1) As many people have pointed out, the claim made in the headline is more-or-less accurate and has been for decades.

2) Seeing people on the fringe as a threat is stupid. They are, by definition, those farthest away from holding any actual power. You should be much more concerned by the not necessarily crazy but still incorrect ideas held and being acted on by those who actually do wield political power.

MoonPirate: Page B: the government has F-22s and shiat. I'm pretty sure militias ceased to be relevant sometime around 1783.

Good point. Highly mobile, faceless, extremists with nothing but small arms and improvised devices could never be a problem.

Not a fan of the wing nuts, but to underestimate the threat potential of such a groups is silly.

I don't see this as a problem. For such an guerrilla insurgency to be successful or even viable, it has to have mass support, which means we're no longer talking about crazy fringe ideas fueling it. You'd have to have a government that was so bad that it had lost basic liberal-democratic legitimacy. And if things got that bad, I would hope that the American people would win over the American government.

Churchill2004: And if things got that bad, I would hope that the American people would win over the American government.

I've mentally played around with that scenario, and often wondered what would happen. To quote a phrase, "they've got the guns, but we've got the numbers" but, I wonder if the numbers would be enough- they have awfully big guns.

yarnothuntin: Churchill2004: And if things got that bad, I would hope that the American people would win over the American government.

I've mentally played around with that scenario, and often wondered what would happen. To quote a phrase, "they've got the guns, but we've got the numbers" but, I wonder if the numbers would be enough- they have awfully big guns.

The big guns don't even do them any good in countries a fraction the size of the US, where civilian casualties are accepted relatively easily, and where the US military has essentially zero loyalty problems. How many American pilots would accept an order to bomb an American city? How many American soldiers would accept fighting against their neighbors in their own backyard? I'd say a majority probably would, but enough would refuse or defect to seriously compromise the military's operational capabilities. Particularly when you think about the National Guard, who also answer to state governments that may or may not side with the Feds.

That's really one of the great things about our military, when you think about it. It's a "standing army" of exactly the sort the Founders abhorred, but there's a reason beyond just civilian control that keeps them in check. Culturally and socially, they're thoroughly integrated with the civilian population, they're part of American people, not something separate from it like the professional soldiers of European monarchs.

Markoff_Cheney:
Yes, I am edgy and rad to the extreme.

I hear they're casting for a miracle whip ad around the corner; you might wanna check it out.

Geez, these guys are lucky they don't know what living under a tyrannic government really is.

yarnothuntin: Churchill2004: And if things got that bad, I would hope that the American people would win over the American government.

I've mentally played around with that scenario, and often wondered what would happen. To quote a phrase, "they've got the guns, but we've got the numbers" but, I wonder if the numbers would be enough- they have awfully big guns.

When you get to a civil war scenario, the question becomes how many of those big guns will fire on command. Its not like they are all remote controlled from the Whitehouse.
Add to that the Federal military will have a tendency to show restraint if the fight is near a city. Guerrillas don't need billions of dollars in infrastructure to stay in the fight, and they will be targeting such things from day one.

Churchill2004: That's really one of the great things about our military, when you think about it. It's a "standing army" of exactly the sort the Founders abhorred, but there's a reason beyond just civilian control that keeps them in check. Culturally and socially, they're thoroughly integrated with the civilian population, they're part of American people, not something separate from it like the professional soldiers of European monarchs.

Yeah that's very true. I guess it would come down to what the driving issues are to see where the lines would be split and who would defect/rebel. I disagree with your first statement though- I know body counts are a crude way to measure, but really that's what war is about- and they're body count is a lot higher than ours. Not to mention, they are playing under very strict rules of engagement. If given a "free for all" order, our military could seriously fark some shiat up.

Aschlafly: Markoff_Cheney:
Yes, I am edgy and rad to the extreme.

I hear they're casting for a miracle whip ad around the corner; you might wanna check it out.

interesting, because I often refuse to back down as well, and I enjoy dancing in backyards whilst eating sandwiches.

Subby: "The federal government can roll into your driveway in the middle of the night and snatch you up and take you away and you'll never be seen again."

