The Disarming of America --a liberal's dream

[Medic624]

Okay...let's think about how bad this could get...

Let's take the number of legal gun owners in say, just ONE state... Now let's say an arbitrary number...say 60% are able and or willing to stand and fight if they come to confiscate our weapons. So according to BATF there is an estimated 223 million guns available in the U.S. And an estimated 25% of adults live in a house with a gun. Given that number and there are 310,000,000 in the U.S. In 2011 so say 50% or 155,000,000 couples that means that there are about 38,750,000 houses with guns in the U.S.

So again using my arbitrary number... but say 60% will stand up and defend their right to own their guns... That means that there are an estimated 23.6 million ready to fight... EVEN if it is as small as 10% that is still 2.3 million able bodied angry and driven individuals ready to fight and kill or die to keep their guns, their ideals of what is America, to defend their families and to keep our republic and our Constitution intact

Last time I checked we only had 1.6 million active and 1.5 million reserve in the military. Not counting the number that wouldn't fight against their own people they would need every single active duty member willing and ready to fight. And, given they are U.S. Citizens who have sworn to defend the Constitution their hearts and minds aren't in the same place ...

I'm thinking given even my loose statistics on factual numbers I would really hope and pray they wouldn't think this approach as a viable option to attempt. I'm thinking it will continue as it has for decades, sneaky slimy behind the scenes attempts at confiscation and control. Even Bloomberg isn't "STOOPID" enough to try a direct toe to toe approach!

[OldCannon]

I'm not quite sure I'd buy into your 60% number. I'd honestly say you could expect something like 2% tops. It's one thing to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, and steel plate. It's quite another to point it at somebody and be willing to stop them from doing something that it not directly related to defending your, or somebody else's, life. More specifically engaging in an act that is almost certain to destroy your life and possibly the well being of your family. More accurately, those 2% would have to create an effective and organized resistance using means that are not easily detected.

Far more difficult than you might imagine.

[Medic624]

I'm not quite sure I'd buy into your 60% number. I'd honestly say you could expect something like 2% tops. It's one thing to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, and steel plate. It's quite another to point it at somebody and be willing to stop them from doing something that it not directly related to defending your, or somebody else's, life. More specifically engaging in an act that is almost certain to destroy your life and possibly the well being of your family. More accurately, those 2% would have to create an effective and organized resistance using means that are not easily detected.

Far more difficult than you might imagine.

This is all academic but ... this was actually discussed a few months ago on talk radio and they were using the number of registered hunters in just Michigan and Wisconsin and how many there were and how if they extrapolated it out...yada yada yada ..

I fully understand your point but mine wasn't the actual percentage of people who would stand and fight being hard and fast... That's why I pulled the 60% out of thin air.

My point being that the number of people who are peacefully and legally armed in this country vastly outweighs the number of standing military and the number of people I believe who would volunteer for the job of confiscation police. The sheer numbers is as much a deterrent as the possibility of ever having to take up arms and (God forbid) fire on another American.

That being said, I believe a 2% resistance is a little on the low side because, given that the 2nd amendment is one of the cornerstones of our Constitution and if that is being directly attacked I would surmise (at that point) so are the rest of our inalienable rights and there isn't much left to lose before it's a police state.

[TrueFlog]

That article is so absurd, I can't help but wander if it's not satire...? A demonstration of the kind of extreme measures that would be required to disarm America. I'm surprised no one's mentioned this yet, but his plan qould require abolishing not only the 2nd Amendment, but also the 4th. He want the police to be able to search any place at any time without PC. He wants to stop-and-frisk Grandma in public with PC. This has to be satire - nobody's that crazy.

[OldCannon]

That article is so absurd, I can't help but wander if it's not satire...? A demonstration of the kind of extreme measures that would be required to disarm America. I'm surprised no one's mentioned this yet, but his plan qould require abolishing not only the 2nd Amendment, but also the 4th. He want the police to be able to search any place at any time without PC. He wants to stop-and-frisk Grandma in public with PC. This has to be satire - nobody's that crazy.

No, seriously, I've met people just like this. Yes, they're insane. Yes, they were all liberals. Yes, the irony.

[sjfcontrol]

That article is so absurd, I can't help but wander if it's not satire...? A demonstration of the kind of extreme measures that would be required to disarm America. I'm surprised no one's mentioned this yet, but his plan qould require abolishing not only the 2nd Amendment, but also the 4th. He want the police to be able to search any place at any time without PC. He wants to stop-and-frisk Grandma in public with PC. This has to be satire - nobody's that crazy.

No, seriously, I've met people just like this. Yes, they're insane. Yes, they were all liberals. Yes, the irony.

You have to remember... It's for the CHILDREN! If it saves a single child, it's worth it.

[chasfm11]

I'm not quite sure I'd buy into your 60% number. I'd honestly say you could expect something like 2% tops. It's one thing to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, and steel plate. It's quite another to point it at somebody and be willing to stop them from doing something that it not directly related to defending your, or somebody else's, life. More specifically engaging in an act that is almost certain to destroy your life and possibly the well being of your family. More accurately, those 2% would have to create an effective and organized resistance using means that are not easily detected.

Far more difficult than you might imagine.

If you are a history buff, you might want to read the story of Kings Mountain. It was a battle in the Revolutionary War with the "Back Mountain Men" - a dis-organized group of squirrel hunters who took exception to the Britsh commander telling them that he was going to come and burn their houses down. The BMM,without any real leadership or training, attacked a well fortified British position and beat them with very limited loss of life to the attackers.

