BREAKING: NEW YORK TIME WRITES COMPLETELY UNBIASED ARTICLE ABOUT GUNS!

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

Sounds like a fine way to get shot.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It's a check against the government (among other things) and it's part of our constitution. If the government ever begins to abuse the citizens, the citizens can forcibly remove the government if necessary.

I'm not a big gun control guy, however the idea that the government could be forcibly removed with the weapons most citizens have seems highly unlikely.

The military has more firepower, organization, mobility, surveillance and communication.

A guerrilla resistance would be a limited and sporadic effort—never enough to topple the national military.

I think the only way to "forcibly remove" the government is through a military coup, like in Thailand not too long ago.

[Elder Iptuous]

...
A guerrilla resistance would be a limited and sporadic effort—never enough to topple the national military.

I think the only way to "forcibly remove" the government is through a military coup, like in Thailand not too long ago.

Do you think that the one might have an impact on the other?
that is to say, do you think a coup might be more likely if there is armed resistance among the population that they are nominally meant to protect?  i seems that there would be an element of a military force that might go along with the subjugation of the populace if it passively accepts it, but would be likely to support a coup if they are having to defend themselves against kinsmen...

personally, i think you are underestimating the efficacy that a guerrilla resistance could bring to bear in the states, but i don't know if there's really any way to come to a really good idea of how that would play out...

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

It's a check against the government (among other things) and it's part of our constitution. If the government ever begins to abuse the citizens, the citizens can forcibly remove the government if necessary.

I'm not a big gun control guy, however the idea that the government could be forcibly removed with the weapons most citizens have seems highly unlikely.

The military has more firepower, organization, mobility, surveillance and communication.

A guerrilla resistance would be a limited and sporadic effort—never enough to topple the national military.

I think the only way to "forcibly remove" the government is through a military coup, like in Thailand not too long ago.

I think you are seriously underestimating the effect guerrilla tactics can have on the government. We had vastly superior technology than Ho Chih Minh's forces and we lost Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan are still not controlled and we're leaving Iraq. A sustained insurgency in the U.S. would have a devastating effect. I do not believe we have the military force to violently suppress the citizens and even if we did, I believe much of the military would side with the people, so would police. They're all sworn by oath to protect the constitution and while many of them probably don't completely understand their oath, many of them do. If we ever had a president declare himself king, it just wouldn't work.

That said, I don't think we're ever going to have to deal with an armed insurgency given how our government works. Despite all of our problems and despite all the bitching and all of the idiocy we have in our government, we can vote them out of office. They can be arrested if they break laws. It doesn't work 100% of the time, but it works enough to keep things from turning into a police state or a dictatorship. Before anyone starts spouting off about how we are living in a police state let me say this first: If you really think this is a police state, you're a fucking idiot. Does our government need improvement? Hell yes, but it's a far cry from being a police state and the 2nd amendment is a big part of what keeps it from getting there.

Our government is fragmented, our police system is fragmented. It's built like that on purpose. If we ever had something like this happen and things really broke down I don't think it would be one government vs. the general populace: I think it would be a series of competing factions, we might end up as a bunch of nation states.

[Requia ☣]

Failure to 'win' a rebellion doesn't always mean the rebellion doesn't accomplish its goals.  The whiskey tax rebellion was put down hard, but they never exactly collected a lot of the taxes.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Has there been a guerrilla resistance that was effective outside the context of heavy jungle though?

The US doesn't have as much dense natural cover. Temperate rainforest is a very different than tropical rainforest.

[Requia ☣]

Er... yes, we call it the revolutionary war.  At least on this side of the pond.  It wasn't very guerrilla compared to what we think about in Afghanistan or Vietnam I guess, but it fits the main themes of A) Using tactics that a more established force wouldn't consider and B) Victory not because the British couldn't have held the colonies, but because the British weren't willing to put the resources into it.

Also, Afghanistan, when they kicked the Russians out.

[Kai]

Important to remember that the eastern United states was almost completely forest in the 1700s, and big trees provide lots of cover.

The Afgans, similarly, had mountains and caves.

[Jasper]

We don't have jungles, or mountain caves, but we do have downtown.

What'll it be, general?  Do we march down main street while they pick us off from the towers, or perhaps we can drop our troops on top of buildings and hope for the best?  Perhaps a jaunt through the sewers, hmm?

