Quote of the day—Fûz

I will not be specific because I intend to get away with it.

First, if you are coming after my individual civil rights, it’s personal.

Second, when it has become personal, nothing will be below me and everything will be on the table. You, your employer, your house, your business, your spouse, kids, parents. Because as it stands today, for you, everything of MINE is already on the table. My business, home, car, employer, family. Social media accounts, Amazon buying records, memberships, donations.

You will regret living under the same rules you imposed on me.

Fûz
April 21, 2018
Comment to Say when
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

26 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Fûz

  1. Ah… we have transitioned to the Mutually Assured Destruction deterrence phase of the Cold Civil War.

    That’s fine, so long as our M.A.D. strategy is a cover for a robust Overwhelming Response capability rather than a Bluff And Posture reality.

    I don’t have any other country on the planet I can go to.

  2. On that blog there was some debate on whether LEO (and perhaps military) would obey a confiscation order. The left obviously assume that they would. We tend to assume they will not because of their oath to obey the Constitution. But there was some argument that this is optimistic, especially if the enemy leadership throws around code words like “terrorist” to justify things.
    That made me wonder. We tend to rely on surveys that say rank & file LEO and military support the right to bear arms. How confident should we be that those opinions will remain intact against the enemy propaganda machine accusing us of being terrorists? (Or one of several other types of vile subhumans, as one comment pointed out?)
    As I’ve done before, I pointed at Matthew Bracken for a scary treatment of that possibility. He describes quite well what would happen if indeed we are too optimistic and “follow orders against terrorists” overrides “obey the Constitution”.

    • Some years ago, a long-time friend of mine asked Navy personnel at the Patuxent River NAS, where he worked as an aeronautical engineer, whether they would obey an order to confiscate weapons held by civilians, and whether they believed other military personnel would. Long, serious discussions ensued. The answer was a unanimous “NO”.

      • In post-Katrina New Orleans, guns were confiscated by police officers per the orders of New Orleans Mayor Nagin. The questions my friend asked were of military officers, not police officers.

        • Yes, but don’t police officers swear the same oath that military personnel do? (I’m neither so I’m not sure of this…)
          The reason I’m wavering is the point that was raised: what if the enemy bosses yell “terrorist” (or “child molester”)? The question you asked was in a neutral setting, but the enemy propaganda machine won’t let it be neutral and that could affect the answers.

          • The scenario that was posed was (literally):

            “President Whosit calls General Turgidsen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, into the Oval Office and says, “General, I’m giving you a direct order. You are to mobilize the armed forces of the United States at all levels. Your mission is to disarm the population of the United States. Your troops will confiscate every firearm, except those possessed by the various police forces, without exception. You are to use whatever force is required to accomplish this mission, including killing anyone who resists and anyone who aids those who resist. You will search every building, every house, every apartment, every home, every vehicle, every goddamned thing in the country. You will not ask anyone for permission at any time, you will simply carry out this order to the letter.”

            The question that was asked was, “Given this scenario, if you were given an order by competent authority to execute this mission, would you obey that order?”

            The unanimous response was (paraphrasing), “No. It would be an illegal order. We are trained and ordered to not obey illegal orders. We took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”

          • Nicely worded.
            It would be interesting to run that same question by a group of flag officers, to see if the responses come out the same or differently.
            In particular, the scenario could be “You are Gen. Turgidsen — how do you respond?”

          • Paul:

            Among the people who were asked were Navy Captains and Marine Colonels. That’s one grade below flag rank.

          • As I recall in the New Orleans situation there were police from all over the country, so police from cities where there was no “right” to carry were confiscating weapons from people there was no likelihood that they would know the people they were disarming.
            In Heinlein’s Space Cadet there was a hypothetical about the protagonist nuking his home town, and an argument ensuing because Matt, the protagonist said he would follow orders. After returning to the Corps, an older colleague said that if it were to come down to it, they wouldn’t make someone nuke his home town, they’d lock him up and order someone else to.
            Also, given the suspension of reason if the object is a child molester or a terrorist or a cop killer, I have no doubt there is no real obstacle for other than local LEO’s to do the dirty work, with full energy, and as the phrase goes, “Extreme Prejudice”. After the fact his friends can say of the deceased, “I had no idea he had so much kiddie porn on his computer/ had been in contact with the blind sheik/ was the one who ambushed the cop.

    • If only five percent of the various LEOs were on the side of the constitution, being insiders, they could cause a terrible lot of trouble for the authoritarian alliance. Imagine for example a FOB consisting of hundreds of personnel, and there are a dozen or two on the inside who decide to make things run poorly…”Oops; the fuel depot seems to have caught fire and there was a mysterious explosion in the hanger and several of the key maintenance personnel seem to have disappeared.”

      That is to say nothing of the vast, commercial, industrial and transport infrastructure needed to maintain a modern fighting force. After a relatively short time, that gigantic technological advantage we’re always told we have no chance against would begin to fall apart.

      Or should I say “three percent”?

      Oh, but Obama’s words echo through all such discussions; “We need a civilian security force that’s as well funded, well trained and well equipped as our military…” or words to that effect. They’re working on that concept even now, and there are the sleeper cells of terrorists and disparate gangster types.

      The end game is that, globally, we all become so disgusted with our being separate that we’ll welcome, even beg for, our new global New World Order, with Rome (the Vatican, which the Protestant movement identified as the antiChrist) as its “spiritual” center. And it will be successful. It doesn’t matter how many people have to die, because the authoritarian system sees mass death as a feature and not a bug. Therefore do not count on pain and death as any sort of deterrence to the Alliance. They’re counting on it.

      When things go totally to shit, as planned, they will be saying, “Come into our system, for peace and security! Unity! It’s your only hope!” while the Bible says, “Come OUT and be separate!– It’s your only chance (even if you have to wander in the desert for forty years). Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them”

      So it’s a choice between the two “salvations” we’ve been offered for all of human history; Man’s authority, which is the evil substitute, or counterfeit, on one hand, and God’s on the other. But don’t take my word for it. The Progressives are in fact telling one another that they can be as gods, and they’re not the only ones.

      • A story, probably apocryphal, holds that Admiral Yamamoto declined to entertain the thought of invading the United States, saying, “It would be impossible. There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass.”

        The question that would very quickly come to dominate the mind of every person involved in gun confiscation raids is, “Who takes point on this one?” You can bet your last dollar that there would be no volunteers.

        • Yamamoto went to school here, and was stationed at the embassy as a Naval Aide, so he was familiar with the US. He was not a happy camper when his bosses decided they had to attack the US. He told them flat out it was a losing proposition. They thought they could beat us back for a year or two, and then hold their gains while negotiations cemented the lines. They chose… poorly.
          Blame it on FDR. He was annoyed the Japanese were interfering with our Chinese market. That incompetent Progressive Clown deliberately got us involved in a two ocean war.

          • Yamamoto advised that he could attack the fleet at Pearl Harbor and then run amok for six months, but could give no guarantee beyond that point. Had he attacked the port (i.e. the fuel storage tank farm and its manifolds, the docks, the navy yard, and so on) instead of the fleet, he could have driven the fleet back to San Diego for a year, possibly two.

            The first mistake was attacking the United States at the immediate onset of war, and starting the war so clumsily that it amounted to a sneak attack. The second was attacking the wrong target.

            Japan declared war on the United States. Four days later, Hitler declared war on the United States. “What If” games are interesting. What would Europe and Asia, even the world, be like today if the United States had remained neutral?

          • Harry Turtledove is good at “what if” novels. I don’t know if he’s covered that particular scenario but he had a bunch of similar ones.

      • Think of all the trouble that lone nut-job cop (Dorner) caused in L.A a few years back. Now imagine what a determined, patriot with a plan could do.

    • My personal experience has been that in the more rural areas the LEOs won’t be willing to take guns away. The problem for the gun grabbers then becomes one of numbers. Do they have the resources to replace or even arrest those who disobey confiscation orders? I personally don’t think they do, even with the military as most of those wouldn’t follow orders either. Then the only option is to try to separate the rural areas from the urban areas. The use of road blocks, keeping supplies from the areas and basically trying to starve them into submission.

  3. Storyteller:

    As with the Remnant, we don’t know who these people are, or where they are, or how numerous they are. We just know that they exist.

    The gun-grabbers should know this, and be frightened. Alas, they don’t.

  4. It’s long been military doctrine that a 10% loss makes a unit “combat ineffective,” and 20% requires removal from operations to reconstitute the unit, and losses much beyond that have resulted in the unit being disbanded and the assets redistributed.

    What Fuz is referencing is a condition in which conditions have deteriorated to the point where “there are no rules” and retribution is the order of the day; such does not require anywhere near 3% to be engaged to have a very deleterious effect on societal order; look at the Irish Republican Army vs the British miltary for number comparisons. In a country of 320+ million, I’d guess a couple to several thousand may become participants and as evidenced by Christopher Dorner’s impact on LAPD, that number could easily have an effect.

    As for the authorities’ response, the moment an Abrams or Bradley rolls down Main Street the condition changes; how many supermarket deliveries need to be hijacked, or simply destroyed on the road, for, first, truckers to stop driving and, second, for metropolitan areas to become uninhabitable? I’d suggest 5% might do it. Most electrical distribution transformers are protected only by chain link fencing, many cities’ water supplies are open-air reservoirs, vehicles require gasoline or diesel, the list goes on.

    Adding complexity, severe civil disruption in the U.S. would instantly trigger activities by those nations less-than-friendly to the U.S. who see an opportunity to capitalize on America’s confusion; certainly, a decision would have to be made on assets to Taiwan, etc. or assets to Milwaukee, and an asset destroyed or rendered unusable while traveling to Des Moines would not be available for overseas deployment; troops – or police – AWOL to guard their families’ homes cannot perform maintenance on vehicles or patrol neighborhoods, and so on.

    The biggest hazard may be not that death and destruction – on both sides – might be quite widespread, but that a negotiated truce may not be possible; too many have scores they’re eager to settle, and too many will want to exercise whatever power they have to mantain, or re-establish, their position. All chain reactions, once “gone critical” burn out, but once started, this one may persist for some time.

  5. “All chain reactions, once “gone critical” burn out, but once started, this one may persist for some time.”

    Frankly, this scenario should scare the crap out of the Left. The toll of our “civil war” was horrendous, and it turns out it was actually much higher than originally thought. Most of the deaths were not from direct action, but from the side effects of war. Those effects will be much magnified, due to the high density of the blue enclaves. This time, the body count will be staggering.
    ————– Don’t get us started. ————-
    We have a century of seeing what the Left has in mind for us, and I expect that knowledge to guide our actions in dealing with them.)

  6. Another thought…

    A liberal President (or governor, or mayor) orders troops (or police) to confiscate legal guns from law-abiding owners.

    The answer is “no”.

    Okay, now what? Have the grabbers thought through to that point? (They should! A smaller-scale confiscation was attempted in New York with the ill-named SAFE act, and got an estimated 15% compliance. The other 85% of New York AR owners basically said “come and find me, suckers”. Connecticut tried it too, with similar results.)

    Don’t give the enforcers of law unenforceable orders. It’s not good for anybody.

  7. Please understand the different groups within the police and military communities. Big city police officers are more likely to follow confiscation orders than rural sheriffs. Many military service members may claim in a survey that they’d follow the orders, but few of the actual trigger pullers will.

Comments are closed.