Would people in the US really try to fight the military/police with hunting rifles?

Great Debates
61

The reality is that the government would never enact a sweeping resolution that bans all guns, and would give the people the casus belli to revolt. Instead, they, in accordance with the plans of anti-gun activitists, have been attempting to gradually, nickle and dime us into progressively more restrictive laws. Divide and conquer. Don’t want the poor to be able to have weaponry? Declare any affordable weapon a “saturday night special”. Go after the military weapon enthusiast crowd, because they’ll be forsaken amongst the gun owning community as a whole. The gun control movement seeks to divide us into small segments, attacking one while placating the rest, as a method to incrementally achieve what they know they could never achieve at once.

In answer to your post, if there ever comes a time when there is a grand, clear, sweeping violation of rights as is being proposed, I would feel it was my moral and ethical duty to wage war on those instrumental in the oppression. So… me too.

62

As has been widely expounded upon in this thread, you can’t hope to fight the Government by force of arms and live to tell anyone about it, short of a Mad Max style complete breakdown in law and order.

Do people seriously expect the Government to say “Oh, silly us, you sure taught us a lesson! We’re sorry! We’ll go back to the way things were before!” as a result of an armed uprising? Even if they did, you’d have all these armed groups fighting with each other over how things SHOULD be run, and it would be absolute chaos.

Look, unless you happen to have a UH-60 Blackhawk or a Mi-24 Mil-Hind Helicopter Gunship stashed away, the Military will ALWAYS have more people and better equipment than the general citizentry. That doesn’t mean victory is impossible- Ask the Viet Cong- but even so, every Belgian and French farmer had a shotgun in 1914 and again in 1939, and both times they were of zero use against the German Army and (later) the German Panzer legions and Stuka Dive-Bombers.

There’s a huge difference between being a “Military Rifle Enthusiast” and dressing up in Camouflage Gear and full Combat Rig and undertaking paramilitary-esque training in the woods of rural areas. I consider myself a “Military Rifle Enthusiast”, but I certainly don’t want to dress up in camouflage and hide in the forest as part of a “training exercise”. There are people who do enjoy that, and more power to them- but I disagree with the notion that it’s even remotely the same thing as having an appreciation of military firearms, be it functional or academic.

Note I’m not attacking anyone’s right to own a firearm- I’m questioning the wisdom of believing you could actually do anything about it if the Government decided to take that right away from you (which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, at least in the US), short of a total societal collapse- in which case, you’ve probably got other things to be worrying about besides whether or not your Constitutional Rights are being violated.

63

Martini Enfield, I think maybe you’re not getting what some folks are trying to tell ya. Let me throw out some quotes to help…

“When it comes time for the Great Scorer to write the score against your name, it matters not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game!” Grantland Rice

*“Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” * Patrick Henry

“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose” Janis Joplin

“Fill yore hand, you sonuvabitch” Rooster Cogburn

“Sometimes ya gotta fight when you’re a man”–Kenny Rogers

Somethings are worth dying for, some things aren’t. Winning would be nice–losing would definitely suck. But, to the guys that are willing to take this particular stand–and I strongly suspect that there are many more than you realize–this one is a no shit line in the sand. Cross it, and it’s on. Win, lose or draw, it would be one helluva fight.

64

I don’t think you’ve truly thought this through, beyond, perhaps, “if one nation has tanks and bombers, and the other has rifles, obviously the former would win a war”. You have to look at the employment of weapon systems and tactics in context. I started a thread on this a while ago.

I don’t want to Godwinize this thread, but Belgian civilians with guns isn’t the best analogy here. Defending in a conventional war is entirely different than what we’re referring to. A better example would be the holocaust. (wince, I know, right? I’m not bringing it up for emotional appeal, I’m not saying the US is anywhere near that point, or anything like that. I’m just bringing this up to demonstrate a point, ok?)

If the bulk of the German populace had been armed, would the holocaust have been possible? People couldn’t be rounded up, without a fight, which on that scale, would’ve cost the Germans hundreds of thousands of lives at the least. They were able to be herded like cattle because of a lack of ability to resist, because of a monopoly on force was had by the German government. It would’ve made the whole ordeal entirely impractical.

On the other hand, look at the Warsaw ghetto uprising. A relatively small number of people, with little to no knowledge of weapons or military training, were able to tie down large amounts of German resources, and inflict a lot of casualties, because they had the will to resist, and the tools to do so. This happened under a condition where the Germans had no qualms about effectively destroying the city of Warsaw to root them out - something that wouldn’t happen in the situation we’re discussing for reasons I discussed in that linked thread.

