OK, So I mentioned in an earlier post about the number of armed citizens outnumbering the military several to one. I did promise an explanation of that math later. It is now later. While the numbers may be a tad off, as an illustration, the point come across easily enough. Goes like this:
According to what I could find on line, there are a little over 2.2 million men and women in the U.S Military. There are about 85 million LEGAL gun owners In the U.S. This means that by straight numbers (and ignoring the fact that some of the Service people are also legal gun owners) there is about a 38-39:1 ratio of armed citizens to armed forces. If we are considering an all out revolution, it is doubtful that the armed citizens will have a naval capability, so the Navy would not be actively involved and I would imagine the Coast Guard would be operating as security in and around seaports and other waterways. Now, assuming posse commitatus act (which President bush tried to scrap)is overrode The entire U.S. Army, Air Force, and Marines can be called out upon us to quell the “insurrection” It is doubtful the Air Force will be needed to fight against the armed citizens and if they can’t level whole cities in the middle east for fear of collateral damage to the non-combatant civilian populations, I doubt congress will let them level Philly, Albany, or Sacramento. This will pretty much leave the job to the Army and Marines as the ground forces. This reduces the number of military opposing the Citizens down to 1.3 million vs. 85 Million. Now we are somewhere near 65:1, but wait there’s more!
The current “combat ratio” or ratio of combat soldiers (infantry, artillery etc.) to support soldiers (Medics, Supply, Cooks, Mechanics, etc) is 7:1. This leaves us now with 162,500 combat soldiers of the Army and Marines to take on 85 million citizens. The ratio is now over 520:1. Short of “tactical nukes” or Death camps, the U.S military cannot wipe the armed citizens out. Now there are tons of variables not taken into consideration, including the serious possibility that a large portion of our service people will be unwilling to open fire on U.S. Citizens defending and mutiny against unlawful orders. I would like to think that is EXACTLY what the majority of our men and women in uniform will do and stand with the citizens. Lets expand this to include the idea the whole U.S. is involved. 162,500 troops would be spread thin, about 3200 per state. In Massachusetts that would be 10 soldiers per town, in New Hampshire that would 17, in Texas that would be 3.
Other anti gun folk have pointed to the idea that the average armed citizen is “no match” for the sophisticated weapons the U.S. Military can bring to bear, and for the most part they are right….to a point. But as well all know, moon bats have no long term memory and don’t study history. The U.S. Military as a whole is still geared toward the idea of fighting large scale combat against large powerful militaries. I have no doubt they could have beat the Red Menace back over the poles had the Soviets ever tried to roll over Europe. Now, good little moon bats everywhere stick peace sign stickers on their cars and protest the current war in Iraq, bemoaning it as a “quagmire” and drawing what I believe to be an unfair reference (for soldiers of both eras) to Viet Nam. Part of the problem the military is having is that they cannot get the “insurgents” to come out into the open for the kind of fight the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank was designed for. The military has had its toughest challenges when faced with small loose guerrilla units that operate in their home turf. This is exactly the type of challenge they would face if called out to say the Northern Kingdom of Vermont, or the Berkshires.
Now we get to the moral of the story. The right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution was enacted as a means of the population to defend and replace a tyrannical government should the need ever arise. More over, the second amendment was also designed to remind those in office that the citizens are the final arbiters of what is right in this great nation. This idea is just as valid today as it was the 1700’s and now as then it is entirely possible for an armed populace to defeat a standing army. Armed citizens are the final “check and balance” in our system of government. Now you now why Gun rights folk turn RABID when anyone tries to put a restriction of any kind on this right. They are either too imbecilic to understand the significance of having an armed citizenry, or they need to get rid of the armed citizenry in order to accomplish their goals. Any goal that requires I be disarmed is NOT a good thing for freedom and democracy. My wish is that all my little moon bats would realize this sooner rather than later. I would hate like hell to watch the “new world order” troops splatter moon bat brains all over the pavement when they try to peacefully protest the infringement of the other civil rights once the armed citizens are no longer a “threat”.
2alago 