It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Citizens Vs. Government

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
As we all know, the recent shootings have sparked a lot of talk about banning/keeping guns. I know this is another thread however I would like to find out why pro gun Americans feel the way they do. It seems as though many do not like the idea of British and any other foreigners criticizing their gun laws, sure we should not have any say in your internal affairs, however that does not stop us from stigmatizing other nations when similar events occur.

I want to address a comment I have heard a lot the last few days... The constitution allows us to have guns so that we can protect ourselves from the government...

I have two issues with this statement, first.









We live in the 21st century, as you continue to supply the demand for guns you also provide government with superior weapons technology. If the likes of China and Russia are going to have difficulties attacking the US how are unorganized groups with no internet and IPhone signal going to fight back during martial law?

Also if Americans cannot defend themselves against an ill psychopath with a gun, how will guns protect them against the largest and most advanced army in the world, not forgetting the police and perhaps even international forces.



I just feel we need a bit of a reality check, we need more than numbers and consumer guns to fight the corruption we see today. We need to look at the system itself, people who think guns will protect them are blind and so are those who blame all the recent issues on gun culture. I would like to see guns reduced in the US, that includes taking them away for the police and more precautions could be put in place to stop the government using them on people.




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Agreed, I don't think the protect against the government argument really holds up. There are other points to make that are far more credible.

You don't even mention how easy it is to cut people off from resources like food or water. Shut down the supply chains for a few weeks and very few are going to be left to fight if the government really is going to try and create an overt police state.

Unless the people who say they need to defend against the gov. have complete local production of food, water, and other sustenance. And belong to some militia type group, their argument basically fails and they are either not well thought out or hypocrites.


Basically what I'm saying is that if all you are relying on is guns to protect yourself from the potential of a government martial takeover...then you are screwed.

edit on 12/16/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I'd note two things myself in your points and they aren't bad ones to make, to be honest. It is an area people need to put thought into as they debate this whole thing.

First, your military pictures are valid and a VERY important point. I've heard more than one vet say that if a group of American civilians, however well prepared they think they are, encounters a unit of well disciplined and trained military ready to fight ....the civilians will be obliterated to a person and in the time it takes to talk about it.

However, you assume the Military would cooperate and follow orders to shoot Americans. I don't believe they will in numbers sufficient to make a difference and those who do may be fragged by their own men for attempting to directly fight American civilians. The Military in the U.S. isn't quite the automatons other systems train their soldiers to be. It was one of the greatest strengths of U.S. Military forces over the old Soviet military. If Soviet style trained forces lose their Officers, they are screwed. Their whole training is about Obey, Comply and Follow Orders. Period. If Our side does? someone down to the new guy is trained with allowance for initiative to act on their own when needed.

___________________

Second.... That cowardly piece of garbage with the industrial size pepper bottle at U.C. Davis was a big, brave man there soaking peaceful and peace minded protesters. Occupy? Fight nose to nose with a serious ability to win?? Really??? This cop KNEW that and felt just fine and safe doing that.

I'd love to have seen that fat gomer try that at the 2nd Amendment Rally in D.C.. Many Many people would have ended the day hurt on both sides, because he wouldn't have made the spray to the second person before the whole line took to their feet to stomp his butt into the cement. That's the difference, among many, between Right and Left. Left will get abused and complain and whine and sue. They get abused frequently because of this. The Right? Tends to stomp an abuser....and deal with the fall out, if any, after the abuser is no longer an issue. There are benefits to seeing violence as a tool and not something to avoid at ALL costs under ALL conditions.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
First off, I believe there are still peaceful means to deal with a rogue government. That said...

Not all of our military and police are going to follow orders blindly when it comes to assaulting their own countrymen. Not all of these folks are mindless zombies with guns. In a full blown conflict, you're going to see division in the ranks.

At this point in time, I do believe it is the second amendment that has kept things from spiraling out of control for this long. If the American people let go of their second amendment rights at this point, it's all over.

It's no longer a matter of Americans using them in a revolution. It's a matter of common ground among the citizenry. It is a matter of drawing a line in the sand, and saying, this far, and no further.

Unfortunately, this is a pissing match between Americans, their "leaders", and the UN. It remains to be seen who wins that match in the end.

ETA: You beat me to some of it Wrabbit. Good post.


edit on 12/16/2012 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


That is a good point too, we (most Western nations) are simply not capable off looking after ourselves let alone fighting back. You cannot take an army to war on an empty stomach. I am not suggestinh we all just give up, we just need to be more broad and change the system which is a failure. I would rather we try to do something about it now then wait 10 years and try to throw stones at a warship off the coast.

