More weapons regulations

Remove all ads!

And it's not just the revolutionary war, but the westward expansion as well, which really extends things in the communal memory. Not only is that much more recent, it is a much longer and larger period of time, which a whole genre of fiction dedicated to it.

Slash and burn isn't so effective when it's your own manufacturing base you're burning. Serious guerilla warfare would likely be quite effective against the modern US forces. For one thing, there's way too much US territory to organize in that isn't 'on the grid' (basically, it's wilderness still). Secondly, because of the second amendment and it's associate gun culture, both firearm availability and training are widespread. Add onto that the ease and readily available knowledge of how to make explosives, shrapnel grenades, even thermite. Time and again in the past 30 years we have learned that modern technology and even modern military training are not needed to counter a modern military force if you can do it in guerilla fashion and attain popular support.

The other concern, though, is that, today, I'm not so afraid of a gov't coup or a sudden military dictatorship as I am with a gradual extension of gov't power through legal and semi-legal means. Bush started things like this, and I was pleased to see the uproar and legal action countering it, but Bush wasn't popular with a large portion of society. He also only took the first steps down a long and winding road. I'm still worried about what would happen if someone like Obama, who enjoys relatively popular support, were to take similar steps and more. Still, I'm fairly sure the conseratives would blow the whistle on him, at least.

 

I'm thinking that if the US army was to stage a coup it probably means they don't care about civilians much anymore. Mass executions in areas with rebel activites could leave them hard pressed to garner practical support. The army mightn't be bothered about areas that are 'off the grid' anyway. Though this is all getting very far fetched so the arguments change massively on the scenarios we invent.

I do agree that gradual erosion of civil liberties through legal means is a lot more likely to result in a police state (not that I think this is probable). I still don't see how guns would help. Anybody who starts waving a gun around would probably be deemed a head case straight away. Legal and political measures would be much more effective in this case.

 

Is the right to bear arms a s an insurance against tyranny an illusion?

The US right heralds the right to bear arms like a fetish. I don't think arms have such a great utility for freedom, much less right now. All their arms didn't help the besieged at Ruby Ridge or Waco against the organised government response, to make that point as pointedly as possible. What conclusion do we draw from that? Heavier arms for the population? Forming of militias (provocative link, but nevertheless, worthwhile), just in case? Both would be consequent conclusions. But what about the utility?

Or look at the loss ratio of insurgents vs. the US army (15:1 or so) in Iraq - in a stand-off the civilians stand no chance against the state. What they can do is pin-prick attacks. Who would do such attacks? Militias? Who would form militias? In probability right-wingers, who have always been the more effective and lethal of terrorists (more disciplined, better organised). Iirc the largest domestic terrorist attack in the US came from the right (Oklahoma City - corrections are welcome). While arms might be of some use in a guerilla setting, their use is limited. I wouldn't like to be a resistance fighter i.e. domestic terrorist against the US government under today's Bush enacted anti-terrorism laws. Under those, US citizens have already forfeited any protections that the bill of rights offers. Well, too bad.

In that sense the oh-so-evil ACLU with their lawsuits currently does more to protect liberty in the US than gun ownership. That is so because they are engaging in legal and political activism. It is activism for liberty, i.e. citizen participation in politics that keeps the spirit of liberty alive.

Of course, one can re-define every march to the shooting range, or to a blast-fest as in the video into a political demonstration, but then, for how long can one can sucker oneself with a straight face? In that sense, the gun lobby is preparing to fight a hypothetical, speculative tomorrow's threat - while staying clear of current, real threats that have infringed upon their freedoms already. But, as with Marx' opium for the people, they were allowed to keep their guns, so they are safe, are they not?

I think that Déise's observation about the erosion of civil liberties is a very astute one that merits further and deeper thought, and that I shamelessly happen to agree with.

 

To both you and Ragusa, this all depends on how it manifests itself. First off, only a nut would run around waving a gun. Secondly, as Ragusa points out, the right is known for organization and discipline.

