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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Why "a free state" as opposed to "the state"? [View all]Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)39. On insurrection, etc.:
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...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

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
The colonies had no legal authority to appoint them. The colonies belonged to the Crown.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#22
No, they were not unorganized. They were self-organized. Even anarchists do that.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#31
The idea of citizen-militias with rifles defending a 21st century First-World country.
DetlefK
Oct 2015
#6
"...the right of the people to keep and bear explosives shall not be infringed."
DetlefK
Oct 2015
#9
And the purpose of the militia is to secure "a free state" -- not "the state." Hence the OP.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#15
Well, it certainly wouldn't be worth it for their own government to wage war on them.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#29
Do you think you could pacify 80+ million people with over 300 million weapons?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#8
So because the Germans abrogated their basic human decency that gives you the moral authority
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#20
"Well, tell me how many militia-men and how many rifles it would take to take down the FBI..."
beevul
Oct 2015
#40
a Free State...a republican gov't. And how it is to remain so, via the Militias.
jmg257
Oct 2015
#44