Want to know who has a monopoly of force in America?

[Devils Paintbrush]

Power, fuel and heating oil out for two weeks would be enough to get it started.

If things progress the way they did in New Orleans, the police will be scarce and not on your side. This will be the moment where anti-gun types will realize they made a big mistake.

 

[JoseyWales]

Just remember, many Connecticutians stood in line to register their rifles when coerced asked to do so. So, a segment of gun owners are government boot lickers.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Just remember, many Connecticutians stood in line to register their rifles when coerced asked to do so. So, a segment of gun owners are government boot lockers.

I seem to remember that the Gov't was pissed because they only had about a 10% compliance. Most owners said FU to CT from what I read.

 

[Uzi2]

Just remember, many Connecticutians stood in line to register their rifles when coerced asked to do so. So, a segment of gun owners are government boot lockers.

Obviously, you either missed or ignored this in post #3.

"When people have nothing left to lose, the rule of law and those who try to enforce the rule of law will be extinguished."

 

[Grendizer138]

You think that election was legit? He's just as illegitimate as the buffoon in the White House.

Thankfully, we have a super majority republican legislature here that can override at will any veto Beshear hands out.

Which one? His election in 2018 or re-election in 2022?

 

[Grendizer138]

I seem to remember that the Gov't was pissed because they only had about a 10% compliance. Most owners said FU to CT from what I read.

As with New York, Massachusetts, etc, compliance isn’t the real goal though. They’re playing the long game.

Civil disobedience is a good thing, but it’s a far cry from using force to affirm rights.

 

[Uzi2]

Which one? His election in 2018 or re-election in 2022?

His reelection in 2023

I know why he was elected in 2019.

 

[slap shot]

C’mon, we’ve renamed the funny thread to “Go Time”. We are serious!!!!

 

[Dennis in MA]

Oh. Monopoly of FORCE. I was confused. I was torn between the wheelbarrow, the shoe and the thimble. Never the iron.

 

[MisterHappy]

Force = Mass * Acceleration

There is a Mass of arms (rifles, pistols, etc.), but there is no acceleration. All of them are at rest. Why? Because there is no immediate, palpable threat.


At least to most people.

The only people in the streets these days, are pro- Palestinian "students" and maybe some people gluing their hands to the road, or whatever.

 

[fencer]

The responses on this board alone is more than enough evidence to show that they enjoy the boot on their neck.

How old were you when you got your Combat Action Ribbon?

 

[Picton]

I can't believe that there is NOT 250,000 conservative licensed gun owners in MA. the problem is, they refuse to organize and take the steps needed to influence things. They're too worried about "suitability" issues.

Come on back and lead us, O Great One. We clearly need you.

 

[fencer]

OP, we all admire your gusto. And we all agree with you that if we had to, for our families and our lives, yes... we would fight.
But I would do so, resigned to the fact that I would surely die.
I was in the Corps a long time ago. Not Viet Nam long ago, but before the ACOG when Marines qualified with irons. And even back then, in the late 80's early 90's, a platoon sized force could absolutely decimate a town or city. Add some artillery or some close air support and if you are not really well dug in, you are shitified.
So if the time ever comes, and I pray that it never does, I do not labor under the delusion that me and my neighbors and going to be victorious against real troops, with our AR's and deer rifles.

The biggest concern the modern military has, is not killing people and blowing shit up, it is not utterly destroying an entire town/ city/ county because they were too aggressive. We could have killed every living thing in Iraq and Afghanistan easily, it is much harder adhering to the rules of engagement and carefully selecting targets.

Everyone always says, "Well the Vietnamese did it". No, they didn't. We lost 60k men in Nam and it is a tragedy, but 3 million Vietnamese died.
And in Nam we didn't have Predator drones, infrared,thermal, night vision or Apaches with laser guided munitions.
But if go time ever comes, the best chance you have is to start digging in, and if they decide to come for you, make your peace with God and do the best you can.

 

[Picton]

OP, we all admire your gusto. And we all agree with you that if we had to, for our families and our lives, yes... we would fight.
But I would do so, resigned to the fact that I would surely die.
I was in the Corps a long time ago. Not Viet Nam long ago, but before the ACOG when Marines qualified with irons. And even back then, in the late 80's early 90's, a platoon sized force could absolutely decimate a town or city. Add some artillery or some close air support and if you are not really well dug in, you are shitified.
So if the time ever comes, and I pray that it never does, I do not labor under the delusion that me and my neighbors and going to be victorious against real troops, with our AR's and deer rifles.

The biggest concern the modern military has, is not killing people and blowing shit up, it is not utterly destroying an entire town/ city/ county because they were too aggressive. We could have killed every living thing in Iraq and Afghanistan easily, it is much harder adhering to the rules of engagement and carefully selecting targets.

