Anti-gunner flips
Community
I recently re-watched the movie "Schindler's List", because I've been on a WWII kick recently. Any one who thinks a citizenry should be disarmed should watch the scenes of the liquidation of the ghetto in that movie.
Hitler actually gave us about 10 million reasons to never disarm a populace
Bake, I too just re-watched Schindler's List, and I agree with the premise of your statement, but I think anyone who thinks because he has a few guns in his closet and a couple thousand rounds of ammo is severely over-confident. IF/when the government comes for you you'll be of no match. Times have changed and it wouldn't even be a fair fight. But, that's not to say you couldn't feel proud for having gone done without a fight. Sorry, but all the AR's in the world are no match for the governments weaponry.
Along those same lines, IF/when that day ever comes, of those armed citizens, 1/4 will freeze with fear, another 1/4 will let apathy rule the day and surrender, and the rest will be dead within the hour...and that's just the half that are armed...the liberals will all be dead already. I never want to see the 2nd Amendment go away, but if you think that's gonna be your saving grace I think you better start coming up with a plan B.
I sort of agree South Farm. But I think the mujahideen, Vietcong, etc. might disagree a little on your premise. . . . The government weaponry may win out in the end, but an armed guerilla force could make it tough.
I also agree that a large portion of those 10 million would have done nothing. . . but what if 15% had been armed and willing? 1.5 million armed people would not have been easy to subdue. Even 5% of those people could make it tough. How big was Hitler's standing army? 5 million? Certainly less than 10million?
Plan B, My take on it if the government decides to come for US citizens as a whole they will be in the wrong and the military loyalties will fold up like a cheap tent and side with its citizens and their family's.
And. . . I'm no prepper. I have a hunting AR, but I doubt I have more than 100 rds of ammo. I'm not a doomsdayer. . . . I don't think I'll ever have to fight in my lifetime. I'm just saying, that disarming a populace is never a good thing. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler--all disarmed the populace (I believe)
Check participation levels of citizens in the Revolutionary War.....
Just sayin...;^)
It won't be an army of civilians against the U.S. military. It would be like banging your head against the wall. It will a piecemeal engagement against unpatriotic american soldiers. Most will disobey unlawful orders (remember "fragging"). Most will desert to be protecting their family and loved ones. It will be interdiction of supplies to the government elites. Tanks and other equipment has to be fueled, soldiers have to rest and eat. That will be the time for pot shooting and snipers (deer hunters) will be on the prowl taking two-legged trophies. Explosives will be used against infrastructures to isolate the battlefields and starve the libtards. Conservative patriots mostly live in flyover middle America where food are grown. Hunters that are reloaders will have ample supply of powder and primers; so too for the brass. It will be bloody but it won't be huge set piece battlelines.
The number of people who have firearm deer licences in Wisconsin alone is a number equal to the 5th largest standing army in the world. And that's not counting Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, etc. Think about that for a moment!
The effectiveness of guerrilla warfare is proven. I'll take my chances with millions motivated irregulars over 3x conscripted welfare drones. Heck, with our gun ownership numbers, even 3% may be too large a number to qualify as "guerrilla warfare."
Some guy in a room, in a different state, pushes a button and BOOM, there goes your perceived ability to defend yourselves from Big Brother. I'm not against gun ownership, own quite a few, but at the same time I'm a realist and I don't own guns to protect myself from the government, because quite honestly it ain't even close to a fair fight. I own guns to (kill animals for consumption mainly), and protect my family and property from the thieving low-life meth-head down the street. Any of you ever see the scene in Harlem Nights where they're having a shoot-out with the cops? Everybody's flinging lead with their tommy guns and the one little dude stands up and shoots his little .38 pop! pop! whenever there's a break in the action like he's making a difference....that's what small arms fire is like compared to a tank, drone, missle....might give you warm fuzzies but in the end you don't stand a chance. The good news is with Trump in office it will never come to that.
"....because quite honestly it ain't even close to a fair fight."
Bravo Sierra. Tanks, drones, jets..... All require one thing. Boots on the ground. Tanks may be able to "take" a position, but it requires bodies to hold it. Same with jets.
Never seen so many, so willing, to lick the boot pressed upon their throat. And convince others to do so.
The idiots among us still chant, "Guns are bad" just not enough intellect there to see the forest through the trees.
We had a case here recently, at Cal high in San Ramon.....a columbine groupie. The kids 'manifesto' was to be a copycat Columbine shooter- at link. The fact that these liberal idiots want all focus to be on 'guns' and do nothing to address the mental health issues and the real causes of this violence is ridiculous.
What they don't tell you in the news story [we know kids at the school] they arrested the kid, had to let him go for civil rights reasons....but then further investigation found his 'manifesto' and they arrested him again.
Heck, the dumbazz libs around here call for more gun laws...and they don't know that we have some of the toughest gun laws anywhere.
I do not see it ever coming to a gov vs gun owners battle, but if it did, I see the following issues for the gov:
- half or more of the military/police would side with the gun owners; or at least would not fight the gun owners. Many ex military/police would side with the gun owners also. Lots of training/experience to draw on.
- collateral damage would limit tools the gov can use. It would take a huge intel effort just to determine who the target gun owners are and where they exist. Then they would need be able to eliminate them w/o killing others or doing too much infrastructure damage. Unless the gov went completely off the rails, they would still concern themselves with public opinion.
- the Taliban still exists. Even though they are up against these superior tools. In the US, gun owners would be Taliban 1000x
