What I will never understand is why the 2A militia movement thinks they need these weapons to oppose a domestic government that has gone full tyranny:
I was part of an occupying force across three deployments during the years when we lost the most Soldiers/Marines in combat ('04-'08), and I can tell you first hand that AK-47s were *not* …
What I will never understand is why the 2A militia movement thinks they need these weapons to oppose a domestic government that has gone full tyranny:
I was part of an occupying force across three deployments during the years when we lost the most Soldiers/Marines in combat ('04-'08), and I can tell you first hand that AK-47s were *not* the thing that killed the majority of us. The things that killed the majority of us were well-placed roadside bombs that bypassed our armor. The next worst thing were snipers who could place well-aimed shots on our chest/head where the body armor didn't cover. The standard US infantryman carries four plates of ceramic armor around his torso, and these plates can stop about x3 7.62x39mm AK-47 bullets before they break and let bullets into the torso. If you go after an American infantryman (and about 24+ of his buddies) using a small group of guys using AR-15s, that small group of guys is going to get destroyed by overwhelming return fire. We ran this experiment so many times in Iraq. Every time guys came at us with AK-47s they died. It was the kind of thing we wanted them to do. Instead, they got wise and started burying bombs in the ground so that they could kill us even with all of our armor without having to expose themselves to the return fire. THAT is how they started killing us in significant numbers, not with small groups of guys running around with assault rifles. This notion that the domestic 2A group uses to justify owning an assault rifle (that they need it to oppose domestic government) is ridiculous on its face because we know after 20 years of fighting an insurgency where the bad guys were trying to kill those same US government troops with bombs and sniper rifles that those weapons are immensely more effective against US troops than an AR-15 or AK-47 were. Like, we knooowwwww this.
The only thing assault rifles do for this country is make it easier for crazy people to kill a whole lot of unarmed innocents in less than the time it takes for the police to get there. THAT is what they do on the civilian market. You can shoot competitions without needing a 30-round magazine. Just change the course of fire for the competition and your need for more bullets per magazine goes away if you're really that into firearms competitions.
See that's the thing liberals never understood. The 2A militias can prep for an overthrow of the government by couching their rhetoric in some kind of concept of preparation against tyranny when really, they're just stockpiling guns for the government overthrow they want to do against a non-tyrannical government they just don't happen to like because it's too liberal. All they have to do to move from the prepping phase to the insurrection phase is to stretch the definition of "tyranny" so thin that it basically gives them justification to overthrow any government they don't like. We're actually in that moment as we speak. The giveaway was when the militias showed up to the Bundy Ranch armed in 2014, and then didn't do shit against the tyrannical Trump government at Lafayette Square and Portland where they were rounding up citizens in unmarked vehicles with unmarked uniforms. THAT shit was tyrannical, but the militias cheered them on. When supposed anti-tyranny militias are acting as enforcers for the tyrannical Trump admin, that's when you knew militia positions on armed insurrection weren't about tyrannical governments, they were about armed insurrections against liberal ones. You just have to convince people that liberalism = tyranny and bam, you've got yourself an ideologically-justified insurrection now. All it takes is convincing armed citizens that Fauci and Biden are tyrants who are trying to shut down your economy and steal elections. That's what the 2A right REALLY wants: to end liberal governance by force, up to and including killing liberals and government police or troops if they have to do it to prevent liberal governments from establishing control over their communities. THAT is the state of affairs, and there are millions of assault rifles in circulation here.
The original insurrectionists had 27 factual and mostly valid grievances, as laid out of the Declaration of Independence.. 1776 2.0 have the 2nd Amendment paranoia and Trump's narcissism.
Funny thing is that the tyrannical government they think they have is liberal enough to allow them to be armed. I could be wrong (I often am) but I don't think China allows their citizens to have guns.
Actually, most liberals of my acquaintance (moderate Democrat myself) have always understood that, especially the non-white ones. What the 2A's don't understand is that they are being played by the Republican donor class. If they ever did overthrow the US government (a very long shot), we would have a resurrection of the Confederacy. Money would rule without an effective government to protect them from the greed of billionaires who would eliminate their beloved Social Security and Medicare and always be able to recruit more guns for hire than any opposition. They simply haven't thought it through. Their Walter Mitty wet dream is that they would get to shoot those "others" without any bullets coming back at them. Most would not stand and fight in a real combat confrontation.
