That question was asked of me on FaceBook.
As somebody who has served in the military, I understand a little concept called “opsec”. The things I have been talking about (how an actual insurgency would go in the US; hint: it wouldn’t be like Gettysberg with the government on one side, the “rebels” on the other and they shoot at each other until all the rebels are dead or fled) have stemmed from fairly orthodox Co-In strategy and tactics. (If you haven’t read “Eating Soup with a Knife” I highly recommend it–I think the author does not give sufficient consideration in his discussion of the Co-In failures of Vietnam to the fact that we had both an insurgency and a conventional war running in parallel, but when you compare the lessons he points to from Malaysia and Vietnam to what people are advocating in disarming the American people, you see why the “the military has fighters and drones and tanks and…” is such a ludicrous argument).
But that’s not the question one should be asking. The correct question is what the government is going to do when faced with massive non-compliance to bans? We’re already seeing that. Connecticut’s “assault weapon ban”, New York’s “Safe Act”. The weapons turned in, surrendered, or disposed of were orders of magnitude fewer than those believed to have been present in those States. The FFL background checks that would be required for any transfer out of State, any legal tranfer out of State. So either people kept their now-banned guns or they transferred them illegally–either way, non-compliance with the law. Some States’ bump-stock ban? Same thing. Zero surrenders.
So what is the government supposed to do in the face of massive non-compliance? Door to door warrantless searches? After all, the vast majority of guns aren’t on any kind of registration (and that’s why we oppose registration so strongly). You might be able to get probable cause for some searches but not for anywhere near all. And when you start making those warrantless, house-to-house searches? We’re already getting grumbles about innocent people hurt and killed in “no-knock” and other searches where there is a warrant. How many people will be killed by trigger-happy jackboots from those warrantless ones?
What do we call nations that do that kind of thing? (Hint: it’s not “bastions of liberty”.)
There is simply no way the government could even begin to take even a large percentage of the guns from the American people without becoming the very tyranny that justifies armed revolt against it–not just justify it to gun owners but justify it to a lot of the police and military who would need to carry out those orders.
And that’s leaving aside how truly ugly the insurgency that would result of that would be.
Good luck with that.
The Writer in Black 
Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….
LikeLike
Seems to me that no government official or his family could walk the streets in safety. Knowing that its hard to recruit and retain people in the government. Look at any insurgency and government employees rank near the top of any list of targets. Hard to accomplish anything without worker drones, and harder still to be sure those working for the government are really working for the government.
LikeLike
1) Which branch? USAF/SOC here. About ten years all told, including recalls.
2) What plans have I in place? NDBBM.
3) Thank you for the tip on the book – just ordered it. I have, shall we say, a “professional and personal affinity” for lessons learned in Vietnam…
LikeLike
USAF. Intel. ‘Nuff said.
LikeLike
‘Nuff said. BZ, Brother!
LikeLike
I have also been trained and mentored in ABGD, weapons, CQB Tactics. I am prepared to shoot back, if they try. I would rather die in a pole of hot brass, than give up my freedom, especially to these commie, muzz rat pigs…..
BRING IT!!!!! SAY WHEN!!!!!
LikeLike
I think you’re vastly underestimating apathy. The way I see this working is that they’ll pass relatively small laws over time. Ban this and that, make it harder to get a gun, and eventually they’ll pass an effective ban, but no enforce it. It’ll drive legal sellers out of business, but no one’s really going to go door to door. As there’s no mass disruption, and enforcement will be limited only to people who are already being charged with other crimes, it won’t register for the majority of people.
In time, legal sellers will be driven out of business, and fewer people will be willing to go through the hurdles to get a gun. They’ll just be antiques that dead relatives left them. No one will ever come for them, but there won’t really be anyone left to use them…so it won’t matter.
LikeLike
Except people are getting less and less willing to accept that incremental approach. Already we’re seeing massive non-compliance with the ones they’re already passing. More and more people are recognizing that they actually do want to take our guns, that the “we just one this reasonable compromise, this common sense restriction, and that’s it” is, and always has been, a lie. And on the flip side, more and more the mask is coming off they are admitting that the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, allowing wholesale prohibition, is the goal.
What I foresee is an incremental increase in politically motivated violence, first with the “crazies” (they’re always the first ones set off but rather than ignoring them–they’re crazy after all–one might consider them “canaries in a coal mine”) then moving to less crazy and more ideological as the progression continues. There won’t be a specific”Fort Sumter” or “Lexington and Concord” bit that tells everyone the war has started. It will only be in retrospect that folk realize we are, and have been for some time, in a civil war. From there it will get really ugly.
LikeLike
If just 2% of legal gun owners ever go hard-core and organize, they outnumber all sworn law enforcement (all levels of government) and all active duty military. That would really suck for government employees if they become targets.
LikeLike
I actually grinned while reading because OPSEC was the FIRST thing that came to mind.
This is why I love [redacted]…
LikeLike