65

With apologies, I’m going to skip over the discussion and comment directly on the OP. Reading between the lines, I interpret the question to be whether the citizen’s-bulkwark-against-tyrrany defense of the right to bear arms is a sham. IMHO, the answer is “yes.” Real world, I can think of no scenario in which this would happen. Heck, we live in a cushy society in which it’s difficult even to organize a strike anymore. The sacrifice is too great; got bills to pay, you know. The prospect of a significant number of Americans risking life-and-limb fighting off the Feds to resist anything - much less something as narrow as a strict gun control law - defies belief. If such a law could be passed (and that’s a BIG if), resistance would be isolated and easily crushed.

IMHO, what’s behind the NRA mentality in this country isn’t so much preserving the power of the people to resist totalitarianism as self-empowerment. People feel stronger owning guns for the same reason they feel stronger driving cars rather than flying in airplanes. Never mind that the latter is plainly safer in statistical terms. Psychologically, a car feels safer because one is in control. So, too, with guns. If I have a gun (and I don’t), I have the power to protect me-and-mine from all comers. THAT, I suggest, is what this issue is all about.

66

You called? Let me break it down then, law & order style.

For the military to engage in direct combat with American citizens would provoke a large number of people to side with those fighting a perceived corrupt government. As Airman Doors said many enlisted and reserves would refuse to serve a military backing a corrupt government, and some of them might leave and take equipment/supplies/know how with them. A National Guard unit would have a difficult time firing on people in their community, since it is their community too. The people they would be firing on are their neighbors, friends, and relatives.

Armies without soldiers aren’t very effective. Military vehicles without trained operators aren’t very effective. Soldiers/Pilots who are willing to fight their fellow Americans are vulnerable to being shot on the way to the airfields, or to having their homes destroyed or families threatened. Sabotage is also relatively easy to carry out. You don’t need to be able to fight an attacking Black hawk helicopter, you just have to wait until it it being rearmed, refueled, repaired, or it sitting idle. A simple pipe bomb on the propeller of a black hawk would keep it from even lifting off.

There is no way those Indians could ever defeat Custer’s Army, especially when they have to worry about all those other rival Indian tribe’s. :rolleyes: There are literally thousands of example throughout history of out numbered, loosely organized, lesser equipped forces defeating the larger, technologically advanced, force. If it were ever to come down to the government & the military VS. the citizens of the US; we might not have the same equipment available, but I still think that the numbers would be on our side. If enough monkeys+enough typewriters can = Shakespeare; Why can’t enough hunters/shooters + enough shotguns and rifles = military victory?

67

And while the Indians managed to beat the stuffing out of Custer at Little Bighorn, they ultimately lost the war.

To quote Hilaire Belloc:

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim Gun, and they have not

Even though the scenario is highly unlikely, the consensus- in this thread and the one you linked to- ends up the same way: These people trying to fight The Authorities can’t win, at least not in the sense that would result in anything other than a pyhrric victory- at least, IMHO.

68

There is also the deterrent effect against smaller-scale curtailing of Liberty. If the cops are debating no-knock random searches of homes, do you think the possibility that they might be met with a hail of gunfire when they randomly break into a home without warning might make them think twice?

There’s also another aspect to self-determination - the possible need to organize into an ad-hoc government when the one that promised to protect you flees. During the LA riots, I recall shop owners protected their property by sitting on their roofs with rifles. I imagine more than one resident stuck in New Orleans slept with a shotgun beside the bed - and slept a little more soundly than he would have unarmed. Had roving gangs been threatening people in a serious way, you might have seen armed communities gather together for self defense.

69

I think the idea of large scale resistance from gun owners fighting off military and police in which there will be mucho bloodshed is farfetched and silly. Sure a lot of guys talk the talk, but once the bullets start flying, I think most Americans would change their tune. In my opinion, worse than getting shot at, Americans would not want to lose their jobs, get their assets get frozen or property siezed, lose their ability to move freely, have limited access to food or safe shelter, and above all have their parents, wives, and children be endangered just so that they can keep their handguns. Jail time would suck mightily as well. The OP said that people were going to be able to keep their shotguns and deer rifles right? Are people going to have their lives ended or turned upside down over that?

I live in a rural/suburban area outside a major city in Texas. Texas is not the wild wild west. I am not sure if they have a higher percentage of gun ownership than other states, but all I can tell you is that my across the street nieghbor and I are the only gun owners in the immediate area that I know of (the rest of us are attnys, cpa’s, teachers, a college professor, not soldiers of fortune or even hunters).

