Friday, August 16, 2019

Really? You're going with that?


Looks like someone decided to whip out the old bushwa about how we don't need our AR15s because the Fed.Gov will just genocide us all.


Yes, that's the core of that argument. No, I'm not linking to articles threatening to use the military to seize our guns, because I don't want to get intellectual wank-goo all over my blog.

However, let us delve into the depths of history! You know, that thing that if one doesn't learn from, one is doomed to repeat.

Here is Afghanistan. Let us ask every technologically-superior country to invade that pile of suck and fail since Alexander:

Great Britain 1839 to 1842?  Oops. There's a reason that little dust-up was called "The Disaster in Afghanistan."  Great Britain, arguably the most technologically-advanced country in the world at the time, wandered into that pile of rocks, and misery, and promptly got the whey kicked out of them by the locals.


The United Soviet Socialist Republic 1979 to 1989?  Arguably one of the two top dogs militarily at the time, with air assault capability, helicopter gunships, and the free use of chemical weapons. Result?  The Soviets crawled back across the border, licking their wounds.

The United States 2001 to well ... now? That would be the Aircraft Carriers and Predator drones mentioned in the argument mentioned above. For the results, just ask your local media pundit, or Democrat congress-critter. They'll tell you not only have we lost, we need to pull out before we get our teeth kicked in any worse.

Vietnam?  French occupation or ours? Doesn't matter, really, neither France nor us -- both far militarily-advanced than the Vietnamese rice farmers -- came out of that one winners.  Just ask the Main Stream Media.


How about Somalia in the 1990s. President Clinton sent the most technologically-advanced military -- and the best war-fighters of the best -- into that little hell-hole.  How'd that work out?

All of these have something in common:  They were local insurgencies against big, high-tech armies.

And if you think the Afghans, the Viet Cong, and the Somali warlords were good guerrilla fighters, you haven't seen what the United States would be like.

Folks, I'm here to tell you, there is no country on this little green dirtball that will go insurgent faster than the United States.

And if you take nothing else from this, understand that there are no people on this world, there are no people in all of recorded history, as good at insurgency as the Americans.

Hell, we exist today because we took on the mightiest, most technologically advanced Empire in the World with the best military the world had seen at that time with a bunch of pissed-off insurgent farmers.

And we kicked Britain's arse right off the beach.

Our DNA is rebellious outlaws that were kicked out of the mother country because Great Britain couldn't deal with us. We took the hit-and-run warfare of the Native Americans, and we made it our own.  WE LIKE TO FIGHT.

On top of that we have schools that any person of good character can go to and get training from our best war fighters.  If we wish, we can get better training than that provided to our own military.

I have spent modest money to go to classes to learn to shoot distances far in excess of anything capable by 99% of our military.  I have taken classes on my own dime -- because it was fun --to learn how to clear houses better than the average infantry grunt.

We shoot 3-Gun, IPSC, IDPA, and a hundred other gun games ... BECAUSE IT IS FUN.


The entire US military strength -- right now -- is about 1.4 million bodies. That's not just Combat Arms, that's everyone.  Add in another 900,000 Reserves.

Texas -- by itself -- had one million hunters out last year. That's one State with damned near as many shooters as the entire US military.


16 million hunters took the field though-out the United States in 2018.  Hunters alone outnumber the entire US military by over three to one. 

And there are a damned sight more gun owners than there are hunters.

You want to see an insurgency that would make the Hindu Kush jealous? 


You want to hear the ghosts of empires whisper, "That was dumb"?

Listen to the idiots who think they'll just have the military take our guns.

LawDog

39 comments:

Ratus said...

Is an archive link ok?

archive.today/wj40S

It is one of the worst written things I've seen in awhile.

The author doesn't ever get to a point. I can't tell if supports or opposes the 2A.

It's just a bunch of word salad.

Reltney McFee said...

You did not talk about however many members of the military who, taking that "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies..." business seriously, would in one manner or another refuse to execute said orders.

CF "fragging" in South East Asia.

Toastrider said...

Reltney beat me to it.

As I like to remark, 'Ah, you're going to get the cops and the military to enforce these rules. The cops you call pigs and the military you call baby-killers. The cops and military you throw things at. Those cops and military. Uh huh.'

'But they'll follow orders!'

Some might. Some. But even one turncoat can make a hash of your pretty little operations.

And I'm fairly certain we'll get more than 'one'.

Joe in PNG said...

One of the rules of history is that the people with weapons eventually wind up running things. If your class/group/social strata/whatever won't directly keep and bear arms, they won't keep power for long.
Thus one of the reasons for the 2A- it's another form of separation of powers, so that the government won't have a monopoly on force.
It may happen that all the Left accomplishes after years of railing about living in a "right-wing" dictatorship is that they bring about a real, honest to goodness military dictatorship.