I have always worried more about the tyranny of the private sector and corps than I have the tyranny of the government... mostly because it seems far more likely and one of our major political parties always seems to be working to make it more possible through tax cuts, deregulation, preferential treatment, and reducing the ability of the USG to control corporations and protect workers and consumers.
Exactly! More concentrations of private wealth allows money to corrupt institutes that are supposed to be hedges against concentrations of power generally. If you have a class of citizens who are filthy rich and are always trying to get politicians to do what they want--lest they withhold campaign contributions--then your institutions are going to get corrupted and you won't have a meritocracy anymore and you won't have nonpartisan institutions anymore because money will control things, and the people with more money than others will have their desires met whether or not they are moral or in the good of the public. If you want lower taxes, you end up with larger private concentrations of wealth that are then used to corrupt institutes *against* the public interest.
That shot isn't as long as you'd think. The US military was defeated by illiterate heroin farmers in Afghanistan because we couldn't kill more of them than they were recruiting each year over a 20-year stretch. Now imagine if the same military we'd use to put down a domestic insurgency was full of MAGA sympathizers and you'll see just how easy it might be to neuter the government's armed forces. A lot of them would walk away from the uniform, and those who stayed behind would be at a loss for manpower and equipment that the MAGA loyalists walked away with and/or sabotaged on their way out. Most would not stand and fight, but most wouldn't need to because *even more* liberals wouldn't stand and fight those who did choose to insurrect, and the ones who did choose to stand and fight would be hampered by those who defected or just left their uniforms behind and disappeared into the civilian populace. Never forget that MAGA has more guns than the US government by significant ratios, and that they represent a significant share of the forces that would be mustered to put down a MAGA insurrection. Just some food for thought. I know they have their blindspots in the antigovernment militia community, but we have ours as well. Think about how quickly the government was caught off guard on January 6th and how you had some USCP officers who were negligent in their duties or even sympathetic to the insurrectionists. As the old Rage Against the Machine song goes: "some of those who work forces, are the same who burn crosses."
I didn't say it was impossible, just that I think it unlikely - but I couldn't give you odds. In fact. I was in fact surprised that Jan.6 ended as quickly as it did with as little actual loss of life. And don't forget about the significant numbers of patriotic "others" in the US military, or the fact that there were many "others" in the USCP who held the line on Jan.6. As for myself, having had some military training, my attitude toward anyone who'd want to scare me with an AR-15 could be expressed by quoting Matthew Quigley ("Quigley Down Under"): "I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use one."
Fire from individual weapons has not been the major cause of military casualties since before the first world war. There is a reason why artillery is called the King of Battle. Steel rain, baby.
if you don't have artillery, ambush bombs are your next best bet (especially against occupying forces).
These 2A people (and their industry sponsors) are buying a fantasy, not a reality. Anyone with actual military experience (and thought about it) or who has studied war knows this. It is all about the fantasy/narrative of the brave and noble militia/minuteman defending the freedumb of 'Murica (and also making sure those "Other People" don't get too uppity).
People bring up the Minutemen and the colonial militias to justify modern militias. Correct me if I'm wrong please, but I believe individual arms at that time were inaccurate, and artillery (on land and sea) was the deciding factor in the Revolutionary War. Militias were for practicing in case of Indian raids.
Artillery did not really become the King of Battle until the introduction of HE/shrapnel rounds. Used in large numbers and concentrated, it could be decisive (it is what Napoleon centered a lot of his battle tactics on--people tend to forget that he started off as an artillery officer, if they even know ITFP).
Prior to that you had a choice between ball and grape. Grape was horribly effective against troops moving in the open (basically like a large shotgun). Ball was only really good against troops in large, compact masses.
The deciding factor in the revolutionary war was logistics (and the entry of the French on our side, which greatly expanded the war and its cost).
