Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

CURRENT GLOBAL VISITORS (CLICK GLOBE)
D-FOX: PLEASE CONTACT US IMMEDIATELY

If you can read this message, please contact us immediately at the following email address:

thecomingcrisis@gmail.com

We'd like to communicate.

D-FOX

German SWAT Equivalent Dominates Airsoft Game



Watching this guy do so well against a bunch of people whose hobby it is to have mock battles, I begin to wonder.

What possible chance do most American gun-hoarders think they stand if they ever find themselves in armed conflict or rebellion?  How many people are trained to properly shoot the guns they own?  Of them, how many are trained to engage other armed opponents in urban and wilderness settings?

Of those people, how many are better than an active-duty policeman, SWAT officer or even a soldier?  How many are good enough to go up against an entire team of said people, even with friends?

It seems pretty unrealistic to expect that anyone could effectively fight back against such opponents unless they themselves are ex-SWAT or ex-military (which, I understand, some are). 

The average person, though?  Even armed, I'm curious if the American public could win if they found themselves somehow in conflict with the government.  It seems to me the only way the government could lose is if the entire military rebelled as well and joined the people (which might just happen, if loved ones are threatened, although the 15% or so of active personnel overseas couldn't do much to help).

Thoughts?  Could an armed citizen resistance stand any realistic chance against highly-trained government enforcers?

Comments

  • mrpops09_CMOD_mrpops09_CMOD_ Chief Moderator
    edited March 8
    That would be pretty fun. It would be pretty cool to watch an entire SWAT team take on some regulars 
    Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    edited March 8
    Absolutely. In fact, I feel it would be easier than it has ever been due to technological advancements. 

    (P.S. Pretty cool that they have an outdoor version of Counterstrike.)
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • mrpops09_CMOD_mrpops09_CMOD_ Chief Moderator
    edited March 8
    I feel many in the military would join the people if it came down to it. Like maybe up to 1/3 depending on the reason behind the hypothetical civil war

    Also, these are german kids that have likely never even shot a real gun. While police and military are WAY MORE TRAINED and efficient than civilians......just look what Afghanistan did to the US and Russia. The case can be made we'd stand a pretty good chance 
    Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
  • tazweisstazweiss Member

    Part of the training we did before my first overseas deployment, involved actions we were or were not allowed to take, under various circumstances.  In the lectures we were told that we couldn't enforce local law.  it was pointed out that we were not to interfere in any criminal activities we witnessed.  This even included capital crimes such as rape, murder or torture.

    Most of us stood up and said that, in that case, we would have to opt out of the deployment.  Morally, we could not and would not refrain from interfering in order to protect people from being victimized.  When our reaction to those particular rules of engagement was passed higher up, National Defence Headquarters relented.  We were given new rules of engagement that allowed us to protect people from physical harm if we witnessed any of those acts.

    After having seen so many Canadian soldiers stand up and say no without previous discussion, I'm confident that most wouldn't take the side of a government gone tyrannical.  I'm also fairly confident that a large majority of the American military would react in much the same way.

    "How do you tell a communist?  Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.  And how do you tell an anti-communist?  It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

    *Ronald Reagan*

  • GrumpyGuyGrumpyGuy Member
    edited March 9
    Absolutely. In fact, I feel it would be easier than it has ever been due to technological advancements.
    Don't those same technological advancements heavily favour the government?

    I can't imagine anything other than civilians having to essentially zerg-rush the police, losing vast amounts of their number, until eventually overwhelming them.  Ten trained officers could probably defeat 100 civilians.

    There's also the important issue of morale.  Will the citizenry's morale hold in the face of defeats and death?  Seeing 30 guys get mowed down by unseen opponents would probably turn any non-soldier's bowels to water.
  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    edited March 9
    It all depends on the nature of the conflict we're discussing:

    If we're discussing a symmetrical conflict in which the same strategies are employed by similarly sized groups of people, one of which is specifically trained for such a conflict (as illustrated in the video), the governmental forces will surely win.

    If we're discussing a conflict in which one side is powerful but reactive, and the other side is weak but adaptive, then outcome likelihood begins swinging in the other direction in proportion to the ability to harness a host of other factors. 

    Personally, I don't believe that the technological gap is as wide as most think, is incredibly taut and vulnerable, and I also feel that the technologies employed for oppressive reasons by the government in turn arm the citizenry with offshoot technologies that can be harnessed in unforeseen ways. 

    Spiritual quality is undoubtedly the most important factor. If the question being posed is, "Can it be done?" then the answer is surely yes. If the question being posed is, "Can the Americans do it at the present time?" then the answer is likely not. I don't believe that Americans currently possess the necessary spiritual qualities to be able to successfully carry out such a endeavour, but that not only can change at the drop of a hat, but would also entirely eliminate any advantages in talents or materiel the government possesses, which may be why there are so many resources put towards keeping the blinders on.


    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • What do you feel are the necessary things that must happen before Americans gain the requisite level of spirituality? 

    Do you think the impending Western economic collapse will lead to some of them, or further turn people towards other goals?
  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    I suppose that for any revolution to be successful, meaningful, and lasting, the participants must:

    1.   acquire a true desire for change
    2.   be willing to pay the cost for that change
    3.   possess a compass towards righteousness

    Any situation or atmosphere that removes the illusion would assist the willing individual in the adoption of these three qualities. But it doesn't necessarily have to be some sort of traumatic event; it can be as simple as reading and reminding oneself. 


    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • I suppose that for any revolution to be successful, meaningful, and lasting, the participants must:

    1.   acquire a true desire for change
    2.   be willing to pay the cost for that change
    3.   possess a compass towards righteousness

    Any situation or atmosphere that removes the illusion would assist the willing individual in the adoption of these three qualities. But it doesn't necessarily have to be some sort of traumatic event; it can be as simple as reading and reminding oneself. 



    A great many revolutions are successful and somewhat lasting.  Many of those revolutions don't really follow rule number three.  That's because many end as a dictatorship where the dictator immediately confiscates weapons from the citizenry to ensure his complete control.

    "How do you tell a communist?  Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.  And how do you tell an anti-communist?  It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

    *Ronald Reagan*

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    edited March 10
    I suppose that's what I would count as a temporary revolution, or even an illusory revolution, in that it simply degenerates into what it originally fought against since it no longer has, or never really had, a foundation of righteousness. The American revolution might even be a good example of this: they've become the Empire they once fought against in the pursuit of freedom, and somehow lost their compass along their journey.
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • I think all revolutions begin with what is considered righteousness in the hearts and minds of the revolutionaries.  But as time and power increase, corruption will inevitably begin to take hold.  For any revolution to succeed, the people have to believe in the righteousness of their cause.  They would never make the necessary sacrifices otherwise.

    Even when a revolution is truly righteous, those who take the reins of power, eventually begin to become more and more greedy and/or paranoid.  It may take a few centuries or it may only take a few years, but in the end, a new revolution will be needed.

    "How do you tell a communist?  Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.  And how do you tell an anti-communist?  It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

    *Ronald Reagan*

Sign In or Register to comment.