I mean today.
the standing army (really the various administrations) has repressed the u.s. through propoganda, etc. to the point where all of the guns the NRA members have are not relevant.
Are the militia a useless concept?
- Thread starter seminole97
- Start date
I mean today.
the standing army (really the various administrations) has repressed the u.s. through propoganda, etc. to the point where all of the guns the NRA members have are not relevant.
Oh gotcha. I thought you were saying the standard "American militias won the Revolutionary War" thing we were all taught in schools and is basically a very pleasant lie.
It is actually very true as far as the navy goes. Merchant Mariners did the overwhelming amount of work on that front.
I've read quite a bit about the Civil War recently as just in the past year I've gone to Yorktown (again for the second time with my wife and probably the hundredth time since I lived near there for three years), Boston/Bunker Hill/Breeds Hill, Princeton, Trenton, King's Mountain, drank at the Warren Tavern, drank at GW's brother's tavern in Fredericksburg (surrepticiously) in keeping with the theme, saw the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philly, ate at Colonial Williamsburg in authetic..ish taverns, drank and ate at a Colonial era tavern in Annapolis, stayed at a casino next to and technically in Valley Forge, and stayed the night at a Colonial mansion in Mystic Connecticut. So by almost accident, I've lived the Revolutionary War recently.
And the synopsis of the RW is...butt kicked, butt kicked, minor victory, butt kicked, butt kicked, butt kicked, butt kicked, butt kicked, minor victory, butt kicked, butt kicked, sneak attack win, butt kicked, butt kicked, butt kicked, butt kicked, Holy (*&) major victory from out of nowhere, butt kicked, butt kicked, France and Spain come in and kick butt and take names thanks to the one major victory from out of nowhere.
Tada!!! Freedom.
This is exactly why the 2nd amendment is no longer as relevant as it was in the wake of the revolutionary war.
The right to bare arms was reserved to fight against a tyrannical govt, not so that you could hunt deer, school kids, play cops and robbers with anyone you find sketchy or simply feel more like a man because you own a machine gun.
Thousands of deaths per year isn't worth the homoerotic arousal many gain from owning these weapons that can no longer protect us from a hypothetical tyrannical govt. Or many the nra will lobby that the right to bare arms extends to drones with explosive payloads, perhaps that would even the fight they use as a scare tactic to keep people blindly following them.
The reasonable compromise is to simply increase controls and screening. The govt isn't going to screen you out unless you deserve it, I think we'd all feel safer, esp pro gun advocates.
The right to bare arms was reserved to fight against a tyrannical govt, not so that you could hunt deer, school kids, play cops and robbers with anyone you find sketchy or simply feel more like a man because you own a machine gun.
Thousands of deaths per year isn't worth the homoerotic arousal many gain from owning these weapons that can no longer protect us from a hypothetical tyrannical govt. Or many the nra will lobby that the right to bare arms extends to drones with explosive payloads, perhaps that would even the fight they use as a scare tactic to keep people blindly following them.
The reasonable compromise is to simply increase controls and screening. The govt isn't going to screen you out unless you deserve it, I think we'd all feel safer, esp pro gun advocates.
I'm actually am pro gun deaths. Keeps population control of the poors and weak. I actually want to die by gunshots rather than dementia, cancer, or heart attack. And it would mean I would be doing some John Wayne Rambo Snake Eyes kung fu type shit fighting crime and beating up bad guys.
I had no idea there was a constitutional right to not have to wear long sleeves. I'm throwing all my dress shirts in the Goodwill bin tomorrow.
There are more than 14,000 legal automatic rifles in Florida alone.
Last edited:
Tribe you really have no idea at all how the U.S. Military works, training level or capabilities. While I am sure you have a lot of knowledge on many things; the total U.S. military force capabilities/limits is not one of them. Not trying to slam you but you are very wrong on almost all of your assessments.
How so? You don't think a determined US military with no restrictions wouldn't wipe the floor with America's drunken redneck militia?
I really think people underestimate the Spec Ops training and decades of institutional know how that the various Afghan fighters built up over time. I really don't think an American militia would instantaneously be anywhere close to the effectiveness. A couple of quick decapitation strikes whether deadly or not and they would fold unlike the various Middle East "militias" set up to withstand what The US forces does best.
So why do you think I'm wrong? I'm not being an %*%, I'll listen to people who actually have first hand experience.
For some reason you've chosen to focus on a caricature of a subset of society and inflated it in your mind as the breadth and depth of the concept of militia. The militia would actually also include the 20+ million military veterans this country has. Obviously they're not all of fighting age, but there is a lot more wisdom out there than you seem to realize.
The median age in Afghanistan is 18. Most of the people taking potshots and looking the other way when someone sets up an IED has never seen anyone from the CIA, or been through anything we would recognize as military training. They're simply fighting us because they don't think we belong there telling them what to do, not because they're CIA/Spec Ops trained supermen.
The 14k is an estimate of the size of the various "militias" of all sorts. Everything from KKK to Minutemen to Armed Resistance Movement to the Constitutional Militia Movement. Basically every redneck, anti-US government group out there. The rest of us (and yes us, I have plenty of nonautomatic, nonassault guns like a couple of hunting rifles and a collection of antiques from the Civil War and WW2) who own guns would not be organized enough to offer any resistance no matter how pathetic.
There are about 20 million Americans with hunting licenses so I suppose they could be trained up over the long haul. But in the short term, only about 14,000 rednecks are gearing up for Armeggedon. Even if you believed in fighting the government (which everything I've said here says I dont)....Americans are lazy and unorganized. You can't even get them to organize properly over real issues like the constant outsourcing of American excellence.
Well as far as first hand experience I have over 25 years serving in Special Operations units; have either worked with or been in every unit the US military has from a special operations stand point. Sure the special operations side of the house is very very good; but you are talking about a tiny % of the total force. The vast majority of the military is not even close to the fitness or training standard of special operations. Yes some of the more qualified Infantry division (ie.) 82nf, 101st, 10th MTN etc are good, but with the drawdown and wars scaling back the level of proficiency has dropped significantly. If you think back to the 90s the military is in as bad or possibly worse shape then we were then. Units have no money for training, standards are waivering and the warrior ethos is being weeded out in favor of PC leadership. Did you know that to pass basic training a Soldier only needs to attain 60% and in some cases 50% on the PT test to graduate; that equates to 35-42 PU, 43-53 SU and 16:36-17:30 on a 2 mile run and that is for 17-21 year old males who have been in a controlled environment doing PT on a daily basis.
You mentioned if the U.S. Military and some militia went toe to toe that it would be a slaughter well of course it would be; as is the case if the U.S. military went toe to toe with almost any Army in the world. However that is not how wars are fought now; no one is going toe to toe with the U.S. military and battles would be fought for the most part in small skirmishes; much like they are today in A-stan. Do you know what the LOG tale looks like for the U.S. military? It is huge. What happens when a convoy is ambushed; are you expecting a bunch of truck drivers to stand toe to toe with a bunch of guys who grew up in the region and shoot more and are probably better shots than the average truck driver. I am not trying to pick on truck drivers; the point is the notion that the U.S. military is some warrior class of people who are trained to fight at a high level is not really accurate.
You made a slight against the Army Reserve and NG; you had better hope they can fight because with an active military of a little over 400k by 2017 the active side of the house could barely control a couple of states. Did you know that close to 90% of the medical treatment (doctors, nurses etc.) comes from the Army Reserve; as well as a bunch more of the support that an Army needs to function in a war. I am not up on militias, how many there are etc. but if there were some sort of internal struggle I am almost certain a decent % of the Active, Reserve and NG would not fight against other Americans and may choose the other side. Imagine the support an insurgency would get from other countries if the U.S. was possibly falling apart, what about Mexico and their claims to the western part of the U.S., do you think they would take advantage of the situation? I am trying to not get into the political side of things; but this country is fractured. We have been pitted against one another for a while now and the notion that we are all Americans in it for the same goals IMO is not really the case anymore. You also have a very SOFT culture in America now; did you know that less than 25% of the population that meets the age requirements is even qualified to serve in the military, based on criminal record, health/fitness etc. I am 50 and in better shape than probably 75% of the military; granted I grew up in the SOF side of the house, but there is no excuse for a 50 year old be in better shape than most of his Soldiers.