The deciding factor in most wars is logistics. Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown because the French won a naval victory that stopped the Royal Navy from evacuating his troops. He got trapped. That was basically the last straw on top of the cost and the expanded threat because of the French.
Linear tactics (standing in lines and blazing away) were usually decided by morale. It usually came down to which side broke and ran first under fire. Most casualties before the modern era (late 19th century) were actually taken after the battle was over, in the rout and pursuit. This is why a Roman army could kill a few ten thousand "barbarians." They didn't kill them in a stand up fight, they killed them while they were running away. The major advantage of a Roman army was that their morale was a LOT stronger than the enemy's morale.
Modern artillery and crew served weapon are absolutely lethal, and at ranges far beyond most individual weapons. A Civil war era or earlier army would vaporize when faced with modern weaponry.. usually before they even knew the enemy was around.
I'll defer to more informed opinions, but my take:
1. Some individual arms (rifles) were deadly accurate back then. Most hand weapons used were smooth bore, which weren't very accurate. That's why the tactics of the time involved standing 25-50 yards apart and blasting away in volley fire by ranks.
2. I don't think artillery was much more accurate at the time either. Most was smooth bore and most cannon balls didn't explode. Of course with tight formation infantry, a cannon ball could take out several people at once just from inertia.
3. Cannons were pretty important in the war, but I don't know about them being the deciding factor. I think it was more that the US needed to have at least some cannon to counteract the British advantage.
4. You bring up the Minutemen, and that is somewhat illustrative. The militiamen in question proceeded to hand the British regulars a defeat. At various places they were brought up short by British cannons, but mostly they just covered the retreating British regulars.
5. Naval gunfire at the time was somewhat supreme due to its ability to be concentrated and moved. Still, the Battle of Bunker hill shows that it had limits due to it not being of much effect against dug in troops (no explosions). The militia (again) stood up to the regulars and naval artillery, retreating only when they ran out of ammo.
So from the point of utility in standing up to a military, the militia examples in New England during 1775 support the case of those making it. The problem is that the weapons and tactics of the time are so wildly different from today's military situation as make comparisons somewhat beside the point.
Thank you! And thank you to Travis too. I think the militia gets a lot of their legitimacy through the heritage argument: we've always had militias, they're as American as Yankee Doodle Dandy. So I appreciate seeing how militias have changed.
Correct. Accurate muzzle fire didn't start until the invention of the "minnie ball" (pretty sure I misspelled that but whatevers). Basically, until the 2nd American Civil War (1860-1865), muskets were smooth bore and didn't have rifling inside of gun barrels. The minnie ball changed this, by pairing barrel rifling with a projectile that would spin along the rifling grooves. The spin-in-flight improved ballistics immeasurably and made flint-lock rifles much more accurate than they used to be. The invention of cased ammunition also changed things a lot, which enabled the infantryman to carry spare ammo on "clips" that held about 5-8 individual cased ammunition rounds each. Then the replacement of ammo clips with magazines. You used to reload 8 rounds with an ammo clip in WW1, then they invented magazines for rifles and you had guys in WW2 reloading their Thompson and M3 submachine guns with magazines that held 20-30 rounds in the magazine instead of the usual 8-round ammo clips. The M16 started out with a 20-round magazine in the 1960s. That only changed later on when the services adopted 30-round magazines as the standard. Nowadays you can get 100-round ammo drums for AR-15s very easily.
The unfortunate last words of Major-General John Sedgwick at the Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse, moments before he was shot down by a Confederate sniper.
Civil War era rifle-muskets had an effective range of around 1000 yards in the hands of a skilled marksman.
Most militias seem to be full of white guys (and rural) is there any meaningful difference between these militias and a urban street gang? Sure, one group talks a lot of BS about why they exist.. but aren't they both about protecting their turf?
You're right. Never thought of it that way. The thing is, I grew up in Chicago, and it always seemed to me it was gangsters killing other gangsters, which is a completely different scenario.
One usually sells drugs and engages in on/off violence with other street gangs, whereas the other usually just talks a lot of shit about the government and then sometimes does an insurrection or a mass shooting when they buy into online conspiracy theories. I guess that's the big difference.
