To Pro 2nd Amendmenters: Can you seriously defend Liberty?

[TheCrusader]

The question is simple, Hitler could not be stopped by partisans (which is essentially what pro 2nd Amendmenters claim they are), the French Resistance (well organized and supported by allied governments with financing, command and control, and weapons) could not defeat the Nazis in France and in analysis did almost nothing to defeat the Nazis in France.

The German armies were almost entirely defeated by Armies of enormous scale backed by governments of enormous wealth with the ability to marshal and organize resources on a scale never before seen.

But somehow, Republicans are going to defeat tyranny?

How can you with your semi-automatic rifle defeat drone-strikes, and command and control?

You think the Tyrannical Feds will go easier on you than they do on ISIS? Or the Taliban?

Can you live in hole the rest of your life, blow yourself up with explosives to kill civilians and hit tanks or armored vehicles?

Where will you get artillery? Or tanks? Or fighter jets?

How will you, with your 2nd Amendment, take over Air Craft Carriers, Attack Submarines, cruise missiles, fight against special forces, etc.

All these tools the Feds already have?

Let's face it, your 2nd Amendment is a pipe-dream.

It only serves now to enable psychos to shoot preschools and for conservatives to pretend they will stop it if it happens to them in a movie theater.

 

[Hossfly]

The question is simple, Hitler could not be stopped by partisans (which is essentially what pro 2nd Amendmenters claim they are), the French Resistance (well organized and supported by allied governments with financing, command and control, and weapons) could not defeat the Nazis in France and in analysis did almost nothing to defeat the Nazis in France.

The German armies were almost entirely defeated by Armies of enormous scale backed by governments of enormous wealth with the ability to marshal and organize resources on a scale never before seen.

But somehow, Republicans are going to defeat tyranny?

How can you with your semi-automatic rifle defeat drone-strikes, and command and control?

You think the Tyrannical Feds will go easier on you than they do on ISIS? Or the Taliban?

Can you live in hole the rest of your life, blow yourself up with explosives to kill civilians and hit tanks or armored vehicles?

Where will you get artillery? Or tanks? Or fighter jets?

How will you, with your 2nd Amendment, take over Air Craft Carriers, Attack Submarines, cruise missiles, fight against special forces, etc.

All these tools the Feds already have?

Let's face it, your 2nd Amendment is a pipe-dream.

It only serves now to enable psychos to shoot preschools and for conservatives to pretend they will stop it if it happens to them in a movie theater.

2d Amendment advocates have been defending liberty for over 200 years in spite of Progressive Liberal Democrat pukes resisting every move.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owed firearms in the hands of over 100,000,000 gun owners.

Total military personnel in the United States comes to about 1,300,000.

Assuming the military would support such an unconstitutional operation, which I strongly believe they would not, if even a quarter of civilian gun owners resisted they would overwhelmingly outnumber military personnel, and it is equally unlikely the military would sanction major destruction within America to support such unconstitutional nonsense by would-be kings.

Also keep in mind that many seceding states would gain possession of nuclear weapons.

 

[TheCrusader]

The question is simple, Hitler could not be stopped by partisans (which is essentially what pro 2nd Amendmenters claim they are), the French Resistance (well organized and supported by allied governments with financing, command and control, and weapons) could not defeat the Nazis in France and in analysis did almost nothing to defeat the Nazis in France.

The German armies were almost entirely defeated by Armies of enormous scale backed by governments of enormous wealth with the ability to marshal and organize resources on a scale never before seen.

But somehow, Republicans are going to defeat tyranny?

How can you with your semi-automatic rifle defeat drone-strikes, and command and control?

You think the Tyrannical Feds will go easier on you than they do on ISIS? Or the Taliban?

Can you live in hole the rest of your life, blow yourself up with explosives to kill civilians and hit tanks or armored vehicles?

Where will you get artillery? Or tanks? Or fighter jets?

How will you, with your 2nd Amendment, take over Air Craft Carriers, Attack Submarines, cruise missiles, fight against special forces, etc.

All these tools the Feds already have?

Let's face it, your 2nd Amendment is a pipe-dream.

It only serves now to enable psychos to shoot preschools and for conservatives to pretend they will stop it if it happens to them in a movie theater.

2d Amendment advocates have been defending liberty for over 200 years in spite of Progressive Liberal Democrat pukes resisting every move.