MrGarabaldi said...

As I recall Larry did a writeup one time about some lefty and the Apache helicopter, he commented "sure there is the Helicopter" but who supports the helicopter, where the fuel comes from. Who brings the fuel, ammo, ete,ete. Middle America, the kids of the same people you ridicule" I remember seeing a lot more but I was unable to locate it at "Monster Hunter".

Beans said...

Well, unless the military suddenly does like the Mexican Marines have done, which is pull all their relatives into their military enclaves, then, yeah, nah, too many hostages. Cops and judges live amongst us, and so do the military members' extended families.

This isn't Red China, where they send hicks from the sticks to go run over urban kids in Tiananmen Square. We can't send the California NatGuard to Wisconsin and expect the Wisconsinites to give up their guns... no... or send CalNatGuard to Louisiana for crowd suppression of ignorant Cajuns... yeah, no...

Not saying we haven't done Military/Well Armed Gov Forces vs People. The last time We did this in a major way, smashing the Bonus Marches with cavalry, tanks and machine guns, lost the military a lot of support that they really needed and didn't have pre WWII. And Kent State went just as the anarchist bastards planned, setting up the NatGuard to be the fall guys. Just in instances where armed citizens stood firm against armed forces, the armed citizens have come off above the fed and state forces (like the two rancher standoffs in recent times.)

Anonymous said...

@MrGarabaldi

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/11/19/the-2nd-amendment-is-obsolete-says-congressman-who-wants-to-nuke-omaha/

courtesy of Londo. :D

Anonymous said...

It really does depend on how ruthless .gov wants to play. The Romans, Huns, Mongols, and British could play pretty rough with the folks under their rule. They made examples of the opposition and families and were not against small scale genocide if that what was need to keep the peasants in line.

Always remember the folks who threaten to nuke gun owners or SWAT their fellow citizens consider us subjects and not equals under the law. They wish to rule not govern.

When it gets to the point were the TN and KY National Guard is laying siege to Ft. Campbell and US Marshals are trying to serve warrants on the Governor of Texas for sedition, we will find out just how nasty a modern civil war can get.

Tully said...

If you start tasking US soldiers with using area effect weapons on US civilians, expect command posts to end up on the 'accidental" target lists.

Old NFO said...

To be fair, Clinton tied the military's hands so thoroughly that they couldn't move in Somali. NGFS was available the whole time, and the Navy was constantly being told not to even POINT their guns toward Mogadishu... sigh

MrGarabaldi said...

Hey Londo;

Thanks for the link

Jerry said...

Nuke Omaha? Yeah, right! What these really, really smart people (just ask them) fail to consider is that their supporters mainly live in cities. Forget rifles. A dozen rednecks with hand tools can cut the power, gas and utilities that makes a city possible. Revolutionary zeal would fade real fast.

TimH said...

+1 Jerry...

Zundfolge said...

And at the same time I bet this Eli soyboy is one of those obnoxious schmucks that posts memes making fun of how a bunch of Vietnamese Rice Farmers beat the US Army that one time.

Divemedic said...

What they overlook is the fact that a company of 14 tanks requires 1,000 gallons of fuel to travel 100 miles. Those same tanks must be repaired every 250 hours of operation. Keeping two F-16 jets in the air for immediate support of troops on the ground requires more than 3,000 gallons of fuel per day, plus each jet requires 12 man hours of maintenance for each hour of flight. A squadron of 18 such aircraft needs more than 400 people to keep 18 to 24 of those jets in the air, along with hundreds of other support personnel.

Each of these weapons systems are wonders of technological achievement. Therein lies the weak spot. The maintenance, arming, and fueling of these systems must, over the long term, be performed inside of fixed installations, using hundreds of personnel. Unlike our war in Iraq, the fuel and spare parts would be manufactured in the same nation where the conflict is occurring.

When a government declares war against its own citizens, the gloves come off. Convoys of fuel trucks and spare parts are easy to raid, and a tank with no fuel becomes a fixed pillbox. A jet fighter on the ground threatens no one. So the military has to spend time guarding the convoys as well as the bases. For each soldier who patrols the area, several are needed to guard their fixed bases.

Once the bases are thoroughly guarded, the citizens attack the factories that make the spare parts, the electric lines bringing them power, and the supply trucks and pipelines that supply the factories and refineries. Now the military has to use the high tech weapons and equipment to guard those.

RandyGC said...

