Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
39. On insurrection, etc.:
Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:25 PM
Oct 2015
Well, tell me how many militia-men and how many rifles it would take to take down the FBI, the DHS and the US-military.


It's difficult to envision any plausible scenario of widespread* insurrection in this country that included an intact US military. Any cause that provoked the uprising of even a significant minority of Americans would do the same for our military. The military would fragment, and some would be fighting with the insurrectionists. There are countless examples of such in relatively recent history.

Civilian weapons are far from irrelevant in such scenarios, especially when you factor in the difficulties a fragmented military would have in keeping complex weapons and communications systems intact in such circumstances.

*As opposed to a few yahoos taking to the hills with their rifles...

The FBI and DHS, on the other hand, have 35,000 and 188,000 employees, respectively. The DHS also employs about 200,000 contractors. Only a fraction of these employees are actually armed agents, a rather small fraction in the case of DHS. In a widespread insurrection, those are utterly trivial numbers. You can add in the c. 700,000 armed LEOs to that total...and still not have a comparatively large force (and they'd be spread out all across the country, obviously).

Of course, where we agree is here:

And the media that is keeping the population ignorant and complacent.


Yep...we're kept fat, happy, and complacent. A whole bunch of factors would have to go south real bad, real fast for Americans to contemplate rebellion. It's not in corporate best interests, y'see...

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Defense against what? Human101948 Oct 2015 #1
I don't think the army of the crown wore jackboots in those days but if you're referring to Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #3
Certainly they killed British officers and troops as members of a militia or army... Human101948 Oct 2015 #12
All of them. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #14
A unique reinterpretation of history... Human101948 Oct 2015 #17
Who formed the Continental Congress? Who appointed the officers? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #18
They were not self-appointed... Human101948 Oct 2015 #21
The colonies had no legal authority to appoint them. The colonies belonged to the Crown. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #22
It was not a group of unorganized individuals... Human101948 Oct 2015 #23
No, they were not unorganized. They were self-organized. Even anarchists do that. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #31
Know your history... sarisataka Oct 2015 #26
It is not applicable today upaloopa Oct 2015 #2
The idea of a free state has no place in the modern world? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #4
The idea of citizen-militias with rifles defending a 21st century First-World country. DetlefK Oct 2015 #6
You mean like Vietnam, Afghanistan or Cuba? DonP Oct 2015 #7
"...the right of the people to keep and bear explosives shall not be infringed." DetlefK Oct 2015 #9
Common misconception sarisataka Oct 2015 #10
Sounds like you have a problem with the first amendment too beardown Oct 2015 #13
And the purpose of the militia is to secure "a free state" -- not "the state." Hence the OP. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #15
The Swiss aren't prepping to wage war against their own country. DetlefK Oct 2015 #25
Well, it certainly wouldn't be worth it for their own government to wage war on them. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #29
In 1968 we used to see the red light on the horizon upaloopa Oct 2015 #32
I'm guessing the enemy was resoundingly defeated. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #33
And all that hardware is why we won against the little men with rifles, oh wait. DonP Oct 2015 #34
Do you think you could pacify 80+ million people with over 300 million weapons? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #8
It doesn't take violence for a tyrant to prevent a revolution. DetlefK Oct 2015 #11
Your every argument seems to depend on very lurid fantasies. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #16
How many Germans opposed Hitler? DetlefK Oct 2015 #19
So because the Germans abrogated their basic human decency that gives you the moral authority Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #20
All I'm saying is that weapons don't guarantee freedom from tyranny. DetlefK Oct 2015 #24
"How likely is a tyranny to break out?" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #30
Gordian Knot complexity valuation beardown Oct 2015 #35
Many non-Germans did. Straw Man Oct 2015 #36
Tyrants discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #28
On insurrection, etc.: Lizzie Poppet Oct 2015 #39
"Well, tell me how many militia-men and how many rifles it would take to take down the FBI..." beevul Oct 2015 #40
Oh, you're dreaming of a big, clear-cut revolution of good-vs-evil. DetlefK Oct 2015 #41
I'm dreaming? Its YOUR hypothetical. beevul Oct 2015 #42
My bad. I had lost track of this thread. DetlefK Oct 2015 #43
No problem. I appreciate you owning up to it. beevul Oct 2015 #45
But this would lead to new problems for the rebels: DetlefK Oct 2015 #46
Feel free to start a repeal movement, keep us posted on the progress DonP Oct 2015 #5
Were not sarisataka Oct 2015 #27
The Militia were STATE entities, long before the 2nd was authored, jmg257 Oct 2015 #37
I've read several of the opinions offered in your thread discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #38
a Free State...a republican gov't. And how it is to remain so, via the Militias. jmg257 Oct 2015 #44
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Why "a free state&qu...»Reply #39