Finally you mentioned technology and a no holds bar war. The last time the U.S. government took the gloves off was WWII and I doubt that it will ever happen again. The ROE put in place nowadays put Soldiers lives in danger and the military is forced to error on the side of the enemy. Is it possible that the gloves would come off, sure but I doubt it since they haven't for a long time. As far as technology regardless what you see, read or watch on TV technology does not win wars. It does make it easier, but at the end of the day you must take and hold ground in order to win wars; that requires combat arms, Infantry, Field Artillery etc.
A final example of where the U.S. military is going right now. Many have heard about the women in ranger school experiment. The Army scoured the military for a couple of years and found 19 women that might have a chance. They were allowed unlimited train up time, had special observers to insure fairness etc. and so far 3 have actually passed 1 phase, after 3 recycles. Great so for 2 years the Army has devoted time, money and resources to this project for maybe 3 women to make it (they are only in the mountain phase so far, about 1/2 way through). While I don't care who goes or passes Ranger School (it is a tab/school not a scroll); however I do care about the effort and amount of resources on this project when we are cutting 10's of thousands of combat Soldiers from the Army and units are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for money to train to fight and win wars. The military has turned into a social lab for the PC police; sorry but the end goal of the military is to fight and win wars and sadly that is no the focus of the military currently.
Again, there are more than 14k legal automatic rifles in Florida. I also think you paint too broad of a brush. anti-government is different than someone who understands the 2d Amendment wasn't/isn't a sportsmen's or home-defense provision of the Constitution.
Exactly. Imagine a Marine firing on an American citizen. Would it be a lawful order? The fear of any tyrannical government is an armed population. That is why the first thing these governments do is locate where weapons are and who has them (gun registry), then go about the business of taking them away.
It would be a slippery slope if our military were to be ordered to fire on civilians.
Tribe - I usually like the stuff that you post, but I really hate your continued use of "redneck" as a derogatory term to encompass all of the people that you look down your nose at - crazy, paranoid, lazy, etc. Is it just some kind of white hate, or do you hate some set of stereotyped characteristics about everyone to whom you feel superior? I really hope that you don't act so elitist in real life.
Thank you for commenting in detail.
And I don't disagree with your assessment of the U.S. military, that's basically (but with more specific detail and knowledge) what I would have said mainly because out of curiosity I read a lot of the military news/blogs and have friends in it in various spots that like to post the juicy/criticism stuff on Facebook.
Where are difference lies is what we are both picturing in our heads about the hypothetical conflict. It sounds like you're picturing a low grade actual civil war where the claws are not out, but I'm picturing the Facebook "Texas is being invaded by the Federal government!!!!"/"Jade Helm is the first step to a hostile takeover of the U.S. by the military" BS I keep seeing. So you're picturing something I see as implausible but at least semirealistic if it were to occur and I'm picturing the current militia/conspiracy theorists implausible AND unrealistic scenario of a hostile US Military which for (insert BS reasoning here) is coming full bore. In this militia/conspiracy theorist fantasy that they use as a rationale for keeping AKs and whatnot.. I just don't think it matters. No group of gunnuts not matter how well armed is keeping this hypothetical and unrealistic full bore US military at bay for even 10 minutes. And yes, that's my thoughts even with your explanation of the current weakness.
Now under your less fantastical but still implausible in my head scenario of a section of America rising in armed rebellion because (insert reason) and the U.S. military sticks with hamstringing itself...then sure, maybe over w very long period it's possible for a second successful American Revolution. Although Historians will tell you there have actually been multiple attempted revolutions in the US against an armed government not just two (Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, Dorr Rebellion in New England, the 1689 Massachusetts Revolt, Cary's Rebellion in North Carolina, Fries Rebellion in Pennsylvania, 1811 German Coast Uprising in Louisiana, Leisler's Rebellion in New York, Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts (in which former Continental Army soldiers led a rebellion before being put down by troops from multiple states), and Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. All of those were armed rebellions which in some cases resulted in multiple years of struggle...yet all were suppressed. So you add the Revolutionary War and Civil War and you have 11 attempted armed revolutions and the only one that was successful was because massive amounts of money and troops flowed in from two large rival empires (Spain and France), the others were all suppressed in bloody fashion (Civil War obviously being the most bloody by whole orders of magnitude). So I wouldn't bet on the "good ole boys" even in your imagined scenario and even if substantial numbers of reservists and former military joined (See Shay's Rebellion).
