Mass Judge Rules AR-15's Not Protected By The Second.

There was no reason for it to.

Ok.

 

Clearly

 

As I previously wrote, the govt will id many of the actual and potential leaders of the opposition and will move to arrest or kill them. But it wont be that easy.

You make some unfounded assumptions.

First, that the military (active, reserve, NG) is going to just blindly obey the govt and fight its own people.
Second, that local law enforcement is going to obey the govt and go arrest or kill their neighbor.
Third, that the military is prepared for a war within the USA.
Fourth, that the govt will have enough people to go arrest or kill everyone on their hit list.
Fifth, that the govt can arrest or kill all the people on its hit list without destroying productivity to the point city life is unbearable.
Sixth, that people will not fight back.

Pick one and I'll expand on it.

 

The govt is more than the military.

If a real civil war starts, the govt will not see the military as reliable at the start of a civil war, the military will go through its own hand wringing and purging of people just like it did in 1860. Some units will "defect" from the govt, most likely National Guard and Reserve units. Some units will refuse to fight in their home territory or fight against "military communities".

Some military units will fight, particularly at first when there will be a lot of propaganda and information censoring from the govt. Over time, that number will decrease.

The govt will heavily rely on federal law enforcement at the start.

 

They are unprepared for such.

https://mwi.usma.edu/army-needs-urban-warfare-school-needs-soon/

Train as you fight. It’s the first of the Army’s ten principles of training, meant to ensure that the Army will develop and execute tough, realistic training. As long as we train as we fight, no soldier should confront a situation or an environment for the first time in combat. Unfortunately, the Army occasionally ignores this principle. Case in point: despite history and global urbanization trends, the Army doesn’t adequately train for operations in urban environments. It is time that changed. The Army needs to establish an urban warfare school to prepare soldiers to fight and survive in dense urban terrain.

The chief of staff of Army, Gen. Mark Milley, recent detailed his thoughts on urban warfare at the annual AUSA conference, stating that the future battlefield “will almost certainly be in dense urban terrain” and that in the future the Army will have to “optimize for urban combat.” He described the urban environment’s “huge implications” on intelligence collection, vehicles and weapons, target discrimination, and maneuver, and concluded ominously: “Army forces operating in complex, densely populated urban terrain in dense urban areas is the toughest and bloodiest form of combat and it will become the norm, not the exception in the future.”

When retired Marine Lt. Gen. Ron Christmas was a young lieutenant in training, officers received a grand total of a one-hour lecture on urban combat.

So, when the company commander found himself leading Marines in Hue City during the first major urban combat the U.S. had seen since the Korean War, he learned in the heat of the fighting.

After the war, it took a while for either the Marines or the Army to pay attention to urban training.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...rs-and-marines-are-training-for-urban-combat/

 

And they will fail.

 

You're just making all this stuff up. No one knows what the circumstances would be. The point is could the US military put down an insurgency? The answer is, yes. Would it be comparable to fighting an insurgency like in Iraq? Not at all. Their not an occupier here. They are part of the fabric of this country. Huge difference.

Detriot '67

 

Ferguson:

 

Who is guarding their homes and families?

 

Your entire premise is an unfounded assumption.

 

Oh yeah, going after their families would be a real smart move.

 

Aren't they ready to shoot the populace? Firebomb their homes? Don't they kinda give up the moral high ground? Besides, a threat should be sufficient.

 

Who said? How do you know who the insurgents are?

 

That's a question I should be asking. How do the police know who the insurgents are?

 

So there's no insurgency? What are we talking about then?

 

Not the same thing. How did you guys identify VC in the villages you entered? Did you miss any?

 

You didn't identify VC in a village unless they were really dumb and hung around. You identified VC when they shot at you.

 

So perhaps the smart insurgent doesn't shoot at anyone who would survive the attack to identify him, or uses other insurgency methods to reduce the will of the puppets of the tyranny to fight US citizens.

 

Are you alright?

 

Yes, why? We're having a discussion about the methods and consequences of trying to squash some type of anti-government movement.

 

Right. So, who are the insurgents? By that, I don't mean what are their names or what do they look like? I mean what's their cause? Who are they?

 

Many options there, I guess; likely depends upon which party is in office when the "tyranny" starts. Most likely goal in my opinion would be returning the government back to the pre-tyrannical status.

 

Ok, so who elected the tyrannical government? Why is it in office? Does everyone think its tyrannical?

 

Enough of the population to elect 51% of the electors. I suspect that the President didn't run on a tyranny platform. In the pictures above, who is giving those folks orders against the populace?

 

Ok, fair enough. So the government has a fairly significant following among the populace? Does the government have the military on its side?