If, in a purely hypothetical situation, Obama were to institue a pseudo-legal non-military force, Congress were to pass a number of laws infringing on people's rights, and this new force acts to enforce these laws in a police state atmosphere, the right would be well equipped to form an organized counter-movement. How effective that is depends entirely on tactics. If they try to take tanks and F-22's out head on, they'll be squashed, but if they try to strike at manufacturing centers, training centers, and depots, they may well be successful. Remember, this would be done with a very different mindset than Al-Qaeda. Suicide bombers and rushing trucks in would be last-ditch efforts only. Remote activity, stealth, and micromachines would be far more likely tools, and someone who knows what they're doing can supply everything needed for these fairly easily. The biggest difference would probably be a base technical know-how. Suicide bombers are limited in number, and usually highly visible (unless blending into a crowd). A 'suicide' bot (about the size of a small lap-top) that's carefully targeted could be just as effective, and far less likely to be noticed. You've also got shear numbers to consider. There were times when we were probably close to cutting our losses in Iraq, and I know it was a strain on our military. Now consider upping the size of the area, and the number of 'insurgents', to adjust to a US theater. Do you really think they could cope? For how long?

Historically, the home-grown and/or home-supplied terrorists have been quite effective, if reprehensible in intent. The Unibomber went unstopped for how long? What if the Oklahoma bombing had been just one of a whole nation-wide network of similarly trained individuals, with escape plans and everything.

Basically, what I'm saying is, looking at the various attacks on the US that have been done in the last 50 years, an organized American group could turn the US into swiss cheese if it had even a sporatic level of local popular support.

Looking back through what I've written, this all sounds very scary, and I certainly don't intend anything like this. I do approve of the Left's legal actions that have been intent upon preserving the Constitution (though I suspect Ragusa and I disagree on how many that has been), and that is certainly the first route to take. Unfortunately, though, the legal route only works as long as the legal system is uncorrupted AND the opponent is willing to abide by their decisions. Ultimately, if the rules should ever be thrown out the window, it is force that is the deciding factor.

 

You err in that you apply the model of the US war of Independence on today's situation. I think that's the fundamental fallacy underlying your scenario. The two (supposedly) 'occupying powers' are not in a comparable situation. As a result the comparison is flawed. Britain was a colonial power from across the Atlantic, that was also involved in other colonial activities and it's European endeavours. In the colonies, the British did have local support, iirc an estimated third of the population at the time was royalist. The British still had to resupply from Europe. They had long lines of communication. The British were distracted. To them the American colonies were just a side show - the then great game was being played on the European continent.

Forget about Red Dawn glory. To the federal government today this would be an insurrection they could meet without most of the problems the British had. Insurrections, as US supported campaigns have shown over the last 40 years, have often lost, against what conventional wisdom holds. Counterinsurgency (= Political Warfare + Civic Action + Counterguerrilla operations - as formulated by Roger Trinquier and Bernard Fall) works. In the US the federal government and cooperating state governments even hold the home advantage. As an illustration, security agencies have been wildly successful for example in penetrating US right wing groups and militias.

 

That's a great point. Realistically, the Bushmen understood this just as much as the ACLU. But by saying, "yes keep your guns," they made the gun crowd feel secure that the govenment would never "come for them" as long as they were around. In the meantime, they were shredding the Constitution, with its rights of trial by jury, the right to be confronted by the accuser, military courts, illegal detentions, illegal search-and-seizure, the use of torture, illegal wiretapping, spying on citizens, whatever else they needed.

GWB learned very well from Richard Nixon how to deal with political enemies and dissenters. Of course, he had Cheney who was there with Nixon to learn all the fine points first-hand. But what's extra scary is that in the 1970s the prez was still held within the "parchment barriers" of the Constitution and other founding documents. GWB proved that those barriers are really very flimsy once The Party controls all the levers of power. The poison genie is out of the bottle and will be very difficult to be put back again.

 

Hopefully, the legislature will be able to pass something that would make the many "sunshine" measures being put in place by the Obama administration irreversible by new administrations....but I'm not holding my breath. I think you're right, Chandos. It is going to be very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle -- on both sides of the aisle. Obama is making great strides to improve transparency in government, but this has been an overarching theme found throughout his entire political career, and this certainly does not hold true for all democrats. While I have faith that Obama will continue to work towards ever greater public access to key information about the inner workings of government during his time in office, I fear that the administrations (from both sides of the aisle) following him will simply remove them again.