I guess that is the difference between us Tribe when someone who has a vast knowledge of a certain subject I listen to them and learn. It seems that you have this desire to show that your knowledge is just as accurate. I knew typing my response that I would get a typical tribe response and that is on me. No worries I jumped into the thread so that is on me. Next time you research something find an Army of lets just pump it up some and say 1 million people that controlled over 300 million; it never happens. it is actually doubtful that the U.S. military could control TX, LA, MS and GA. Not a slight on the U.S. military and not an ataboy for some supposed militia; but controlling a populace is often harder than actually invading them. See Iraq . I am glad that you research and try and learn about the military; more people should do that; because the number of people in the U.S. that have a real understanding of the military is probably below 10%; however you researching something and thinking you understand it is no different than me reading a ton of case law, watching law shows etc. and thinking I understand being a lawyer. Again no worries and I jumped in the thread; it just gets annoying when folks try and tell me that they know how something is. I don't know a lot about many things but having served 30 years, the military is something I know a ton about.
I was not arguing with you, I was carrying on a conversation. As I said, I think the difference is you are talking about something at least somewhat grounded in reality and saying the military doesn't have the capability at least at the moment while I'm talking about the oft repeated myth of the evil US military conquering the US against godfearing "patriots" armed with AKs. I'm simply saying if the military is ever REALLY out to get you and conquer the US as my Facebook friends and their Jade Helm conspiracies say...an AK is doing nothing to the biological, chemical and nuclear arsenal at their disposal to say nothing about the rest.
So you're just talking sane quasi-realistic apples to my conspiracy theorist, militia joining whackadoo oranges.
And no, I don't care one bit if someone here is impressed, my ego is perfectly fine you won't find a happier more laid back person not on narcotics on the planet. I'm usually just bored sitting waiting for a plane or on a teleconference so I'm stirring up convo on subjects that interest me. I don't want you necessarily to agree with me, I'm fine being a thought leader OR a lone holdout. I do my absolute best to keep this separate from my real life other than mentioning a few of my trips. And I do have a lot of interests usually food, travel, history, technology military or otherwise, conspiracy theories, etc... You never see me join in on the rank ems, watches/fashion, etc...ie stuff I'm not interested on. And you'll notice I usually don't comment on areas where I actually work at the moment which is law and health care unless there is something ridiculously wrong like when a pharmacist was saying he didn't need to background screen his controlled II patients prior to filling so I opined on the matter just as a courtesy to a fellow Nole. I'm just a dude who's talking at a virtual bar, I don't claim to be the expert in any of the subjects I usually participate in, just an interested layperson.
So chillax, I'm not claiming to be more of an expert than you I'm just carrying on a conversation. If you think I'm being a "know it all" because I bring in examples...remember that at the heart I am an attorney and that's what we do. I don't just say I disagree, I'll say I disagree here's x, y, and z. You're not upsetting me by disagreeing, heck is rather have a back and forth.
Last edited:
Here's a scenario:
USA government runs up 10s of trillions more in debt. Debt to GDP ratios make it clear that the USA is insolvent, but this reality can be avoided to an extent by letting the Fed continue to monetize the debt issuance. This creates crushing inflation and economic chaos, and in the spirit of the declaration of independence several States declare with regard to the Union that "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles, and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness."
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas are among the separatists and form a new bloc, eschewing income taxes and trade restrictions and a new union encompassing their 70 million citizens and roughly 550k sq miles.
The President of the Federal government decides he won't just let this happen on his watch. He will, as Lincoln asserted in his inaugural address, "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the [Federal] Government and to collect the duties and imposts [Federal taxes]".
I don't see the USA unleashing nuclear or biological warfare in response, do you?
In fact, I think such an act would make the USA government an international pariah and guarantee foreign support for the separatist bloc, as well as horrify the citizens of the USA and quite possibly lead to further dissolution.
So let's take that off the table.
If the majority of 70 million people resisted (few openly, most by looking the other way) the Federal efforts to occupy and control 550k sq miles I think that most it would be 'unsafe' for Federal personnel - similar to Afghanistan today.