Also valid point, not all military will obey orders. It is a gamble to rely on that fact however, even with a small percentage you are still up against Apache, warships and who knows what else the government might use. We have no idea what the government have learnt from their mind control experiments too, if enough military say no it would doom the government leaders so they would only hit the kill switch when they feel they have enough control over their troops.
edit on 16-12-2012 by OwenGP185 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
You really think the whole military will just blindly obey orders and murder their own families and people? I can't see that happening. There would definitely be mutiny. Soldiers are not without some semblance of sympathy and compassion... even for enemies.




I was also under the impression that US military take oaths to uphold the Constitution, and that their first priority is to protect the peoples of the nation, even from the government if it should go corrupt.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Listen up yankees.We DO have farms,we can make booze,OUR people are running those aircraft,tanks,ships and police.And MOST of them still believe in the oath WE ALL TOOK. So no we aren't screwed.Had you ANY extensive contact with combat units you would know of our pride in DEFENDING America and our utter disgust with the leadership and our distrust of large COASTAL cities and their odd political natures,making your assessment incorrect.As is your use of a Chinese aircraft in your photo selection.

edit on 16-12-2012 by cavtrooper7 because: fininshed my point



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The world’s best trained and best equipped military force is doing so well in the Afghanistan war.
By the looks of things they aren’t doing any better than the Russians did a few years ago.
Must be something about guerrilla warfare and insurgents.

There is a valid reason why the Department of Homeland Security classified returning Veterans as potential Terrorists; we have the training and the will to defend ourselves and our neighbors against criminals, invading forces and even our own military.



If you look at the number of hunters and sport shooters in the U.S. then you will see the reason.
The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world.
www.reuters.com...

21.8 million Americans hunted at least once over the past five years. Previous estimates have shown over 14 million youth and adults hunt each year.
www.nssf.org... PDF File

United States Active Military: 1,458,219;
Reserve Military: 1,458,500;
Paramilitary: 11,035;
Total: 2,927,754
en.wikipedia.org...

The United States has the largest standing army in the world, not counting the Active and Reserve "Official" military forces, with 21.8 million Americans armed and at least somewhat familiar with their weapons.
A good sized portion of those hunters are likely former military, with some of the best training that could be provided at the time they served.

Pretty powder blue helmets make very good targets.
edit on 16-12-2012 by RedmoonMWC because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Listen up yankees.We DO have farms,we can make booze,OUR people are running those aircraft,tanks,ships and police.And MOST of them still believe in the oath WE ALL TOOK. So no we aren't screwed.Had you ANY extensive contact with combat units you would know of our pride in DEFENDING America and our utter disgust with the leadership and our distrust of large COASTAL cities and their odd political natures,making your assessment incorrect.As is your use of a Chinese aircraft in your photo selection.

edit on 16-12-2012 by cavtrooper7 because: fininshed my point


My point is not that the military might attack civilians though, I am saying that it is not a valid reason to say guns will protect the civilians. If the troops would indeed protect the civilians then what are the guns protecting from? That is my point really, whether or not the government is able to oppress with the military guns wont help, well in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I've heard this argument a lot lately and I have two examples for you:

Iraq

Afghanistan

Two countries, each smaller than the state of Texas, have been a thorn in the U.S. Military's side for the better part of a decade. The enemy forces in each country are comprised of a relatively small part of the population (mostly insurgents) and are armed with basic man-portable weaponry, improvised explosives, and guerrilla tactics.

Now, let's just say... 2% of the U.S. population (6 million) was fighting and include the troops who would uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and turn against a tyrannical government or simply refuse to kill civilians and things get interesting in a hurry. Bases would be overrun and some of the "good stuff" would now be in the hands of the "rebellion." It would be very bad for everyone involved.

However, that's all a fantasy scenario that will never happen. Long before we reached that point, the government would fix itself either through leadership change or some sort of compromise. In the modern US, nobody wins in an all-out rebellion.

Edited to add: I've basically contradicted my own argument about guns, but I simply wanted to show that the "the military has planes and tanks so guns are useless" argument is a load of crap. Millions of gun owners do nothing wrong every day but you want to ban them because of extremely isolated incidents carried about by mentally disturbed people? You're letting the media control your decisions. Very unwise.
edit on 12/16/2012 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OwenGP185
 


Well, I don't think this is a serious threat. There probably isn't the amount of support required for such an attempt at a takeover. The wealthy are doing very well as is, there's no real reason for a power grab. And many of them do value the principles America was founded on. The network would have to be too extensive...and such a network would be so difficult to keep secret.