Prove it.

Because there's no instance in history where peasants armed with weapons of the time (be it swords, spears, or guns) have ever defended anything.

In every American War there was always command and control, over organized forces, including the Revolutionary War which saw regular soldiers form the core of a broader army and was trained by Prussian methodology.

So are you saying that you 2nd Amendmenters have defended liberty by fear? You think a Government with 8,000 tons of Gold, Trillions of annual revenues, is afraid of you?

You aren't even as coordinated as the Confederacy, and the US is no where near as weak as the Federal Government in 1860.

Today the US has more power in one air craft carrier than the entire combined arms of civilians in the US.

 

[eagle1462010]

Who the hell says the military would be on the side of gov't should it come down to that?

This country has more weapons in private possession than most countries in the world.

 

[eagle1462010]

The question is simple, Hitler could not be stopped by partisans (which is essentially what pro 2nd Amendmenters claim they are), the French Resistance (well organized and supported by allied governments with financing, command and control, and weapons) could not defeat the Nazis in France and in analysis did almost nothing to defeat the Nazis in France.

The German armies were almost entirely defeated by Armies of enormous scale backed by governments of enormous wealth with the ability to marshal and organize resources on a scale never before seen.

But somehow, Republicans are going to defeat tyranny?

How can you with your semi-automatic rifle defeat drone-strikes, and command and control?

You think the Tyrannical Feds will go easier on you than they do on ISIS? Or the Taliban?

Can you live in hole the rest of your life, blow yourself up with explosives to kill civilians and hit tanks or armored vehicles?

Where will you get artillery? Or tanks? Or fighter jets?

How will you, with your 2nd Amendment, take over Air Craft Carriers, Attack Submarines, cruise missiles, fight against special forces, etc.

All these tools the Feds already have?

Let's face it, your 2nd Amendment is a pipe-dream.

It only serves now to enable psychos to shoot preschools and for conservatives to pretend they will stop it if it happens to them in a movie theater.

2d Amendment advocates have been defending liberty for over 200 years in spite of Progressive Liberal Democrat pukes resisting every move.

Prove it.

Because there's no instance in history where peasants armed with weapons of the time (be it swords, spears, or guns) have ever defended anything.

In every American War there was always command and control, over organized forces, including the Revolutionary War which saw regular soldiers form the core of a broader army and was trained by Prussian methodology.

So are you saying that you 2nd Amendmenters have defended liberty by fear? You think a Government with 8,000 tons of Gold, Trillions of annual revenues, is afraid of you?

You aren't even as coordinated as the Confederacy, and the US is no where near as weak as the Federal Government in 1860.

Today the US has more power in one air craft carrier than the entire combined arms of civilians in the US.

What's your point? Have you gone Liberal on us?

 

[TheCrusader]

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owed firearms in the hands of over 100,000,000 gun owners.

Total military personnel in the United States comes to about 1,300,000.

Assuming the military would support such an unconstitutional operation, which I strongly believe they would not, if even a quarter of civilian gun owners resisted they would overwhelmingly outnumber military personnel, and it is equally unlikely the military would sanction major destruction within America to support such unconstitutional nonsense by would-be kings.

Also keep in mind that many seceding states would gain possession of nuclear weapons.

The military will most CERTAINLY support an unconstitutional operation, because loyalists will execute or arrest dissenters and deserters.

You have a lot to learn about "Military Terrorism" and are very naive if you believe the US Military will disobey orders from their "High Command" the Pentagon.

 

[TheCrusader]

The question is simple, Hitler could not be stopped by partisans (which is essentially what pro 2nd Amendmenters claim they are), the French Resistance (well organized and supported by allied governments with financing, command and control, and weapons) could not defeat the Nazis in France and in analysis did almost nothing to defeat the Nazis in France.

The German armies were almost entirely defeated by Armies of enormous scale backed by governments of enormous wealth with the ability to marshal and organize resources on a scale never before seen.

But somehow, Republicans are going to defeat tyranny?

How can you with your semi-automatic rifle defeat drone-strikes, and command and control?

You think the Tyrannical Feds will go easier on you than they do on ISIS? Or the Taliban?

Can you live in hole the rest of your life, blow yourself up with explosives to kill civilians and hit tanks or armored vehicles?

Where will you get artillery? Or tanks? Or fighter jets?

How will you, with your 2nd Amendment, take over Air Craft Carriers, Attack Submarines, cruise missiles, fight against special forces, etc.

All these tools the Feds already have?

Let's face it, your 2nd Amendment is a pipe-dream.

It only serves now to enable psychos to shoot preschools and for conservatives to pretend they will stop it if it happens to them in a movie theater.

2d Amendment advocates have been defending liberty for over 200 years in spite of Progressive Liberal Democrat pukes resisting every move.

Prove it.

Because there's no instance in history where peasants armed with weapons of the time (be it swords, spears, or guns) have ever defended anything.

In every American War there was always command and control, over organized forces, including the Revolutionary War which saw regular soldiers form the core of a broader army and was trained by Prussian methodology.

So are you saying that you 2nd Amendmenters have defended liberty by fear? You think a Government with 8,000 tons of Gold, Trillions of annual revenues, is afraid of you?

You aren't even as coordinated as the Confederacy, and the US is no where near as weak as the Federal Government in 1860.

Today the US has more power in one air craft carrier than the entire combined arms of civilians in the US.

What's your point? Have you gone Liberal on us?

My point is you can't justifiably defend a belief on a proven fantasy.

2nd Amendmenters don't stop mass shootings, they don't stop tyrannical fascist movements (though they may support them and give power to government forces), and they don't "defend liberty".

The only real use of guns are for hunting, and we can rent guns from hunting lodges for that.

 

[eagle1462010]

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owed firearms in the hands of over 100,000,000 gun owners.

Total military personnel in the United States comes to about 1,300,000.

Assuming the military would support such an unconstitutional operation, which I strongly believe they would not, if even a quarter of civilian gun owners resisted they would overwhelmingly outnumber military personnel, and it is equally unlikely the military would sanction major destruction within America to support such unconstitutional nonsense by would-be kings.

Also keep in mind that many seceding states would gain possession of nuclear weapons.

The military will most CERTAINLY support an unconstitutional operation, because loyalists will execute or arrest dissenters and deserters.

You have a lot to learn about "Military Terrorism" and are very naive if you believe the US Military will disobey orders from their "High Command" the Pentagon.

Some of us served punk...............If given the order to slaughter our own..........a lot if not most would turn their weapons on the Gov't..............

Those serving would be firing at their own dang families STUPID.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owed firearms in the hands of over 100,000,000 gun owners.

Total military personnel in the United States comes to about 1,300,000.

Assuming the military would support such an unconstitutional operation, which I strongly believe they would not, if even a quarter of civilian gun owners resisted they would overwhelmingly outnumber military personnel, and it is equally unlikely the military would sanction major destruction within America to support such unconstitutional nonsense by would-be kings.

Also keep in mind that many seceding states would gain possession of nuclear weapons.

The military will most CERTAINLY support an unconstitutional operation, because loyalists will execute or arrest dissenters and deserters.

You have a lot to learn about "Military Terrorism" and are very naive if you believe the US Military will disobey orders from their "High Command" the Pentagon.

The rank and file would tell them to fuck off and join their friends and family on the line. Your loyalists would be fragged.

 

[eagle1462010]

The question is simple, Hitler could not be stopped by partisans (which is essentially what pro 2nd Amendmenters claim they are), the French Resistance (well organized and supported by allied governments with financing, command and control, and weapons) could not defeat the Nazis in France and in analysis did almost nothing to defeat the Nazis in France.

The German armies were almost entirely defeated by Armies of enormous scale backed by governments of enormous wealth with the ability to marshal and organize resources on a scale never before seen.

But somehow, Republicans are going to defeat tyranny?

How can you with your semi-automatic rifle defeat drone-strikes, and command and control?

You think the Tyrannical Feds will go easier on you than they do on ISIS? Or the Taliban?

Can you live in hole the rest of your life, blow yourself up with explosives to kill civilians and hit tanks or armored vehicles?

Where will you get artillery? Or tanks? Or fighter jets?

How will you, with your 2nd Amendment, take over Air Craft Carriers, Attack Submarines, cruise missiles, fight against special forces, etc.

All these tools the Feds already have?

Let's face it, your 2nd Amendment is a pipe-dream.

It only serves now to enable psychos to shoot preschools and for conservatives to pretend they will stop it if it happens to them in a movie theater.

2d Amendment advocates have been defending liberty for over 200 years in spite of Progressive Liberal Democrat pukes resisting every move.

Prove it.

Because there's no instance in history where peasants armed with weapons of the time (be it swords, spears, or guns) have ever defended anything.

In every American War there was always command and control, over organized forces, including the Revolutionary War which saw regular soldiers form the core of a broader army and was trained by Prussian methodology.

So are you saying that you 2nd Amendmenters have defended liberty by fear? You think a Government with 8,000 tons of Gold, Trillions of annual revenues, is afraid of you?

You aren't even as coordinated as the Confederacy, and the US is no where near as weak as the Federal Government in 1860.

Today the US has more power in one air craft carrier than the entire combined arms of civilians in the US.

What's your point? Have you gone Liberal on us?

My point is you can't justifiably defend a belief on a proven fantasy.

2nd Amendmenters don't stop mass shootings, they don't stop tyrannical fascist movements (though they may support them and give power to government forces), and they don't "defend liberty".

The only real use of guns are for hunting, and we can rent guns from hunting lodges for that.

LOL

Are you smoking something tonight from your mom's basement?

You've GONE LIBERAL ON US..............Are you voting for Hillary as well?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The question is simple, Hitler could not be stopped by partisans (which is essentially what pro 2nd Amendmenters claim they are), the French Resistance (well organized and supported by allied governments with financing, command and control, and weapons) could not defeat the Nazis in France and in analysis did almost nothing to defeat the Nazis in France.

The German armies were almost entirely defeated by Armies of enormous scale backed by governments of enormous wealth with the ability to marshal and organize resources on a scale never before seen.

But somehow, Republicans are going to defeat tyranny?

How can you with your semi-automatic rifle defeat drone-strikes, and command and control?

You think the Tyrannical Feds will go easier on you than they do on ISIS? Or the Taliban?

Can you live in hole the rest of your life, blow yourself up with explosives to kill civilians and hit tanks or armored vehicles?

Where will you get artillery? Or tanks? Or fighter jets?

How will you, with your 2nd Amendment, take over Air Craft Carriers, Attack Submarines, cruise missiles, fight against special forces, etc.

All these tools the Feds already have?

Let's face it, your 2nd Amendment is a pipe-dream.

It only serves now to enable psychos to shoot preschools and for conservatives to pretend they will stop it if it happens to them in a movie theater.

So it's come to this?

Progressive liberals are now threatening to use the military might of the United States against the people of the United States?

So which group are you progressive liberals planning to round up for reeducation first or need we guess?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Hossfly]

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owed firearms in the hands of over 100,000,000 gun owners.

Total military personnel in the United States comes to about 1,300,000.

Assuming the military would support such an unconstitutional operation, which I strongly believe they would not, if even a quarter of civilian gun owners resisted they would overwhelmingly outnumber military personnel, and it is equally unlikely the military would sanction major destruction within America to support such unconstitutional nonsense by would-be kings.

Also keep in mind that many seceding states would gain possession of nuclear weapons.

The military will most CERTAINLY support an unconstitutional operation, because loyalists will execute or arrest dissenters and deserters.

You have a lot to learn about "Military Terrorism" and are very naive if you believe the US Military will disobey orders from their "High Command" the Pentagon.

Look up why the Russian General Staff said they considered invading America during the cold war but changed their minds over an overlooked fact. And the American military would not obey orders to shoot Americans. Ever heard of illegal orders or the Nuremburg Trials?

 

[eagle1462010]

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owed firearms in the hands of over 100,000,000 gun owners.

Total military personnel in the United States comes to about 1,300,000.

Assuming the military would support such an unconstitutional operation, which I strongly believe they would not, if even a quarter of civilian gun owners resisted they would overwhelmingly outnumber military personnel, and it is equally unlikely the military would sanction major destruction within America to support such unconstitutional nonsense by would-be kings.

Also keep in mind that many seceding states would gain possession of nuclear weapons.

The military will most CERTAINLY support an unconstitutional operation, because loyalists will execute or arrest dissenters and deserters.

You have a lot to learn about "Military Terrorism" and are very naive if you believe the US Military will disobey orders from their "High Command" the Pentagon.

Look up why the Russian General Staff said they considered invading America during the cold war but changed their minds over an overlooked fact. And the American military would not obey orders to shoot Americans. Ever heard of illegal orders or the Nuremburg Trials?

Damn man. I love your sig line..............LOL

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owed firearms in the hands of over 100,000,000 gun owners.

Total military personnel in the United States comes to about 1,300,000.

Assuming the military would support such an unconstitutional operation, which I strongly believe they would not, if even a quarter of civilian gun owners resisted they would overwhelmingly outnumber military personnel, and it is equally unlikely the military would sanction major destruction within America to support such unconstitutional nonsense by would-be kings.

Also keep in mind that many seceding states would gain possession of nuclear weapons.

The military will most CERTAINLY support an unconstitutional operation, because loyalists will execute or arrest dissenters and deserters.

You have a lot to learn about "Military Terrorism" and are very naive if you believe the US Military will disobey orders from their "High Command" the Pentagon.

Look up why the Russian General Staff said they considered invading America during the cold war but changed their minds over an overlooked fact. And the American military would not obey orders to shoot Americans. Ever heard of illegal orders or the Nuremburg Trials?

Chin also has stated that invading America is not an option. "They have the largest army on the planet, and they are not the military forces."

 

[Arianrhod]

Who the hell says the military would be on the side of gov't should it come down to that?

This country has more weapons in private possession than most countries in the world.

Who the hell says the military would support the Cliven Bundy Irregulars?

 

[TheCrusader]

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owed firearms in the hands of over 100,000,000 gun owners.

Total military personnel in the United States comes to about 1,300,000.

Assuming the military would support such an unconstitutional operation, which I strongly believe they would not, if even a quarter of civilian gun owners resisted they would overwhelmingly outnumber military personnel, and it is equally unlikely the military would sanction major destruction within America to support such unconstitutional nonsense by would-be kings.

Also keep in mind that many seceding states would gain possession of nuclear weapons.

The military will most CERTAINLY support an unconstitutional operation, because loyalists will execute or arrest dissenters and deserters.

You have a lot to learn about "Military Terrorism" and are very naive if you believe the US Military will disobey orders from their "High Command" the Pentagon.

Look up why the Russian General Staff said they considered invading America during the cold war but changed their minds over an overlooked fact. And the American military would not obey orders to shoot Americans. Ever heard of illegal orders or the Nuremburg Trials?

Chin also has stated that invading America is not an option. "They have the largest army on the planet, and they are not the military forces."

This is a big lie.

China never has stated that ever. China doesn't wish to invade the US at all, and doesn't even have an official white paper contingent for it.

Are you saying you're privy to classified Chinese military documents pertaining to grand strategy?

 

[emilynghiem]

The question is simple, Hitler could not be stopped by partisans (which is essentially what pro 2nd Amendmenters claim they are), the French Resistance (well organized and supported by allied governments with financing, command and control, and weapons) could not defeat the Nazis in France and in analysis did almost nothing to defeat the Nazis in France.

The German armies were almost entirely defeated by Armies of enormous scale backed by governments of enormous wealth with the ability to marshal and organize resources on a scale never before seen.

But somehow, Republicans are going to defeat tyranny?

How can you with your semi-automatic rifle defeat drone-strikes, and command and control?

You think the Tyrannical Feds will go easier on you than they do on ISIS? Or the Taliban?

Can you live in hole the rest of your life, blow yourself up with explosives to kill civilians and hit tanks or armored vehicles?

Where will you get artillery? Or tanks? Or fighter jets?

How will you, with your 2nd Amendment, take over Air Craft Carriers, Attack Submarines, cruise missiles, fight against special forces, etc.

All these tools the Feds already have?

Let's face it, your 2nd Amendment is a pipe-dream.

It only serves now to enable psychos to shoot preschools and for conservatives to pretend they will stop it if it happens to them in a movie theater.

TheCrusader
Yes and No.
You have a point that all the rhetoric and ammo in the world
hasn't done a DAMN thing to stop the ACA mandates contested as an overreach of federal govt.
Nothing.

But as for deterrence to crime,
I am not going to argue with examples of pawn shops in LA that weren't attacked by rioters
because the owners made it clear they were equally armed.

So on a local level, yes, it does defend the law from those who
are so lawless in intent, that only a greater show of force deters them.

On that level, I am not going to argue.
I've met plenty of bullies that would not stop except for a bigger bully.

