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 armed insurrection and Obama taking your guns...really people?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Do you believe the government would wage a "no holds barred" campaign on U.S. soil, against American citizens, if they wouldn't then?




posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Infernalis
 


Thank you , I was thinking it but I get tiered of debateing with people on the internet .



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Do you believe the government would wage a "no holds barred" campaign on U.S. soil, against American citizens, if they wouldn't then?
No, of course they wouldn't.
That example was to another Poster , who used Vietnam, and Afgan as examples, of "sucessful" resistance.
A US Uprising would be stopped in a Week, once People started getting Hungry.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Hopechest

Hmmm, if the US was so successful I wonder how the Vietcong managed to exist for so long. Or the Mujahideen against the Soviets.

History would seem to indicate that a powerful military force doesn't necessarily equal a victory now doesn't it.
Hmmm, 2 points.
First, in both cases , they were invading forces, not the case here...In the instance in the OP, the US will be fighting "Domestic Terrorist".

Second.. Both times , the invading forces were fighting a "Limited War"
(do you think the Viet Cong would have lasted a Month , in a no holds barred US War) Please


What does an being an invading force have to do with anything? They still had access to all the supplies they needed and the people they were fighting had exactly the same access to things in their country the US populace will have.

Unless you believe they are going to ship all the citizens to a deserted island and start the war there your point is irrelevant.

As for the limited war what exactly do you mean? The Search and Destroy mission statement when the war started or the unlimited bombing campaign initiated by Nixon?

Neither seemed to work very well, not did destroying the forest with agent orange. But go ahead and think nobody can stand against the might of the US.

Your also forgetting the key point that many of these military and law enforcement are attacking family and friends, like that won't have any emotional impact on them.

Hey there's my baker Joe....oh well, guess I gotta put a bullet in him.

Yea right.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Do you believe the government would wage a "no holds barred" campaign on U.S. soil, against American citizens, if they wouldn't then?
No, of course they wouldn't.
That example was to another Poster , who used Vietnam, and Afgan as examples, of "sucessful" resistance.
A US Uprising would be stopped in a Week, once People started getting Hungry.


Exactly how large of a force do you believe is going to be on the other side?

Must be in the tens of millions if they have the ability to cut off everyone's access to food. Your thinking that the whole country are just going to bunker down in their house while the military takes all the supplies in the country?

How about when those 500 marines go into downtown Houston to gather supplies and find themselves surrounded by 50,000 starving people?

Who do you really think is going to win?



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I would imagine that if such a conflict ever arose there lies a very real possibility that the rebellious factions would garner some sort of military support from nations not all that friendly to us, maybe just in ammo and weapons, but perhaps some weapons of higher order, such as expllsive devices and RPGs. It is not a stretch to think that Russia would love to pay us back for Afghanistan by giving rebel factions the ability to take our helicopters out of the sky. there would also be a quandry our military would face.... use weapons like tomahawks and risk killing dozens of innocents in the explosions. Too many mistakes like that would have the effect of turning more people to the side of the rebels looking for revenge. depending upon who in the military supports the rebels and what they do for them it could be far from a cakewalk for the rest of the US military. leadership would be vital, and as Robert E Lee has shown us, a smaller force that isnt as well equipped can do well on a battlefield in a limited war. If other countries had intervened in that war I believe that there would have been an entirely different outcome, as Lee and his boys could only do so much by themselves.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by azdaze
 


That is absolutely true. Look at the countries that were about to support the South during the Civil War until Lincoln persuaded Russia to park its war ships off our coast for protection.

Britain was definitely leaning towards the South in that conflict and there's no doubt that many countries would jump at a chance to overthrow our military then step on in and gather up our resources.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


\You watch to much Television.
What % were active in the other Uprising here in the US.

3%



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by Hopechest
 


\You watch to much Television.
What % were active in the other Uprising here in the US.

3%


What other uprisings?

The last one I can think of was the Civil War and that was, well basically, the entire part of the nation that rebelled, or roughly half of the population.

Nobody really sat that one out.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


I dont know if Hopechest watches too much tv or not, but I do know that all rebellions always start small and have a way of snowballing because of the heavy handed tactics the existing government uses to suppress them. I dont think it would be much different if a rebellion ever were to occur here in the USA



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by azdaze
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


I dont know if Hopechest watches too much tv or not, but I do know that all rebellions always start small and have a way of snowballing because of the heavy handed tactics the existing government uses to suppress them. I dont think it would be much different if a rebellion ever were to occur here in the USA


Well actually, most rebellions end up getting crushed by those heavy handed tactics and I could list off probably 50 without researching it.

But your right, they always start small. Its why they are called rebellions.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
All I am reading in this thread are make believe scenarios and fantasies...


Comparing America to middle eastern countries is ridiculous. One thing you forget people is that this military would know this country like the back of their hand. It will not be like the middle east...where there were placed in an unknown land..well to them , since it was not native to them. So scratch your false hope that your little war would be like the middle east...where the soldiers were out played by the natives, because this time they are also the natives.

