We all have heard that threat/advice coming from the mouth of the Antis and we smile knowingly how much different things are in real life.
This I just found on a totally unrelated thread in Facebook and decided it is a good example of what kind of trouble a government would be facing if they decide to go stupid.
Whenever I get cocky I go watch one of our local long range precision guys zeroing in for a match. And then I’m not cocky any more.
Yesterday saw one, COVID-bored shitless. He put two 1″ stickers on his target about 3″ apart and ran it out to 100 yards, and put three rounds through each sticker in about fifteen seconds total. Rear bag, front rest. The hole on the left sticker you could barely tell was more than one round. The hole on the right sticker looked like a single shot.
Let me translate that for the uninitiated: A civilian rifleman at a football field’s distance shot two targets, not at the equivalent distance between the eyes of a person three times each, but at the equivalent distance between pupils of the person three times each in 15 seconds.
Yes, he is one of the great shooters and one of the very few. But a reminder that there are at least every years some 14 million long gun shooters that go hunting and can put a round within a 2 inch circle at 100 yards on a bad day.
What military in the world have 14 million snipers?
That reminds me of this wonderful video — a commercial for eye drops.
Anyone who tries to use the argument of “you can’t beat the Military with your guns” as an excuse to take or ban your firearms or further infringe on 2A proves they’re either completely ignorant of how the military
and insurgency fighting actually works. Or they actually want to treat us undesirables as enemy combatants and sic the military on us but still believe that they’ll somehow not be directly involved in the conflict.
During the American Revolution there were a number of “phases” of war. In the first, the Americans used sniper and guerilla methods. Using rifles that were more accurate than the muskets used by the British. Firing from cover and in general, making a horrible mess of “war”.
It wasn’t the way to “win” at that time. Winning required large groups of men to square up on each other and kill thousands.
Today, those guerilla methods are much more useful and the “unorganized militia” is huge and well armed.
It isn’t likely that there are going to be huge groups of people attempting to stand up to government forces, whatever those forces might be. It is going to be the person that sets up at 500+ meters to take one shot and then disappear back into the woods.
To many leftists and infringers think of the US as a cityscape or if not that, the suburbs where the house shitter has shit out a house every 50 meters all in neat little lines.
Leftist think of snipers as those guys sticking the barrel of their rifle with a bi-pod hanging off the end out the window, easy to spot.
They don’t think of a dozen open windows with oscillating fans pushing the curtains around vs the one where a sniper is sitting 10 foot back in the room about to take a single shot without exposing a damn thing.
Leftist study war by watching movies. The people that will be engaged in Civil War 2.0 are going to be people that study war because they were in the military. Or they studied because it was interesting.
While they might laugh at me, because I’m old and fat. Old doesn’t mean stupid and old doesn’t mean weak. And old certainly doesn’t mean they aren’t well prepared to work with what they have.
I’d wager that a plurality of the people engaged in Civil War 2.0 would be currently serving, active duty military… and not Legislative Services Liaison Officers or Community Outreach Officers. They’ll be combat arms.
One of the reasons the first Civil War was so prolonged and so nasty was that one side was ale to draw disproportionately upon the skilled officers and veteran soldiers, whereas the other had a disproportionate industrial base and a significant population advantage. There will not be any such divide if the cultural Cold War turns into a hot war…
I don’t think that they cannot count with the military 100%. I don’t know how many active personel would shoot former military that fought with them.
Hey if you old and fat we can use you as a rifle rest…. heh heh. (Jus kidding) I can teach anyone to shoot like them very easily. Leftys have no idea. There are 800 000 to 900. 000 leagal MACHINE GUNS in the US
Curby, no offense taken. When a the MSM mistakes a friendly night shoot at a local range as “major military engagement” you know they have no idea.
What is ugly about civil wars is that the families of the combatants are fair game.
There’s also the fact that a lot of the participants don’t get to choose the side they’re fighting on.
[…] “You can’t beat the Military.” […]
In the first civil war the north had to destroy the south so force them to quit, in the second the targets will be more spread out.
100 yards. One hundred yards?
Is that ya got?
