Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Serious Hypothetical Question

short243,<BR>when i first read your post, it really upset me. i started to write a reply to it, then i stopped, and realized you are absolutely correct. truth hurts, i guess. i started thinking of all the ways to defend against your statement, and couldn't think of anything really. americans have become lazy. we rely on the gov't too much to do this for us, and give us that.<P>the more we (as a people) let the gov't give us, the more power we give it. and, if we remember high school history: absolute power absolutely corrupts. when the guns go, and i think they eventually will, the people will have no effective means of fighting back.<P>i think that the root of the problem is that there is simply too much gov't in our daily lives. think of all the silly laws that have passed, or are in the process of being passed. micromanagement, if you will. the gov't shouldn't be compelled to protect me from myself, eg, seat belt laws. the info is out that if i don't wear one, my chances of surviving an accident are reduced. leave it at that. don't go on to provide fines and punishments against me for not wearing one. i will harm nobody but myself if i choose not to wear one. the list goes on.<P>anyway, thanks for the slap...i'm more awake now.<P>------------------<BR>Hunting is not a matter of life or death. It is much more important than that.

Big Time, didn't mean to slap anyone, just an observation.I don't post alot , working 55/60+ hrs a week will do that, most times what I would have said is already said. I totally agree about the gov passing to protective laws. My dad was in WW2 and grewup in what is still rural W.Va., back then it would have been classified isolated, even then they knew that smoking was addictived and harmful, so now all of sudden it is new??????? Most law suits should be laughed out of court, it's just a sign of the times.( oh I don't smoke ).We as a nation want to pass the buck, blame someone else,be the victim.Not may will stepup and say I screwedup or made a mistake, it called responsibility, something that got lost in liberalism.Sorry, didn't mean to unload, just sometimes I gotta wonder.......

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="2">Originally posted by GreenHead:<BR><B>HOSS, this is a very good question. It's one I've thought about many times b/c I'm going into my Sr. year in ROTC in college and will be commishioned soon. Quite frankly I believe I would have to disobey that order. I cannot attack and fire on honest civilians who have firearms for sporting use. However, that quickly changes if they fire on me. Anyways, I know if we don't do something it can happen, but we're safe for at least 4 yrs. with Bush. As of the fact of trying to fight our own military I believe it's an absurd idea. If push came to shove and they really fought, just look at what we did to the Iraqi's and they were much better armed than we could ever be. I may fight the police and stuff like that, but when the military comes into the scene it's suicide. Don't want to make anyone mad or bash anyones opinions, but quite frankly if anyone thinks they could fight the military and win they're an IDIOT........GH</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I must respectfully disagree that our military, no matter how well regimented in purpose, could overcome literally millions of determined and armed citizens on our own soil.<P>Look no further than Viet Nam to see how truly difficult a task it is to root out and round up a people on their own turf.<P>Saddam Hussein had assembled the Iraqi forces at the Kuwaiti border, on desert terrain where cover was virtually non existent. This situation, for a military as sophisiticated as our own, was like "shooting fish in a barrel."<P>But in America's vast expanses of wilderness, and even in smaller wooded areas, concealment would be plentiful. Deer rifles pressed into that most solemn of services would blaze at random from the trees, domiciles and other structures. Yes, our military's armament is awesome (thank God and Reagan), but in this case they would find their task much like hunting cockroaches with a sledgehammer.<P>Infrared devices which are often useful at locating life in the trees would be confounded by the game population in the forests. Have they found Eric Rudolph yet?<P>This all said, I must admit that I have a somewhat less jaded view of what our future may hold. Call me naive, but I think our government is fully aware of the excercise in futility that an attempted armed takeover of this populace would be. I'll grant you all that I deeply mistrust the United Nations, and I know that the powers that be within that organization view America's militia (we the people ARE the militia, by the way) as a problem. I believe if there were an attempt on our president's life that UN thugs would be behind it.<P>God bless you all, and know your deer rifle's 600 yard zero...<P>Wizard

Wizard, your point is a good one, but I must respectfully disagree. While we may be able to make the military think twice in some cases, I don't think it would be too much of a fight even in the woods. Most of the military can move quickly from place to place, and they also can move quietly from place to place. Most (not all) hunters and various other peoples have almost no skill at woodsmanship. They can't move very quietly, and most are probably out of shape enough that they can't move quickly either. And I'll bet the army guys with those M-16s could probably outshoot many, if not most, hunters and sportsman and such. <BR> In Vietnam, they up against another army that had all of those skills and had the advantage of knowing the terrain much better than our guys. If it comes to another civil war, they will be fighting mostly overweight (not mostly, but still), out of shape guys that can't move quietly if their life depended upon it. Admittedly, we would know the terrain better, but our lack of training and skill would cost us big time. Now, I won't say that anybody on this campfire is like the above. I don't know you all, and I don't want to offend anybody here. But I do think that would apply to the average Joe whose hunting season is the duration of deer season, and whose idea of sighting in a gun is shooting it once on the day before.<BR>