If you'll reread the OP you'll notice: "It seems to me that the invention and distribution of the AK pretty much ended naked colonialism. The costs simply became too great.
What are some of the 'success stories' of standing armies against well armed populations."
But having small arms isn't being well armed. Israel is well armed; Palestine is not. Russia is well armed; Chechnya is not.
Last edited:
Some people enjoy preparing for contingencies that may or may not ever occur while others like to scoff at those that do. Too bad we don't live long enough to have a better understanding of how little human nature changes over time.
Before I play out your scenario, I'll start by saying I don't think we would ever come close to reaching that point. Our political system is designed to squash real dissent with only two mainstream voices which then pretend to hold themselves out as extremists. So I doubt that you see very many cogs in the giant political machine screeching for independence. But let's say that hypothetically there's a real homegrown rebellion rising up.
Also, I don't think the U.S. would shy away from drone strikes if real armed rebellion were imminent.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/obama-drones-cia/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52192630/...ition-matrix-kill-list-could-be-used-us-soil/
And they're going to bomb said leaders of the rebellion whether or not they kill any innocents around them.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/
So since the White House's official position is that the limitations imposed on the to the NSA/CIA/other intelligence agencies to authorise kills only outside of US soil is moot during an active armed insurrection, you would see decapitation strikes on the leaders of the rebellion immediately. While they would probably be more subtle than drone bombs (just a bunch of "suicides", "heart attacks", "car crashes" and maybe even some "accidental explosions"), I'm sure they would occur. Heck, maybe drop a mostly traceless kinetic weapon/mass driver on them since we're likely talking ten years or more down the line. But let's not kid ourselves, a lot of really of really "problematic" people to the U.S. regime disappear by "suicide" via shotgun blast. Just as only one example look at Steve Kangas a former military intelligence officer then liberal political activist who was revealing damaging information about the conservative regime, he was shot in the head with a shotgun blast and even though the initial autopsy found no residue on his own hands he was quickly cremated and then an Internet smear campaign flooded the news outlets of his rivals none of which were substantiated. Or if you want to get rid of someone like Adamo Bove head of security at an Italian telecom giant who revealed the NSA wiretapping of our allies...just throw him off a bridge and don't even set up the pretense he was depressed or suicidal that way it intimidates other into shutting up mafiaso style.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3305
So long before we got to an open armed rebellion, any ringleaders would disappear some probably blatantly in the open ala Bove, some smeared (usually with pedophilia and/or drugs) and "suicidal" and then some quiet accidents and health issues.
So to sum up: 1) Current political system doesn't really allow for dissent necessary for secession as anyone advocating that will face the coffers and political machinery of two large well oiled gargantuas as don't think for a minute that even the Republican Party would tolerate secession and its loss of power (that would be MORE damaging to Republicans than Democrats) and 2) even if the secession leadership came from elsewhere they would either quietly or not so quietly disappear, probably a mix. And if you say..."No, the various wet work teams of the U.S. government would never harm American citizens"...I have a bridge to sell you. And secondly even if by some miracle that was true...what do you think Academi and foreign mercenaries (esp from our allies with less morale outrage over home killings like the Isrealis) are for?
So the morale of this post is...I don't think your scenario is any more plausible than the "US military is taking over Mericuh!" Scenario all over Facebook.
Now if by some reason the American two party system with its vested interest in continental integrity decides not to intercede and politically deal with secessionists for...."reasons" and the US military, the various intelligence wet work teams, Academi and foreign mercenaries all fail to stop the movement for...."reasons", then sure. 70 million armed civilians would stop the traditional military if it didn't use advanced weaponry, biologics, nuclear and/or chemical options.
Guess how plausible ALL of that is to occur? And given how ludicrously unlikely it is that the political machinery does nothing, the intelligence services does nothing, and the military just passively sits by in open rebellion using none of its "real" threats, is it worth 100,000 deaths a decade so people can play at Rambo?
Last edited:
Palestine ranks 115th in guns per capita at 3.4 guns per 100 persons, coming in behind even Ireland and the Netherlands.
The U.S. comes in at #1, with an estimated 88 guns per 100 persons.
For comparison, Iraq comes in at #7, with 34.2 guns per 100 persons.
