What good are citizens w/guns against government tanks?

[The Heretic]

The greatest threat to freedom is not tanks and drones it is the complete and utter brainwashing of the American populace aka government worshiping automatons. 49 out of 50 people 'out there' are standing at the ready to 'report on you.'

That far exceeds the advantage of tanks, cameras, drones, etc. Americans - talking 98% here - have already drank the Kool-Aid and are ready to put their brown shirts on and be good citizens, no matter what.

When the government and military fully turn on the people and in-your-face tyranny takes hold it will be 'the people' that will defeat themselves from the start.

Hopefully, the Plutocracy that runs this corporate state will be satisfied a little longer with their clandestine Empire populated by deluded idiots and will not need to convert us into a nation of serfs aware of our slavery just yet.

In other words, buying time is about the only option at this point. Sorry for the youth though, they are screwed.

The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people - John Adams

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Only if SCOTUS thinks it is unjust.

This is the court that has upheld Second Amendment restrictions and voted 5-4, a close vote, when it did vote in favor of the Second Amendment. There are a lot of bad laws on the books that SCOTUS has upheld or declined to review over the centuries. So I would not hold them up as the example in this case.

And that is the rub. I mentioned it because they have already ruled that unjust laws are that way from the moment of inception. The rub is that we cannot know what those running our oligarchy (The 9 sitting on the bench) will decide if/when it makes it to them. Therefore what may seem to be unjust to us may be found to be just by them. Many of their decisions seem to be largely rooted in the idea that they are "for the good of the people" rather than our constitution and history. This is dangerous though as it's not always so easy to determine and more often than not there are unintended consequences from doing so. Making schools gun free zones is one example. It almost certainly was done with the best intentions however the unintended consequence is the creation of a target rich environment where there is no lawful opposition to counteract unlawful acts.

 

[peetar]

If a law is immoral it is our DUTY to dissobey it. Especially a civil rights issue.

 

[Heywood]

I would not go after military personnel or police, or any people dumb enough to carry out the orders. I would go after those giving them and their water carriers, then their sympathizers. I don't know what would push it to that point though.

 

[balaperdida]

If a law is immoral it is our DUTY to dissobey it. Especially a civil rights issue.

Isn't this almost exactly what Obama and Holder said a couple of days ago?

 

[The Heretic]

Works for grandma

 

[balaperdida]

Interesting read, and pretty spot on as I see things playing out if this were to ever occur.

What good is it for citizens to have guns when the government has tanks??

Quoted the above to get back to the OP's question.

I hope this post isn't a repeat

I have been pondering this question this past week with the results being the comments below.

MICRO-LOGISTICS

I am using my specific situation to illustrate some shortcomings.

My arsenal that might be useful in combat consists one Mini14 Ranch Rifle, and one 9mm pistol, a Sig P6. I have a few others, but cap-and-ball revolvers or .22 rifles just don't seem adequate to me.

So, my first thoughts address what I am going to call micro-logistics. That is, what materiel is available to me personally to engage armed military or paramilitary.

It's not encouraging. I have about 1200 rounds of .223 Rem, about 300 rounds of XM193, about 700 rounds (mostly FMJ) of 9mm, and perhaps 400 rounds of .22LR.

The .223 Rem is mostly HP for four-legged varmints or the typical thinly clad intruder. For battle gear typically used by military and some SWAT, I would have to make head shots to disable the assailant. The usefulness of the XM193 is similar. From what I have been able to learn, the "X" usually means that the lot did not meet the velocity standard for the regular M193, which shortens the range at which fragmentation occurs.

M855, even XM855, would be better, but I have one fatal limitation: magazine aggregate capacity.

I have only four 20-round magazines for the Mini-14, and two 8-round magazines for the P6. In a firefight I would effectively be limited to 80 rounds of .223/5.56 and 16 rounds of 9mm. My stashes of ammo would be essentially useless. Yes, I could get more magazines. Even if I got a bunch of 40-round magazines, would that actually improve the situation against a squad armed with M4s, each carrying perhaps 400 or more rounds?

Tanks are not the only problem. Much closer to home are the <broken link removed> . Yep, that looks pretty much like a machine gun mount on top. I would guess very few civilians have access to delivery systems capable of neutralizing a MRAP. (Google [MRAP Idaho] for more stories.)

I suspect that most civilians have similar micro-logistics limitations.

