olegvolk: The point of this poster is simple: you

Oleg Volk (

olegvolk) wrote,
@ 2007-08-21 21:49:00

The point of this poster is simple: you can't defeat a standing army by yourself, especially with civilian legal small arms. Legal remedies after the fact are not good enough.

So, in view of the regrettable reality (Henry Bowman being a fictional character), what will we do to make even giving the order to confiscate guns politically untenable? What can we do to ensure that a politician or a bureaucrat would not dare to give such an order for fear of loss of job, freedom and life? That is the subject for discussion.

(Post a new comment)

	tomcatshanger 2007-08-22 03:26 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, 7.62x54R steel core light ball is a good suggestion against light armor. (Reply to this) (Thread)

olegvolk
2007-08-22 03:28 am UTC (link)

Problem with armed resistance is that regular people, especially those who stayed in NOLA, lacked the mobility to deal with the second wave of attackers. Presume that they managed somehow to disable the first wave and their armor (by IEDs or heavy rifles), they'd still face National Guard with heavier armor or helicopters with rockets or artillery. Eventually, they'd lose.

Remember Waco?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	po6om 2007-08-22 05:31 am UTC (link)
	What is the NOLA? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	olegvolk 2007-08-22 05:36 am UTC (link)
	North Orleans (NO), Louisiana (LA) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

po6om, 2007-08-22 05:38 am UTC

(no subject) -

2percentright, 2007-08-22 05:54 am UTC

(no subject) -

po6om, 2007-08-22 05:59 am UTC

heypete
2007-08-22 08:18 am UTC (link)

True, but there's always the possibility that the folks giving the orders to confiscate weapons would reconsider after seeing casualties inflicted in the first wave prior to sending in the second.

Helicopters cannot hold ground, and have limited loiter time and ammo. Somehow, I don't see helicopter gunships strafing housing projects in New Orleans after a major disaster, or any city during an uprising. Using immediately post-Katrina New Orleans as an example, heavy armor would have a very difficult time navigating flooded roads, debris, and so forth. By the time such armor could negotiate the terrain, food and other relief supplies could/would have stabilized the folks being violent for want of food and water.

If you're talking about a full-out armed uprising on a large scale, remember that tanks and helicopters need fuel, parts, and maintenance by skilled mechanics. Shooting (or bribing) the mechanics, destroying fuel tanks or blocking supply of fuel, sabotaging or impeding the resupply of replacement parts are all viable strategies that could negate the advantages of armor and air power. In the event of a nationwide event, supplies of food, water, fuel, ammo, uniforms, boots, and so forth would be disrupted or sabotaged, and the military forces would be unable to operate effectively.

Without power to recharge batteries or run generators, radios become ineffective. After a few days of wearing dirty socks, morale drops. Small groups of guerillas have flexibility in ammo and supplies (out of .223? Switch to .308. Out of .308? Use 7mm mag or .30-06. Out of that? .30-30 works well. Two bricks of .22LR give you more ammo on tap than an infantry squad, are small, lightweight, and easily portable, with enough accuracy and power to make lethal, well-aimed hits at reasonable distances -- with rubble, wreckage, and other impediments likely to be experienced in a disaster/uprising between the shooter and the target, the soldiers would be unable to capture the shooter before he could flee) that soldiers simply don't have.

If 10% of soldiers sent out to "secure" an area didn't come back each day, how long do you think it'd take until the soldiers said "fark that, I'm not going out there"?

/not actively planning rebellion or an uprising, really
//just applying common sense and whatnot

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

olegvolk
2007-08-22 08:28 am UTC (link)

On the contrary, NG and Army won't know why the first wave got shot up. They'll follow orders and attack "domestic terrorists who fired on the rescue workers". Government has enough PR control to get their version out to more viewers. So people resisting confiscation would have to be good and nail all of the first wave at once. Trouble is, lawful people were not waiting in ambush for the JBTs, they were getting on with their own lives. So JBTs had the advantages of surprise, numbers, logistical support from the outside, training, weapons and armor. It's not like "our side" were prepared and trained and armed with proper infantry weapons such as machine guns and rockets...we are talking about little old ladies with revolvers and guys with shotguns against troops who had roughly the same level of weapons or better than second-line WW2 troops had...and civilians did poorly against those even if they had Stens and hand grenades.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

arcticelf, 2007-08-22 02:14 pm UTC

(no subject) -

ilcylic, 2007-08-23 06:17 pm UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2007-08-22 04:22 pm UTC

(no subject) -

heypete, 2007-08-22 04:23 pm UTC

(no subject) -

olegvolk, 2007-08-22 04:26 pm UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2007-08-22 06:00 pm UTC

(no subject) -

olegvolk, 2007-08-22 06:06 pm UTC

(no subject) -

arcticelf, 2007-08-22 07:31 pm UTC

oldcurlywolf
2007-08-22 03:50 pm UTC (link)

Pete,
here's 2 other things, that come to my mind on top of what you've already mentioned. The fuel, if possible steal it. comes in handy. Another thing to think of is what happens if/when the troops tell the politicos to 'get f***ed'? Granted it didn't happen in the case of NOLA, but NOLA government and its subsidiaries have always been notoriously corrupt and useless anyway.
Wolfie

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

olegvolk, 2007-08-22 04:03 pm UTC

(no subject) -

oldcurlywolf, 2007-08-22 04:41 pm UTC

(no subject) -

ilcylic, 2007-08-23 06:11 pm UTC

	tomcatshanger 2007-08-22 01:55 pm UTC (link)
	All too true. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	2percentright 2007-08-22 03:43 am UTC (link)
	NRA? looks askance at poster (Reply to this) (Thread)

	olegvolk 2007-08-22 04:08 am UTC (link)
	Yes, NRA. They are a part of the political solution...a timid part perhaps but one which enjoys wide political recognition. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	2percentright 2007-08-22 04:35 am UTC (link)
	Didn't they just recently do another in a long line of bullshit moves by teaming up with the Brady Campaign for something? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

olegvolk, 2007-08-22 04:47 am UTC

(no subject) -

2percentright, 2007-08-22 04:56 am UTC

(no subject) -

wellarmedsmurf, 2007-08-22 02:04 pm UTC

(no subject) -

arcticelf, 2007-08-22 02:08 pm UTC

(no subject) -

heypete, 2007-08-22 04:29 pm UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2007-08-22 06:08 pm UTC

(no subject) -

heypete, 2007-08-22 08:37 pm UTC

(no subject) -

arcticelf, 2007-08-22 07:18 pm UTC

	(Anonymous) 2007-08-22 07:46 am UTC (link)
	Since politicians, and other governmental cockroaches don't read history, I have no idea what might put the Fear Of God into them. The guerilla campaign fought by the IRA between 1916 and 1921 gives us a few clues as to how such a campaign can be conducted against a superpower. (Reply to this) (Thread)

olegvolk
2007-08-22 07:50 am UTC (link)

Keep in mind that after Collins and DeValera won against the British, they and their opponents had massive fratricidal civil war with casualties far exceeding those of the nationalist period of the fighting. There's no large enough bloc in the US to guarantee a clear win, so we'd likely end up with the Balkans situation. Moreover, chastising politicians through assassinations and guerrilla warfare is not likely to win the PR war for liberty. Non-violent ways would work better for now, with violence reserved for self-defense.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-22 06:30 pm UTC (link)

I'm very well aware of the Free-State / IRA clash following the end of the Anglo-Irish War. Please recall that DeValera decided to not attend the treaty negotiations and instead sent Collins and a few others in teh hope that they would be incapable of actually concluding a treaty. (pp: 504-505 Modern Ireland by RF Foster, 1998)
In the end Dev and Collins ended up on opposite sides. One side willing to move incrementally, the other side unwilling to settle for anything other than the declared Republic.

Could such a thing happen here? Yes, we see it already in the ranks of the pro-gun groups. However, I believe that if we get to armed insurrection we are more likely ot just balkanize. Which I am not convinced would be a bad thing.

As far as the PR war, we're outnumbered and outgunned already.

-Gregg

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	detonate_for_me 2007-08-22 12:34 pm UTC (link)
	The internets tell me that http://goa.org is not a valid site--GOA's site is actually http://www.gunowners.org. (Reply to this)

Question
(Anonymous)
2007-08-22 04:01 pm UTC (link)

Were there not any confiscations by private military contractors in New Orleans ?

I know they maintained a certain presence. For some reason,
corporate armed elements make me even more uneasy than just
state blunders.

Currently, they are far less accountable. I dont think
Blackwater or whatever company was responsible for the
Falluja blunder (the lynching that started the heaviest
shooting. They sent their personnel without backup, presumably
without good intelligence to their deaths) were ever punished for that.

Mercenaries are never a good idea. Its written even in The Prince..
(for one, they are paid 5-10x more than government issue cannon fodder).
And since they are invariably ex-military, they are not better trained.

--------------------------------

Situation in Iraq is different to the US. They have far easier access
to military equipment (did anyone collect what Iraqi army left
behind when they were forced to disband?).

.50 cal rifles and machineguns are adequate defense against light armor,
though. M-113 APCs certainly, maybe even LAV-25s.
What will happen inside an APC when a .50 round starts
ricocheting inside .. result of that I would like to see..

----------------

1916-1921 was a different period. It was the apogee of defense.
Entrenched riflemen, were the only thing you needed to have reasonable
defense.

Today, helicopter gunships can snuff them easier than you can say "Comanche".. Tanks are more effective. Poison gas exists.
In fifteenten years time, I bet Terminator style robots will be used.
(that is, autonomous, with orders to kill).

Furthermore, armies today can fight at night.
Civilians cant .. they cant even buy state of the art
nightvision afaik. (US doesnt even sell it to allies).