That's sort of the point of government. If they couldn't do that, they'd be able to frown significantly at people they disagreed with, and that's about it.

Name me one government in history that didn't have the right to yank its citizens into custody for its own set purposes. Just one. Go ahead.

It's called law. It's been around for a few eons. You might've heard of it.

way south: Guerrillas don't need billions of dollars in infrastructure to stay in the fight, and they will be targeting such things from day one.

Yeah that's true too. Guerrilla warfare is a biatch- so is surprise tactics. Hit the infrastructure hard, and cripple at the source etc.. yeah, that's true.

yarnothuntin: I disagree with your first statement though- I know body counts are a crude way to measure, but really that's what war is about- and they're body count is a lot higher than ours.

We also killed a hell of a lot of Vietnamese. Just because you're inflicting a higher causality rate means very little in a counter-insurgency, in fact it may even be counter-productive.

yarnothuntin: If given a "free for all" order, our military could seriously fark some shiat up

And even if the military were willing to do so on American soil, such an action would cause whatever remaining support the Federal gov't had to evaporate. That's the paradox of fighting a popular rebellion. Using excessive force might be your only military option, but it will prove the case of those arguing you're a sociopathic tyrant.

yarnothuntin: Churchill2004: And if things got that bad, I would hope that the American people would win over the American government.

I've mentally played around with that scenario, and often wondered what would happen. To quote a phrase, "they've got the guns, but we've got the numbers" but, I wonder if the numbers would be enough- they have awfully big guns.

you need to figure in a lot of people would side with the authorities. the total % of people willing to hit the streets in armed protest and resistance would not be a majority or even a plurality.

These militia's are the best argument for gun control.

Ironic, isn't it?

Hobodeluxe: you need to figure in a lot of people would side with the authorities. the total % of people willing to hit the streets in armed protest and resistance would not be a majority or even a plurality.

Probably not, but it really only takes 10-15% of a population actively supporting the rebels to sustain a war. Top 25-30% and a rebel victory is eminently plausible judging from the experience of other countries. As for actual fighters, you only need low-single-digits. 3% of the American population would be 9 million men at arms, which would dwarf the actual Armed Forces.

Churchill2004: We also killed a hell of a lot of Vietnamese. Just because you're inflicting a higher causality rate means very little in a counter-insurgency, in fact it may even be counter-productive.

How do you mean? Higher causalities give reason for higher recruitment?

Churchill2004: And even if the military were willing to do so on American soil, such an action would cause whatever remaining support the Federal gov't had to evaporate. That's the paradox of fighting a popular rebellion. Using excessive force might be your only military option, but it will prove the case of those arguing you're a sociopathic tyrant.

Yeah, that's very true.

Hobodeluxe: you need to figure in a lot of people would side with the authorities. the total % of people willing to hit the streets in armed protest and resistance would not be a majority or even a plurality

Yeah, I was thinking that too. Aside from internet tough guys, how many would be willing to go out and fight as compared to hiding/riding it out?

Churchill2004: Probably not, but it really only takes 10-15% of a population actively supporting the rebels to sustain a war. Top 25-30% and a rebel victory is eminently plausible judging from the experience of other countries. As for actual fighters, you only need low-single-digits. 3% of the American population would be 9 million men at arms, which would dwarf the actual Armed Forces.

Interesting.

Churchill2004: Hobodeluxe: you need to figure in a lot of people would side with the authorities. the total % of people willing to hit the streets in armed protest and resistance would not be a majority or even a plurality.

Probably not, but it really only takes 10-15% of a population actively supporting the rebels to sustain a war. Top 25-30% and a rebel victory is eminently plausible judging from the experience of other countries. As for actual fighters, you only need low-single-digits. 3% of the American population would be 9 million men at arms, which would dwarf the actual Armed Forces.

Unless the POTUS declares a law that all first-born children shall be fed to terrorists or some shiat, there will never be more than a fraction of a percent of the population that would even consider fighting their own military. Militias are a joke. If they have any issues they want to raise, they are only discrediting these issues by being stupid idiots in militias.

Churchill2004: How many American pilots would accept an order to bomb an American city? How many American soldiers would accept fighting against their neighbors in their own backyard? I'd say a majority probably would, but enough would refuse or defect to seriously compromise the military's operational capabilities. Particularly when you think about the National Guard, who also answer to state governments that may or may not side with the Feds.

IF this were to happen, not that I'm saying that it would, what makes you think it would be the American Regulars/Guard doing that shiat here? UN Blue would be the defacto color in a lot of sights I think.

/readjusting my foil hat... ahh, that's better

yarnothuntin: Churchill2004: And if things got that bad, I would hope that the American people would win over the American government.

I've mentally played around with that scenario, and often wondered what would happen. To quote a phrase, "they've got the guns, but we've got the numbers" but, I wonder if the numbers would be enough- they have awfully big guns.

I think the scenario of having all the American people against the Government is unlikely. In reality many of the American people will side with the Government and there will be a split along geographical, party political and ideological lines. In many ways you don't need to wonder. The Civil War was an example of the people rising up against the Government because of perceived injustices.

The make-up of today's military would be an interesting variable though. There is a suggestion (not sure how accurate this is) that the majority of troops come from Republican backgrounds so you could see some military chaos if it came to a war with a perceived Democrat Government vs Republican rebels narrative.

FishStampede: Flawed analogy, since in fringe the majority of the malfeasance doesn't come from the government, but from the terrorist group ZFT. Certainly the government knows more than it lets on, and is in bed (literally) with a corporation that is most assuredly up to no good, but it's hard to say Fringe = Government Bad.

Yeah, I was playing more on the idea that in Fringe most of the stuff that ZFT has is stuff Walter and Spock came up with while they were working for the government.

But I agree, it's not very good (my idea, that is. Love both shows)

coco ebert: After 9/11 that did happen to people who made the mistake of being Muslim and overstaying their student visa.

Luckily, though, I heard from them again.

I was hoping I would see more of this referenced in the thread.

/leaving disappointed

Urg, another Gent wrote this on another board and I felt it was worth quoting (edited for flow & continuity).

I think there are enough of the radical kool-aid drinkers lurking in most of them that I would not want to be associated with them. I know that there are many well meaning individuals there as well, probably the majority. Even among them I wonder how many REALLY understand what they are contemplating in terms of armed resistance against the US government if that is their endstate (as opposed to simple local security operations in a time of crisis). I believe if most of them did, some of the bluster would subside.

A relevant book on the subject is Patriots by A.J. Iangguth. It tells about the men who led the American Revolution, and signed the Declaration of Independence. The personal price paid by these men was immense. Although they succeeded in the end, almost all were personally destroyed. This was also during a time when the enemy was unsophisticated by today's standards, and conducting war from an ocean away. In taking up arms against today's federal government, with its proximity, technology, investigative resources and highly trained counter-terrorist capability, a individual in a militia group would have to understand the inevitable outcome if they ever undertake armed resistance. Their only hope would be that their martyrdom would create a gutcheck for the rest of the citizenry, and result in a political climate for change. Individually, they can expect to either die, or be imprisoned and lose everything they own and care about. Even if they effect the political change they hope for, they will still certainly be prosecuted after the fact rather than lauded as defenders of freedom. They will utterly and completely compromise the future of their families and possibly create a hostile environment for, and cast suspicion over every friend and acquaintance. Husbands, fathers, wives and mothers cannot take these ramifications lightly.

I am not saying that there are not principles that are worth such a cost, only that I don't believe that most of the cammie-wearing blowhards have seriously sat down and thought about it. They are living in a fantasy world where they can fight the oppressor, prevail, set the world straight and tell their grandkids about how they held off the socialist hordes. It won't happen that way, especially if they belong to a well-known, publicly vocal group, as the plans are likely already in place for their dismantling.

Assuming there is widespread coordinated action by multiple groups (unlikely) the response may be diluted enough not to be a sledgehammer on any individual group. They will still have to immediately come to grips with the reality that the LE and MIL they are fighting are other Americans, possibly even relatives or neighbors, not jackbooted faceless minions of "The Man". I expect many will quit when this sinks in, or they see the first few people die. Then they get rounded up and go to jail. People they thought they could trust will give them up to "stop the violence", and wonder how they got that crazy. They will lose anything they had to govt seizure or legal costs, and if they ever get out of prison they can join their families at the local tent city.

If only a few groups get froggy, then reality will set in about one day after their first op when they get some JSOC assets (exempted from posse comitatus) stuffed down their neck, and the survivors wind up in prison for the rest of their lives. Some lucky ones will think they have escaped to carry on the fight until they get rolled out of bed a few weeks later by FBI SWAT. They will find that people will give them up in a heartbeat, because the majority of the population has no stomach for conflict.

How's that for a reality check?

dillengest: I think the scenario of having all the American people against the Government is unlikely. In reality many of the American people will side with the Government and there will be a split along geographical, party political and ideological lines. In many ways you don't need to wonder. The Civil War was an example of the people rising up against the Government because of perceived injustices.

The make-up of today's military would be an interesting variable though. There is a suggestion (not sure how accurate this is) that the majority of troops come from Republican backgrounds so you could see some military chaos if it came to a war with a perceived Democrat Government vs Republican rebels narrative.

Well, in all reality, I'm fairly confident a second violent American civil war is not likely going to happen. The losses outweigh any possible gains. That said, the next house we buy, I want a bomb shelter. Not because I'm paranoid, I just think it would make a kick-ass office/den. I would wire up an intercom system that I could turn off any time the wife needs something. Have a kick ass entertainment system, wet bar everything all under ground in a farking bomb shelter so, in the unlikely event shiat ever did go down, I'd be completely oblivious to it. LOL.

jcooli09
These militia's are the best argument for gun control.




It wasn't a militia that kicked open my neighbor's door and murdered his wife.

Churchill2004: yarnothuntin: I disagree with your first statement though- I know body counts are a crude way to measure, but really that's what war is about- and they're body count is a lot higher than ours.

We also killed a hell of a lot of Vietnamese. Just because you're inflicting a higher causality rate means very little in a counter-insurgency, in fact it may even be counter-productive.

yarnothuntin: If given a "free for all" order, our military could seriously fark some shiat up

And even if the military were willing to do so on American soil, such an action would cause whatever remaining support the Federal gov't had to evaporate. That's the paradox of fighting a popular rebellion. Using excessive force might be your only military option, but it will prove the case of those arguing you're a sociopathic tyrant.

Not to mention the federal government isn't a monolithic entity. You'd have senators, congressmen and more every federal agency may align to either side.

You'd never have it, there's not enough government that's divorced from the people. There is no way it would ever be Cops vs. Soldiers vs. Civilians. Hopefully.

craigdamage:

It wasn't a militia that kicked open my neighbor's door and murdered his wife.

This is where I'm probably supposed to say "zOMG WUT HAPPENED?!?!" since you obviously want someone to ask.

LincolnLogolas: ?

It wasn't a militia, it might not have been anything else either. Was it your friend?

PonceAlyosha: You'd never have it, there's not enough government that's divorced from the people. There is no way it would ever be Cops vs. Soldiers vs. Civilians. Hopefully.

Sounds like a great new game, though.

I wish Obama would declare a promininent Republican or two terrorists and send for a week in Club Gitmo for some waterboarding relaxation.

Also, the Militias are 50% FBI/CIA/local cops, the other 50% fat old dweebs with glasses who'd fall over dead in 2 seconds if they had to REALLY fight. The militias are harmless. (Also useless).

ghare: The militias are harmless. (Also useless).

Lets hope nobody ever gets around to teaching them tactics or strategy.

Sun Tzu? How relevant could he be, died before the water walking zombie.

Wait, I was told this was a good thing and that I had nothing to fear if I had done nothing wrong.

gundar.twinklefluffy: ghare: The militias are harmless. (Also useless).

Lets hope nobody ever gets around to teaching them tactics or strategy.

Sun Tzu? How relevant could he be, died before the water walking zombie.

I'm pretty sure teaching them strategy and tactics is impossible.

ghare: gundar.twinklefluffy: ghare: The militias are harmless. (Also useless).

Lets hope nobody ever gets around to teaching them tactics or strategy.

Sun Tzu? How relevant could he be, died before the water walking zombie.

I'm pretty sure teaching them strategy and tactics is impossible.

Not if you put it into context that they could understand.
Wait... even that wont work, but it would be fun to come up with the regimen.

gundar.twinklefluffy: And this is different from the Japanese Internment during WWII how?

/ Oh those were happy fun camps.

how could they not be with all that hot asian punanny ?

Eh, fark these people. Not a goddamned peep out of them during the Bush admin. They're fine with a massive federal government so long as a republican is in charge. Why should anyone take them seriously?

The American people will not stand for the Stalinization of America. Will not stand for it.

HotWingConspiracy: Why should anyone take them seriously?

[oklahoma-city-bombing.jpg]

THe Authoritarians (new window) is a pretty good read to what motivates these people.

DarnoKonrad: HotWingConspiracy: Why should anyone take them seriously?

[oklahoma-city-bombing.jpg]

THe Authoritarians (new window) is a pretty good read to what motivates these people.

This is a terrible book. I mean, I agree with it in principle, but the writing is just awful.

HotWingConspiracy: Eh, fark these people. Not a goddamned peep out of them during the Bush admin. They're fine with a massive federal government so long as a republican is in charge. Why should anyone take them seriously?

That's not necessarily the case. Certainly right-wing media establishments coincidentally decided that this was a viewpoint worthy of consideration shortly after Obama became President, but I would suggest there was a non-partisan 'movement' previously. It just wasn't worthy of coverage back then because... well... what you said basically.

CaesarSneezy: Occam's Chainsaw: This is not new. This has been the status quo for decades (see Weaver's comment on the Drug War). Hell, we formalized and endorsed it with the PATRIOT Act: apply the right label, and anyone's rights are forfeit. That we don't have thousands of disapperados is how you know we've not completely segued into a totalitarian state.

Wait until China catches up to us. Democracy and all its 'rights' will be seen by many as what's holding us back, just like in the 1930's with the American fascists.


There you go. About a week ago, Bill Handle was semi-spouting this on KFI 640 AM radio.

Now Handle is Jewish, and I believe he lost relatives in the Holocaust. He SAYS he is conservative but in the clinch often sounds like a big government liberal. he is certainly not a Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. The point to this paragraph being that I often shake my head in wonder that someone whose family was decimated by big government in action can be so farking blind.

But about a week ago Handle was waxing on about how the Chinese have it so "together" about moving their economy forward: mega projects, and if they decide to do something they just do it.

I felt like reaching into the radio and shaking the jerk: "HANDLE, THEY WERE SAYING THE SAME farkING THINGS ABOUT HITLER IN 1934!!!"

What was that line in the movie The Lost World? "Oh, yes, first there's the oohing and the aahing, then there's the running and the screaming..."

Doctrinaire Marxists always drone on about being "students of history" and perhaps they are (through their particular brand of colored glass). But the modern liberals and "progressives" who constantly jack off to their class struggle rhetoric seem positively, actively blind to history.

Useful idiots, indeed. (Yes, I am well aware that this particular quote is highly suspect.)

Occam's Chainsaw: apply the right label, and anyone's rights are forfeit.



THIS.

captain_heroic44: the writing is just awful.

It's lucid and grammatically correct. I don't know what else you could expect.

Occam's Chainsaw: CaesarSneezy: Wait until China catches up to us. Democracy and all its 'rights' will be seen by many as what's holding us back, just like in the 1930's with the American fascists.

We'll see. If we keep pushing toward a corporatocracy, we'll probably just continue the trend of remaining free on paper, and "voluntarily" surrendering your rights to one or more megacorps.

And as to that worldview you're outlining: Rudy 9iu11ani's "freedom is about authority" speech comes to mind. Fascism -- alive, well, and on the march.

Libertarian perspective:

With occasionally contributions such as the Patriot Act from the Republicrats, the founding edifices of velvet glove fascism in America are largely being built by the Demoblicans. But it will probably be a Republicrat administration, harried by perceived emergencies from abroad, that ushers in *formal* dictatorship (for the duration of the crisis). The crisis, of course, will never recede enough to end the new regime. And 80% of the American people will actively support slipping a chain around their necks.