 

The American colonies were a large part of that "great game," and George III brought a lot of fire power to bear onto the tiny Continetal Army. General Washington understood that as long as he could keep an organized army in the field that he had a chance - eventually. And he kept the army together with the sheer force of his character. The French, who were convinced by Ben Franklin to enter into the military "game" in the colonies, in opposition to its old enemy, really gets most of the credit. People forget how much we owe the French for our independence.

 

Hah, as always you are more knowledgeable on American history than I am, Chandos. The point I wanted to make was that the British were eventually spread thin, being engaged in the West Indies, India, the northern territories - against France, against the Dutch - and that were threats right next to home.

The other point was the length of lines of communications. The American colonists, however, lived where or near where they fought. The British had to re-supply over the Atlantic.

 

That's very true, which is why Washington knew if could keep the army together he had a chance. But you were correct that only 1/3 of Americans were involved in the fight for indenpendence and that 1/3 were Royalists. The other 1/3 didn't really care either way.

The Civil War would be a better analogy of what NOG is referring to. But that those who believe, or feel the need to arm themelves against the tyranny of the federal government largely ignore.

 

I don't think that any citizen's militia could seriously stand up to a modern government for any length of time -- at least in terms of traditional military engagement. But if they went underground (both figuratively and literally) they can fight a protracted guerilla battle against a superior force -- Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other examples prove this. But the odds of the US military going so far off the rails that a significant number of citizens felt the need to wage such a battle is slim today, at least in my opinion.

The other scenario I can see the need for citizens to be armed would be if the government broke down or abandoned the citizenry. In such a case, as i citizen I would want to be armed in order to defend my turf from brigands and bullies. An armed citizenry would be able to engage bully-boy gangs much more effectively than they could a full fledged military. This is also unlikely, but I see it as more likely than the idea of the US military declaring war on a segment of the population.

But this digresses from my original article and point -- while I agree that weapons should be subject to common sense regulation, total bans and overregulation seem to me to be really, really stupid. The approach should be that anyone who demonstrates that he is unfit to own a weapon should be forbiddenfrom owning one. If a person commits a crime, he should be punished. Reacting by taking property from people who were totally unconnected to a crime is unjust and doesn't solve the problem.

 

Not really a good example as you are talking about geographically isolated incidents where you could isolate & bring to bear numerically superior forces.

Again you are looking at a wrong analogy, a closer one would be to compare the loss ratio to what occured in vietnam. There you had a determined enemy that didn't have the fundamental flaws inherent to the islamic groups.

Also, you have to realise that disrupting america(since we are so large) is actually easier than a small country. There are ~30 bridges that, if cut, would pretty much divide the country into 3 sections. Food supply would be hindered to such a degree as to cause riots & chaos in the large cities in less than 2 weeks.
Just look at how easy it would be to isolate most of NY city by the destruction of just a few bridges & tunnels.

Chandos's point about the civil war is correct but i feel that even he has overlooked certain significant items.
How do you determine who the enemy is when he looks just like you?
What do you do when ordered to interdict or even fire on your own neighbors, or even worse, family.
What about the large percentage of the military that comes from "tradition" families(these are families that have a legacy of military service)?
Do you automatically suspect them of being disloyal to the powers-that-be, as these groups have always believed in the country more than the government?
Also, discussing your food & supplies, how do you know those who you get them from are not secretly opposed to the Government? A small dose of the right chemicals in the drinking water & everybody is down with anything from diarrhea to severely debilitating diseases.

Also in america, most of the real militias are made of former military, who just happen to be trained in the same manner as the current forces. It is always easier to defeat an enemy when you know how he thinks & have friends on the inside.

 

Martaug - What you are really talking about are the same tactics that could be used by terrorists (inside, poisoning drinking supplies and food supplies). Now you are no longer talking about attacking the government, but the American people, and in a direct manner. We seem to have two parallel discussions occurring: One, is the possible tyranny of the government, the other is a terrorist action against the American people. I was only referring to an organized resistance to government oppression, not an attack on the American people by terrorists.