What I will never understand is why the 2A militia movement thinks they need these weapons to oppose a domestic government that has gone full tyranny:
I was part of an occupying force across three deployments during the years when we lost the most Soldiers/Marines in combat ('04-'08), and I can tell you first hand that AK-47s were *not* the thing that killed the majority of us. The things that killed the majority of us were well-placed roadside bombs that bypassed our armor. The next worst thing were snipers who could place well-aimed shots on our chest/head where the body armor didn't cover. The standard US infantryman carries four plates of ceramic armor around his torso, and these plates can stop about x3 7.62x39mm AK-47 bullets before they break and let bullets into the torso. If you go after an American infantryman (and about 24+ of his buddies) using a small group of guys using AR-15s, that small group of guys is going to get destroyed by overwhelming return fire. We ran this experiment so many times in Iraq. Every time guys came at us with AK-47s they died. It was the kind of thing we wanted them to do. Instead, they got wise and started burying bombs in the ground so that they could kill us even with all of our armor without having to expose themselves to the return fire. THAT is how they started killing us in significant numbers, not with small groups of guys running around with assault rifles. This notion that the domestic 2A group uses to justify owning an assault rifle (that they need it to oppose domestic government) is ridiculous on its face because we know after 20 years of fighting an insurgency where the bad guys were trying to kill those same US government troops with bombs and sniper rifles that those weapons are immensely more effective against US troops than an AR-15 or AK-47 were. Like, we knooowwwww this.
The only thing assault rifles do for this country is make it easier for crazy people to kill a whole lot of unarmed innocents in less than the time it takes for the police to get there. THAT is what they do on the civilian market. You can shoot competitions without needing a 30-round magazine. Just change the course of fire for the competition and your need for more bullets per magazine goes away if you're really that into firearms competitions.
The "2A militia" types think the 2nd Amendment reads "An UNregulated militia, being necessary for the OVERTHROW of the State...".
See that's the thing liberals never understood. The 2A militias can prep for an overthrow of the government by couching their rhetoric in some kind of concept of preparation against tyranny when really, they're just stockpiling guns for the government overthrow they want to do against a non-tyrannical government they just don't happen to like because it's too liberal. All they have to do to move from the prepping phase to the insurrection phase is to stretch the definition of "tyranny" so thin that it basically gives them justification to overthrow any government they don't like. We're actually in that moment as we speak. The giveaway was when the militias showed up to the Bundy Ranch armed in 2014, and then didn't do shit against the tyrannical Trump government at Lafayette Square and Portland where they were rounding up citizens in unmarked vehicles with unmarked uniforms. THAT shit was tyrannical, but the militias cheered them on. When supposed anti-tyranny militias are acting as enforcers for the tyrannical Trump admin, that's when you knew militia positions on armed insurrection weren't about tyrannical governments, they were about armed insurrections against liberal ones. You just have to convince people that liberalism = tyranny and bam, you've got yourself an ideologically-justified insurrection now. All it takes is convincing armed citizens that Fauci and Biden are tyrants who are trying to shut down your economy and steal elections. That's what the 2A right REALLY wants: to end liberal governance by force, up to and including killing liberals and government police or troops if they have to do it to prevent liberal governments from establishing control over their communities. THAT is the state of affairs, and there are millions of assault rifles in circulation here.
The original insurrectionists had 27 factual and mostly valid grievances, as laid out of the Declaration of Independence.. 1776 2.0 have the 2nd Amendment paranoia and Trump's narcissism.
Funny thing is that the tyrannical government they think they have is liberal enough to allow them to be armed. I could be wrong (I often am) but I don't think China allows their citizens to have guns.
Well, we're just one Kenyan President away from taking all the guns so that we'd be just like China. Obviously.
Actually, most liberals of my acquaintance (moderate Democrat myself) have always understood that, especially the non-white ones. What the 2A's don't understand is that they are being played by the Republican donor class. If they ever did overthrow the US government (a very long shot), we would have a resurrection of the Confederacy. Money would rule without an effective government to protect them from the greed of billionaires who would eliminate their beloved Social Security and Medicare and always be able to recruit more guns for hire than any opposition. They simply haven't thought it through. Their Walter Mitty wet dream is that they would get to shoot those "others" without any bullets coming back at them. Most would not stand and fight in a real combat confrontation.
I have always worried more about the tyranny of the private sector and corps than I have the tyranny of the government... mostly because it seems far more likely and one of our major political parties always seems to be working to make it more possible through tax cuts, deregulation, preferential treatment, and reducing the ability of the USG to control corporations and protect workers and consumers.
Exactly! More concentrations of private wealth allows money to corrupt institutes that are supposed to be hedges against concentrations of power generally. If you have a class of citizens who are filthy rich and are always trying to get politicians to do what they want--lest they withhold campaign contributions--then your institutions are going to get corrupted and you won't have a meritocracy anymore and you won't have nonpartisan institutions anymore because money will control things, and the people with more money than others will have their desires met whether or not they are moral or in the good of the public. If you want lower taxes, you end up with larger private concentrations of wealth that are then used to corrupt institutes *against* the public interest.
That shot isn't as long as you'd think. The US military was defeated by illiterate heroin farmers in Afghanistan because we couldn't kill more of them than they were recruiting each year over a 20-year stretch. Now imagine if the same military we'd use to put down a domestic insurgency was full of MAGA sympathizers and you'll see just how easy it might be to neuter the government's armed forces. A lot of them would walk away from the uniform, and those who stayed behind would be at a loss for manpower and equipment that the MAGA loyalists walked away with and/or sabotaged on their way out. Most would not stand and fight, but most wouldn't need to because *even more* liberals wouldn't stand and fight those who did choose to insurrect, and the ones who did choose to stand and fight would be hampered by those who defected or just left their uniforms behind and disappeared into the civilian populace. Never forget that MAGA has more guns than the US government by significant ratios, and that they represent a significant share of the forces that would be mustered to put down a MAGA insurrection. Just some food for thought. I know they have their blindspots in the antigovernment militia community, but we have ours as well. Think about how quickly the government was caught off guard on January 6th and how you had some USCP officers who were negligent in their duties or even sympathetic to the insurrectionists. As the old Rage Against the Machine song goes: "some of those who work forces, are the same who burn crosses."
I didn't say it was impossible, just that I think it unlikely - but I couldn't give you odds. In fact. I was in fact surprised that Jan.6 ended as quickly as it did with as little actual loss of life. And don't forget about the significant numbers of patriotic "others" in the US military, or the fact that there were many "others" in the USCP who held the line on Jan.6. As for myself, having had some military training, my attitude toward anyone who'd want to scare me with an AR-15 could be expressed by quoting Matthew Quigley ("Quigley Down Under"): "I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use one."
Fire from individual weapons has not been the major cause of military casualties since before the first world war. There is a reason why artillery is called the King of Battle. Steel rain, baby.
if you don't have artillery, ambush bombs are your next best bet (especially against occupying forces).
These 2A people (and their industry sponsors) are buying a fantasy, not a reality. Anyone with actual military experience (and thought about it) or who has studied war knows this. It is all about the fantasy/narrative of the brave and noble militia/minuteman defending the freedumb of 'Murica (and also making sure those "Other People" don't get too uppity).
People bring up the Minutemen and the colonial militias to justify modern militias. Correct me if I'm wrong please, but I believe individual arms at that time were inaccurate, and artillery (on land and sea) was the deciding factor in the Revolutionary War. Militias were for practicing in case of Indian raids.
Artillery did not really become the King of Battle until the introduction of HE/shrapnel rounds. Used in large numbers and concentrated, it could be decisive (it is what Napoleon centered a lot of his battle tactics on--people tend to forget that he started off as an artillery officer, if they even know ITFP).
Shrapnel showed up during the Napoleonic wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Shrapnel
Prior to that you had a choice between ball and grape. Grape was horribly effective against troops moving in the open (basically like a large shotgun). Ball was only really good against troops in large, compact masses.
The deciding factor in the revolutionary war was logistics (and the entry of the French on our side, which greatly expanded the war and its cost).
