"Guns cannot be used to defeat government", What about Afghanistan then?

You don't seem to understand asymmetric warfare.

 

nope but being a retired DOJ attorney who is expert on this area of the law, there is a big legal difference.

 

I'm aware of the Posse Comitatus Act. But the facts of Kent State remain: US troops fired on US civilians. Which is what I said at the beginning of this tempest in a teapot.

 

Based on your comments about a civil war being a short affair, I would say it is you who lacks understanding. Asymmetrical warfare by its real name is terrorism.I can't think of any slower way to fight a civil war.

I'll grant you the various fringe groups out there could commit acts of terrorism and maybe some cyber attacks. But you still have a coordination problem. All those groups have different agendas.

On a side note I think acts like those will alienate the American people. No one is going to think blowing stuff up is a good thing. McVeigh was one of the more hated men in America after Oklahoma City. We invaded Afghanistan over 9/11. Americans don't like or sympathize with terrorists.

 

Not even close to being truthful.

 

Quite possible, when it comes time to follow orders to kill friends and family members all bets are off, more so if those giving the orders hate the military.

 

Tell the difference. Their equipment is older, but basically the same. Their training is almost exactly the same.

 

Oh, cool. You understood that OP? That makes one of us. ;-0

 

In the Civil War plenty of families had members on both sides, many of the officers had friends on the other side. Some had even fought together in Mexico during the Mexican-American War. I think it unlikely that service members will join the other side when that other side is killing them. Particularly when their supplies, pay and benefits are coming from the gov't side.

 

Bull their training is few weekends a year versus almost constant.

 

Not after the government turns on the people, then they are duty bound to attack and destroy the Domestic Enemy.

The Military doesn't exist to defend the government, they exist to defend the nation, when the government turns on the nation, it becomes the enemy, not the people.

 

Well, it don't hurt to also have a pal like PAKISTAN on your border to provide you sanctuary and Allah only knows what other aid....GET MY DRIFT???

 

It's the same 22 weeks of initial training. Everybody has to pass the same skills and physical tests. The outcome is the same. Ergo the training is the same.

 

Hasn't happened yet, so you're talking about hypothetical situations now.

Also wrong. The oath says they protect the Constitution. The Constitution defines what the government can and can't do. So they're pretty much supposed to defend that. So when a group of people stormed the Capitol building to overturn a legal election, the military was supposed to suppress that according to their oath. Fortunately, that turned out to be unnecessary.

 

The military can't just take action, nor can they ignore posse comitatus.

 

So the same goes for your hypothesis. The military cannot enforce the laws. Even when the criminal is the government.

 

Whose hypothesis?

Does tyranny tend to ignore the rules of government?

 

Your hypothesis that the military is duty bound to attack the government when it "turns on the people", to use your phrase. If their hands are tied against one mob, then they can't act against the government when its actions are against the law.

I'm referring to your post of Sept. 7 at 7:36AM in this thread. So, your hypothesis.

 

Do you have a post number, as that's the standard reference style here?

 

36

 

Was that me?

 

Sorry. My most abject apologies. That was indeed someone else. I should have checked who was posting rather than just assuming it was all one person.

 

Those that think otherwise have a myopic view of history. Of course a large civilian force of insurgents can beat back even the most advanced military. Historically speaking, the USSR stated the primary reason that an invasion of America was impractical wasn't because of our military but because of the armed civilian populace would make it impossible to conquer.

 

I suppose it depend how many crimes this government is willing to do. For instance, a government that would have no worries to make large amount of the population to starve or gas them (like S.Hussein did).
The USA were still willing to respect some rule of wars in Afghanistan, people like the Talibans didn't.

 

An armed citizenry can absolutely take on the government. Especially one as heavily armed as the United States. Our country spent 20 years in the middle-east and couldn’t defeat a few million guys (if that) running around in flip-flops with nothing but small-arms. Imagine what 50+ million armed Americans can do? It would be absolute chaos. The military can’t control that. Not to mention, our military is undoubtedly weaker than it ever has been. This is no longer the generation of WWII and Vietnam fighters. The vast majority of today's military does nothing but fly a desk. These people aren’t prepared for “combat”. Hell, half of them are 19-20 year old girls.