BTW, I completely support the Right to Have and Bear arms, because of the possible attack by terrorsts groups or criminal organizations, (like the Mexican drug lords who are coming across our borders).

General Robert E. Lee would be horrified and consider something on that order wholly vile, and a disgraceful action, not even worth defending.

 

It is rather pointless to assume the American people would need to use arms against the military. I find it rather amusing that people want to put the military as some nameless, faceless automaton willing to point its weapons in any random direction.

The military is made up of our own neighbors. The kids you went to school with, played baseball with, and slept over at their house. History has shown a military will rebel against attacking family members and friends. Remember Boris standing on a tank with Russian soldiers in the tank looking passively at him? The Soviet Union could not get Russians to fight Russians.

Remember Tiananmen Square when the Chinese government pulled out the local troops and replaced them with troops from an entirely different providence (and could not even speak the same dialect)? The local troops were being fed by and were partying with the students -- many of the students hooked up with old friends in the Chinese Army during the initial weeks. Even the Chinese government knew the local troops would not attack.

Soldiers will not attack their own families and friends. Period. Soldiers are serving to protect their families and friends.

Officers in the military swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and all I have ever met (going up to four stars) take that oath seriously. They may refuse an unconstitutional order, but they will not start a coup.

 

@T2Bruno: True and true for every normal democratic country. If only people thought similarly of, say, the police and other public services .

 

An idea that is interesting (and maybe disturbing) to toy with is if the current divide in the US between left and right would continue to grow. It is already on a level where most compromises and consensus decisions appear to be pipedreams. The barely 50%+ majority running roughshod over the 49% minority and feelings seems to be quite strained. Just the other day I read an article where some big shot Russian professor claimed the US was very close to a new civil war and a collapse as a nation state with two or more entities breaking out. Now, I do not think this is very likely but seeing as we already have a similar discussion it could be quite interesting.

What if the left/right tensions in the US turned violent? Would the military protect the 50%+ against the 49%? Or would it too divide evenly along the middle (or more likely 2/3 or more would jump in with the Republican side)? A left/right "war" is in my opinion the most likely scenario of American Civil war and I wonder how it would go. Industrial capacity and possibly money on one side and guns and soldiers on the other. Tricky, scary but quite fascinating thought.

 

It would probably break into 5 parts, with 2 allied with each other & 1 neutral with all of the others.

California Coalition - california, nevada, oregon, washington & arizona

Texas territories- texas, new mexico, oklahoma, arkansas, lousiana, mississippi, colorado & kansas

Northwestern states of america - idaho, montana, wyoming, north dakota, south dakota, utah & nebraska

Central-Southern states of america - florida, georgia, alabama, north carolina, south carolina, kentucky, tennessee,missouri, wisconsin, iowa, minnesota & part of virginia

Northeastern states of america - maine, maryland, new hampshire, vermont, rhode island, connecticut, new york, new jersey, delaware, massachusetts, pennsylvania, ohio, indiana, illinois, michigan, west virgina & part of virginia

With the California coalition allied with the Northeastern states, the Northwestern states neutral towards all, the Texas territories with non-aggression treaties with the Central-Southern states but expansionistic towards mexico & the Central-Southern states basically in a cold war with the Allied Northeastern states & the Califronia coalition.

Was that confusing enough for you?

 

Not really, you should read the book "Black Man" by Richard Morgan although I think it was titled "13" in the states. It takes place in a not too distant future where the US has split along similar lines.

 

Joac - That's highly unlikely. The problem is that there are liberals and conservatives scattered throughout all the states. It would really not be a regional war, like the Civil War, because the populations in the individual states are now too diverse. Different states would have to find the political support to break with the rest of the nation - essentially become traitors. That alone would probably start an uprising within the states themselves, since it would mean prison, or even execution for those who went along with advocating the overthrow of the US government. There would be so much fighting within the individual states, that the federal government would have to restore order anyway.

 

I completely agree, so it wouldn't be a regional conflict, at least not outright as the "camps" would be quite mixed. Nothing some good ole fashioned ethnic (or in this case political) cleansing couldn't solve. Ah, now I am being quite morbid, it is late.