The deciding factor in most wars is logistics. Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown because the French won a naval victory that stopped the Royal Navy from evacuating his troops. He got trapped. That was basically the last straw on top of the cost and the expanded threat because of the French.
Linear tactics (standing in lines and blazing away) were usually decided by morale. It usually came down to which side broke and ran first under fire. Most casualties before the modern era (late 19th century) were actually taken after the battle was over, in the rout and pursuit. This is why a Roman army could kill a few ten thousand "barbarians." They didn't kill them in a stand up fight, they killed them while they were running away. The major advantage of a Roman army was that their morale was a LOT stronger than the enemy's morale.
Modern artillery and crew served weapon are absolutely lethal, and at ranges far beyond most individual weapons. A Civil war era or earlier army would vaporize when faced with modern weaponry.. usually before they even knew the enemy was around.
I'll defer to more informed opinions, but my take:
1. Some individual arms (rifles) were deadly accurate back then. Most hand weapons used were smooth bore, which weren't very accurate. That's why the tactics of the time involved standing 25-50 yards apart and blasting away in volley fire by ranks.
2. I don't think artillery was much more accurate at the time either. Most was smooth bore and most cannon balls didn't explode. Of course with tight formation infantry, a cannon ball could take out several people at once just from inertia.
3. Cannons were pretty important in the war, but I don't know about them being the deciding factor. I think it was more that the US needed to have at least some cannon to counteract the British advantage.
4. You bring up the Minutemen, and that is somewhat illustrative. The militiamen in question proceeded to hand the British regulars a defeat. At various places they were brought up short by British cannons, but mostly they just covered the retreating British regulars.
5. Naval gunfire at the time was somewhat supreme due to its ability to be concentrated and moved. Still, the Battle of Bunker hill shows that it had limits due to it not being of much effect against dug in troops (no explosions). The militia (again) stood up to the regulars and naval artillery, retreating only when they ran out of ammo.
So from the point of utility in standing up to a military, the militia examples in New England during 1775 support the case of those making it. The problem is that the weapons and tactics of the time are so wildly different from today's military situation as make comparisons somewhat beside the point.
Thank you! And thank you to Travis too. I think the militia gets a lot of their legitimacy through the heritage argument: we've always had militias, they're as American as Yankee Doodle Dandy. So I appreciate seeing how militias have changed.
Correct. Accurate muzzle fire didn't start until the invention of the "minnie ball" (pretty sure I misspelled that but whatevers). Basically, until the 2nd American Civil War (1860-1865), muskets were smooth bore and didn't have rifling inside of gun barrels. The minnie ball changed this, by pairing barrel rifling with a projectile that would spin along the rifling grooves. The spin-in-flight improved ballistics immeasurably and made flint-lock rifles much more accurate than they used to be. The invention of cased ammunition also changed things a lot, which enabled the infantryman to carry spare ammo on "clips" that held about 5-8 individual cased ammunition rounds each. Then the replacement of ammo clips with magazines. You used to reload 8 rounds with an ammo clip in WW1, then they invented magazines for rifles and you had guys in WW2 reloading their Thompson and M3 submachine guns with magazines that held 20-30 rounds in the magazine instead of the usual 8-round ammo clips. The M16 started out with a 20-round magazine in the 1960s. That only changed later on when the services adopted 30-round magazines as the standard. Nowadays you can get 100-round ammo drums for AR-15s very easily.
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."
The unfortunate last words of Major-General John Sedgwick at the Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse, moments before he was shot down by a Confederate sniper.
Civil War era rifle-muskets had an effective range of around 1000 yards in the hands of a skilled marksman.
An interesting question....
Most militias seem to be full of white guys (and rural) is there any meaningful difference between these militias and a urban street gang? Sure, one group talks a lot of BS about why they exist.. but aren't they both about protecting their turf?
You're right. Never thought of it that way. The thing is, I grew up in Chicago, and it always seemed to me it was gangsters killing other gangsters, which is a completely different scenario.
One usually sells drugs and engages in on/off violence with other street gangs, whereas the other usually just talks a lot of shit about the government and then sometimes does an insurrection or a mass shooting when they buy into online conspiracy theories. I guess that's the big difference.