I'll post once more here, and let that be my last word on this subject.<P>The days of the virile American male may be, as some here obviously believe, over. It is my contention that those folks are wrong.<BR>If they aren't wrong, then America has no hope. I cannot and will not believe that. I have deep faith in the ability of Americans to rise to the needs of dire occasions, and in my own optimistic view, those few extra pounds on some of us may actually come in more handy than not in an extended conflict. Right or wrong on that point, I still maintain my belief that Americans have a greater collective resolve than some give us credit for. <P>I think that there are ample individuals, men and women, who won't cower in the face of a military attack. I truly believe that the fighting spirit inherent in most Americans would be awakened, and any enemy, be it foreign or domestic, would be ultimately overwhelmed.<BR> A couple of years ago there was actually a study into this very matter conducted by an ex-military officer (Army I believe). His conclusion was that a martial law takeover of the population of America, if resisted by the percentage of Americans expected to resist, would be a "certain tactical failure in 90 to 180 days." If memory serves, this report had been commissioned in the shadow of uncertainty concerning the year 2000 changeover.<P>What concerns me is not the question as to whether we could stand as citizens against military forces and prevail (this question has already been answered in the affirmative by individuals far more learned than those of us at this forum). What concerns me is the apathy and sense of "learned helplessness" which has apparently been well instilled into folks who would be better served (and would better serve America) by seeking and cultivating the confidence necessary to stand and fight for our liberty if threatened. If the forces that may eventually oppose us are successful in convincing us that "resistance is futile," then they will have won without firing a shot. <BR> Standing and fighting, not cowering, as we break the Tree of Liberty's fast with that protein rich sustenance which, according to Jefferson, it craves "from time to time" is exactly what our forefathers and God would have us do.<P>In closing I'll advance the notion that by reading between the lines of the words in this thread, one may glean insight into just how each of us might behave in a doomsday scenario such as the one being discussed here. Unless I miss my count, the "liberators" are the majority by a margin of better than three to one. And so I'm encouraged... <P>Respectfully, <P>Wizard

Well Wizard, we'll agree to disagree (respectfully), and hope to God that we never have to find out who is right. If that day comes, I'll pray to God that you are right. <BR>

Folks, this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. Living in Michigan, I have seen the "militia" up close and frankly, I'm not impressed. The ones that I saw were mostly "wannabees". They may have had some military experience, but they were many years and pounds removed from the days when they could hump a ruck all day long. Sure, there are all kinds of examples like the Vietcong, the Afghans, or even our own minutemen. What we forget is that all of these "militias" suffered astronomical losses compared to the professional armies that they fought against. <BR>Another thing, it's easy to sit here and beat our chests when our families are safe and we are warm dry and comfortable. But, think about what we'd be facing; our families being rounded up and carted away to "re-education" camps, our houses and belongings burnt or confiscated, all of this while we live like hunted animals. How many of us would be willing to sacrifice all that we love when the alternative is to lose everything? Remember this, the Geneva Convention won't apply to us because we aren't an army, we'd be terrorists in the eyes of the state. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone, just cast a realistic light on the subject.<BR>Having said all of that, I too would like to believe that I would have the courage to stand. It IS better to die on your feet than to live on your knees (it was Emiliano Zapata that said that). To attempt to fight a professional army (even the sad, dispirited one we field today) in the woods and fields of this country is suicide. It's the cities where the most good can be done. If GI Joe has to worry about getting his a-- shot off every time he goes outside, pretty soon he'll get panicky. Panicky troops do stupid things (Remember My Lai?) which would win more people to our cause. Stand up fights are for TV and Movies. Sure, I can't run 5 miles in 40 minutes anymore, but I CAN pick off a prairie dog at 400 yards. That gives me an edge. Armored troops have to pee some time, that means getting out of the tank. Since the average person is way bigger than a pd, I'll be further away. If I wound him, so what? The screaming demoralizes the enemy and creates more problems than if he just died.<BR>Plus, in the city, ANYONE can be your enemy. The barber, the waiter, the bartender. Just ask Nam vets about that. <BR>Will it happen in my lifetime? I hope to God not. In any case, all of this can be avoided if people would just start paying attention and holding their representative's feet to the fire. Don't just vote once a year and go back to sleep, get involved. We didn't get this way over night, we won't get back unless we fight harder. It really annoys me when I ask someone the stats on their favorite sports team and they ramble on forever about each player and the team's strategy and how they can win the Super Bowl/ Stanley Cup/ World Series/ NBA Championship, yet you ask them who their representative in Congress is and they stare at you blankly. By all means, maintain your vigilance but don't let your first act be participation in the last stand!

Good question and honestly, one that I would say most of us couldn't truely answer unless we're put into the position.<P>Again folks, if it comes to this, then we've already lost our rights. Start today to keep your rights, lets not let this hypothetical scenerio see the light of day.<P>PH

Lots of interesting input here.<BR>Realistically, I think that a scant 10% of firearms owners would rally to defend hearth and home or God given essential rights.The Constitution and Bill of Rights are after all, extensions of that and even if repealed or ratified or ignored, do not negate the truth of it..<P>That'd be enough.<P>Whether the ones who aided and abetted the disarmament and subjugation of the American sheeple were from U.N. peacekeeping or N.A.T.O. forces, or home grown Americans 'trying to do their job' having no education of what this country is about, the body bags sent home would soon have the message delivered.<P>I'm with most of you who pray that time does not come.<BR>In the meantime, while this incremental world system invades america like termites in a mighty building..teach your children.<BR>Keep your proficiencies well honed.<P>Get financially free from credit debt.<BR>Maintain a lower profile concerning what organizations you belong to, letters written, vendors bought from and even from sites such as this on controversial threads..<BR>Develop a small 'support group' of like minded, stable and trustworthy folks...jim<BR>