If it were any less than the majority of super powerful Americans orchestrating the takeover, it would never succeed. And I don't think such a coherent conspiracy exists. They would need many rank and file as well.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's going to happen.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OwenGP185
 



I want to address a comment I have heard a lot the last few days... The constitution allows us to have guns so that we can protect ourselves from the government...


That was the original intent of the 2nd amendment…to allow the citizens the means to control (by force or threat of force) their own government.


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788
George Mason



History has shown that dictators and power grabbers always seek to disarm the populations they wish to control.


“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
- Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942
Adolf Hitler

I ask you this, why should it bother people of other countries that Americans maintain their right to keep and bear arms? Jealousy?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by OwenGP185

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Listen up yankees.We DO have farms,we can make booze,OUR people are running those aircraft,tanks,ships and police.And MOST of them still believe in the oath WE ALL TOOK. So no we aren't screwed.Had you ANY extensive contact with combat units you would know of our pride in DEFENDING America and our utter disgust with the leadership and our distrust of large COASTAL cities and their odd political natures,making your assessment incorrect.As is your use of a Chinese aircraft in your photo selection.

edit on 16-12-2012 by cavtrooper7 because: fininshed my point


My point is not that the military might attack civilians though, I am saying that it is not a valid reason to say guns will protect the civilians. If the troops would indeed protect the civilians then what are the guns protecting from? That is my point really, whether or not the government is able to oppress with the military guns wont help, well in my opinion.

Ask folks who were caught in New Orleans after dark during the first weeks of Katrina what use guns are when the whole world is right there to help restore order? They were too... National Guard, Police from all over the nation, Blackwater Contractors, Triple Canopy people and even the Coast Guard to represent active duty forces. You'd think New Orleans should have been among the safest places in the world.....when it was arguably among the most dangerous on Earth for that opening period (Still is to hear some people talk...).

When civil order breaks down, restoring order on the large scale is what the troops are there to do. They aren't there to protect YOU or YOURS from YOUR nieghbors. They come to see we all get power back up, have water to drink and food to eat .....or the lines of supply from outside are at least open enough to get those supplies IN.

Guns are needed when order breaks down because invariably, the crap floats to the top and the criminal element is NEVER far behind the lights going out. Those who are armed when that happens, will likely be around to tell the tales to grandkids who won't believe it. Those who aren't? Well.....I hope the bad guys have mercy in their hearts, because it's all that is left to hope for.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I would rather die at least TRYING to fight back than just roll over and let someone tell me what I can & cannot do with MY life.

I have a limited time on this planet and I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone else tell me how I'm going to spend my days.

THAT is why we (or at least why I) cling to our guns. We may be vastly "outgunned" by our own military, but if the Govt decided to break away from the will of the people then we would at least be able to give them one hell of a fight.

Btw, "superior" technology doesn't mean they're guaranteed to win, many wars in the past century and even recently have shown that...



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The mass answer is what the oppressors fear.The M.A.D. of all our weapons keeps control.Do you think we would be free without having "assault weapons"? The fact that violence or the threat of it is keeping the NWO at bay is actually the debate here.One guy with and AR15 is nothing.Now put that rifle into an aging MACV/SOG vietnam veteran and he will know how to create a guerrilla that can do great harm.It's called force multiplication.
All are waiting for the bad guys to turn their hand.In order to have any effect on the situation they will have to make an overt big move.Changing the laws won't work,prohibition was a nightmarish failure.
When the start sweeping areas that is when the show really starts until then,I and,I hope most of my combat bros,will have to simply wait for the event.
When it happens,I will take out many years of pain on them.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Listen up yankees.We DO have farms,we can make booze,OUR people are running those aircraft,tanks,ships and police.And MOST of them still believe in the oath WE ALL TOOK. So no we aren't screwed.Had you ANY extensive contact with combat units you would know of our pride in DEFENDING America and our utter disgust with the leadership and our distrust of large COASTAL cities and their odd political natures,making your assessment incorrect.As is your use of a Chinese aircraft in your photo selection.

edit on 16-12-2012 by cavtrooper7 because: fininshed my point


I think it is ironic that he used the Chinese fighter in photo. Can't tell the difference, can you? Why? Because it was our very own "President Clinton" who gave the Chinese our military designs for the fighter!!! Just as he did for the carrier the fighter is sitting upon.

Treason is one reason to uphold the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
You raise a very important and key issue. I think the next few months will see the deciding factors in this conflict with the so-called NWO. Granted, 'We the People' are very outgunned. You showed brilliant photos of some of the military-industrial complex's most shining achievements. Up against the DoD, "the Resistance" has no chance.