The majority of us shoot that as we begin to sight-in and work a rifle and scope in a breaking-in process. When the rifle is put to use(TARGET shooting[purposeful] and HUNTING[killing]. Think about it. Let it sink in. Actions and Blood) we are set to the maximum distance a given caliber and rifle will stretch(not just reach). A good number of us have systems 10 times that 100 yards and beyond, practicing and competing with others. We cull Americas herds and flocks under purposeful management.
Every day of the year.
For fun and life’s purposes.
And, some of us have taken humans in war(as described above, gently)
Do not take us lightly. We don’t, and won’t, as the outcomes will be costly and horrific.
Train as if life depends on it
Nous Defions
“You cannot beat the (US) military.
Hmmm. “Paging Afghanistan! Paging Afghanistan! Call your office!”
The American Left on the US Military vs anyone outside the USA: “Horrific quagmire! Unwinnable! Their determination will overcome any supposed superiority in technology!”
The American Left on the US Military vs the USA: “Super easy, hardly an inconvenience.”
Those who use the “You can’t beat the military” meme to justify taking away our rights (not just 2A) are operating under at least two fallacies. The first is that we are a handful of idiot rednecks and will face down tanks and helicopter gunships with hunting rifles. We will wage a guerrilla war targeting logistics, maintenance, support, and high value individuals. We won’t fight fair (because we can’t) propagandists and politicians will also be fair game.
The second fallacy is far more dangerous to our way of life. The idea, that “might makes right” and they can do anything they want if they have the military and police on their side. Americans, even “Liberal” Americans won’t take kindly to tyrants imposing their will on the people by force of arms. There will be a lot of “Jerked Quislings” dangling from lamp posts.
“Let me translate that for the uninitiated: A civilian rifleman at a football field’s distance shot two targets, not at the equivalent distance between the eyes of a person three times each, but at the equivalent distance between pupils of the person three times each in 15 seconds…WITH EACH GROUPING BEING SMALLER THAN THE IRIS! He essentially shot ’em in the eye at 100 yards…three times each!”
Fixed that for you.
😉
They claim that no citizen militia can possibly oppose the US military, what with its possession of fighter jets, Abrams tanks, and nuclear weapons.
What they overlook is the fact that a company of 14 tanks requires 1,000 gallons of fuel to travel 100 miles. Those same tanks must be repaired every 250 hours of operation. Keeping two F-16 jets in the air for immediate support of troops on the ground requires more than 3,000 gallons of fuel per day, plus each jet requires 12 man hours of maintenance for each hour of flight. A squadron of 18 such aircraft needs more than 400 people to keep 18 to 24 of those jets in the air, along with hundreds of other support personnel.
Each of these weapons systems are wonders of technological achievement. Therein lies the weak spot. The maintenance, arming, and fueling of these systems must, over the long term, be performed inside of fixed installations, using hundreds of personnel supplied by dozens of supply trucks per day. Convoys that can frequently be raided.
So the military has to spend time guarding the supply convoys as well as the bases. For each soldier who patrols the area, several are needed to guard their fixed bases.
Once the bases are thoroughly guarded, the citizens attack the factories that make the spare parts, the electric lines bringing them power, and the supply trucks and pipelines that supply the factories and refineries. Now the military has to use the high tech weapons and equipment to guard those.
So the citizens switch tactics again, and begin threatening and attacking the factory workers and their families at home. What results is a war of attrition that no one truly wins.
Similarly M! Abrams tanks.
Those tankers gotta get out to pee, to fuel and re arm their beasts.
No armor at that point.
If my preference were to be asked, I’d vote for “let’s keep that as a thought experiment, okay?”
Both sides are wrong in a lot of ways regarding what would happen should the switch get thrown.
The Left is wrong in thinking that the same soldiers and cops they insult will go on to put this down, and hand power right back to them- it’s more likely that they soldiers and cops will just take power for themselves, and shoot the Leftist.
The Right is wrong in thinking they will get to use this as an opportunity to do a “reset”, and restore/ preserve our freedoms.
Once the switch is thrown, and true hostilities commence, the whole thing STOPS being about ideologies. When it ends, it is entirely about the personality of whoever the winning leader is. Sadly, Cincinnatus & Washingtons are rare, while Augustus & Napoleons are too common.