It's somewhat fortunate that the actual military is, if anything, the least likely threat. Almost all of the veterans I've known would take the people's side. So if it came down to it, I could see large amounts of the military refusing orders or defecting.
The main risk is probably paramilitaries like the ATF or your local SWAT team. One of the neat ways the Second Amendment is self-enforcing is that, if you sent those guys house to house to confiscate people's firearms, they'd get shot at.
I was going to say almost exactly that, only instead of the ATF (who have very little in the way of tactical response capabilities), the DHS is the biggest threat on the whole.
Firstly, they are not bound by Posse Comitatus, but even moreso than that, they've been gearing up for awhile to have extremely tactical response capacity, including live-fire drills in and over major cities, purchase of armored urban vehicles, and massive ammunition purchases. At last count, DHS has approximately five bullets for every single American in the US borders. Only slightly scarier is that they've been purchasing 'hesitate no more' targets to train on designed to desensitize them to the killing of 'normal people', including pregnant women, children, etc. Also, the ammo they've been buying are illegal to use extra-nationally due to the Geneva convention.
Yes (this isn't meant to be sarcastic, but necessary because I had to move this post from where it was to where it is, and HN keeps marking it dead).
The DHS is not bound by Posse Comitatus[1].
The DHS has been buying massive amounts of ammo[2][3][4], and most recently, the House has voted to get justification on the quantity of hollow points it is purchasing[5].
It looks like the claim that they're buying large quantities of urban armored vehicles is wrong[4], though they do acknowledge that they possess them, though my Google-fu is on the fritz getting a source for that since all searches for "DHS armored vehicles" returns the wrong conspiracy theory.
The DHS was using 'no more hesitation' targets that look like citizens[6][7]. Of note, link 7 implies that the manufacturer took them off the site, but the manufacturer never claimed that they were no longer for sale, or that they were no longer being sold directly to DHS, even when asked that question directly. I have no direct knowledge either way.
The ammo they've been buying is hollow-point[2][3], and hollow point ammo is illegal per Geneva convention (is actually wrong, it's illegal based on the Hague convention, the point stands true either way... Hague just predates Geneva)[8]
I think that's all of it. Let me know if I missed anything.
Thanks. I'm not being snarky or anything either. Just genuinely curious and would like to learn more on the topic. That said, I just looked at your first source and it doesn't support the conclusion that the DHS is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. It says that the US Coast Guard is exempt, and that the US Coast Guard operates under the DHS. But it does not follow from those statements that the DHS is exempt.
I could be wrong, or they could be bound by some other statute, but as I understand it, DHS is not exempt because it is neither a division of the Department of Defense, nor is it an "armed service" like the Marines.
The Coast Guard is not bound by Posse Comitatus despite being an 'armed force' because they are members of DHS, and not DoD.
The ATF and FBI are not bound by Posse Comitatus also, as they aren't armed forces (though both probably have some degree of armament; I know the ATF was playing around with getting a few armored cars the last time I was there, and they already had some 'surveillance' trucks based on ambulances), and that is why FBI, DHS and ATF are able to engage local police in an assistive fashion (or take over a case).
The Wikipedia page isn't very clear in either direction regarding DHS. Based on the description of the Posse Comitatus Act, it sounds like your interpretation would be correct. It says that Posse Comitatus (PCA) limits the federal government's powers to use federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement.
My interpretation of that is that it applies to military forces. The Coast Guard is a military force. DHS, I believe, is not. The reason the Coast Guard is exempt from PCA is not due to it being under DHS. (That's a side issue.) It's because the Coast Guard is charged with a law enforcement mission. It says that right in the Wikipedia article.
And that makes sense too. PCA says "don't use military for law enforcement." US Coast Guard has a law enforcement mission, so it must have an exemption in order to fulfil that mission. Likewise, ATF and FBI are law enforcement agencies (not military forces). So it makes sense that it doesn't apply to them as well.
The big question is whether DHS is a military force or not. I don't think they are. I could be wrong.
If they're not a military force, I don't see the problem with them not being bound by the PCA. The PCA is specifically for military forces.
Regarding the rest of your sources, [2,3,5] seem to confirm that DHS is buying a lot of ammo. But I don't see anything nefarious there. Note that [2] is an editorial (an opinion piece).
None of the sources mention that DHS is purchasing hollow-point bullets. The Snopes page [4] mentions that the SSA is purchasing hollow-point bullets, but not DHS. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if DHS was purchasing hollow-point bullets. The reason hollow-point bullets are banned in international warfare is because they increase the likelihood that a combatant is killed rather than just maimed. A full-metal jacket bullet will maim a combatant so that he is unable to continue fighting, but with a lower chance of killing him. Police forces tend to use hollow-point bullets because they reduce the risk to innocent bystanders (less chance of going through walls or ricocheting). Different tools for different jobs.
Regarding the "hestitate no more" targets, the sources [6,7] don't support the claim that DHS is using them. The first source [6], is an opinion piece. First, let's apply Betteridge's Law [] to the headline. The answer is probably, "No, 'DHS [is probably not] training with practice targets featuring children, pregnant woman [sic].'" Looking at the content of [6], all it really says is DHS buys targets from Law Enforcement Targets, Inc, and Law Enforcement Targets, Inc released a product line that features targets that display children, pregnant women, etc. It doesn't follow from those two statements that DHS is purchasing exactly* those products. They could be purchasing a different product line from the same company. The second source [7], just states that Law Enforcement Targets, Inc makes "hesitate no more" targets. It doesn't mention DHS. In fact, a quote from the company says that the product was designed based on requests from police forces.
One point that you didn't provide any sources for is the DHS practising "live-fire drills in and over major cities." Does "over" major cities imply they have military aircraft? I'm not sure what you meant by that.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but the particular sources that you've chosen don't support your conclusions. DHS isn't my favorite government agency either, but I see no conspiracy here.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that there is a conspiracy, but if you were looking for one with DHS, it isn't a big leap to imagine that they're gearing up for militaristic style operations despite their otherwise-stated LE mission. There have allegedly been statements made that they were gearing up for civil unrest and the possibility of martial law, but none of those statements were sources I consider credible, so I have done my best to mentally sequester them, and also did not posit them as evidence.
Regarding the purchases as being hollow point, that's probably not as 'newsworthy' an item for traditional news agencies, but the actual solicitation from DHS[1] illustrates that the majority of their purchases were hollow point, in 9mm and .40S&W. This was also covered by Forbes[2] and Foxnews[3]. That said, I also don't have a big problem with them being hollow point vs. FMJ as HPs are better in urban environments. Regardless, that does mean that they're dedicated to use in urban environments. The quantity itself might not be alarming to you, but considering that's the same amount of ammo used by the military each year, it seems excessive. I know that Breitbart insisted that the total doesn't account for what they might expend in training, but I've never known any LE or military agency to train with hollow point.
Regarding the "No More Hesitation" targets, the Examiner[4] linked those purchases to DHS, but the only other source I can find that says so definitively is Infowars, which I don't necessarily consider credible without corroboration.
One minor correction, at least from what I saw, is that you say it was requested from _police_ forces, but what I read indicated _law enforcement_ sources, of which DHS is. In one of their (now deleted) Facebook comments, LETargets acknowledged that DHS was their single largest customer, though I agree that is not definitive.
I'll have to come back to the live fire drills because it seems like those are being attributed to the 'military', but I know I saw something that collated that to DHS training, but I can't find it at the moment. This post has sat in my window overnight, so I'm just going to submit it for now.
As with all things, it varies, but hollow points and sabot rounds tend to be popular due to their better record on overpenetration.
Frangible rounds provide a far lower likelihood than an errant shot will punch through the wall and kill whatever's on the other side of it (which is why they're also the preferred rounds for home defense and such too).
I've always thought the 2nd amendment wasn't necessarily totally aimed at the federal level of government, but at the state and local levels as well. One could say that it is almost aimed entirely at the state and local levels.
When the Constitution was written, the US didn't normally have a permanent standing army. It allowed for a navy, but an army was only intended for times of war and monies for it to be used for two years at a time. Of course, that changed over time.
The permanent military of several branches is a modern idea.
I agree with you, despite history, I would imagine there would be a serious morale problem if the military were ordered to open war against civilians. The Civil War comes to mind, many in the military left the North to fight for the South to defend their home states.
It's also somewhat aimed at foreign invasions. "The security of a free state" goes both ways--a free state securing itself, and securing the freedom of the state.
The Japanese were pretty worried about landing on the West Coast because they'd have to fight through miles of woods, filled with Americans who knew the land, carrying hunting rifles.
But, how does owning a gun provide protection against the US military?
I don't understand why people keep asking this question, and variations of it, or offering up the argument "the 2A is useless for allowing rebellion since you can't defeat the US military".
Bands of rebels armed with mostly light weapons have caused superpowers all sorts of issues: See Afghanistan, from the Soviet era through today.
And if a full fledged rebellion did break out in the US, here are a few points to consider:
1. It's likely that at least some military units would side with the rebels. So you're already not talking about a case of just "you and your AR-15 versus tanks and F-16's".
2. Nukes are effectively "off the table" since there wouldn't be much point in nuking your own country, as there wouldn't be anything left to rule.
3. A hypothetical rebellion would not be limited to just AR-15's and what-not... factor in IEDs and various kinds of improved weapons.
4. And factor in stolen / captured military weapons.
5. And factor in military weapons provided, illicitly, to the rebels by the manufacturers, distributors, foreign groups, and gosh knows who else.
6. The population of the US is somewhere north of 300 million people, right? And a significant portion of the population own firearms. How many members are in the standing US military? According to Wikipedia, there are 1,429,995 active duty members of the US armed forces. IF a rebellion had sufficient popular support, consider, as they say, that quantity has a quality all it's own.
