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

[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.

[farchivist]

The US Military doesn't have the manpower or the charter to provide police action in the continental US.

When combined with federal, state, and local authorities, I disagree. Granted, there will be problem areas, but proper strategic and tactical planning will resolve those difficulties.

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.

I disagree entirely. I predict a defection of maybe 10-15% at best; more than likely it's going to turn out like the OAS attempt in the Algiers putsch and the vast majority of American soldiers will refuse the call for coup d'etat.

What corporations are going to help? Why would they do so? How does that benefit their bottom line?

The Global 500 and Fortune 500 are going to be prominent. Are you not aware that far-conservative rhetoric is that the corporations are all liberal and involved in crony capitalism and thus need to be destroyed? If the rebels win, boom, that's the end of those corporations. All the executives would be put on trial and executed as "banksters".

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?

Where does it come from now? We have several existing and previous contracts with these companies. And it would not just be the mercenary corporations; the other corporations would provide material support in order to ensure their continued existence, as they would cease to exist under the rebel regime.

Which side do you think that people like the Koch brothers are going to come in on?

Not the rebel side, as the Koch brothers have been declared as traitors to conservatism (RINO) due to one of them being wishy-washy on gay marriage.

Or, as is more likely, they'd play both sides to make as much money as possible.

I expect that will happen. It will backfire, though, as dealing with fundamentalist idealists has always backfired.

No one wins if this comes to pass.

Depends on what you call winning. I call survival winning.

The United States of America would cease to exist as a Republic.

I disagree with that assessment.

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

That's old thinking. Actual study shows that even a worldwide thermonuclear war is very survivable. At worst with full scale nuclear war, the world would be thrown back to the Victorian Age technologically and a majority of the Northern Hemisphere would be uninhabitable for 150-300 years. That is worst case; limited nuclear exchange during an American civil war would not be anywhere as bad.

[alexvdl]

EDIT: Realized that if I'm advocating the end of the discussion, making new points isn't really kosher.

I'm not advocating for a rebellion/insurrection/what have you. I'm not of the belief that such a thing needs to happen. I'm not picking a side. I'm saying that if it came down to it, the US Military would not be nearly as effective as people in this thread seems to think it would be and that this country wouldn't survive another civil war.

It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind or Underlanker's. I hope that there never comes a day in which we find out which of us is right. I'd like to thank both of you for having this discussion with me. It was pretty edifying, and I enjoyed it immensely.