Everyone always says, "Well the Vietnamese did it". No, they didn't. We lost 60k men in Nam and it is a tragedy, but 3 million Vietnamese died.
And in Nam we didn't have Predator drones, infrared,thermal, night vision or Apaches with laser guided munitions.
But if go time ever comes, the best chance you have is to start digging in, and if they decide to come for you, make your peace with God and do the best you can.

Once upon a time, I sat on a hillside for almost a week. The opposite side of the valley had a village alongside a road. The village was a little under 3,000m from our hooches.

I had some trucks, three 81mm mortar tubes (but enough ammo for four), an M2, a Mark 19, and 26 bored paratroopers.

Every single day, it occurred to me that if I wanted to, and if there was no such thing as rules of war, and if I could get my men to go along with the idea, I could literally wipe that entire village off the map. Without so much as getting off my ass. Like, literally, we could have systematically destroyed that village using nothing but the organic weapons assigned to a single airborne mortar platoon (with a deadlined tube, no less). It might have taken a couple of hours, tops.

Then we could have gone back to our lunch, or smoked a cigar, or taken a nap. It scared me a little, having that much combat power at my disposal. It was the first time I understood the importance of discipline and unit cohesion to keep guys from being dumb, because obviously history is full of armies who would have simply gone ahead and wasted the village.

Even our own troops have done that a time or two.

I have no illusions, either. It would probably be impossible for government forces to fully subdue a restive civilian population, nationwide... but if me and my compadres just happened to be downrange of a properly organized and trained US maneuver element? Well, they'd certainly subdue me, locally.

 

[PatMcD]

OP, we all admire your gusto. And we all agree with you that if we had to, for our families and our lives, yes... we would fight.
But I would do so, resigned to the fact that I would surely die.
I was in the Corps a long time ago. Not Viet Nam long ago, but before the ACOG when Marines qualified with irons. And even back then, in the late 80's early 90's, a platoon sized force could absolutely decimate a town or city. Add some artillery or some close air support and if you are not really well dug in, you are shitified.
So if the time ever comes, and I pray that it never does, I do not labor under the delusion that me and my neighbors and going to be victorious against real troops, with our AR's and deer rifles.

The biggest concern the modern military has, is not killing people and blowing shit up, it is not utterly destroying an entire town/ city/ county because they were too aggressive. We could have killed every living thing in Iraq and Afghanistan easily, it is much harder adhering to the rules of engagement and carefully selecting targets.

Everyone always says, "Well the Vietnamese did it". No, they didn't. We lost 60k men in Nam and it is a tragedy, but 3 million Vietnamese died.
And in Nam we didn't have Predator drones, infrared,thermal, night vision or Apaches with laser guided munitions.
But if go time ever comes, the best chance you have is to start digging in, and if they decide to come for you, make your peace with God and do the best you can.

Once upon a time, I sat on a hillside for almost a week. The opposite side of the valley had a village alongside a road. The village was a little under 3,000m from our hooches.

I had some trucks, three 81mm mortar tubes (but enough ammo for four), an M2, a Mark 19, and 26 bored paratroopers.

Every single day, it occurred to me that if I wanted to, and if there was no such thing as rules of war, and if I could get my men to go along with the idea, I could literally wipe that entire village off the map. Without so much as getting off my ass. Like, literally, we could have systematically destroyed that village using nothing but the organic weapons assigned to a single airborne mortar platoon (with a deadlined tube, no less). It might have taken a couple of hours, tops.

Then we could have gone back to our lunch, or smoked a cigar, or taken a nap. It scared me a little, having that much combat power at my disposal. It was the first time I understood the importance of discipline and unit cohesion to keep guys from being dumb, because obviously history is full of armies who would have simply gone ahead and wasted the village.

Even our own troops have done that a time or two.

I have no illusions, either. It would probably be impossible for government forces to fully subdue a restive civilian population, nationwide... but if me and my compadres just happened to be downrange of a properly organized and trained US maneuver element? Well, they'd certainly subdue me, locally.

I think we all would agree that an unorganized, undisciplined "group" with guns would last maybe 5 minutes up against an equipped platoon of US soldiers or Marines.

The real question is: would the soldiers or Marines in that platoon wage war on their fellow citizens?

 

[Picton]

I think we all would agree that an unorganized, undisciplined "group" with guns would last maybe 5 minutes up against an equipped platoon of US soldiers or Marines.

Actually, I think there is a substantial number of posters on this site who firmly believe they would do just fine against a fully equipped platoon of US soldiers or Marines.

The real question is: would the soldiers or Marines in that platoon wage war on their fellow citizens?

I think it's highly likely. I don't think it would be all that hard to get them to do it.

 

[Grendizer138]

Once upon a time, I sat on a hillside for almost a week. The opposite side of the valley had a village alongside a road. The village was a little under 3,000m from our hooches.

I had some trucks, three 81mm mortar tubes (but enough ammo for four), an M2, a Mark 19, and 26 bored paratroopers.

Every single day, it occurred to me that if I wanted to, and if there was no such thing as rules of war, and if I could get my men to go along with the idea, I could literally wipe that entire village off the map. Without so much as getting off my ass. Like, literally, we could have systematically destroyed that village using nothing but the organic weapons assigned to a single airborne mortar platoon (with a deadlined tube, no less). It might have taken a couple of hours, tops.

Then we could have gone back to our lunch, or smoked a cigar, or taken a nap. It scared me a little, having that much combat power at my disposal. It was the first time I understood the importance of discipline and unit cohesion to keep guys from being dumb, because obviously history is full of armies who would have simply gone ahead and wasted the village.

Even our own troops have done that a time or two.

I have no illusions, either. It would probably be impossible for government forces to fully subdue a restive civilian population, nationwide... but if me and my compadres just happened to be downrange of a properly organized and trained US maneuver element? Well, they'd certainly subdue me, locally.

Good reminder of why the government finds autonomous vehicles, drones, robots and AI so appealing. Human conscience is such a buzz kill.

 

[bigben111435]

True, but that fortitude can and will be obtained, along with a whole bunch of malice when push comes to shove.

When people have nothing left to lose, the rule of law and those who try to enforce the rule of law will be extinguished.

so we are all gonna rush the mexican border?

 

[B35]

We're unlikely to use force against the government as long as water and food distribution stays on track. Bottom line. And the disruption would need to be widespread and open-ended.

I believe just about anything short of that would not give sufficient justification for most of us to use force to overthrow the government. Some? Sure. Most? Nope.

I agree 100%. There is a playbook and destruction or our supply lines is in bold print. Our enemies foreign and domestic know this, while our kids are learning how to set themselves on fire with Tik Tok Challenges.

 

[Picton]

I agree 100%. There is a playbook and destruction or our supply lines is in bold print. Our enemies foreign and domestic know this, while our kids are learning how to set themselves on fire with Tik Tok Challenges.

Well, not really. I think if the supply disruptions were clearly caused by a foreign power, then that wouldn't set off a popular revolt; on the contrary, I think it would tend to solidify support for the government. Outside attacks usually do.

This would need to be a disruption of wide effect and long duration, with the government either responsible for it or sitting on their hands. It's honestly difficult for me to imagine that kind of catastrophe; the Yellowstone eruption would probably do it, but when that happens there'll be enough other problems that a mere civil war won't really register.

Think of something like the fumbled response in the early stages of Hurricane Katrina, but spread over maybe a third (or more) of the whole country, and lasting long enough that people stop believing the government when it tells them "help is on the way." Something like that might set off the revolt so many here are looking for.

 

[Uzi2]

Well, not really. I think if the supply disruptions were clearly caused by a foreign power, then that wouldn't set off a popular revolt; on the contrary, I think it would tend to solidify support for the government. Outside attacks usually do.

This would need to be a disruption of wide effect and long duration, with the government either responsible for it or sitting on their hands. It's honestly difficult for me to imagine that kind of catastrophe; the Yellowstone eruption would probably do it, but when that happens there'll be enough other problems that a mere civil war won't really register.

Think of something like the fumbled response in the early stages of Hurricane Katrina, but spread over maybe a third (or more) of the whole country, and lasting long enough that people stop believing the government when it tells them "help is on the way." Something like that might set off the revolt so many here are looking for.

People in several major cities have already stopped believing government.....because they know that help is NOT on the way.

Please name the names of "the so many here" who are "looking for a revolt".

I'll be waiting for the list.

 

[Mountain]

I don't really want to go too far down into "Wolverines!" fantasy fap fest details, I just want to point out that it won't be so easy to take a town/city of armed and motivated locals. All a platoon could do is maybe march to the town offices and make targets of themselves while they try to hold something unimportant. A town of 20K that is not 100% cucks and sheep is going to need a battalion or so to get the job done. Think Fallujah scaled down and probably worse, not some village of farmers. And how many battalions are there to spread around? OK yeah- a squad could probably take and hold Newton or Cambridge.

I think some are overestimating the abilities and motivation of fresh and untested troops and underestimating the same for armed citizens (including many vets) within non-liberal shithole towns and cities.

Also worth noting that it would be near impossible for troops to distinguish friend from foe, outside of an actual engagement. Everyone will know who the troops are and what is their location.

Seems like some states are already forming coalitions and pushing back at the feds over certain issues such as immigration. Sure the chances of a revolt are low, but I'm not going to bet on zero chance.

 

[240Geezer]

Obviously, you either missed or ignored this in post #3.

"When people have nothing left to lose, the rule of law and those who try to enforce the rule of law will be extinguished."

The rule of law is pretty much non existent at this point if you've not been paying attention.
Corruption, lawfare, and total disregard by government is rampant. My concern for ""the law" is but a mere polite lip service. I have my own little Apalachistan mentality going on here.

 

[Rockrivr1]

A full on confrontation with trained troops would be suicide. Surprise attacks and ambushes with immediate retreat and melting back into the landscape would be the only way to consistently do damage to them. Basic guerilla warfare at the extreme. A determined group of civilians behind "enemy" lines disrupting communication and supply would work very well in a civil war scenario against the government.

 

[whatluck]

I think you greatly over estimate the amount of firepower the civilian population controls.
Of the 20 million rifles owned by civilians, I'd bet 25% are .22, 10% are not functional or properly sighted in, 10% have not been fired in more than 10 years. I would be surprised if 20 million rifles were in the hands of more than 5 million people.
And few of those rifles are where they would really count.
Sure, in the south, rural midwest and western states there are plenty of rifles, but not in New York, Boston, Chicago, LA and San Fransisco.

People think there will be an uprising when folks are pushed to the point they feel they have no choice. Truth is, there will be nothing unless the EBT system crashes.
And then you will need your rifle yo fight hordes off welfare recipients.

If you were to break i75 and i64 here in KY you would effectively cut the country in half.

 

[Uzi2]

I don't really want to go too far down into "Wolverines!" fantasy fap fest details, I just want to point out that it won't be so easy to take a town/city of armed and motivated locals. All a platoon could do is maybe march to the town offices and make targets of themselves while they try to hold something unimportant. A town of 20K that is not 100% cucks and sheep is going to need a battalion or so to get the job done. Think Fallujah scaled down and probably worse, not some village of farmers. And how many battalions are there to spread around? OK yeah- a squad could probably take and hold Newton or Cambridge.

I think some are overestimating the abilities and motivation of fresh and untested troops and underestimating the same for armed citizens (including many vets) within non-liberal shithole towns and cities.

Also worth noting that it would be near impossible for troops to distinguish friend from foe, outside of an actual engagement. Everyone will know who the troops are and what is their location.

Seems like some states are already forming coalitions and pushing back at the feds over certain issues such as immigration. Sure the chances of a revolt are low, but I'm not going to bet on zero chance.

Agree,

Many, if not most cities and towns all around this country can barely keep up with severe storms, large scale fires, multi vehicle traffic accidents and large protests.

The odds of them keeping up with any real LARGE scale, armed participant, incident that had even minor coordination would be slim to none.
That's why a lot of governments (particularly the liberal shitholes) want to disarm as much of the population as they can.

 

[VTski4x4]

There's roughly 1M active duty troops in the US in a population pushing 350M. If things start popping off in multiple states, US troops would have a bad time. If they can isolate an area and send troops, sure people will be f***ed, BUT, the US is huge. Spreading 1M troops over 50 states at the same time is going to be difficult to control. It would be a bloodbath on both sides. Remember, one man with a rifle brought the entire state of Maine to it's knees, and even with all the technology they used, it still took days to find a dead body inside a 1 mile search area.

 

[Uzi2]

The rule of law is pretty much non existent at this point if you've not been paying attention.
Corruption, lawfare, and total disregard by government is rampant. My concern for ""the law" is but a mere polite lip service. I have my own little Apalachistan mentality going on here.

I pay attention.

 

[Uzi2]

There's roughly 1M active duty troops in the US in a population pushing 350M. If things start popping off in multiple states, US troops would have a bad time. If they can isolate an area and send troops, sure people will be f***ed, BUT, the US is huge. Spreading 1M troops over 50 states at the same time is going to be difficult to control. It would be a bloodbath on both sides. Remember, one man with a rifle brought the entire state of Maine to it's knees, and even with all the technology they used, it still took days to find a dead body inside a 1 mile search area.

Yes, and one grown man and a kid shooting out of the trunk of a car had DC and much of the rest of the country walking on eggshells for a long time.

D.C. sniper attacks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[drgrant]

Unfortunately never underestimate the laziness of a typical American. Most will never leave the easy chair, tv, gaming console, and AC/heat to take up arms. At best I’d bet 10% if that would action up. The rest would just Say someone else will do it as they order another Big Mac.

10? Covidiocy proved this number is basically zero. And even those who want to take action are going to sit there and suck it up until it's likely way past the point where they should have done something. It's not even laze as much as a risk/reward thing etc.