Anyway, the point is to say that it's not as simple as "you and a gun versus the US military" if you look at the big picture. I mean, sure, if it's just you and you take on a tank with an AR-15, they're just going to run you over, game over. But if an actual, massed rebellion, with lots of popular support were to break out, those guns do matter.
If you've got the popular support you're eluding to you'd be fine with baseball bats and molotov cocktails. You'd also be fine to steal the guns and other weapons of military/police forces as you have victorious encounters. You wouldn't actually need the guns in the first place.
It is much harder to start a revolution with steak knives than hunting rifles. I mean, consider why you don't actively participate in violent revolution right now (assuming you are dissenting against your government for some reason). Usually, it is because of the risk of injury and death.
You do reduce it when you bring a gun to a tank / plane / automatic weapons fight, rather than a knife. It isn't meant to provide all the armaments you need, but it leaves you a starting point.
You're making a couple of unfortunate assumptions.
An already economically-weakened ConUS can expect the following:
A domestic military with hardware that is failing left and right.
A domestic military that has no ammunition because the "domestic security forces" bought it all.
A domestic military that has no fuel.
Foreign Fighters that are well stocked and equipped with advanced weaponry.
The real "rulers" don't consider this to be their own country. They are citizens of the world. ConUS contains several million nuisances that would be best killed in an expedient manner, such as by plague or nuclear attack.
In that kind of environment, it is less likely that having an AR or an AK in the attic will help the typical USian.
In a way, it doesn't. There's really no way to arm yourself in a fashion to survive sustained attack from the U.S. military in this day and age.
But that's one of the reasons the military are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution as the primary goal, not simply to obey orders. They even throw in the surreal weasel words "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" as a way of really punching that point home.
So it's not really possible to meet the full intent of the 2nd Amendment any longer but at the same time there are other safeguards.
But it did lead to an insanely long battle that continued well after the official war was over in not one but two countries. The governments had given up fighting, but the civilians with guns kept US forces under constant attack for ten years.
A lot of the guns in circulation in Iraq were liberated from the army and police, or acquired through corrupt channels, originally provided by the coalition forces themselves.
You credit a well armed populace as being the key here, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They could've started with zero guns and simply acquired them as necessary.
Remember, a hostile government might shoot an unarmed individual in a conflict, but they will always shoot an armed one.
Doesn't that just illustrate that their odds would have been better had they started with arms instead of acquiring them as they went though?
This is somewhat similar to another argument I've had - there were some armed Jews in Germany who were able to leverage that firepower to hold off the SS and, eventually, escape. It certainly didn't stop the Nazis from committing the Holocaust, and communication / coordination are key to mounting a successful offense that the Jews didn't necessarily have time to mount, but while there were lots of Jews that died (some of them which might have even been armed), there were some that escaped (some of which were not armed); regardless, guns were demonstrably beneficial to those who fended off the SS.
As pertaining to the US Military, they have proven over and over that guerrilla warfare is not their strong suit, and especially so on foreign soil. Vietnam, Middle East, etc., have all shown that to be true. Also, as was mentioned earlier, many, if not most of the existing armed forces would have a very hard time mounting all out martial law against its citizenry. That isn't meant to imply that the situation couldn't be framed as such that it appeared to be necessary, but that also doesn't hold for long.
It's disrupting supply lines that does the real damage. Fuel trucks in Iraq were an extremely popular target for this reason.
You seem to think having piles of guns to start with puts you at an advantage. It doesn't. If anything, having piles of guns is a liability. In Libya they would just raid police stations and military depots and get all the guns they could ever want. I'm sure the same thing is going on in Syria.
Even in a place like Japan where firearms are heavily restricted, it would be only hours after some hypothetical civil war broke out before the resistance was armed.
Guns are an important tool in fighting, but there's billions of them in circulation around the world. If people want guns, they will get them. The amount of initiative lost in not having guns in the first few hours of a struggle is negligible. This kind of unrest takes years to resolve.
An advantage of an armed population is a large number of people skilled in the use of arms. Most people cannot reliably hit a person-sized target at several hundred meters the first time they pick up a rifle. Make that target a trained soldier who's moving and shooting back and the disadvantage grows much larger.
How does owning a gun provide protection against meteors? It doesn't; the question itself is invalid.
If you think the US military will deploy against even one million Americans on American ground, for the sake of shredding the US Constitution, well...you may as well believe orange is violet.
The US military has already said, as have the multitudes of its members under its control, that it will not be marching on the US civilian population. They would throw down their arms and join the other side, that of their friends and families, long before they'd betray everything they'd sworn an oath to.
Now, you might find one or two people, with a handful of soldiers who, for the thirty seconds it would take before they'd be executed (not even court martial-ed) with such an intent. And they'd be buried in a common grave, stripped of name and rank, for their actions.
