quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Bubba doesn't have to defeat Uncle Sam. Bubba only needs to make the countryside ungovernable by Uncle Sam. Bubba can do this.

And Bubba could refuse to truck or let food be delivered to the liberal stronghold cities like Detroit, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Franciso, Baltimore, etc. That would surely raise hell.

Not trying to "rain an anyone's parade" -- but I must state a few historical facts:

1 - The patriot militia didn't defeat the British army. Too many times the militia ran when faced with Brtish bayonets.
The Continental line was a different story (they were regulars). Our militia was pretty good at "bushwhacking" and then melting away or firing one volley and disappearing.

2 - Patriots had a very powerful ally who furnished a great deal of military aid (France). We Americans tend put on rose colored glasses and proclaim "we beat the British". Just not true, without our French allies, there's no way the Colonials could have won at Yorktown. And I'm including the French army and the navy.

3 - Finally, the Patriots did't actually defeat the Brit empire. They prevailed over exactly one of the King's armies. George III had a great deal more military might that he could have continued to throw against the Colonial rebels.
However, the American cause created a good bit of sympathy among the British public. The war was was becoming unpopular (think Vietnam) and very costly to continue. The Brits really just quit trying to reclaim the thirteen colonies.

^^^^^ Exactly. But the result is the same. The militia, regulars, and support of the French made holding the colonies too expensive in cash, manpower, and politics to continue.

That is all that has to be done. Organizing Bubba to beat Uncle Sam would be a difficult and time consuming process, but there is no reason it couldn't be done if the will were there. There is also no reason to believe that with the combined wealth of all of the Bubbas, materiel couldn't be purchased overseas, and alliances made with benefactors. After all, the Confederate States received significant assistance from Britain and France during the Civil War.

Bubba would lose pitched battles, but that isn't the same as making the nation ungovernable, which would result in either a breakup of the nation, or a negotiated settlement.

Bubba doesn't have to win as long as Bubba never submits.

For those who doubt that the military would fire upon their fellow Americans, once upon a time they did just that. Americans killed each other by the thousands and burned their homes to the ground. Under the right circumstances they'd do it all over again.

Also, remember that Washington worked hard to preserve the Continental Army as a fighting force, not meeting the British on their terms. He knew that as long as the Continental Army just existed, the British could not win.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Well, I guess we can add "breech-loading flintlock muskets" to the list of inaccurate gun phrases being bandied about by the media.

Which technically, breech-loading long guns did exist at the time of the American Revolution, they were typically custom pieces, with muzzleloaders being significantly more common by far.

Ah, that's not fair. Until Eli Whitney was brought into the US armory, they were all put together individually. Even the batch of Fergusons that actually went into "production".

Defeat the government outright? Probably not. I doubt it would be fighting against the entire military, though, as I suspect many would take issue with that order and bring their toys into the fight on the side of 'Bubba'.

The government would also likely hold back some of its weapon systems. I don't see them throwing nukes around, for example.

It would be more of an Iraq / Afghan thing using IEDs, snipers, booby traps, and so forth than direct confrontation.

quote:

Originally posted by sigspecops:
For those who doubt that the military would fire upon their fellow Americans, once upon a time they did just that. Americans killed each other by the thousands and burned their homes to the ground. Under the right circumstances they'd do it all over again.

Some might, but certainly not all, and that's the scary part for those that would. I'm taking my F-22 up to bomb Atlanta and when I pickle my load it explodes still attached to my sweet little plane.
Insurgencies are like that and create a great deal of doubt on who you can trust. And if every patriot left their federal, state, and local government, who would protect the elite from our merry little band of snipers, Antifa?

Great discussion. Now let’s add geography into the equation. My sketchy memory recalls the statistic that 50% of the population lives within 50 miles of an ocean. Let’s err on the conservative side and say it is 100 miles.

There is no way our military and police combined would be able to maintain control of a country this size.

Add to that picture attrition. As the “policing” agencies begin to lose manpower they will have proportionately less control. Some of that loss is due to death in the ranks and there is loss due to those deciding to change sides.

There would be the some revelations in Washington ie - “I think we made a mistake by waking the bear” and “How can we put the genie back in the bottle?”

During the revolution. The British had a big advantage in that the weren't waging war against their own piggy bank.

When Uncle Sam goes to war against bubba, he can be reasonably certain that bubba's not gonna be paying any more federal income tax, making beans and bullets harder to come by.

If your a government dealing with an insurgency in your own country, you have to deal with the fact that the groups who quit their jobs to fight, stop paying taxes, and also do their best to make everybody else stop paying taxes too.

I'm sure everyone remembers the effect the DC sniper had on the local economy. Imagine the affects an organized insurgency would have. An insurgency almost always targets the economy in some way. The best bang for the buck in a non-symetric war is accomplished by economic destruction.

Oh, just for the USSS, I (the OP) was not advocating the violent overthrow of the Federal government. Just sayin'. Just advocating for the Second Amendment.

...behind every blade of grass.

.gov has yet to fjgure out how to fight an insurgency.....at least not win one, short of genocide I don't think it's possible.

When 10th group was stood up they performed the partisan role in exercises around Bad Tolz, what they learn was a partizan force cannot be defeated if they have the local populace's support. The US military failed to learned this.....

You would see a strategy similar to Irag and Afghanistan, the hunker down in "green" zones with armored and some light patrols going into indian country.

They cannot secure more than a handful of locations......

This does not even take in consideration the percentage of those wearing uniforms defecting. Possible with their equipment.

A good book to read would be "small wars"

A rifle and the will to use it does secure the constition, why do you.think the progs want them gone.

I am Bubba.

I saw this & found it interesting.
We hold 40% of the worlds firearms, are one of the happiest nations & are average in peacefulness.

quote:

Originally posted by sigspecops:
For those who doubt that the military would fire upon their fellow Americans, once upon a time they did just that. Americans killed each other by the thousands and burned their homes to the ground. Under the right circumstances they'd do it all over again.

Exactly, don't assume the police and military will view the partisans as loyal Americans....expect a full MSM press...propaganda that would make Pravda blush...

Not hard to believe

It strikes me that Bubba’s chances will be greatly impacted by who is viewed as the oppressor/aggressor. If the US government is widely believed to be attacking its own people, military and police may not be showing up to the party, or may be showing up on the other side. On the other hand, if some group of bubbas is widely believed to be revolting against the lawful government, they may have much less support from the population and a more unified military and police response against them. Someone much smarter than me wrote something once along the lines of the authority of the government coming from the consent of the citizens. If the government has that moral authority bubba will have little support. If the government does not have that authority, bubba may have the vast majority of the support...

Let’s hope it never comes down to finding out.

These articles seem germane.


June 7, 2017
A Cause for War? American Thinker
By E.M. Cadwaladr
For a republic to be worthy of the name, it must have certain features. Most obviously, political power must, in some meaningful sense, reside with the people and be expressed through their elected officials. Even at this most basic level, our country has a problem. To the extent that we are governed by an unelected bureaucracy we are no longer a republic. Unfortunately, the political disease that afflicts America runs far deeper than that. For power to reside with “the people” there must be a single, generally unified nation which can be identified as “the people.” This nation need not be racially, ethnically, or even religiously homogenous, but the overwhelming majority of its members do need to agree on some common set of interests and values. They need a common identity. That is what a nation is. American now contains at least two nations, and arguably many more. Democratic institutions like elections, intended to settle differences between fellow countrymen, of people who simply disagree on means or minor matters of policy -- cannot settle differences of national identity. This is why organizations like the European Union and the United Nations are only superficially democratic. More to the point, elections staged between competing nations trapped under the authority of a single state -- nations so different in their ideals that each seeks the other’s subjugation or destruction -- such elections settle nothing. Any election that takes place under such conditions will inevitably be seen as illegitimate by the losing side. Trump, progressives say, is not their president -- and neither would Hillary ever have been ours.

When elections and legislatures attempt to assert the dominance of one nation of people over another they are, in effect, engaging in a kind of warfare. It is a civil war with a bit less bloodshed -- or, perhaps, it is a civil war in its initial shouting and shoving phase. Our daily outrage at the dishonest press, the usurpation of power by minor federal judges, and the predictable shrieking lunacy of our opponents only shows that most of us have not yet come to terms with the reality of our situation. We are in an existential conflict between competing nations -- we are not debating the merits of particular policies. Our differences will not be resolved by orderly procedural means. Reason no longer persuades. Hallowed traditions are despised. The law has become unworthy of respect, because it is so often merely the convenient weapon of people who are willing to cause us real and tangible harm. Indeed, as progressives and conservatives have diverged, we have seen the federal authorities selectively disregard the laws made by their opponents and favor governing by the fiat of executive orders. “I have a phone and I have a pen,” Obama famously declared. He might just as well have added: “…and I don’t care what happens to those hicks in Kentucky and Kansas.”

A federal government attempting to preside over separate nations bent on one another’s destruction can be neither legitimate nor effective. Our federal government has become little more than a hideous game of ideological badminton between opposing camps of corrupt officials -- smacking enraged and increasingly divided peons back and forth across the political net. Winning national elections no longer means anything, not merely because the individual officials themselves are crooked, but because the institutions they head are now unfit to govern a republic.

It is no longer possible for conservatives and progressives to coexist within a single state. Sooner or later, the emerging blood feud between our separate nations will overwhelm the superficial political game. It must. We are nationalistic; they are globalists. We are the inheritors of Western civilization; they are its detractors. We are the voice of stability; they are the voice of chaos. We are the battered remnants of Christendom; they are the unholy and improbable alliance of militant atheism and Islam.

In the last few years I have heard quite a few ordinary conservatives raise the terrifying specter of secession. I am sympathetic to their frustration but am dumbstruck by the irony. How can we secede from the suicidal, anti-American institutions the lunatic left has produced? Have progressives not, in every way imaginable, already seceded from us? How can we rebel against the United States by trying to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Are we radical and rebellious in thinking that men are men and women are women? Are we xenophobic bigots because we do not believe that every one of the 7.5 billion people in the world should be, for all practical purposes, counted as U.S. citizens? We cannot rebel against a government that has been so thoroughly usurped. We can only declare, eventually, its utter illegitimacy.

Only God can know precisely how events are going to unfold, but one need not foresee the details to feel the bitter hatred escalating. Donald Trump, though he may be well-meaning, an able manager, and the greatest showman since P.T. Barnum, lacks the power to make a unified country from two utterly antithetical and hostile nations. The more he thwarts the progressive agenda, the more desperate and violent our enemies are likely to become. Left-wing celebrities have been insulting Republican presidents for decades, but this is the first time they have raised one’s bloody head in effigy. War, the last resort of desperate people when all political and legal remedies have failed, waits only for a triggering event. It waits for people to believe their futures and their children’s futures will be so unbearable that they have nothing left to lose.

- and -

August 24, 2017 LINK
The Left Arms Up: John Brown Clubs
By J.R. Dunn
The John Brown Clubs are gun clubs for leftists affiliated with Redneck Revolt, an outfit in turn affiliated with Antifa (they marched with the other Antifa gangs in Charlottesville). Redneck Revolt was founded to agitate among rural working-class whites across the country, the people left behind by the attempt to shift the United States into a hierarchal meritocracy. This effort reveals considerably smarter thinking than that of Obama, the coastal elites, or for that matter, Kevin Williamson and Bill Kristol.

The John Brown Clubs were founded to exploit working class interest in firearms, and to provide training and familiarization to the more effete levels of the “resistance.” Those of a certain age will recall the “Gay Communist Gun Club,” one of SNL’s funnier skits. That, in a nutshell, and with a large helping of divisive racial politics, is what the Brownies are.

The Brownies had a brief fling of notoriety this past Spring when the original Phoenix branch showed up at a Trump rally toting guns and acting as menacing as any random group of left-wing snowflakes can manage. Widely covered in the regional and left-wing press, the stories featured shots of the standard dreadlock and nose chain denizens of the current left with an impressive array of shoulder weapons. (Interestingly, none of them were masked, as has become customary on the left. Presumably, the sight of armed and masked people assembling would have required arrests.)



Close examination by firearms experts revealed that at least some of the weaponry were actually airsoft toys with the orange rings clipped off. Not an impressive debut, in other words.

All the same, a number of new branches have sprouted in Denver, Orlando, Cincinnati, Seattle, and Maine.

Something often overlooked when dealing with the American left is that they’ve adapted the process of “projection” as a political strategy. It works like this: the left accuses the opposition (it could be “the right,” or the middle, or even traditional liberals, for that matter) of some crime or other. It can be anything at all, and it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not – the accusation is all that counts. Once placed in the record and validated by our current media, the accusation then becomes a new benchmark for political activity – as far as the left goes, anyway. Because the “far right” or the “fascists,” or whoever, violated the rules, it’s now okay for the left to do the same. They have no choice, really, if they want to save the People from being ravaged by the fascist hordes. You have to fight fire with fire, no?

So, if Richard Nixon “subverted the Constitution” during Watergate, well, that justifies every left-wing president since, from Carter to Clinton to Obama, in doing the same. Since the “far right” impeached Bill Clinton for no reason at all, the left is justified in threatening every Republican president with impeachment. Since George W. Bush cheated his way into the presidency in 2000, we can’t complain about Hillary pulling the same thing.

We could go on endlessly from there, but to cut to the chase, this is what the John Brown Clubs are all about – an attempt to respond to the editorial cartoon horror-flick image of conservatism by being even more horrifying. Comprised of bitter clingers, Nazis, and Klansmen, right-wingers lope through the twilight hills with a firearm in one hand and a Bible in the other, threatening progressives, undocumented immigrants, and every flavor of LGBTPDQ+ there is. What choice do the Brownies have but to respond in kind?