The key issue to me is (and the reason TS(Hasn't)HTF yet): the American people operate those toys. And just as importantly, those toys are paid for and maintained with US Dollars. Conversations are happening among our military men and women that will have great impact on our survival as a society should some epic crisis befall us.

As a visionary and an avid fiction and history reader, I foresee (believe) that our military will be the source of many heroic actions that will lead this nation to victory over the globalist oppressors. For the moment, I just think they lack the right type of leadership.

Bottom line, the key fault of all of that beautiful military tech is that People have the keys and the know-how to operate that equipment. And I think those that know how will be fed up with policing everyone, will not participate in policing themselves, and will save this country from utter destruction.

That, or 10 to 15 years from now we will all be slaving under the most brutal and oppressive police-state, control-grid while Chinese tourists laugh and spit at us.

Note: Being the ever optimist, I'd really like to think that the rest of the world would be very receptive and kind to a broken, yet healing New America, if we can show that the People of America have wrestled control of our government out of the hands of the power-hungry.

Ahh, 'tis fun to dream. It would make a good movie.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OwenGP185
We live in the 21st century, as you continue to supply the demand for guns you also provide government with superior weapons technology. If the likes of China and Russia are going to have difficulties attacking the US how are unorganized groups with no internet and IPhone signal going to fight back during martial law?

The Iraqis did, and the Afghanis are doing, a pretty good job. Most of them don't have internet or iPhones. Heck, I don't think most Afghanis even know how to read. It took years to wear those insurgencies down to manageable levels, if in fact Afghanistan is manageable.

Let's use Afghanistan as an example. There are currently about 102,000 troops in ISAF. Probably a few thousand more under the SOF chain of command, plus 310,000 in the ANA and Afghan police combined, but we'll ignore them so as to make this scenario as favorable to the "enforcers" as possible By enforcers, I mean people enforcing US policy for the country, countering an armed opposition--an analog for whoever's doing the "martial law" in your scenario. Afghanistan's population is about 30,400,000. To get the same enforcers:population ratio in the United States, you'd need 1,053,552 enforcers, or 73% of the entire end strength of the active armed forces. Three out of every four soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen would have to be in-country, mobilized, boots on the ground, rifle in hand to make this work. The reserve components might provide some relief, but you'd be looking at something like 50% of the entire military enforcing this martial law thing at any one time, and the other 50% waiting to rotate back in. Most of these would be combat support and combat service support, or they'd be air or maritime combat arms, and almost completely ineffective at their jobs. And that is just to duplicate the force levels in a counterinsurgency that we are pretty much losing.

Needless to say, the US armed forces cannot duplicate in the US the force mixture that exists in Afghanistan. (In fact, it only provides about 2/3 of the forces in Afghanistan.) To do so would require abandoning all overseas commitments and options, or many years of conscription, training, and force-building that would span multiple administrations. Since neither are going to happen, your martial law scenario can only take effect with significantly fewer troops per capita than the number with which we are losing Afghanistan. And since the putative American resistance is more intelligent than the Afghan resistance, and since it would hold infinitely more appeal for the enforcers than does the Taliban, it stands to reason the insurgency would win through a mix of popular appeal, defections, and the occasional military engagement.

As for the pictures, I think you have made the mistake of thinking that if something is expensive (e.g. the F-22 or the CVGB), it is useful. Fighters and carrier groups have their place in grand strategy, but only a limited role in counterinsurgency. In the kind of scenario envisioned by the so-called patriot movement, the armed patriot would give no more thought to a carrier battlegroup than the armed jihadi in Afghanistan does. In fact, the patriot would hope for more CVBGs out there, because it would mean fewer dollars spent on enforcing martial law.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


No President Clinton sold the Chinese our space technology not fighter designs.He wanted them to have access to space. So now they can make ICBMs and they are now on the MAD list.I would say North Korea as well but their threat is minimal.They got the design from espionage.And built it by extrapolation,which is why it isn't in the same league as the latest US designs.
I can tell because I was a army scout ,it helps to know what you are looking at when the army behind you is about to obliterate it,and that beast is huge,also we don't use that tail configuration.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


The Middle East is used to war though, I would say they are comparable to the days of the cowboys, no doubt they would have put up a fight. I just do not see the modern westerner putting up much of a fight, the only positive would be if enough military said no I guess. I still believe guns wont solve any issues, I cannot imagine the UK being put under martial law yet I think most Americans would think martial law is very possible.
edit on 16-12-2012 by OwenGP185 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join