But that's also the type of thing that just gins up more resistance. If the USA President tries to assassinate the entire elected leadership of separatists governments I think they'd have to hide that president in a bunker for the duration, and not just from citizens of the separatists governments. There is a political background as well, as the USA President has to maintain political support without a moral imperative like abolition. People in the USA would have relatives in the President's cross hairs. I'm doubtful public opinion would be supportive, which goes back to what I said about the 'costs' since the advent of AK and its ilk.
Yes but your scenario is conditioned upon some magica rebellion popping up whole and then the U.S. having to openly put it down. I'm saying it would never even remotely come to that point. Anyone who starts to gather even the slightest momentum will be "disappeared" either openly or not. They are NOT inexperienced at this nor is it a new phenomenon.
The sole reason I mentioned the drone bombings is that the Obama regime has openly set up precedent for its use. So IF needed they would do so. But really, the more precise wetwork along with typical political machinery is all that would be needed.
Last edited:
Again, I'm not claiming to be an expert, just carrying on a conversation. If only experts are allowed to discuss topics then I'm sure this whole FSU football based site would disappear.
The chances of something like this happening are close to zip. As much as some folks in the South piss and moan about the federal government, they are not going to band together and try to ILLEGALLY secede for a second time. Our country has its issues, but it is largely a stable, prosperous country, especially compared to the rest of the world. Many people that complain about the federal government would not support an insurrection once it begins to effect their daily lives. Once those states leave the union, the federal spicket would be turned off and that would cause disaster in the South. Southern states are typically take more in federal dollars than they send to Washington, have more federal employees than other states, and have a higher percentage of residents on federal programs like SNAP than NE and western states. Part of the reason that things like the federal spending do not change is that the Republican base is just as complicit in wanting their federal goodies as Democrats are. They just don't want to admit to it.
Also, I tend to agree that in this country, militias or protesters are no match for the US military. While there can be large pockets of dissent, the country on the whole wants order and for the law to be abided by. That's why in my opinion that historically, when the military has been deployed to qualm social uprisings, the majority of the country has stood by and supported the government, even when they disagree with the law.
In 1957, President Eisenhower sent in the National Guard to integrate Little Rock High School to comply with a federal court order. Many in the Airborne and Arkansas National Guard disagreed with the decision, but they complied with their duties as soldiers and enforced the law. For all the complaining I hear about Obama being a dictator, he hasn't sent in the Guard to say shut down Cliven Bundy.
There's also the example of the National Guard being used to crush campus protests of the Vietnam War in 1970. Go back and look at the Kent State shootings. While there was a large outcry from students and the media, the poll numbers show that the country overwhelming supported the National Guard and a strong majority said that the students who were shot brought it upon themselves.
If they had more small arms per capita, it wouldn't make the IDF bulldozers, tanks, and troop transports any less bulletproof. The IDF runs operations in Palestine expecting to be shot at.
I feel like the "success stories" of insurgency are mainly ones where the groups are actually terrorists attacking their own people or uninvolved civilians.
So on the "it would never come to a civil war" the leaders would all be executed angle, I'd point this out. Back in 2012, whackadoo nutjob conspiracy theorist OR a former president of the United States said in a published editorial in the NYT that American dissident leaders were being exed out at an alarming rate. So where's my link to his article? Good point. The New York Times has whitewashed that article and the internet is scrubbed almost clean of it. The ONLY places you can find it is on bits and pieces in foreign news services and on conspiracy sites. But here's the most intact version of what's left of Jimmy Carter's NYT piece in the Daily Telegraph, as trustworthy of a site as any American "news" like the NYT. It only focuses on the foreign side of it (it IS a British newspaper afterall) but does lightly cover that Carter accused the US of killing its own citizens.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ority-on-human-rights-Jimmy-Carter-warns.html
And it's not like that's a new thing, the Church Commission in 1975 unveiled a lot of interesting weapons that were never (wink wink) used against American citizens such as a gun that shoots a tiny bullet the size of a period with frozen liquid poison that simulates a heart attack and only can be found if you look for and find the tiny red dot of entry, not obvious indented puncture would like a slowly (relativey) inserted needle. And they also revealed the use of weapons that cause relatively quick incurable cancers for those you want removed but not immediately.
Watch the very short attached video of the CIA heart attack gun being revealed for the first time in the meeting, it's pretty interesting. Although the entirety of that public meeting is very enlightening.
http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001/
And that's 40 year old technology. What do you think is available now?
So I'm 100% sure, anyone who is causing a problem will be quickly "uncovered" as a pedophile or drug user even though friends and family will say there's no history of it, or they'll die of cancer, or they'll die of a heartattack, or they'll die of car crash when their brakes are signalled off, or they'll die via a silent infrasound weapon or some other directed energy weapon, or some other methods if they want NO connection, but maybe you want to kill a dissident and while having plausible deniability but still intimidate people just have them "suicided" via shotgun blast or "jumping" from a building or bridge.
So yeah...I don't believe for one instant that there's not going to be a new Civil War. That's why I have a hard time accepting even in hypotheticals that the dissidents would win. Maybe I am putting too much faith in the power of the US government, but it's just my opinion that it will never reach that point no matter how bad the US government became. Our two party system doesn't allow for real dissent with the direction of public policies, just a dog and pony show with meaningless protests, as no one would get elected that is too far outside of the mainstream parties. And I feel that our intelligence system is too powerful allow a secession to occur, the leaders would be crossed off and if it went beyond that then the NSA always has the internet kill switch and I probably couldnt even track down my wife sans cell phone let alone take part in some kind of revolt. If it ever came down to where I could no longer support the government for some reason or another in some hypothetical extreme case I would be out the door for Grand Cayman or New Zealand or even Canada. I would not stick around as I feel it's a foregone conclusion what the outcome would be.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ority-on-human-rights-Jimmy-Carter-warns.html
And it's not like that's a new thing, the Church Commission in 1975 unveiled a lot of interesting weapons that were never (wink wink) used against American citizens such as a gun that shoots a tiny bullet the size of a period with frozen liquid poison that simulates a heart attack and only can be found if you look for and find the tiny red dot of entry, not obvious indented puncture would like a slowly (relativey) inserted needle. And they also revealed the use of weapons that cause relatively quick incurable cancers for those you want removed but not immediately.
Watch the very short attached video of the CIA heart attack gun being revealed for the first time in the meeting, it's pretty interesting. Although the entirety of that public meeting is very enlightening.
http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001/
And that's 40 year old technology. What do you think is available now?
So I'm 100% sure, anyone who is causing a problem will be quickly "uncovered" as a pedophile or drug user even though friends and family will say there's no history of it, or they'll die of cancer, or they'll die of a heartattack, or they'll die of car crash when their brakes are signalled off, or they'll die via a silent infrasound weapon or some other directed energy weapon, or some other methods if they want NO connection, but maybe you want to kill a dissident and while having plausible deniability but still intimidate people just have them "suicided" via shotgun blast or "jumping" from a building or bridge.
So yeah...I don't believe for one instant that there's not going to be a new Civil War. That's why I have a hard time accepting even in hypotheticals that the dissidents would win. Maybe I am putting too much faith in the power of the US government, but it's just my opinion that it will never reach that point no matter how bad the US government became. Our two party system doesn't allow for real dissent with the direction of public policies, just a dog and pony show with meaningless protests, as no one would get elected that is too far outside of the mainstream parties. And I feel that our intelligence system is too powerful allow a secession to occur, the leaders would be crossed off and if it went beyond that then the NSA always has the internet kill switch and I probably couldnt even track down my wife sans cell phone let alone take part in some kind of revolt. If it ever came down to where I could no longer support the government for some reason or another in some hypothetical extreme case I would be out the door for Grand Cayman or New Zealand or even Canada. I would not stick around as I feel it's a foregone conclusion what the outcome would be.
What exactly is 'illegal' about an elected government declaring independence from a political union?
All of which can be undone by bad government policy, in relatively short order, especially when 3/4s of the people are already living paycheck to paycheck.
The word is 'spigot'.
The problem is that the you reach a point of diminishing returns in inflating the currency to dole out largesse and 'buy off' the public.
Inflation is, ultimately, another tax:
"The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion." - Alan Greenspan
I wouldn't expect contented people to support a new independence movement, that's not what happens.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." - Declaration of Independence
Data like that is largely skewed by the location of military bases, and the military itself is just net wealth consumption.