Old NFO: Not to mention Ol' Bill denied requests for AC-130 support. The sensor suite alone could have improved things without firing a shot. And human waves attempting to swarm Rangers in fixed positions quits being fun real fast when Specter is overhead.

Geodkyt said...

And there are always more subtle sabotage measures.

Anyone in the supply chain, from the (civilian) making the widgets, to the E-3 supply guy in the Wing HQ unit, can take their entire supply of Q-36 Space Modulator computer chips, give them 10 seconds in the microwave on "Popcorn", and *return them to the supply chain*.

If the weapons system requires the Q-36 Space modulator to work, well...

Plus, a US insurgency would have a major advantage no other insurgency in modern times has faced.

ALL, literally ALL of the criticsl.components are made right here in the good old US of A, generally in plants located in reddish places, and DEFINATELY transported in plain old semi trucks down highways running through crimson red places.

At best, the Taliban could interrupt company, or maybe battalion, level resupply of parts for, MAYBE a 24 hour delay. The Flyover County Militia can shut down a *division's* supply of key components for a week or more, with one good ambush, before it even enters the military supply chain. And we CAN'T run escorted convoys or helo transport it all Stateside. Just too beaucoup, GI.

C. S. P. Schofield said...

Ah, the old “what good will small arms do against a government with tanks?” argument.

What such people fail to appreciate is that tyrannies are not run from tanks. Tyrannies are run from desks. Tanks are great for dispersing large crowds of rabble, somewhat less good at finding resistance fighters in their own territory. And in the meanwhile, the government stooges who actually move the paperwork that makes things run have to get to and from their offices.

It won’t come to tanks in the streets anytime soon. And if it does, the gun culture is full of people who fire accurately at long distances, for fun.

Years before the collapse of the USSR a friend of mine bought an old Mosin-Nagant rifle from a Afghan gentleman at a gun show. The Afghan gentleman told him it was a great anti-tank rifle. Now a Mosin-Nagant packs a punch, but anti-tank? “Oh, yes! Little man in tank must come out to pee sometime!”

Vlad said...

If it kicks off I expect something like the Irish Troubles on a grand scale. The Provos had 10,000 active fighters in an area the size of Connecticut and maintained an active insurgency against the British and Unionists for almost 30 years, ending only when the British surrendered. This was a factional struggle in developed country against a NATO army and security apparatus operating with far more power and fewer restrictions than the US security apparatus. Now consider this in places larger than the entire UK with multiple insurgent groups.

John T. Block said...

And thatst not even counting all the military who will jump ship to carry out their oaths - to "upholding, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC", esp. Spec-War. And they'll .ring a lot of their cool toys WITH them.... Let's see how Swalwell bandles an anti-tank round in his living room.....😎

Unknown said...

We missed you man!

Anonymous said...

The power grid is unguardable. It's probably the biggest national security vulnerability we have.

Peripatetic Engineer said...

You forgot Finland fighting Russia in the Winter War and the Continuation War, and while not exactly winning, didn't lose either. Where did we get the Molotov Cocktail? Finland. Who was the best sniper? A Fin. Classic strike hard and disappear tactics employed to good effect.

C. S. P. Schofield said...

@ Peripatetic Engineer,

Moreover, the likely totalitarians - the Left - are disdainful of military history, while we Deplorables read it for fun.

Anonymous said...

As a Believer, I pray that this never visits our shores again! The South has only now begun to recover from the "recent unpleasantness" & its aftermath.

That said, I WILL uphold the Oath. Period.

Ulises
From CA

Ellendra said...

Lots of people have commented already about the need for fuel, parts, and maintenance crews to keep the military running. I'll just add one more thing to the list:


FOOD!

Those of us who grow your food are also the ones most likely to see Big Government as the enemy. Blame it on a lifetime of having to dance around ridiculous regulations that probably made perfect sense in an air-conditioned high-rise office with people who never grew so much as a daisy, but which just don't work out here on the ground.


Country folk can survive just fine without big cities. Big cities can't survive without the country.

Cameron said...

Agreed. I *don't* want this to happen here ever.

Larry said...

How many Guard and Reserve armories would get raided in order to acquire AT, AA, and other heavy weapons? How many of those raids would be inside jobs? Yeah, things would equalize rather quickly. Even if the Air Force and Air NG went all in for the government, how many of their bases are protected in any effective way to prevent either the disabling of aircraft by very long range rifle fire or by sappers? How many troops would it take to secure an airfield against raids like that? Yeah, Swalwell and the rest of them have no idea of how much they don't know.

Kristophr said...

The well guarded official, or the hippie in the Prius covered with Obama stickers?

Article writer does not understand how bad his scenario can get.

Anonymous said...