I don't agree with that, because I don't believe in bullying.
But for people who use force and coercion, greater force is needed
to DETER if not put down those who resort to political violence and oppression.

Those "bullying" pecking order and "pack mentality/Alpha male"
games that people play for TERRITORY are the reason
people need arms to show seriousness about defense and security.

OTHERWISE if you show weakness and hesitance in using arms,
then those who would TEST and BULLY are going to do just that.

And people's lives are lost to that kind of territorial gameplaying.

I don't agree with these games, these "turf wars." But since people play them,
then you need people in charge of military and defense
who know the mentality and strategies to DETER by preemptive proactive attitudes.

I don't agree with war, but I understand why it is necessary to
have the means of defense to deter those who don't respect bounds and civil process.

I hate it, but when it comes to that, then let the people who know what
they are doing handle the big bullies.

As for civil defense, I'd say you have a point.
Bigger guns haven't done a damn thing to stop the intellectual and political tyranny,
and "turf wars through the media" on a different level.

All the crap with unconstitutional overreaching with Executive powers (Bush was
also blamed for similar but Obama scared people worse) is a civil form of the
same "turf wars" to try to prove who can hold more over the other party etc.

So you're right, the guns don't do anything about that intellectual battle of wills.
The arms work on the level of people using force to try to dominate, who
do respond to "show of force" -- so I would agree with 2nd Amendment defense
in that context.

for the civil legal context of two clashing beliefs going head to head,
about what is Constitutional for the President to do or not, we need
"right to defense" in terms of refoming the legal system that isn't
enough to deter breaches of contracts, but depends on lawsuits "after the fact"

So we need a civil version of the Second Amendment that applies
to EQUAL legal defense as a form of right to defense, not just arms but legal deterrence.
We don't have that protection, and that's why people keep bullying to get their way legally or politically, there is no legal defense or deterrence but this COERCIVE behavior is rewarded.

 

[Hossfly]

There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owed firearms in the hands of over 100,000,000 gun owners.

Total military personnel in the United States comes to about 1,300,000.

Assuming the military would support such an unconstitutional operation, which I strongly believe they would not, if even a quarter of civilian gun owners resisted they would overwhelmingly outnumber military personnel, and it is equally unlikely the military would sanction major destruction within America to support such unconstitutional nonsense by would-be kings.

Also keep in mind that many seceding states would gain possession of nuclear weapons.

The military will most CERTAINLY support an unconstitutional operation, because loyalists will execute or arrest dissenters and deserters.

You have a lot to learn about "Military Terrorism" and are very naive if you believe the US Military will disobey orders from their "High Command" the Pentagon.

Look up why the Russian General Staff said they considered invading America during the cold war but changed their minds over an overlooked fact. And the American military would not obey orders to shoot Americans. Ever heard of illegal orders or the Nuremburg Trials?

Chin also has stated that invading America is not an option. "They have the largest army on the planet, and they are not the military forces."

This is a big lie.

China never has stated that ever. China doesn't wish to invade the US at all, and doesn't even have an official white paper contingent for it.

Are you saying you're privy to classified Chinese military documents pertaining to grand strategy?

Where do you get your military expertise? From old Gomer Pyle or F Troop reruns?

 

[TheCrusader]

Who the hell says the military would be on the side of gov't should it come down to that?

This country has more weapons in private possession than most countries in the world.

Who the hell says the military would support the Cliven Bundy Irregulars?

Hopeful fake-constitutionalists, that's who.

Idealists, naive persons who think that the Confederacy was fueled by a desire to defend their homes.

(This illustrates how governments prolong war, and make people fight in their armies).

The Confederate Army collapsed in 1861, something these people don't know anything about, Jefferson Davis instituted a Draft, and sent out loyalilsts called the "Home Guard" to force people into the Confederate Army or "Hang them on the spot" if they refused.

This homeguard never saw front line battle, they became the scoundrels of the Confederacy, if you didn't want to fight in the Confederate Army, you joined the Homeguard and bullied others to fight for you, and for the Slave owners.

These people have no idea how militaries actually work, how force works, how governments coerce people.

They have no clue what war actually does.

So they believe fantasies like a single-action rifle will defend freedom from a tyrannical government armed with 2,000 pound bombs falling from robotic drones.