Firepower alone would utterly devastate you, and that isn't even include air support. First they make take it easy on you..but if you push hard enough...then the crap will hit the fan and your uprising would be over as quick as that. Don't blink it may be over before you open your eyes.

Do not forget a few thousand or hundred thousand would not do any damage. This is the estimate I get considering how much actually have the guts to do something. My meter is ATS...all I ever read about is...we should do this or that and nothing ever gets done...just a lot of keyboard generals..
Most of the country already agrees that people asking for this are gun nuts. So the majority of the country would not support you and would most likely ask the government to stop this "revolution". You would also be considered domestic terrorists and be taken out with extreme prejudice.

What makes you think that you would have support from the majority when they seem fine with the way things are. You just seem like dictators...trying to take down the government and run it the way you deem right. These so called millions of guns out there are in the hands of criminals and thousands of gun owners who buy multiple weapons..so the numbers lie.Millions are not armed..just a few hundred thousand or maybe even a million.

Not to mention..with a war going on in America...you leave the country weak and ready for invasion.

But hey..go ahead and try...less idiots for the world to deal with..
Try to live out your fantasies...the past has nothing to do with modern tech. So stop bringing it up. You will not have the numbers nor will you be on equal footing like uprisings of the past. Tanks, drones, planes, satellites and other toys are at the militaries disposal.

Try it I dare ya...

edit on 7-5-2013 by kerazeesicko because: I CAN



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Well yeah, but the point I am making is that so many assume that there is going to be this rag tag bunch of mouth breathing hillbillies running around with their shotguns trying to take on tanks and Blackhawks and drones all by their lonesome, and it will be like shooting fish in a barrel. But what really could happen is that 2 or 3 million able bodied and well armed men spread across the country with backing from a country like Russia could make some serious noise. these men blend in with everyone, they may be doctors or town council people. basically, the government would need to treat everyone as a criminal andthat may very well expand the base of the rebellion. so in 3 years what started bout as 2 or 3 million may very well end up being 10 or 25 million rebels depending upon how our present government and it's military handles it. we all know that our military is capable of despicable acts as has been shown numerous times recently. why wouldnt some of those cretins try to get nancy fancy pants to put out even if she is unwilling?

As far of the premise of the OP goes, without the second amendment the rest dont stand a chance in the longrun if our government truly wants to become totalitarian.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


Its a good point but the fact is that the country is simply too big for them to lock down.

Not everyone are going to be holed up in major cities. The problem they will run into is that is soon as they lock one area down another one will erupt. They move over there and the previous one goes.

They simply will never have enough to keep the population in check.

Kind of like trying to close your hand down on a bar of soap. It pops out when you squeeze too hard. So unless they pull a Nazi tactic and start eliminating the population, they will never get control.

Once they are weak in one spot the people will hit them, raid them, and disappear as soon as they show up.

This is the way insurgencies work. They will be nitpicked to death.

And what good is air support when you can't find anyone. You going to waste a 10 million dollar missle to hit those ten people running through the forest your scout saw?

Your going to run out quick.

I mean look at Stalingrad for pete's sake. Before the Russian counterattack which wiped out the sixth army, Germany sent everything they had against that city and only a handful of people kept the Germans out for four months. Building to building fighting and that's exactly what would happen here.
edit on 7-5-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by azdaze
 


You wish 2 or 3 million and even so..they would be spread out in small groups..easy to take out. You think your little fantasy would play out like you think...think again.

Who would lead...sooner or later there will be in fighting...to declare leadership. Every fool who thinks they know better will be vying for leadership.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
See the point. How long do you suppose 50,000 military and LEO's will last vs. 100 million? Do they have that many bullets or rockets?


Government sided militias can form which pretty well evens it up.

What's really needed is a counter-intelligence apparatus, if anything.
Direct confrontation doesn't work until you have decent intel to work with.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


One word..SATELLITES. You can't hide from them unless you go underground. Now try to get hundreds of thousands of people underground. They would know this land...and would figure out how to take people out before they would ever get themselves into a situation where they could be taken out.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Where are you guys getting this ridiculous number of hundred of millions and such. The majority of the country does not support you...deal with it.

At most a few hundred thousand..spread out over the country in small groups with no leadership.


edit on 7-5-2013 by kerazeesicko because: I CAN



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Done with this ridiculous thread..
Nothing but fantasies going on here.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
reply to post by Hopechest
 


One word..SATELLITES. You can't hide from them unless you go underground. Now try to get hundreds of thousands of people underground. They would know this land...and would figure out how to take people out before they would ever get themselves into a situation where they could be taken out.


And who is producing all this ammunition that the government is using up?

Who is keeping it all repaired?

Who is supplying all their food?

Who is doing all their medical service?

In order to keep this army running without civilian support your going to need the majority of your soldiers doing these other tasks which mean they can't be out there fighting.

Eventually your soldiers are going to die, one here and one there.....who is replacing them?

See the problem yet?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join