All these above mentioned guerilla movements sustained themselves and succeeded in one or the other way tanks to foreign support. Oh, I forgot, Americans were so superior, that they did not need one. They even turned down such offers from certain frog-eating nation and did not have any foreign officers acting as advisors. They did not that, having their Kentucky rifles, eagles and all. But still Iam wondering which foreign power is going to support them in their valiant struggle against their tyrannical government? Silly question, I know, but still.
Perhaps Israel would be willing to help. Or maybe Saudi Arabia? Obviously, they are both freedom loving, so I am sure they would back up the patriotic side against some villanous terrorists.

Larry said...

Silly Anonymous Coward, you assume the full might of the United States would be deployed without ever considering where that might is drawn from. I think it would likely be blue coastal enclaves that would soon be begging for foreign intervention.

Webfoot Logger said...

While discussing this elsewhere, I pointed out the vulnerabilities of the food supply, and some twit protested "but the farms are owned by the city people!"

. . .

"Not any more."

And of course, most country types figure that the only thing that comes out of the cities is trouble.

Ellendra said...

"but the farms are owned by the city people!"


Was there a time in the last 100 years when that was true? I mean for the majority of farms, not just the occasional ones? Because I'm having trouble even picturing where that statement came from.

In the area around my farm, I think mine is the only one that could even remotely fit that description right now. And that's only because I'm stuck living with relatives until construction on the house is further along. Said relatives freely admit that I do NOT belong in the city! The noise and chaos chafe too much.

Elkad said...

Even if the claim that "city people" (or companies) own the farms is legally accurate, they still don't actually own them. They own paper.

The families living and working there own the farms.

Anonymous said...

There are historical examples of sufficiently evil and ruthless leftist regimes defeating resistance from the countryside. The genocide at Tours, and the genocide of the Vendee, during the French Revolution. (Ghastly. The French army ran out of ammo shooting women and children, until they were bayonetting their countrymen and shoveling the bodies into ditches. They shelled their own cities into the ground. Don't think the leftists don't hate us enough to try it.) The liquidation of the Kulaks. The dispossession of the Scotts and Irish.

If we don't have organization and logistics down, to maintain, arm, and supply a small-arms based rebellion, there's no guarantee that a rebellion against tyranny will go our way.

We seem to have skilled people, who have small caches of supplies sufficient to keep them from starving for a month or so. We probably need more to last against a genocidal government.

MadRocketSci

Mattexian said...

I wonder how well that Prius would run with syrup in the gas tank or a wrench across battery terminals.

SDN said...

"There are historical examples of sufficiently evil and ruthless leftist regimes defeating resistance from the countryside. The genocide at Tours, and the genocide of the Vendee, during the French Revolution. (Ghastly. The French army ran out of ammo shooting women and children, until they were bayonetting their countrymen and shoveling the bodies into ditches. They shelled their own cities into the ground. Don't think the leftists don't hate us enough to try it.) The liquidation of the Kulaks. The dispossession of the Scotts and Irish."

And what do every single one of your examples have in common? Cities that didn't require electricity. Cities that could feed themselves from a days travel. Cities that were far smaller.

NITZAKHON said...

As others have pointed out, electricity is the one of the key vulnerabilities. That military? Gonna be busy with the chaos in the cities when the power gets cut off.

Don't forget, too, fire. Many cities are block after block of woodframe houses. That go up nicely on dry days with a breeze... oops, can't fight a fire when there's no water pressure in the lines.

So the cities have no power, no climate control, no food, no running water. You're starting to be up to your elbows in feces from people having to go. The police are gone, fire services are gone, and now a fire burns you out.

As others have pointed out on multiple blogs, once that switch gets thrown... bad things happen.

And I was talking with a "reasonable" liberal about this. He said they'd appeal to the UN for help. So I asked... "OK. Never mind the logistics of Russia or China getting all those troops here. Let's assume they can. Let's assume they actually manage to pacify the place at a cost of millions of your fellow Americans' lives - never mind lots of their own. You think they're going to just hand it all over to you and go home?"

The idea that they would NOT do so clearly had never occurred to them given their reaction. They truly thought the, say, Russians would spend countless Rubles and lives and then just hand it over back to them. This is the kind of delusion we face.

Hugh Tauerner said...

According to the father of a friend of mine, who worked in the "Ministry" (never specified which). There were only between 2 and 5,000 active fighters. The problem was the non-combatant supporters who supplied, hid, fed, transported, etc. the fighters.

The Man from the Ministry also opined that there were never more than a couple of hundred hard-core Provos in England, but there was a huge number of passive supporters. They ran a very successful bombing campaign in the 1970s with that small number