I can pretty much tell you my nieghbor is going to turn in his handgun once the cops come (as long as you let him keep his sporting guns). I mean come on- he has two years of payments left on his fishing boat, his son just got braces, his daughter is busy taking ballet, and his wife is a semester away from getting her master’s degree. He doesn’t have time to be a guerrilla!

Although I got a week’s supply of tuna fish, water, and batteries, for the wife and kiddo, I only got enough ammo to kill about 10- 15 people and their are going to have to be pretty close and pretty stupid in order for me to kill that many before they kill me, my family and burn my house to the ground.

They want my old trusty .357, but will let me keep my 12 guage? What the hell do I care, provide they give me a $50 gift certificate to Chilis in exchange (my wife loves the milkshakes, my daughter loves the lettuce wraps, I am partial to their guiltless grill pitas). To tell the truth, I got a lot of other things to do rather make the streets flow red with the blood of my oppressive government. Who knows, maybe I’ll vote for the other party/guy during the next election (provided that the election doesn’t fall on a day that I have to do a lot of stuff at work, or if they are showing really good episode of “My Name is Earl”).

70

chriscya makes a very interesting point…

In Australia, the last two rounds of Gun Buybacks involved people handing their guns in and being given money- quite a lot of it- by the Commonwealth Government as a result.

The Handgun buyback was known as “New Guns For Old”, because people handed in their now “illegal” old guns (often in poor condition), and got enough money to go and buy a brand-spanking new “Legal” gun- or even two!.

Any government trying to confiscate property without recompense is asking for trouble- I don’t disagree with that- but I honestly hope none of us ever have to see what happens if a “Democractic” Government ever tries it.

71

Yeah, those lettuce wraps are pretty good!
Back to the OP, when all you government forces guys and militia constitution-defending guys have killed most of each other off, and have run out of bullets, then us sword collecting guys are gonna rule!

:smiley:

72

Because without government oversight, you have no guarantee a paramilitary organization will not aim its guns at you.

Just ask anybody who’s ever lived in a failed state, such as Lebanon in the '70s and ‘80s, or Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq now. It quickly becomes impossible to distinguish a "citizens’ militia" from a crime gang.

73

:dubious: No.

74

Sam, you seem to be persistently and stubbornly ignoring two very obvious facts:

  1. No totalitarian state will allow its people to have weapons they might use to resist it effectively.

  2. An armed citizenry will never prevent a republic from degenerating into a totalitarian state.

75

Thing is, there isn’t going to be a gun-grabbing roundup where SWAT teams go door to door confiscating guns…unless such a move is massively popular.

That’s what happened in Britain and Australia. The gun bans there were supported by the vast majority of the population, and the people who opposed the gun bans didn’t have any support. Sure, they could have killed a few cops rather than hand in their weapons, but that wouldn’t have accomplished anything other than convincing the gun banners that they were right.

We aren’t going to have house to house sweeps where SWAT teams with metal detectors search for illegal guns and helicoptors fire rockets into the houses of barricaded gun collectors. It wouldn’t be handled that way. These weapons would just be made illegal, manufacture and sale would stop, the guns would be hidden away, and most people with hidden illegal guns would only be charged with owning an illegal gun if they were arrested for something else first.

And anyway, you don’t arrest a gun nut in his home if you can help it…arrest him at work, or while he’s out grocery shopping. The fantasy of a gun-grabbing D-day where whole blocks are barricaded against the gun grabbers is just that, a fantasy. It assumes that the gun-grabbing goons are complete idiots. You’re not going to have thousands of Branch-Davidian style standoffs, because the Branch-Davidian standoff didn’t need to happen, all they had to do was arrest David Koresh while he was out shopping.

So you don’t have a list of houses, then surround those houses with SWAT teams when the owner is home, and encourage a shootout. Rather you have a list of people, you show up at their work and detain them, then send your search teams into the unnoccupied house. Even hard core survivalists have to leave their house sometime.

76

Martini Enfield:

I started at citizen’s in December of 2002. Here’s our web site.

First of all, I care not what you think of our militia. Secondly, we are here to defend the inalienable rights of our families & local citizens. It’s as simple as that. If anyone doesn’t like our militia, they can KMA.

77

That organization wouldn’t be what you meant by your “community,” would it?

78

Or maybe shoot it? :slight_smile:

79

Never forget that the lack of government is even worse!

80

By all means, let him try! :smiley: