Gun Protesters Plan March on Washington With Loaded Rifles to 'Put The Government on Notice'

[mickeym]

Almost 900 people are RSVPed for a July 4th march on Washington, D.C. where protesters plan to carry loaded rifles. In D.C., openly carrying guns is against the law. But the organizer of the event, libertarian radio host Adam Kokesh, says the march is an act of “civil disobedience” that attempts to prove gun advocates’ point in the “SUBTLEST way

Comments

[alexvdl]

That's a pretty simplistic view of the makeup of the fighters in Afghanistan. Sure, there are Pakistanis that cross the border and take place in the fighting, but they don't make up the majority of the rank and file INS you see currently fighting in Afghanistan. You have to keep in mind that a large part of the economy of Afghanistan is centered around opium, which means that in addition to ideological warfare, you're also seeing a lot of narcoterrorism. Since the US tends to leave the whole drug thing alone unless they are in combined ANSF/CF operations spearheaded by GIRoA, you tend to see those groups focus on GIRoA and ANSF officials.

Most rank and file soldiers are recruited when the government takes out their poppy fields and they need money, which the INS will provide for them (Or their family if they die) if they help them out. Then you have the corruption in the newly established government. It's a quagmire.

One that would be repeated here in America if the US government ever acted on a large scale against a widespread group of the American populace. Kent State and Waco were bad enough and caused second and third order of effects that are being felt to this day. If the military were ever turned out and used to forcibly put down a group of the gun protesters, it's only going to propagate. Look at the propaganda being put out by the far right. Think about the sympathies of those who wear a uniform. If the US government ever has to use Army, Navy, or Air Force to "Put down a bunch of gun loons" you're going to find a quick fracturing of those units being sent in. Giving a 18 year old a gun and some ammo and telling him to protect his buddies and kill insurgents in Afghanistan is a lot difference then telling him to walk into a US city and suppress a group of people he went to high school with.

[underlankers]

They did make up a huge portion of the 1990s Taliban, so why wouldn't they make up the 21st Century version? Besides, Afghanistan was both broken and in the middle of a civil war when the USA got involved there. We saw what happened 150 years ago when enough disgruntled ideologues got together to form a mockery of a government and an army, navy, and marine corps. The revolt failed and half the country was burned to the ground and quite a few cities were reduced to rubble.

[alexvdl]

You really think that this country would survive another Civil war?

[gloraelin]

Yeah, seriously, because even though the South lost... a whole bunch of cities and civilians on either side of the war lines were devastated. Now, with the weaponry available, and the denseness of urban metro areas... fuck, man, the destruction would be horrifying.

So many people would die. And, like you said... I don't think the government or the "country" would survive. It would likely wind up being several different groups of former states. Not ~The United States of America~.

[underlankers]

Which cities on the northern side of the Mason/Dixon line, and which civilians? Modern firepower is sufficient to break open a rebellion in short order. The USA is not Afghanistan, and North America is not central Asia.

[keeni84]

a whole bunch of cities and civilians on either side of the war lines were devastated.

???

[underlankers]

Uh, yeah. I mean we might not like how it survives, but its surviavl is not in question.

[alexvdl]

The United States of America as a pancontinental democratic organization would cease to exist. It doesn't matter how much "modern firepower" the US Military has. Using the US military against US citizens who have broken no laws would quickly turn this country into a far more dangerous place than Afghanistan. There are far more guns in this country than that one. Our populace is much more advanced in the use of technology, and has a lot more access to the kind of materials needed to fight a guerrilla war. Even if every service member currently extant decided to keep their position and serve at the will of a US government that acted in that way, the military doesn't have the manpower to do much besides hold the bases they've got.

In short, you'd be fighting a smarter, better armed populace that has direct access to, and in some cases IS, your supply chain.

[underlankers]

Bullshit. The United States as a pancontinental state is guaranteed to survive. The rebels now wouldn't like the consequences of losing a war any more than their precursors did, but they'd still lose. Afghanistan has 30 years of experience in warfare to fall back on, 10 of it against the other, far more brutal superpower that was once. North America has a tremendous amount of flat land which is unsuited to guerrilla operations and a culture that relies too much on straightforward confrontation to be good at guerrilla warfare. The modern rebels won't go for it even if they have the potential, they'll try some kind of regular confrontation with real soldiers and be blown up by firepower.

The army has plenty of manpower for what they'd be doing.

[alexvdl]

No. They don't. The armed services make up ONE percent of the US population. That's IF they remain military, which is highly unlikely. America is a helluva lot bigger than Afghanistan, a country smaller than Texas. As for your Psychological profile...

You're completely ignoring the fact that the American people have have spent the last ten years getting schooled in how to fight guerrilla war. That the leaders of said revolt would be the ones with military experience, and probably with experience hunting as well. For all of Afghanistan's experience with warfare they still SUCK at it. They don't understand tactics, they haven't figured out how to effectively use their heavy weapon systems , and they don't have the matériel, on either side, to learn proper marksmanship with small arms or RPGs/mortars.

The last rebellion was an incredibly bloody affair and you're kidding yourself if you think that another one would be less so.

Empires fall. That's what they do. America has been around less than 250 years, and the chances that we'll last another 250 are slim to none. The Roman Republic lasted five hundred years before civil wars ripped it apart and it became an empire to survive. America is guaranteed nothing.

[underlankers]

They don't need to make up a great percentage of it. Seriously, a major rebellion against a country with modern firepower was tried, repeatedly, in the Soviet Union. Stalin and company simply went in and massacred, shot, and hung their way through the population when they were a clear instance of minority, terrorist rule. And the modern USA has far more at its disposal than the Bolshies ever did.

Really? You call a bunch of....big-boned...people playing Call of Duty schooling in guerrilla war? Americans don't understand a damn thing about this. Case in point: all the idiots who make comments about revolution openly on the Internet. Smart insurgents do not leave obvious trails for people to find. This in fact is a fairly basic thing about how to do it right, and almost none of the wannabe Wolverines bother with that.

So, pick your argument about Afghanistan. Is it a good example of insurgency or isn't it?

I didn't say it wouldn't be bloody. What I did say is it's guaranteed to fail. If the Soviet Union could do this in the 1940s with less impressive, clumsier weapons, a hypothetical evil!USA is more than able to do with with finer, shinier weapons, satellite reconaissance of increasingly great accuracy, and facing a bunch of overweight rednecks barely capable of aiming at the broad side of a barn.

[alexvdl]

This isn't 1940s Russia where the Government controls the media and the flow of information through the populace. The American military isn't the the Soviet military. There are completely different ideological stances. There are no commissars in the US military, prepared to shoot you if you don't toe the government line. Comparing modern America to Soviet Russia is freaking laughable. Were the US military willing to perpetuate Stalinist massacres, people would hear about it, far and wide, real quick. And again, the US military, for all of their vaunted toys, is less than one percent of the population. You can take down an MRAP with supplies that you buy at Walmart. For all of the shiny weapons that the US army has got, there are tons of ways around them, and those ways are sold online and in stores.

I don't think you understand the technological divide between Afghanistan and the US. Or the sheer ridiculousness of how many guns we have in this country.

You think I'm referring to the people playing Call of Duty? Really? I'm not worry about people who sit on their ass playing Xbox all day. I'm referring to the hunters, the survivalists, the doomsday preppers, and most importantly the vets. Have you seen the numbers for unemployment in vets? Have you seen the backlog that the VA gets? You think that there isn't a pretty big well of resentment built up right now? We won't even get into the criminal element that would thrive on a civil war. Or the unscrupulous parts of the military industrial complex that see quite a profit in such a fight. Or the people who would desert their posts in very short order, probably with as much supply and materiel as they can scrounge or steal.

Afghanistan is great at insurgency. They have the networks down, they have the compartmentalization, they are able to use propaganda effectively. What they're not good at doing is effectively using their weapons systems or utilizing tactics. Downrange their isn't a lot to do, so after every failed attack you sit around and talk about how they could've done the attack effectively. Then you guard against that. Both the ANSF and the INS in Afghanistan have Stormtrooper level marksmanship.

[farchivist]

I'm referring to the hunters, the survivalists, the doomsday preppers, and most importantly the vets. Have you seen the numbers for unemployment in vets? Have you seen the backlog that the VA gets? You think that there isn't a pretty big well of resentment built up right now?

I think it's a useless well of resentment. A negligible one that will have little effect.

I mean, in order for them to win against the American government, the FIRST thing they would have to do is simultaneously gain control of several nuclear launching facilities (either land-based and/or a bunch of boomers) and launch against every American city on the Eastern and Western seaboard.

If they don't, they're expecting to fight from the rural areas where only 18-20% of the population live. And they'll be fighting to conquer 80% of the population in urban and suburban areas. And how are they going to keep the "liberal threat" from happening again? There's only one method that works and that's mass extermination.

No, I don't see them winning. They don't have the guts to do what it would take to win.

[alexvdl]

Do you think that a government that is willing to sacrifice 18-20% of it's population is one worth being a part of? Who is going to take on that 18-20%? I think that the idea that all of the urban/suburbanites would fall on the blue side of the divide is as ridiculous as saying that all of the rural population would fall on the red side. You're not going to see state by state division like you saw in the Civil War.

You're right that it's going to turn on ideological stances, but you have to keep in mind that the majority of the country land wise is not the majority of the country people wise. The government doesn't have the manpower or the resources to clear out all that acreage. The slow bleed of US lives that happens in Afghanistan is pretty easy to sweep under the rug. If it it starts happening in America, the people are going to get more and more adamant that steps have to be taken. And every step the government takes down the path causes some people to look at what's happening and think? What the fuck, I don't want to be part of this.

As for nuclear weapons... if A nuclear weapon is launched, then it's not just America that's fucked.

[farchivist]

Do you think that a government that is willing to sacrifice 18-20% of it's population is one worth being a part of?

I think that's a meaningless question. My choices are to side with the American government who will at least pretend to give a shit about me or to side with the gung-ho militia folk out in the wilderness. Who is more likely to turn me into a brood mare? Hmmmm.

Who is going to take on that 18-20%?

American military.

I think that the idea that all of the urban/suburbanites would fall on the blue side of the divide is as ridiculous as saying that all of the rural population would fall on the red side.

That won't be how it actually divides, but that is how the rebels will view it, according to the propaganda they put out on Free Republic, Rapture Ready, etc. Am I to assume they will not act on what they state? That's foolish.

You're not going to see state by state division like you saw in the Civil War.

Correct. It will be urban/suburban versus rural. You see, only in the rural areas do Real Americans reside, the makers. Only takers live in the city and suburbs.

but you have to keep in mind that the majority of the country land wise is not the majority of the country people wise.

That is obvious. I stated as much. The majority of the USA lives in cities and suburbs.

The government doesn't have the manpower or the resources to clear out all that acreage.

I disagree. It can be done correctly and methodically. Corporations will provide assistance.

If it it starts happening in America, the people are going to get more and more adamant that steps have to be taken. And every step the government takes down the path causes some people to look at what's happening and think? What the fuck, I don't want to be part of this.

And what are they going to do? Join up with the Tea Party Republic and swear to exterminate the liberal threat under the absolute authority of Supreme Teapot Bachmann? When they get their order to exterminate a Muslim family from Commandant Pamela Geller, with option to take the 13-year-old as a rape slave, do you think they'll like being part of that?

American Government or American Taliban. Hmmm. Tough choice there.

As for nuclear weapons... if A nuclear weapon is launched, then it's not just America that's fucked.

It's the only chance the rebels would have to secure victory.

[alexvdl]

The US Military doesn't have the manpower or the charter to provide police action in the continental US. We can't effectively hold an area smaller than Texas and we have a Coalition of nations helping us. You maybe have enough manpower to hold onto the bases that you already have. That's IF the US Military retains their personnel. The moment that the Army is used against US citizens you're going to find that the Army is a lot smaller than you expected it to be.

What corporations are going to help? Why would they do so? How does that benefit their bottom line? What corporations have standing corps of personnel trained and ready to fight insurgencies? Are you referring to mercenary companies? Where's that money coming from? Which side do you think that people like the Koch brothers are going to come in on? Or, as is more likely, they'd play both sides to make as much money as possible.

No one wins if this comes to pass. Not a single person. Not "conservatives", not "liberals", not people. The United States of America would cease to exist as a Republic.

The only people that would win if a nuclear weapon was launched would be the cockroaches.