24 Nov 2018

Larry Correia Estimates the American Insurgency

, , , ,

Sci Fi novelist Larry Correia takes on Congressman Eric Swalwell’s contention that the Second Amendment is obsolete as a defense against the federal government.

Last week a congressman embarrassed himself on Twitter. He got into a debate about gun control, suggested a mandatory buyback—which is basically confiscation with a happy face sticker on it—and when someone told him that they would resist, he said resistance was futile because the government has nukes.

And everybody was like, wait, what?

Of course the congressman is now saying that using nuclear weapons on American gun owners was an exaggeration, he just wanted to rhetorically demonstrate that the all-powerful government could crush us peasants like bugs, they hold our pathetic lives in their iron hand, and he’d never ever advocate for the use of nuclear weapons on American soil (that would be bad for the environment!), and instead he merely wants to send a SWAT team to your house to shoot you in the face if you don’t comply. …

First, let’s talk about the basic premise that an irregular force primarily armed with rifles would be helpless against a powerful army that has things like drones and attack helicopters.

This is a deeply ironic argument to make, considering that the most technologically advanced military coalition in history has spent the better part of the last two decades fighting goat herders with AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seriously, it’s like you guys only pay attention to American casualties when there’s a republican in office and an election coming up.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama launched over five hundred drone strikes during his eight years in office. We’ve used Apaches (that’s the scary looking helicopter in the picture for my peacenik liberal friends), smart bombs, tanks, I don’t know how many thousand s of raids on houses and compounds, all the stuff that the lefty memes say they’re willing to do to crush the gun nut right, and we’ve spent something like 6 trillion dollars on the global war on terror so far.

And yet they’re still fighting.

So yes, groups of irregular locals can be a real pain in the ass to a technologically superior military force. That’s pretty obvious.

Now here is the interesting part. Best estimates are that any given time in Iraq we’ve been fighting about 20,000 insurgents at most. …

Okay, so let’s say Congressman Swalwell gets his wish, and the government says turn them in or else. And even though the government has become tyrannical enough to send SWAT teams door to door and threaten citizens with drones and attack helicopters, rather than half the states saying fuck you, this means Civil War 2, instead we’ll stick to the rosiest of all possible outcomes, and say that most gun owners comply.

In fact, let’s be super kind. Rather than a realistic number, like half or a third of those people getting really, really pissed off and hoisting the black flag, let’s say that 99% of them decide to totally put all their faith into the government, and that the all-powerful entity which just threatened to kill their entire family will never ever turn tyrannical from now on, pinky swear, so what do they have to lose? And a whopping 90% of gun owners go along peacefully.

That means you are only dealing with six and a half MILLION insurgents. The entire active US military is about 1.3 million, with about 800,000 reserve. Which is also assuming that those two Venn diagrams don’t overlap, which is just plain idiotic, but I’ll get to that too.

Let’s be super generous. I’m talking absurdly generous, and say that a full 99% of US gun owners say won’t somebody think of the children and all hold hands and sing kumbaya, so that then you are only dealing with the angriest, listless malcontents who hate progress… These are those crazy, knuckle dragging bastards who you will have to put in the ground.

And there are 650,000 of them.

To put that into perspective, we were fighting 22,000 insurgents in Iraq, a country which would fit comfortably inside Texas with plenty of room to spare. This would be almost 30 times as many fighters, spread across 22 times the area.

And that estimated number is pathetically, laughably low.

StumbleUpon.com
7 Feedbacks on "Larry Correia Estimates the American Insurgency"

Schill McGuffin

I would just add that an attitude of “Oh, they’d never respond violently to our violence” is generally how wars break out.



SteveS

A fine rant! Not to bring up, like, History and stuff, but back when we threw the tea in the harbor and told the British to piss off, one could have asked how a bunch of guys hiding behind trees with muskets could ever expect to prevail against one of the preeminent military powers of the world. I mean, the Brits had ships, and cannons, and rows and rows and rows of well-equipped, well-trained soldiers. Those silly colonials didn’t stand a chance.

While we are on the subject of numbers and guys with guns hiding behind trees, in Michigan alone there are roughly half a million deer hunters – guys whose hobby is shooting human-sized animals from concealment.



butch

I wouldn’t count on the deer hunters. A goodly number are Fudds who think nobody needs an AR-15.

They might chnage their minds when the do-gov comes for their high powered sniper rifles. After all, nobody needs to go hunting.



Lee

Of course nobody needs to go hunting! There’s fine food available at the grocery store. Not to mention BAMBI! How can you shoot BAMBI!



Steverino

I’m wondering how the Left reconciles this idea that citizens armed with rifles could not beat an army when that is how they claimed Viet Cong guerrillas beat America in Vietnam.

I have a couple questions for Congressman Nukem. How are you going to convince an American military man to drop a nuke on his own country to enforce a political position? If you get past that, how are you going to separate the liberals from the conservatives far enough so that a nuke won’t frag your liberal friends? Given that nukes spread radioactive pollution to hell and back, how are you going to convince liberals that would be a good thing? Since dropping a nuke in the countryside, where most conservatives live, would be a waste of a nuke, you’d have to drop it on a city full of conservatives. That means you’d have to secretly tell all the liberals to leave and abandon their homes to nuclear destruction, so that you could nuke the right wing nuts.

And on and on and on into ever greater absurdity.



Mark30339

Imagine how Socialists in power will point to rulings by their judges explaining how the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply any more. That’s so persuasive that Swalwell is dropping that farce and just going nuclear. Maybe the Founders weren’t too white, too old and too male to possess any wisdom on these matters after all.



Glenn macksy

And, of course, there are gang members and other criminals who are not about to surrender their weapons.



Comments

Please Leave a Comment!




Please note: Comments may be moderated. It may take a while for them to show on the page.
















Feeds
Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Feed Shark