Or maybe we could just reduce these billions of dollars worth of structures to smithereens.  That sounds like a winner.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

Has there been a guerrilla resistance that was effective outside the context of heavy jungle though?

The US doesn't have as much dense natural cover. Temperate rainforest is a very different than tropical rainforest.

Yes there have been many and the US has lots of cover judging by the parts of it that I have seen, however cover is not necessary for an insurgency. What makes an insurgency so difficult to deal with is that you do not know who your enemies are and if you just start targeting the entire population then all you do is make more enemies for yourself. Places like Vietnam have a much more diverse environment than people think. It's not all dense jungle, in fact, most of it is not.

[Vene]

personally, i think you are underestimating the efficacy that a guerrilla resistance could bring to bear in the states, but i don't know if there's really any way to come to a really good idea of how that would play out...

You know, one thing I never see talked about for these hypotheticals is communications networks. How do you communicate? Phone and internet is out, that's able to be controlled by the gov't. Air wave frequencies are easy to intercept as well. You'd have to have a way to organize a lot of people over sizable distances.

Oh, and supplies, supplies are very important. Not just weapons and ammunition, but food, medicine, and clothing. These materials are something we rely upon the gov't for a lot more than the typical person realizes.

[Elder Iptuous]

personally, i think you are underestimating the efficacy that a guerrilla resistance could bring to bear in the states, but i don't know if there's really any way to come to a really good idea of how that would play out...

You know, one thing I never see talked about for these hypotheticals is communications networks. How do you communicate? Phone and internet is out, that's able to be controlled by the gov't. Air wave frequencies are easy to intercept as well. You'd have to have a way to organize a lot of people over sizable distances.

Oh, and supplies, supplies are very important. Not just weapons and ammunition, but food, medicine, and clothing. These materials are something we rely upon the gov't for a lot more than the typical person realizes.

i'm a ham, and know others that are into preparation that are hams.
interception is a concern that has been discussed and is considered 'addressed' by some of us.  communication is definitely an issue that should be considered, though.

supplies certainly are important.
food is number one, and i would argue that having a sizable supply of nonperishable foods in storage is a good idea even if you don't believe that we will  be facing widespread catastrophe in our lifetimes.  the Just in time delivery system of our food supplies is certainly efficient, but if there is a systems disruption (like natural disaster) i don't want to be dependent on some institutional charity.  i want to be the one providing for friends and family that may be overly dependent upon the local wally world.
medicine is also something that should be addressed.  i believe it is wise to, at least, have some basic antibiotics on hand as well as first aid supplies and the knowledge of how to use it properly.  (these skills are something that i need to work on.  clothing i haven't really considered as too much of a survival item, but i can see, in an extended situation, that it might become an issue.  my wife sews, so that might mitigate it a bit...

there's TONS of things that you would need to 'be an island'.  i don't think it's really possible without severely reducing you standard of living.

you assess what you think are the most likely situations you will face, and prepare accordingly as best you can.

[Jasper]

The great thing about insurgency tactics, though, is that they can operate fairly well on autonomy and word of mouth.  Since it lacks supply lines or organized masses of personnel, the need for constant chatter is diminished.

[Vene]

medicine is also something that should be addressed.  i believe it is wise to, at least, have some basic antibiotics on hand as well as first aid supplies and the knowledge of how to use it properly. 

Antibiotics require a diagnosis, which requires a lab (using the wrong one can actually be, um, dangerous). There's also the issue of it expiring and medication that requires refrigeration. Although, admittedly, most meds don't need to be kept cold and expiration is a very long term concern.

(these skills are something that i need to work on.  clothing i haven't really considered as too much of a survival item, but i can see, in an extended situation, that it might become an issue.  my wife sews, so that might mitigate it a bit...

Clothing very quickly becomes a survival item here in the northern states. Also, boots.

[Elder Iptuous]

Antibiotics require a diagnosis, which requires a lab (using the wrong one can actually be, um, dangerous). There's also the issue of it expiring and medication that requires refrigeration. Although, admittedly, most meds don't need to be kept cold and expiration is a very long term concern.

really?
you go to a doc and the diagnosis is not quite clear, they will often prescribe a systemic antibiotic based on pretty rudimentary analysis of symptoms.
you're right about the expiration, though.  the guy i know that stocks the meds has to cycle his out more than i would have guessed.

Clothing very quickly becomes a survival item here in the northern states. Also, boots.

a working pool is a bigger survival item here in TX.