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]beevul
(12,194 posts)45. No problem. I appreciate you owning up to it.
My bad. I had lost track of this thread.
No problem. I appreciate you owning up to it. That puts you a step above many of your colleagues.
Let me repeat the question, with additional clarification:
What makes you think that any of those (military, DHS, FBI) would be the primary or even secondary targets chosen by insurgents, in your hypothetical? Do you think insurgents would let anyone else dictate the conditions of engagement, or that they would engage on any terms but their own?
How quickly and effectively did the DHS FBI and military eliminate the threat of the DC sniper with a glorified 22, for example. Change that to a hypothetical of a 5 person team, with larger long distance rifles, shooting from concealment 2500 feet or farther, and its a can of worms the likes of which we have never seen and I hope we never do see. I shudder to think what ten thousand of them would do in a real insurgency.
You're falling into the same trap in your thinking, as the british did when they marched in lines against future Americans sniping their leaders from within the trees. You can't effectively dictate terms of engagement to organized insurgents, and We have not in any conflict in the history of this nation within or without, to my knowledge.
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