Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Can one handgun take on an Army?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1160869" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>Very good article. </p><p></p><p>I imagine that if we ever had to fight our own government, that situation presupposes a large, over-powerful government, and such governments are almost always accompanied by a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. This means that the most well-equipped and battle-hardened units would likely be deployed on foreign soil.</p><p></p><p>Also, take into consideration how large our nation is (in landmas as well as population) Our military only has 1.4 million or so active members right now. We have never attempted to try to place a nation the size of ours under complete military control. It would be impossible.</p><p></p><p>If our nation were placed under martial law, the government would rely heavily on police/para-military forces, who would have to be equipped (out of necessity) much like modern law enforcement officers. It would not be possible for the police forces of every single little town in America, even if they were federalized or something (think Waffen SS), to have apache gunships or a detachment of bradleys on call.</p><p></p><p>Certainly there would be military units stationed in the States, and they would probably be used in the areas with the heaviest resistance, but they could not be everywhere. Widespread domestic resistance would spread the government forces very thin, and could easily overwhelm them.</p><p></p><p>But like the article mentioned, this would require a citizenry with the will to resist. Out of all the people who talk big about how they would fight if this or that happened, I'm sure only a small percent actually would. But it would only take a small percent, if it were spread over the entire country.</p><p></p><p>However, we should all keep in mind that the whole point of having an armed citizenry is to keep the government sufficiently afraid of the people that they never even consider doing anything too tyrannical in the first place. The better we are armed and know how to use our arms, the less likely we ever will have to use them for the most important reason we keep them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1160869, member: 4235"] Very good article. I imagine that if we ever had to fight our own government, that situation presupposes a large, over-powerful government, and such governments are almost always accompanied by a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. This means that the most well-equipped and battle-hardened units would likely be deployed on foreign soil. Also, take into consideration how large our nation is (in landmas as well as population) Our military only has 1.4 million or so active members right now. We have never attempted to try to place a nation the size of ours under complete military control. It would be impossible. If our nation were placed under martial law, the government would rely heavily on police/para-military forces, who would have to be equipped (out of necessity) much like modern law enforcement officers. It would not be possible for the police forces of every single little town in America, even if they were federalized or something (think Waffen SS), to have apache gunships or a detachment of bradleys on call. Certainly there would be military units stationed in the States, and they would probably be used in the areas with the heaviest resistance, but they could not be everywhere. Widespread domestic resistance would spread the government forces very thin, and could easily overwhelm them. But like the article mentioned, this would require a citizenry with the will to resist. Out of all the people who talk big about how they would fight if this or that happened, I'm sure only a small percent actually would. But it would only take a small percent, if it were spread over the entire country. However, we should all keep in mind that the whole point of having an armed citizenry is to keep the government sufficiently afraid of the people that they never even consider doing anything too tyrannical in the first place. The better we are armed and know how to use our arms, the less likely we ever will have to use them for the most important reason we keep them. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Can one handgun take on an Army?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom