reply to post by sheepslayer247
With the military in the mix it's a whole different story.
This is somewhat true. I will explain more in a bit.
If they were called into to quell an uprising, we may be screwed. But I don't think members of the military are going to open fire on American
citizens. That may be naive, but I believe it nonetheless.
This is a very iffy situation. I can tell you, as a uniformed member of the military service - that I would prefer to never have to fire a weapon at
anyone, especially people in my own country. However, perhaps it would be better to tell you what criteria would have to be met for me to engage
"civilians" in an armed or unarmed uprising.
For me - it would be partly about how it's done. If, say, my home state of Missouri decided it was going to become its own free nation (a power
granted to it by the Constitution and inherent to the concepts of self-governance), that's fine. However, if they were to then use militia and guard
to strike against other states or federal forces without provocation, then I would be of the opinion that military force is necessary and proper.
If the 'uprising' became violent toward groups other than the bureaucrats. It's fine to go grab the guy sitting in the office and toss him out on
the front lawn, and say that things are going to be different. It's another thing to turn over cars, set buildings (and people) on fire, etc. If I
would normally be sympathetic to your cause - that will convince me you need to be smacked and told to sit down.
Another thing to consider - if someone shoots at me, strikes at me, etc - it will be returned ten fold. I don't give a damned who they are, what
uniform they wear, etc. So, becoming violent towards the military and its members is -not- recommended. Yes, 'we' may show up. Stop and think
about it -very- carefully before taking any hostile action. From 'our' viewpoint - there are a few thousand angry people armed with whatever they
picked up on their way to form a 'mob' (of sorts). We've all seen the videos of riots, fires, and senseless destruction that come from them. That
is what 'we' are there to prevent. 'We' are also out-numbered at least 10:1 in most cases - and are probably very scared of the prospect of
having that mob storm us. There are few ways to die that are worse than being captured by a group of a hundred angry people.
Generally speaking - it would be a very good idea to try and use the military as an intermediary. The politicians can write away all they want to in
that building. Nothing they write is going to make us do anything we don't want to. Nothing could be so fundamental to this principle as firing on
our own friends, families, families of friends, friends of family, etc. We don't want to see people die. And, in general, we in the military are
not very fond of the bureaucrats placed in charge of us, or the policies they tend to try and shove down everyone's throat.
If we are talking a major uprising, involving the militia, then the military could not put it down. If it does involve the militias - it's likely a
large portion of our military will defect to their cause, anyway. The militia, military, and alphabet-soup agencies are far more closely related than
any bureaucrat would like. The militias would not take any serious action without already having some good deals cut with the military, local
governments, etc. The militia are the "end game" - the "exit strategy" and the "order in the chaos."
Without them - and the backing of local governments - you may as well view our share of North America the same way we look at the former USSR.