I hate be negative, but I don't see a good tactical or strategic outcome for me, or others with similar situations.

ASYMMETRIC WARFARE

1. Will the military engage armed civilians? Of course they will, especially if the civilians are shooting at them. Will the order to shoot be legal? Yes. The civilians will have been labelled as terrorists, thus the enemy of the State.

2. The comparison in the article to the VC, or to Al-Qaeda is flawed. Besides being highly motivated, both groups had, or have, far-ranging logistical support.

3. Assassination of families makes the operation sound like it is run by the Mafia or the Taliban. The result would likely be carpet bombing of entire neighborhoods where "terrorists" are believed to be lurking.

IFF

1. Continuing the Godfather analogy: Could you really trust as friends anyone other than those who have not made their bones? In this scenario, I suppose that could be anyone who has inflicted casualties or survived a firefight.

2. At least at the beginning of this insurrection, all tactical and strategic planning would of necessity be clandestine. I have the rather negative belief that practically anyone can be turned if given sufficient incentive.

COMMUNICATION & SURVEILLANCE

1. It is naive to believe that Obama's NSA is not monitoring this forum. They are likely to have the IP addresses of everyone who has ever logged in.

2. Since the NSA has the ability to monitor all communications, it appears to me that any communication by other than face-to-face or written notes would necessarily require encryption methods which might not be developed yet.

3. Coordination of any operations other than local will be difficult and slow, which would allow the foe to take pre-emptive action.

4. Expect to see many RPVs, some being Predators.

SIGN OFF

There's much more to ponder, but I'm old, and getting brain freeze.

 

[gaijinsamurai]

"I have only four 20-round magazines for the Mini-14, and two 8-round magazines for the P6. In a firefight I would effectively be limited to 80 rounds of .223/5.56 and 16 rounds of 9mm. My stashes of ammo would be essentially useless. Yes, I could get more magazines. Even if I got a bunch of 40-round magazines, would that actually improve the situation against a squad armed with M4s, each carrying perhaps 400 or more rounds?"

Difficult situation, which requires the citizen to fight on his or her own terms, to the best of their ability. Of course, the State will also be trying to do the same, conducting raids in the early hours of the morning, trying to catch the resistor off guard and when vulnerable. To borrow from Sun Tzu's teachings, know your own strengths and weaknesses, & those of the enemy. Try to keep a low profile (easier said than done, unfortunately, as you correctly pointed out), and strike only when it is advantageous. Also, forget the so-called "rules" about what is noble in guerrilla war. Live to fight another day, whenever possible.

 

[Stomper]

What you have to keep in mind is, how many of those "support" personnel do you think will report to their jobs after a few of them are "dealt with" during their morning/evening commutes, or those security guards at government facilities getting hit at a "change of guard"? It wouldn't take much to grind that machine to a halt.

As to "micro logistics", you'd be AMASED at the improvised stuff one can make with random junk laying around.

Mind you, I'm by no means advocating (or hoping for) such events to transpire, and should they in fact occur I already consider myself dead... and THAT will make them hurt.

 

[freestoneangler]

What you have to keep in mind is, how many of those "support" personnel do you think will report to their jobs after a few of them are "dealt with" during their morning/evening commutes, or those security guards at government facilities getting hit at a "change of guard"? It wouldn't take much to grind that machine to a halt.

As to "micro logistics", you'd be AMASED at the improvised stuff one can make with random junk laying around.

Mind you, I'm by no means advocating (or hoping for) such events to transpire, and should they in fact occur I already consider myself dead... and THAT will make them hurt.

True enough. And, let's not forget that a very healthy percentage of those in uniform look and think just as we do in their private lives. It's one thing using weapons like that against a foreign enemy... and a completely different thing turning them against your neighbor and fellow countrymen. Sure, those with corrupted power will try... but that will be their downfall.

The real trick is not to let them boil us slow like a frog -- which is how they are currently waging this war. It's why everyone who believes in the 2A right and freedoms needs to spend time writing letters, showing up at rallies and joining/contributing to the NRA.

 

[Stomper]

A-freakin'-men!!

 

[RoneKiln]

Even before we get to engaging in an insurgency, my arms would protect me as I peacefully protest. A tyrannical government can pretty easily round up a few thousand peaceful protesters (in comparison to violent conflict). Rounding up a few thousand peaceful protesters that brandish their arms and tell the stormtroopers to back off is not nearly as easy. I'd rather a few hundred thousand people peacefully march on the capitol with the means to protect themselves than start an armed conflict.

