Just another gun thread, don't bother reading.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You think so? How much success have we had against "insurgents" on their own turf of late? As a bonus, in the US...conventional forces would get to deal with all sorts of specialized little groups (it;s not like our foreign conflicts, dominated by single terrain types). The US has the potential to be an absolute clinic in how to bleed a conventional force dry.

-it would be worse, from one angle, objectively - conventional forces would sympathize with insurgents more easily than they might overseas......gotta keep that in mind.
*also...there are alot of guns here.

None of that factors in the technology on the ground here in terms of surveillance, in terms of financial monitoring (wars are expensive), and the fact that it would be much easier to penetrate rebel groups and get much better intel. None of those factors were in play in any of the conflicts you listed.

You're right that our country has large swathes of land that would be ideal for flummoxing high-tech hardware, and if the only resources deployed against any rebels were military, sure, you could see a decade or two of fighting in the Rockies or Alleghenies ... but all the AR-15s in the world aren't going unfreeze your accounts so that you can buy food for your fighters. Hungry soldiers don't fight well.

[Chas]

You think so? How much success have we had against "insurgents" on their own turf of late? As a bonus, in the US...conventional forces would get to deal with all sorts of specialized little groups (it;s not like our foreign conflicts, dominated by single terrain types). The US has the potential to be an absolute clinic in how to bleed a conventional force dry.

-it would be worse, from one angle, objectively - conventional forces would sympathize with insurgents more easily than they might overseas......gotta keep that in mind.
*also...there are alot of guns here.

None of that factors in the technology on the ground here in terms of surveillance, in terms of financial monitoring (wars are expensive), and the fact that it would be much easier to penetrate rebel groups and get much better intel. None of those factors were in play in any of the conflicts you listed.

You're right that our country has large swathes of land that would be ideal for flummoxing high-tech hardware, and if the only resources deployed against any rebels were military, sure, you could see a decade or two of fighting in the Rockies or Alleghenies ... but all the AR-15s in the world aren't going unfreeze your accounts so that you can buy food for your fighters. Hungry soldiers don't fight well.

The AR-15 might unfreeze somebodies funds when appropriately deployed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

For starters, there is the 2nd Amendment. We need to respect that if we're going to trumpet the separation of church and state - otherwise we are hypocrites. Repealing or modifying it is not realistic in the current climate.

What? One amendment being bad doesn't mean that every amendment should be up for grabs in the same way; they vary so much in terms of content that you need to address them on a case by case basis. The first amendment serves a valuable purpose, while the second only serves to deliver unchecked power to an item that really does need at least some checks. We need to find our context-sensitivity on this issue.

And aside from that cogent objection, the fact is that rights are not by definition untrammelled. They have limitations on them, often placed for the sake of public safety, which would certainly be the justification for any putative gun legislation or Constitutional amendment.

But -- the 2nd amendment does not deliver unchecked power. There are plenty of limitations already in place, both in what armament a person can own, and how a person may carry, use, and distribute the arms he has.

I agree that we need to keep perspective accurate here.

---

The AR-15 might unfreeze somebodies funds when appropriately deployed.

... in a city with policemen and cameras to avoid ...

Seriously, any rebel group would have to have good financing, and that would mean availing itself of banking and other financial tools -- lines of credit, and so on. Certainly the government would regard a large insurgency as an existential threat and use every tool at its command to quash it, including financial warfare.

[The Grand Nudger]

None of that factors in the technology on the ground here in terms of surveillance

operated by the insurgency.

in terms of financial monitoring (wars are expensive),

not very expensive for an insurgency

and the fact that it would be much easier to penetrate rebel groups and get much better intel.

gathering intel from cells is wonderful, but it's very limited.

None of those factors were in play in any of the conflicts you listed.

We used different methods - different tech, but all of those factors have been in play in (likely) every large conflict man has ever had.

You're right that our country has large swathes of land that would be ideal for flummoxing high-tech hardware, and if the only resources deployed against any rebels were military, sure, you could see a decade or two of fighting in the Rockies or Alleghenies ... but all the AR-15s in the world aren't going unfreeze your accounts so that you can buy food for your fighters. Hungry soldiers don't fight well.

That you would bring AR15's (you're working for them..arent you...you want the rebels to lose..lol), and think that insurgents fight like soldiers (hungry or tired), have the requirements of soldiers, or the logistical back end is why -you- cant join my militia sir.

You'd see further decades in the sub tropical and swampy south. The frozen north, the vast plains where mech fears to tread (but ironically is the most effective). However, urban centers would be the absolute worst. These are the problems that have confronted every invading army (or brutal regime) -ever-. The locals always find the food, its the people with supply trains and expensive requirements that have all the problems.... Don't get me wrong, I love our military - it's good shit, it just isn't going to fare any better here than it has elsewhere or that, historically, conventional forces have fared in assymetric warfare at any point in time.

I don't get it, btw, most of us are fairly comfortable with listing off our military's shortcomings. Who was surprised by how the last two wars went? But whenever someone brings revolution into play (admittedly, a batshit idea) all of a sudden we're cruel motherfuckin ground pounders who will curbstomp all comers? Is this overestimation of our forces and tech or underestimation of our fellow americans (or both)? Seems like it must be one or some combination to me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

None of that factors in the technology on the ground here in terms of surveillance

operated by the insurgency.

Compared to the NSA ...

in terms of financial monitoring (wars are expensive),

not very expensive for an insurgency

Food and fuel cost money. Sacrificing fuel sacrifices mobility. Sacrificing food sacrifices fighting value.

and the fact that it would be much easier to penetrate rebel groups and get much better intel.

gathering intel from cells is wonderful, but it's very limited.

Perhaps. It's still a plus, and in a scenario like this, the gov't will avail itself of every weapon to minimize casualties for the reasons you've laid out above.

None of those factors were in play in any of the conflicts you listed.

We used different methods - different tech, but all of those factors have been in play in (likely) every large conflict man has ever had.

But we're not talking about "every large conflict". We're talking about asymmetrical conflict. And in that particular subset of warfare, the examples you've provided have obvious differences, a few of which I've listed, from an insurgency based on American soil.

That you would bring AR15's (you're working for them..arent you...you want the rebels to lose..lol), and think that insurgents fight like soldiers (hungry or tired), have the requirements of soldiers, or the logistical back end is why -you- cant join my militia sir.

lol, I just pulled the scariest gun I could think of off the top of my head.

I know that logistically, insurgents are much lighter. I also know that they often don't fight like soldiers. But how many American insurgents do you think will strap on a bombvest? No, they will be fighting a war of raids, and that means that food and fuel are requirements. And those must either be seized, or bought. Freeze their funds, and you force them to fight for resources.

You'd see further decades in the sub tropical and swampy south. The frozen north, the vast plains where mech fears to tread (but ironically is the most effective). However, urban centers would be the absolute worst.

Sure, urban centers could be the worst -- but then, rebels would have to be there, and that's a pretty risky strategy to pursue, given the inherent lethality of street fighting. Destroying someone's home is not a good way of getting their support, yet selecting their city to fight in would be more likely to bring that problem about. It would be the equivalent of holding a city hostage.

These are the problems that have confronted every invading army (or brutal regime) -ever-. The locals always find the food, its the people with supply trains and expensive requirements that have all the problems....

I hear you. But that is predicated on having the support of locals. And as split as the citizenry is on this issue ... seems to me that in the south and west (excluding California and Perhaps Oregon), that would be a given; but in the northeast and midwest, local support for an insurgency would likely be faint.

Don't get me wrong, I love our military - it's good shit, it just isn't going to fare any better here than it has elsewhere or that, historically, conventional forces have fared in assymetric warfare at any point in time.

I disagree, for the reason that a domestic insurgency would give the government that many more levers with which to do battle off the battlefield than it had in any of the other insurgencies we've fought.

[The Grand Nudger]

The NSA, seems to you, to be effective at combating insurgencies? Where the hell where they for a decade? Food and fuel cost the conventional forces money, primarily. Food, fuel, these are concerns that face all forces, conventional disproportionately. We know about this, look at what our wars have done to our bank accounts. You think the afghans or iraqis are out quite as much? If the government avails itself of -every- tactic available it runs the risk of creating yet more insurgents. My point was precisely the opposite, that the factors you mentioned are not different from -any- conflict -ever- fought between forces capable of leveraging them -by any method-. .

I doubt that many americans would strap on a bomb vest, it's a pretty shitty use of manpower and explosives. Bombvests pale to simple roadsides. I see you carving up chunks of the country, I fear that you may be letting your view of those parts of the country cloud your appraisal of our forces strengths and weaknesses. You're imagining the south rising again...as it were- and lets hope not...because a troubling preponderance of our infantry comes from the south and them boys go for family before country. You mentioned the NSA.....so, lets say it's DC that turns into a chaotic hellhole first, whats the next move for the good ole NS of A (or any agency)? This is stuff that doesn't lend itself well to prediction. Part of the point of an insurgency...is to make a government pull more levers...both on and off the battlefield....that's kind of how they win......thats why it works. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm just not sure where any of this newfound ability to combat an enemy we have consistently underperformed against is going to come from. But maybe you're right, maybe at it's darkest hour our government could finally manage to do what it has never managed to accomplish before (despite plenty of opportunity to do so).....

(your concerns, are the concerns of a conventional force....that's really all I have..you aren't leveraging that big brain and putting yourself in the place of a rebel, an insurgent...and you keep insisting that for reasons enumerated this time...this time it'll be different, we'll win...I just don't think so. If Bubba came rolling across the mason dixon in a reappropriated Abrams I'd agree with you, wholeheartedly...but he won't. -otoh...this is Bubba we're talking about...so some would probably try.... I think the deck is far too stacked, all an insurgency has to do to "win" is not be annihilated, that's it. Consider the size of the american public, the amount of weapons in circulation, and the vastness of the ground...and remember that against fewer people, with fewer weapons, in smaller areas...with absolute superiority and the ability to use intelligence gathering that we never could on our own soil....Iraq and Afghanistan were the best we could do.....but "Operation American Freedom" will go differently?)

-Also....until this hits home. An AR15 is mechanically identical the the vast majority of rifles in tit;s chambering (whatever that chambering may be...the most popular for AR15's being .22LR...which is why kids don;t get to shoot cans with their .22s anymore, can;t find the rounds (it's the most popular because they used to be cheap to shoot - 5cents compared to $2.50 for your smallest truly capable round, a .243 or .270...makes it a good range/target gun, also doesn't kick..and that helps). 30-06, 308s, 303s...7.62x39..and 12g slugs....these are the rounds (and rifles) that would plague our military. You can get an AR15 chambered in all but 303 I believe...but again, most simply don't - because they already own those chamberings in their traditional styl;es which work just as well for killing any 180lb target you find in front of you or out to 300y (our service rifles and tactics, btw, rarely effective at those ranges). A 12guage is fucking terrifying if you have to breach a door, let me state that as a fact won by hard experience. I'd rather the motherfucker have a damned bazooka or a bombvest than be pointing a duck gun at me. Hell, they make a .17mag that can penetrate a kevlar helmet now...thats a pellet gun sized barrel..... (I recently bought one...it's nice 30c a shot for a 200y target gun)!