I could think of a few ways to make money off of the land that Eglin AFB sits on, I bet some developers could too. Same for McDill, etc.
Be careful getting too wrapped up in percentages, as they can hide the true extent and nature of things.
Alabama and Mississippi are poor, but they're also small. In terms of population they'd be just over 10% of the new bloc.
I also have no doubt that social safety programs would continue to exist. They're largely supported.
Texas has a GDP larger than Canada, with only 80% of the population.
Florida's population and GDP are on par with the Netherlands.
In fact, for the bloc of States I mentioned, the GDP is on par with Germany, but with 10 million fewer people. The idea that they couldn't afford a social safety net I don't think can be made after an appreciation of the facts instead of merely looking at how things are done now.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The courts interpret the Constitution. They have throughout history declared the secession from the Union is illegal. U.S. cities cannot secede from U.S. states and declare that they are not subject to the laws and requirement of the state. Once a state has joined the Union, they have forfeited their right of secession.
We have had worse periods of economic calamity in our history, including higher levels of unemployment, higher debt/GDP ratios, more poverty, etc. Why are the conditions for US failure more ripe now than historically?
Thank you for the grammar correction.
Military installations are property of the federal government. Those aren't going to be given away for free.
How are the social safety net programs largely supported? Most Southern states are net takers of federal dollars. Pulling out of the union means that they will suffer a net loss. Also, what will their borrowing costs be as an independent nation with no credit history? That wouldn't exactly be a smooth transition. Many of these same issues are what squashed the Scottish referendum for independence.
I understand that you aren't saying these things are likely to happen. It's just my opinion that they are never going to happen.
Secession is debated by scholars and politicians as a right of the states. By no means is it settled that secession is illegal and it was even less settled at the time of the civil war.
Like any government spending, they are supported by the wealth producing private sector. The bloc I've created for this hypothetical would have a bigger GDP than Germany, with less population. I think they could afford safety net programs.
You have to be careful how those things are actually counted. Like I said, most of what creates this 'net gain' is the idea that whatever price the government puts on military spending is the same benefit to a state as a wealth transfer payment like SSI. I disagree with that premise.
Furthermore, I doubt in the wake of economic chaos that this new bloc would interesting in perpetually borrowing to fund maintaining an overseas empire. There are savings to be realized by exiting the Union to consider as well.
I imagine to start with their credit rating would be derivative of the constituted members. Florida, Texas and Georgia all have a better credit rating than the USA (which is tied with Alabama at AA+). Mississippi and Louisiana are rated AA.
In my study of history the only thing that never happens is things remaining as they were. I'm sure the citizens of every empire could scarcely imagine a time that empire would fall, and yet it happens over and over.
The can can always be kicked down the road, until you go over the cliff.
I'm aware of Texas v White, but it strikes me as a post hoc justification by one of Lincoln's cabinet members (Chase) to try and justify his actions. To wit:
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation"
That a State's republican form of government choosing secession constitutes a 'rebellion' or 'insurrection' that justifies the Federal government invasion to suppress strikes me as contradictory to the notion of republican government.
I'll take the principles of rights and self determination expressed in the Declaration of Independence over the doctrine of subjugation by force and consolidation without end.
A 2014 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 23.9% of Americans supported their state seceding from the union if necessary; 53.3% opposed the idea.
The pace of social change can be surprisingly quick.
This commentary forgets that the National Guard is a state based, part time military force, called into duty by the Governor. Summoning actual, full time, active duty military personnel to take up arms against unarmed American civilians would be an ENTIRELY different ball of wax.
Again, as someone whose brother is a disabled, decorated Marine veteran, I can't tell you how many discussions we have had about what would happen if our honorable service men & women were ORDERED to fire on the unarmed, or even armed civilian population of this country.The discussion begins with whether or not this would constitute a legal order in the first place. Then, the thought of what this situation would do to the morale of our honorable American military personnel being ordered to kill our own citizens is almost unthinkable. That being said, our military, spread as thin as it is currently, could not conquer or control even the state of Texas, much less the entire country. I agree with your thoughts 100 % Ranger, and so does my brother. Thank you for your service.
Similar threads