Even if I were to engage in an insurgency, my arms would really be more to protect me and aid in escape while employing far more effective weapons. Fire. A duffel bag filled with bug bombs. Heavy construction equipment. A stolen propane truck. Triggering fire suppression systems in office buildings. If I want to start wrecking things, a rifle is far from the best tool. But for protecting myself, a rifle is a great tool.

If I really wanted to cause havoc, I wouldn't target people. I'd target our completely undefended electricity and gasoline distribution systems. I don't need 5 million guys hiding out in the woods. Take 20 guys with a modest budget and you can shut down most power distribution for an extremely large region. You don't have to keep electricity and gas pumps off for long for Americans to really go nuts.

 

[fd15k]

I can see you guys are still working hard on getting this site labeled as an extremist/terrorist resource. Don't be surprised when yet another time you have a hard time finding the common ground with the majority of population.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Tanks are big and clunky..

There are regions tanks cannot venture: marshes/bogs, steep hills..
Of which we have here in the US.

You have to think like an insurgent.
Weaken the supply chain. First world armies are reliable when logistics (resupply) are in order.. Gas, munitions, food, sanitation.. All of those can be dissrupted.. Or tainted.

Only limp wristed vegan pacifists become overwhelmed at a challenge.

 

[SHPD_Retired]

Interesting read, and pretty spot on as I see things playing out if this were to ever occur.

?What good is it for citizens to have guns when the government has tanks??

One young unarmed man stopped a tank in Tiananmen Square so it is really unknown what an armed one could do.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Who is trying to find common ground with the majority? Historically the majority has a very poor track record when it comes to respecting rights. For this reason with have a constitution and live in a constitutional republic.

 

[Stomper]

I can see you guys are still working hard on getting this site labeled as an extremist/terrorist resource. Don't be surprised when yet another time you have a hard time finding the common ground with the majority of population.

Labeled as a resource for "extremists"? Not at all, it's a counter argument to those who "poo-poo" the "postulated" (that's right, postulated... Google it) notion that the 2A exists so citizens could stand against government tyranny... even against tanks, MRAP's, and UAV's. It could be done, effectively.

I'm the last guy who wants another taste of firing shots "in anger" (pitching or catching), let alone against my own (supposed) countrymen. I would that my government be RESTORED via the ballot box, not overthrown via the ammo box.

 

[freestoneangler]

I can see you guys are still working hard on getting this site labeled as an extremist/terrorist resource. Don't be surprised when yet another time you have a hard time finding the common ground with the majority of population.

Do you know what the majority of the population would do should their government turn their LEO and/or military against them? How is a thread that asks about this scenario considered extremist... any more than what Fienstein, Bloombooger and Obama are doing with 2A rights?

 

[The Heretic]

Do you know what the majority of the population would do should their government turn their LEO and/or military against them? How is a thread that asks about this scenario considered extremist... any more than what Fienstein, Bloombooger and Obama are doing with 2A rights?

From the point of view of those people who worry about such things (people in power, people who see a "terrorist" behind every bush or gun), not just hypothesize scenarios, any person or persons who discusses such scenarios is not hypothesizing, they are planning and advocating for the scenario, and are therefore a "terrorist".

To understand how such people think you really have to get outside the typical gun owner mindset and put yourself in their shoes.

Even if "they" understand that this is just an academic discussion, it is something they can use to label gun owners as "extremists" who are bent on violence.

That said, this is interesting:

http://www.cracked.com/article_2093...News&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=feature_module

Now Cracked.com always has a spin on things get people thinking, even if they have to push the envelope of objectivity and facts. I think the article is quite a bit on the optimistic side of the protestors. However, it makes one think about such things, and how it would be different there if the populace had the kind of firepower the citizenry of the USA has.

 

[mjbskwim]

I would not go after military personnel or police, or any people dumb enough to carry out the orders. I would go after those giving them and their water carriers, then their sympathizers. I don't know what would push it to that point though.

Only problem is that is the way it will stop. If it got that bad you would have to show the people doing the shooting/bombing that we will not put up with it.
Taking out the soldiers that are killing citizens will be the only choice. Then other soldiers will understand they are wrong following orders.