It seems that prophesies of the Civil War are the new hotness. My, I'm skeptical that anything other than huffing and puffing will come from the latest gun control insanity, but OK, I'll play too.
By way of introduction, Graybeard sums up a lot of the current thinking.
Here's where the scenarios break down. Gun control is only popular is limited areas: coastal urban zones, the cultural "elite" (scare quotes entirely intended), college towns. Everywhere else they're non-starters. Really non-starters. Like never gonna happen non-starters.
Does this mean that the cultural "elite" won't push for it with every fiber of their being and every breath until their dieing day? Not at all - they want the "non-elite" disarmed as a matter of course. Congress doesn't have the cojones to do anything (as I've said before), but let's do a Thought Experiment. Suppose the Powers That be ram it down the Republic's throat, either via Constitutional or extra-Constitutional means? What then?
Well, remember that this Republic is made up of 50 States. In maybe 40 of those States, the new way of doing things will be really unpopular (follow the link to see just how unpopular). What do the Governors of those 40 States do?
I think that they tell Washington D.C. to get bent, sideways, with a rusty nail. If push comes to shove, I could see Governors take over military bases within their State - with the full approval and cooperation of most of the military personnel stationed there, I might add. If (say) Obama unilaterally banned semi-automatic weapons and implemented a confiscation scheme, I'd expect (say) Texas Governor Perry to tell him not to send Federal Agents to Texas to implement the policy. If Obama did, I could see Perry send the Texas National Guard to take over Ft. Hood, Ft. Sam Houston, Lackland Airforce Base, etc. I'd be shocked if the military personnel there refused his deputization as Texas National Guardsmen.
Add in the Dakotas (goodbye, SAC), Virginia and Washington state (Navy), Georgia (Ft. Benning), Kentucky (Ft. Knox, HQ of the Armor) and you see that the States would be reasonably likely to thwart the over-reaching Federal power gram.
Precisely as the Founders foresaw, and crafted the Constitution.
I don't think this will be a Threeper moment, in any possible scenario. Extra-Constitutional Washington power grabs will be unpopular most places, and Governors will be incentivized to stick it to The Man. The police and military will support the Governors. All you need is one to draw a line in the sand, and the cultural "elite" will fold for lack of the muscle to back it up. And a street mob won't be effective against the police and military, and will only galvanize the unorganized militia to stand with them.
Like I said, this scenario simply won't happen. Constitutionally, the Congress won't vote for it and extra-Constitutionally the States will reject it.
So while this is all fun, everyone needs to take a deep breath or two. A New Year starts again tomorrow. Next year will be much like this year. We won't see the gun banners get traction, and in a couple months we'll have the pleasure of seeing their heads come off in frustration that their so-called Democrat "allies" were just yanking their chains and mugging for the TV News. It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Ultimately it signifies nothing.
Me, I'm long on kitten and sunshine futures, at least for gun rights. Happy New Year, everyone!
Was not the chain of command of the Guard changed to the JCS, away from the Governor's office, just a few years ago?
ReplyDeleteAdd Nebraska if you want to include SAC. Otherwise, I'm hoping you would be correct.
ReplyDeleteJohn Bernard Books
I seem to remember the last time some sort of gun control shenanigans proposed (2010-ish? I can't remember when...) that Montana said that if the right to keep and bear arms was discarded, technically their state contract was void, and there would be secession by default. I also seem to remember hearing that if Montana was it's own country, it'd be like the 4th biggest nuclear power in the world... both these things are probably hearsay, but still, something to think about.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it'll be a tipping point either. Then again, neither one of us has a spotless rep when it comes to predicting the future :)
ReplyDeleteHere's what I'm seeing: The Gun Grabbers have wanted a return of the AWB since before it expired. No way they had traction to bring that about.
Enter: Sandy Hook. They come out with the tougher/stronger AWB, knowing that gun folks will freak out.
In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, the Republicans (who are already beat down over Fiscal Cliff, et al) reach an agreement to do away with the more onerous portions of the AWB (which the Dems knew they never had a chance of getting anyway). However, they don't want to be seen as "doing nothing" to stop children dying, so they compromise and give the Dems what they wanted all along.
End result: The old AWB is back, maybe with even a few more restrictions added.
I hope your assessment is correct.
ReplyDeleteI have concerns about Gov. Perry's backbone frankly.
Here's to this cold civil war remaining so.
I hope you are right BP but we can not let them get any traction at this point. . . NO AWB can be allowed
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile my niece's husband sold a 3-pack of 30 round mags that cost him $25 for $264. Bidding started at $0.01. He doesn't own a rifle for the mags and figured, "what the heck."
ReplyDeleteYou said, "....the new way of doing things will be really unpopular (follow the link to see just how unpopular)." with no linky?
ReplyDeleteGraybeard, I'm not sure what your comment is getting at. I did have a link to your excellent summary.
ReplyDeleteI never thought the first Assault Weapons ban would pass and it did. I never thought Obama would be reelected and he was. I am hoping that a new assault weapons ban will not come to be a reality but I am nowhere nearly as confident as you that it will not. I am preparing for the possibility that it does pass on the federal level or that at here in The Libturd Demonpooblic of NewYork that the Governor will be able to pass a law requiring registration and or confiscation of firearms.
ReplyDeleteI figure it is better to be prepared to oppose tyranny than to let it enslave you. If it does not happen I will be very happy indeed, if it does happen I cannot say what the reaction of the people will be; it may wind up as violent civil unrest.
All the best,
GB
In the fifth paragraph, you said:
ReplyDeleteWell, remember that this Republic is made up of 50 States. In maybe 40 of those States, the new way of doing things will be really unpopular (follow the link to see just how unpopular). What do the Governors of those 40 States do?
I thought you meant you had a link on attitudes about gun control or "red state/blue state" or something else.
I hope you're right. I really do.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I wonder if even Governor Brewer will stand up to the Feds. We've had encroachment after encroachment on states' rights for years, and every time, it's been met with nothing but a strongly-worded press release.
Like I said, I hope you're right, Because if not, then God help us.
The trouble is most of you are aging boomers and have too much to lose to dare lift a finger in case it imperils your pensions or families. By the time you have nothing left to lose you will all be in your 70's. My prediction is 95% of the population would surrender their long guns if the police knocked on their door and asked for them.
ReplyDeleteknottedprop - you've got the calculus completely backwards. My kids are on their own, long off the payroll. The only way that could influence me is if they took my kids hostage. The guys in their 30s or 40s with kids at home or in college are the ones that will hand them over.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even 60 and I figure I have nothing left to lose. My 401k is going to get destroyed by the Federal Reserve's inflation creation or by congress' outright confiscated. 35 years ago, I figured out social security would be gone so I never expected it to be there and tried to save. Obamacare is going to use the complete lives system to decide who gets what treatment - which means those under 10 and over retirement get nothing.
Nope. Nothing to loose.
Nothing to lose?
ReplyDeleteWhat color is your sky?
I don't see state govs being able to commandeer fed .mil bases so easily. Many...probably the majority of the people posted to those bases have families of some kind somewhere...usually in another state. All Big Brother has to do to keep those people loyal to him is to make them believe that their families and relatives will suffer if they don't play the game. There are other tools that can be used also to pressure people into conformity.
ReplyDeleteWell, BP, I sure hope it plays out like you've outlined. I doubt it, though.
ReplyDeleteA governor like Perry may develop a sufficiently large diameter spine to resist, but I don't think many of the other 49 will; too many blue people in red states, and too many federal dependents (social insecurity, military retirements, etc.) to resist. What happens to the 25-year military vet in Texas if Perry puts his foot down? If the fed.gov cuts off retirement checks and VA medical bennies, he (or she) will be whining about that. Consider how many fed dollars are payouts to retirees in AZ and FL, not to mention food stamps etc. everywhere. Of course, Texas could - would - stop sending taxes collected within its borders to DC (a measure was introduced in the Colorado legislature about 25 years ago to do that on gas taxes when CO was sending dollars and getting pennies back for road maintenance. CO is too blue now for that to happen again). I'd say a few "big dollar collecting" states (TX, FL, AZ, NV) where the citizens may have spines not sending any dollars to DC would have an impact, except that Obama & Co. will just print more. If enough of the other (potentially-purple or even blue) BDC states joined in (NY, MI, OK, TN, PA, GA, OH, VA) it might start a preference cascade that would get someone's attention. I'll believe
it when I see it; I think there's too great an addiction to fed dollars for much of it. To a lot of states those fed $$ are "free," or at least perceived as free.