Remontoire

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Question

heypete
2007-08-22 04:37 pm UTC (link)

All of what you say is true, but the technological advantages the US military has are restricted by two major things:
- US industrial capacity
- Batteries

Right now, the US industry is supplying foreign-deployed US troops with food, ammo, shelter, new uniforms and boots, fuel, and so forth.

If major fighting were to occur in the US, I suspect that such industries would be crippled either through lack of workers (people abandoning their jobs to protect their families) or sabotage.

Without resupply of fuel, parts, and skilled maintenance workers, tanks and helicopters would soon be rendered useless. Without resupply of ammo, they'd be similarly limited...as would infantry forces.

Without batteries, infantrymen lose their advantage of night vision devices, radios, and so forth. I have a night vision scope (admittedly only a Generation I, but I can easily see movement and out to 100 yards or so, and recognize faces at closer distances) that runs on a little "squeeze pump"-type device. One simply squeezes a small lever about once a minute and the night vision device will run indefinitely. No batteries are required. Very handy. :)

Helicopters and aircraft cannot hold ground. Boots on the ground can, but the defenders have the "home field advantage", to use a baseball term, and know the territory a lot better than any sort of invading force.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Question
(Anonymous)
2007-08-22 06:44 pm UTC (link)

The Anglo-Irish War did not employ entrenched riflemen, except in a few exceptional situations, I include the Easter Rising of 1916 in the Anglo-Irish War as it was the flashpoint.

Most of the Anglo-Irish War was fought guerilla style. The Brits had heavy weapons, primitive armor, Chemical weapons, etc... The Irish had a few small arms a few explosives and the support of a reasonable segment of the population.

-Gregg

(Reply to this) (Parent)

_eljefe_
2007-08-22 05:42 pm UTC (link)

You all are far to eager to engage in open combat.

Organization is key. The downside to organization is that any organization not sanctioned by the US Govt can not be trusted, and should be monitered and infiltrated, so assume you coms are broken from the get go. But have a central rally point(s) in the event of a disaster, 100 armed citizens are more effective than 1.

Hidden weapons caches. Leave some guns for them to find, but keep the important stuff stockpiled safely away, but accessible.

Media. Use the media to your advantage. Have several video cameras on hand, some open and some concealed. Delegate one speaker to deal with those attempting to confiscate your arms. Pre write comments to use showing the illegality of the confiscating officials actions. Keep them short and media friendly, and use things that will be difficult to quote out of context.

Pre-emptive maneuvers. Know your opposition. Research your local government. Look at their past actions. Work with your local police force, they will be more reluctant to take action against familiar faces. Research the local media, find out which ones are more receptive to you, and build a relationship with them. But politicians fear organized voters that oppose them. Use this to your advantage. Avoid the "gun nut" image, and maintain a viable presence.

(Reply to this)

	What's to stop them the next time? (Anonymous) 2007-08-22 09:04 pm UTC (link)
	Seems that the surest way to assure that the orders are never given again is if _all_ of the people that gave the orders this time ended up prematurely dead. Sooner probably being better than later. A few who carried out the orders quickly following those who gave them might make any future order less likely to be followed. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: What's to stop them the next time? olegvolk 2007-08-22 09:23 pm UTC (link)
	It's a great idea on a philosophical level, but neither practical nor helpful in terms of PR. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: What's to stop them the next time?
(Anonymous)
2007-08-22 10:33 pm UTC (link)

First let me make clear I was not referring to some future instance but to NOLA specifically.

If by "helpful in terms of PR" you mean getting "good" press or other expressions of approval from those opinions "matter" then I agree: it would probably generate "bad" PR.

However, the good "PR" is not what is needed. What is needed is more similar to a would-be rapist getting killed by his intended victim: it will make others who might be inclined to engage in rape find a different outlet for their desires. Not 100% effective and it really doesn't matter who "approves" or "disapproves"; it only matters that those who would do it _know_ they might end up dead just for attempting it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: What's to stop them the next time? -

wellarmedsmurf, 2007-08-23 12:01 am UTC

Re: What's to stop them the next time? - (Anonymous), 2007-08-23 02:15 am UTC

	(Anonymous) 2007-08-24 09:14 pm UTC (link)
	What about an - IMO - obvious solution? Infiltration! An army would stop functioning if maybe 10% of the leadership would say: "Sorry, my dear CinC, but that order is immoral, unconstitutional and aimed at people like myself and my soldiers, I will therefore not carry it out! - And you, my fellow Colonel, I ask YOU to disobey those orders as well!" T.Stahl (Reply to this) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2007-08-25 11:14 pm UTC (link)
	Ok, so it either wasn't thatobvious at all or it came too late. T.Stahl (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I agree

dzimmerm
2007-09-03 02:14 am UTC (link)

It is not obvious but it is the most likely path to success. Infiltration of the political and enforcement areas by people who would not abide illegal orders is the only sane way to deal with the situation.

The problem is that most folks are not up to the job of presenting a false image 24x7 in the hopes that they will be in a position to stop an illegal order.

dzimmerm

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Another point - (Anonymous), 2007-09-03 02:22 am UTC

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs