Letter to Reason magazine
Nadine Strossen’s rationale for the ACLU’s abandonment of the right to keep and bear arms is: “What it [the pro-gun position] comes down to is the very strong belief that having a gun in your home is something that can ultimately fend off the power of a tyrannical government. I find that really unpersuasive in the 20th-century context. Maybe it made sense in the 18th century.”
Recent history offers numerous examples of lightly-armed men able to inflict grievous damage on vastly superior forces. Afghanistan’s mujahadeen, initially equipped with archaic Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifles, stalled the Soviet Red Army for many years before receiving the advanced weapons from the West that finally tipped the balance of power in their favor. Chad’s desert fighters managed to repel Moammar Gadhafi’s tanks by the insanely brave expedient of shooting-up enemy supply convoys, mounting Libyan anti-armor weapons thus captured on their Toyota pickup trucks, and then charging the invaders in packs. In the former Yugoslavia, 5,000 Croat defenders carrying hunting rifles and Kalashnikovs were able to protect the city of Vukovar against 25,000 army troops and Chetnik irregulars backed by Soviet T-84 tanks and heavy artillery for eighty-nine days before they depleted their ammunition supplies and were overrun.
This is a great post.
Don’t forget: Gandhi’s defiance of the British in India after WW2, the ’44 Warsw Ghetto Uprising, and the ’56 Hungarian Revolution.
Against a tyrannical American government, there would be some “interesting” resistance.
First, you have to figure that the Bloods and Crypts would want to continue their current drug business. Since they haven’t been impacted by current methods, one would reasonably assume that they wouldn’t be impacted by future efforts. Given that they corrupt the cops, one would expect it to continue. These gangs would mount a very good light infantry, which in their own neighborhoods, would be impossible to root out. Especially since they, like all Fourth Generation forces, would blend in with the populace, and emerge to fight that asymmetrical war.
Second, the Gubamint runs on money. If it becomes too tyrannical, then the economy will grind to a halt. As the tax rate rises, and the inflation rate rises, they will “net” less and less value. Running a fascist state requires an economy. The leaders, and politicians, will want to be kept in the appropriate style befitting their “regal” position. It’s hard to be a King, if the subjects don’t pay or work. All we need is for the people to decide that it’s a good idea to work a little less, use a metal based “medallion”, do some bartering, grow a “victory garden”, and do other “muck up the works” activities. And there will be a lot of hungry politicians!
Third, the Ross book “Unintended Consequences” demonstrates how the ruling class can be brought to its collective knees. In the book, people just start killing bureaucrats and politicians. Like the internet, it would be possible to have leader-less bloody revolution. Pick out a government worker and kill them! It wouldn’t take long for the word to spread among the government workers that if you value your life, find a new line of work. That’s Fourth Generation warfare at its heart. I think to some extent that is what we are seeing in Iraq.
It really depends on the consent of the governed. If we don’t consent, they CAN NOT govern!
I read a stat that said about 130 of the 300 million Americans own a firearm. That’s roughly one in three. It could get real messy very quickly if a consensus emerged.
Look at what happened in NOLA when the good people left. But, they don’t have to actually LEAVE. They can just look the other way for the same effect.
Remember the dead old white guys on what the tree of liberty needs?