the locals, who tend to suffer collective punishment. That’s traditional. A soldier was shot? Burn a few dozen civilians. A tank was blown up near a town? Level the town and salt its rubble.
Insurgencies usually fail without (and even with) outside support. Who’ll supply the militias? Putin? Kim?
AFAIK hardcore militia-type guys try to infiltrate or recruit in (para)military units with access to advanced weapons, intel, commo, etc. Will civil war arise between the infected and uninfected units?
I have seen a number of neat ideas there as well - there is the funky reflectivestuffto keep cameras from getting a good image to thos eultra realistic masks … imagine if there was a whole crowd of people with assorted photoreal faces ranging from Mr ROgers to James Dean and Marilyn Monroe?
Hide, or transport, or pass messages …
A friend noted that there are ways to basically resurrect the old BBS using burner smart phones and the dark web and other things [vpn, anonymizing sites] for communications. Which vaguely brings to mind the old radio tracking vans …
bailing is certainly an option, if you can phiscally ‘walk’ over a border, but if you are in Kansas, and you are on a no transport list, how do you get all of you to a border …
No, actually I know a hella lot of people that are retired from the military who do actually have a lot of experience in the sand box, and it is easy to change from defending from ISIL tactics to using said tactics. If you grant that these now retired vets would bestir themselves to rise up, how many people do you think could be fielded … 1 million, 5 million, 10 million? They may not be as well equipped as the official army, but there is a lot of stuff wandering around outside official channels. WHat would happen if more than a few National Guard armories decided to throw their hat in the ring and open the armories equipment stores to the rebels?
Without the pejorative, I’ll quote Dirty Harry Callahan: “Do you feel lucky?”
The US military HAS operated against US citizens on US soil, and not only in the War of Southern Treason or several martial law situations. And the post-draft US military isn’t a great cross-section of the national demographic. If troops are ordered to fire on an assemblage, most will and mutineers won’t, but I wouldn’t depend on the kindness of troops if I were there. Do you feel lucky?
IIRC the Roman and Byzantine empires made a point of stationing troops far from their origins. A US military dealing with general insurrection would do no less - send NG and Reserve units from Oregon to Oklahoma and vice-versa so they needn’t shoot their own neighbors. Shooting uppity out-of-staters and other furriners is easy.
Back to OP: If I think rising up against the state is needed, it’s already too late.
In my (limited, yes) experience living in Dumptruck, Arkansas. There are many, many rednecks here and they have access to lots of ammo. I have enough guns in my gunsafe to arm a pretty big militia. And these people know how to shoot effectively.
Now, saying that, I’ll toss the key to the safe down my deep well before I’d allow a rebellion to start here. But, I’m only one person. I control only the guns in my house. There are many guns in the south and lots of local yokels behind them. Their intentions wouldn’t necessarily be honorable.
I suggest if the government closed the giant liquor emporium down and beer was unavailable. There would be an armed conflict in a matter of hours.
Interstate rivalry is one thing, actually shooting at civilians is another. Some will, some won’t.
My rough wag is the military would lose somewhere between 15 and 25% active duty members stationed here in CONUS to objector and awol status. Less certain about folks stationed overseas. They could federalize the Gaurd and activate the reserves but what are ya gonna do when the unit or the governor of that state says no?
The governor of that state saying “no” will mean fuck-all. The “one army” policy has been in place since ,at least, the 1980s. Reserves and National Guard are partof the US military first and foremost. Guard units can be used by their state governments under certain circumstances, but they are in no sense finally controlled by their state governor.
Yep you’re still not thinking it through, and you’re wrong. The question of troops, regular or gaurd firing on civilians, not deserting etc has far more dimensions than you seem to be accounting for.
msmith537’s premise was: “…[they] would blend into the local population and take pot shots at soldiers or set roadside bombs for tanks and whatnot like every other insurgency.” Yes, troops will fire on those civilians. US troops have fired on unarmed US civilians before and will do so again if ordered. Thinking otherwise is suicidal fantasy.
There were incidents during the Vietnam era, both here and over there, in which questionable orders were not, perhaps, properly questioned. The orders, of course, resulted in unarmed non-combatant civilian casualties. The tales were shocking, and were the focus of subsequent training in the nature of orders, and how to distinguish between a hard call and a straight up war crime. US servicemembers today do not come from the same obedient US culture as those in the '60s-70s (you); and they are given a very deliberate heads-up with regard to their personal duties that come with being entrusted with a muzzle. Kent State and My Lai make perfect sense given the conditions of the time; and those conditions have been so thoroughly addressed, and today’s servicemembers so empowered as a result, that I have to believe similar events today would be vanishingly rare. Yes, our troops and mercenaries occasionally get up to some nastiness, but I’m not recalling any such incidents being sanctioned by their leadership. IME, if you tell a modern US servicemember to fire on unarmed, noncombatant US civilians, you’re going to be disobeyed and probably arrested/fragged. Note: I am making no such guarantee about self-described militias engaging US forces or civilians–they’re meat.
Having grown up when I did and with my brother knowing one of the people killed at Kent State ----- yes; I do believe they would. And that was against unarmed “enemies”. Make it an armed revolt and there is no question in my mind.
Exactly. While no really loyal American would normally abhor the idea of rising up in rebellion, if a single rather small faction ended up in power and decided to suppress with violence then a large segment might actually take to the streets in armed rebellion. If you look at Hong Kong right now, with the insurrection trickling along, when you start pissing off enough of the population, that is precisely when governments fall.
It almost makes me sad that of the 24 long arms and 7 hand guns I inherited and owned already we have already sold off almost all of them [retaining hunting tools - a shotgun, a rifle and a hand gun each, though I have decided to keep 3 purely sentimental pieces because they were my dad’s. So we have working 12 total working weapons and the ammo for them all, and the cleaning kits and cases for the household] because I can see things spiral down to needing them for self defense. I really hope the more rabid of Trump’s followers do not descend into the depths of destruction that they seem to be headed into.
Why is this thread focused on a gun ban? To me, the obvious issue that could spark rebellion is election fraud. Imagine if vast quantities of the population were found to suddenly not be registered to vote.
Thanks, I think this steers it back more towards the thread intention.
So, suppose that, on Election Day, many millions of Democrats find out to their surprise that they are not eligible to vote. And Trump wins the election by a whisker as a result.
Would this cause a revolt? If so, how exactly? Who would get the shooting started, where, and in what fashion?