And respond they have. A recent video, released for purposes of shock and awe, reveals the Phoenix club in full panoply as a platoon of Harry Callaghans, John McClains, and Rambos – in their own minds, anyway:



Targets set up twenty paces away, clearing their weapons while aiming at their feet, that bizarre Frederick the Great-era firing line.… Clearly, the Brownies know next to nothing about guns – how to handle them, fire them, gun safety, whatever. Because they don’t think there is anything to know. The impression the left has about gun owners is simple: gibbering psychopathic loons waving weapons of mass destruction in a pathetic effort to make up for personal deficiencies. A threat to decent people, and nothing more.

Leftists – Brownies among them – have no idea why people own guns. Because they have no idea, they think they have nothing to learn beyond what end the slug comes out of. The process of learning about guns – how they are safely handled, how they are used, the differences between types and makes, and what they are for -- does not occur. The same is true of the growth in character that serious firearm ownership demands and encourages – the enhanced sense of personal responsibility and discipline that is one of the great benefits of living with firearms. The Brownies don’t know that this exists. Therefore, it doesn’t happen. It’s as if somebody tossed a set of keys to a Mustang to a fourteen-year-old and told her to take it away without any effort to impart driver safety, the rules of the road, and so forth.

No – to the left, guns are simply a menace. So the Brownies have established themselves as a menace. That’s why they showed up at the Trump march in Phoenix. Interestingly, there were no photos of the Trump marchers in the articles dealing with the incident. Why not? Because those photos would have revealed the Trump marchers to be unarmed. Normal everyday people, husbands and wives, families, small businessmen, professionals, students, all out to express their support of the government with nary a pistol in evidence. Because they don’t need them. Because there would be no point.

But here come all the Che, Jrs., menacing, belligerent, willing to up the ante, to push things as far as they’ll go – and then even farther.

That, after all, is exactly what their historic namesake did. John Brown is greater than a historical figure. He is an icon. An icon of chaos, murder, and bloodshed. The absolute bloody-minded ultraviolet far end of the abolitionist movement, one who actively frightened sincere figures such as Frederick Douglass. Brown was one of the belligerents who made Kansas bleed in the late 1850s, personally responsible for at least one massacre of Southern settlers at Pottawatomie in 1856. He returned east in hopes of an even greater bloodletting, one encompassing the entire South.

He didn’t have to do this – while in Kansas, he had also freed a number of slaves and sent them north toward freedom. He could have continued that, acting as something of an abolitionist Robin Hood, bestowing freedom while making the slaveholders look foolish in their effort to turn Kansas into a slave state. But something else called to him – something that to modern eyes bears a strong resemblance to the behavior of Charlie Manson or Jim Jones. In the end, he merely convinced the South as a whole that its own propaganda was true – that abolitionists, far from a Gospel-inspired crusade in favor of Christian values, were a gang of bloodthirsty maniacs eager to plunge the South into apocalypse. And once they convinced themselves of this, they set about, against their own interests, in making it true.

The John Brown clubs didn’t choose that name by accident. Charlottesville must be thought of in same terms as Bleeding Kansas and Harpers Ferry. Because it’s the same impulse of near-demented fanaticism that lies behind them all, a century and a half apart.

The Harpers Ferry raid was intended to kick off a massive rebellion that would drown the slave-owning class in a tidal wave of blood. So was Charlottesville. Only the victims, this time, were to be the bourgeois, the middle class, the ordinary Americans who insist on going their own way in defiance of the laws of History.

After arranging for a collision between the two gangs (recall that John Brown sponsor Redneck Revolt was there, taking part in the attack), McAuliffe and Streeter stood down the police in hopes of a confrontation or even worse, a massacre. A few dozen dead kids would have suited them just fine. But this time (and largely, I would be willing to bet, thanks to the basic cowardice of the KKK/Nazis), they did not get it.

Why weren’t the John Brown Clubs at Charlottesville? Because they weren’t ready yet. God forbid that the tag team visible in that video tried to take on anybody experienced in arms. But they will be. For what other purpose do they exist?

Eventually, they will show up with their fancy weapons that they don’t understand. Eventually, somebody is going to pull that trigger, as happened at Kent State in 1970. Then the Brownies will learn what guns are all about.

They will also learn what it is to be cannon fodder.

Imagine losing half your fighting force to Bubba's effort over night. Now take the rest of your military and fight a nation of very put out insurgents, their wives and children. Now imagine the money needed to run those awesome toys and build those neato bombs stops flowing into DC over night. If it came to an all out war between Bubba and Uncle Sam, US would do great damage initially but would be run down and die of 200,000,000 cuts.

I am pretty sure if we send in ***Our*** own Bubbas, that they will be able to defeat their Bubbas. God Bless