We're now hearing rumors of Republicans caving, or wanting to cave, to Dems on gun control. What that will look like we don't know yet, but if they do it will mean the end of the Republican party, and when citizens realize there's nowhere else to turn but the cartridge box to preserve our rights it's gonna get ugly (those rights, BTW, include far more than gun ownership; most people have a long list of federal usurpations we'd like to see abolished, gun stuff just happens to be at the top).
I hope you're right, but my money is on a 50% chance of gunfire in the streets within a couple years, maybe sooner. We're getting precariously close to the absolute limit for a lot of people. Graybeard, above, points out that he has little or nothing to lose. Put enough people in that situation and the equation changes dramatically.
Borepatch, after pondering on this all night, I think you paint a picture that's just as grim the four guys I linked to. You're depicting civil war, and states taking over federal military bases is absolutely that, it's just a different civil war than they paint.
ReplyDeleteSending the national guard to fight the regulars? Career military refuses all orders from DC and just lays down guns? No bloodshed?
Listen, I have no desire to see a revolution start. I just don't think this gets us out of that trouble.
I live in Maryland, and the politicians here (we're even more leftist than Massachusetts) are proposing confiscation in some bills pre-filed for the legislative session about to begin in a few weeks. Even some of the Dems from the rural areas that were pro-gun rights in the past are either wavering or already caving in. It's going to be ugly.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things driving this effort is our current governor, Martin O'Malley, who will be running for the presidential nomination in 2016. He has always been anti-gun (and pro-taxes, pro-union, and every other leftist shibboleth), and no doubt sees this as cementing his qualifications for the primaries. So, even if the supermajority Democrat legislature cools off on the topic of confiscation, O'Malley will use his political capital to push hard for it.
Not sure what I'll do if that comes to pass. Damn sure I won't write about in on the internet when I decide.
If anyone thinks state governments will side with the people, check this- despite it's being Illinois, it ain't good for any of us... as the head goes, so follows the body.
ReplyDeletehttp://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=86exi4bab&v=001Odyl7ekdr1Y0hY6_1pu4Sqg9aPtqf2T8LJFGpbABp8oZ-TZm-zdqfbFvfaMFb_hH1uNYXYCGvafsOSEGK6H9uSOfICCFa8VJ8O97iUzFO_LHS2lzxaoE09k_FBRwKisjPeEypMV20IVIWZGipYNDRdqY49rnQoAQWGJx4Ff4DAGfoxQ6Y0zPFQ7onc1VLO9fIQCvz6FNtoOFJszbZWgGne9jJ6lDh4kSAP-q3Ap7OYHiEIGClmTPb2M3e5ryRD5rTt1L1E-UtnH-ftf8EDLxhzO1UUX-9IkvXPU0LJbuBdg%3D
Anonymous at December 31, 2012 2:46 PM:
ReplyDeleteUm, the National Guard's chain of command has always been through JCS (or its equivalent) since it's inception.
It has also been through the governor's office in each state.
The Guard is a military force with multiple personality disorder -- it is simultaneously a state AND a federal reserve ("organized militia") force. The governor can use it (if he's willing to pay the bills, unless POTUS agrees to cover the tab), when, and only when POTUS doesn't want to use it. (Yup, Uncle Sam pays roughly 95% of the cost of a Guard unit, even in peacetime -- 100% of the cost when on federal duty.)
Some Southern governors who tried to use the National Guard in tehir states to enforce segregation found this out the hard way, when the troops were federalized (while till holding a perimeter around teh schools) and ordered by POTUS that their mission had changed to ensuring desegregation occurred.
That's why they wear tags that say, "US Army" and "US Air Force" on their uniforms, not "Virginia Army" and "Wisconsin Air Force".
That's also why many states also have State Defence Forces (under various names) - and their uniforms (by federal law) must indicate clearly that they are state forces, so they won't be confused with federales.
Having said all that, Guardsmen still are members of the state population, and will likely shake out the way the state does. Units will generally follow their leadership, up to a point. That point can be stretched farther by not using Guard units in areas where the unit members live (there is actually a formal block of instruction on this point in leadership training for civil distrubance).
Armor has moved to Benning, much to Infantry Branch's dismy...
ReplyDelete