I do realize that with today's modern warfare, it would be hard for a small bunch of civilians to take on a combat trained army. Wait, wasn't that what happened in Iraq? My guess is that the use of the US military against US civilians would up the anty above the 2% range among the civilians. That's just a guess.

[jimlongley]

I'm not quite sure I'd buy into your 60% number. I'd honestly say you could expect something like 2% tops. It's one thing to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, and steel plate. It's quite another to point it at somebody and be willing to stop them from doing something that it not directly related to defending your, or somebody else's, life. More specifically engaging in an act that is almost certain to destroy your life and possibly the well being of your family. More accurately, those 2% would have to create an effective and organized resistance using means that are not easily detected.

Far more difficult than you might imagine.

If you are a history buff, you might want to read the story of Kings Mountain. It was a battle in the Revolutionary War with the "Back Mountain Men" - a dis-organized group of squirrel hunters who took exception to the Britsh commander telling them that he was going to come and burn their houses down. The BMM,without any real leadership or training, attacked a well fortified British position and beat them with very limited loss of life to the attackers.

I do realize that with today's modern warfare, it would be hard for a small bunch of civilians to take on a combat trained army. Wait, wasn't that what happened in Iraq? My guess is that the use of the US military against US civilians would up the anty above the 2% range among the civilians. That's just a guess.

King's Mountain could hardly have been described as "well fortified" nor could a militia group led by five different colonels, including Sevier, Shelby, and Campbell, be described as lacking "real leadership". It is true, though, that as the battle progressed, each of the several militia groups did act independently of each of the others, which inadvertently contributed to Ferguson's defeat.

Furgeson, occupying the top of the mountain, had the position of advantage, but did not fortify because he had absolutely no idea he was surrounded, while the "Overmountain Men" were forced to charge uphill, not the most tactically sound manner of defeating the opposition. Furgeson's major error was in ordering bayonette charges down the hills at the mountain men, who, having learned about such things fighting against the Cherokee, merely ran away and took cover, and formed up to charge again.

The "disorganization" of the independent groups also led to a tactical advantage, as each group attacked and retreated on its own without coordination except for the original plan to surround the mountain. Of course most of Ferguson's troops were militia themselves and acquainted with the combat methods that the "disorganized" militia they were up against used, but they had a British central commander who insisted on doing it his way.

Similar examples abound, but should not be counted on to save our bacon if some idiot like that gets such an unconstitutional law passed.

[chasfm11]

Thanks for correcting the flaws in my story, Jim. I got the important part right - that a leader who was the pride of the British army (and an accomplished gun designer if I'm remembering correctly) managed to turn a tactical advantage into a rout by himself. I shot myself in the foot by saying "well fortified" when I just should have left the "well" off.

My point was that discounting those who cling to their guns and religion is not always a good strategy.

[jimlongley]

Thanks for correcting the flaws in my story, Jim. I got the important part right - that a leader who was the pride of the British army (and an accomplished gun designer if I'm remembering correctly) managed to turn a tactical advantage into a rout by himself. I shot myself in the foot by saying "well fortified" when I just should have left the "well" off.

My point was that discounting those who cling to their guns and religion is not always a good strategy.

Bit of a history buff myself, particularly "odd" battles.

[Medic624]

My point was that discounting those who cling to their guns and religion is not always a good strategy.

[Heartland Patriot]

I'm reminded of Alexandr Solzhenitzyn, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for Literature in 1970 for "The Gulag Archepalego," when he spoke at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . ."

I would like to commend you, sir, for bringing up this quote. It is indeed one of my favorites. THAT is the proper attitude to take, God willing that we would all have the spine to do so if the necessity arose. Oh, and I looked up the "esteemed" Mr. Simpson. Did his last round of work as a diplomat for Bill "Definition of Is" Clinton...and retired in 2001. I'm not sure if this guy was 100% serious, but I think that Texas and several other states would be bad places to give that business a try, at least for the foreseeable future. His LEFTIST (not liberal) nut-job fantasy is something right out of Stalinist Russia, indeed. And, it is up to each and every one of us to do our part, however large or small, to see that his little fantasy remains just that...a figment of his addled mind.

[Poldark]

Patrick Ferguson killed at Kings Mountain his Breach loading rifle. Sure didn't pay to upset those Overmountain men , I just wonder how many would get out of their comfy sofa's watching America Idol or ball game to defend the Constitution,most seem to struggle to get to a voting booth ?

http://johno.myiglou.com/ferguson.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A very good book to get hold of , Kings Mountain and its Heroes by Draper. I managed to purchase my copy during one of our visits to KM. Ferguson is burried under a rock pile with his lady friend Virginia Sal also killed at the battle.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cg ... GRid=10227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Excellent link to the Battle of Kings Mountain.

http://www.tngenweb.org/revwar/kingsmountain.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[FNguy]

I'm not quite sure I'd buy into your 60% number. I'd honestly say you could expect something like 2% tops. It's one thing to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, and steel plate. It's quite another to point it at somebody and be willing to stop them from doing something that it not directly related to defending your, or somebody else's, life. More specifically engaging in an act that is almost certain to destroy your life and possibly the well being of your family. More accurately, those 2% would have to create an effective and organized resistance using means that are not easily detected.

Far more difficult than you might imagine.

Some people think it's 3%. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently none of them are in NY, NJ, DC, CA, etc.