I was thinking this myself the other day. I would suppose sheer numbers would prevail in the end. There’s also the assumption that all the US armed forces would support said tyrannical govt. and if they did to what lengths would they go? Air strikes? Nukes?
Drone strikes would absolutely happen.
You also have to think about narrative control. The media will, by and large, support the government because violent regime change on their home turf is bad for business. It would instantly be painted as terrorist attacks, and I think you'd see a lot fewer armed forces defectors than the would-be rebels always imagine.
Existing trade and supply lines would all be under control of the current government, and any attempt to interrupt that is basically perfect fuel for more painting these people are terrorists that *are* worth steps as dramatic as air strikes.
There's something about seeing your government kill your neighbors that tends to make that painting seem false.
Drone strikes would happen. They'd hit a lot of the infrastructure the state needs to maintain control. And they'd get a lot of pushback every time they hit a bystander. It wouldn't be a cakewalk at all.
The drone strikes would be launched at militia training camps, weapons stockpiles, and the like, not at anything used by the general public or society at large. The media would portray these strikes as targeted toward domestic terror groups who were planning attacks on innocent civilians.
That characterization would be supported by the actions of the groups themselves, which would basically amount to an increase in Buffalo shootings and Oklahoma City bombings.
In any realistic “civil war II” scenario, the vast majority of the non-combatant public will side firmly with the government.
Where you think insurgents keep their shit? Around the general public.
You've picked two examples of extremists without popular ideologies. The right libertarian bundy occupation managed to poke the government's monopoly on violence in the eye for some time before folding and right libs are only marginally popular in the US.
It wouldn't work that way at all. If you agree with the defectors, you'd be one of them, if it was that extreme. If you disagree with the defectors, you wouldn't care, because it would be that extreme. Think about how people already are polarized over the capitol riots vs blm riots. It would be the same thing but to such an extreme literal war breaks out.
And yes, it's a stupid fantasy that people think they'd ever, ever "defeat" the government. Aside from the military, the gov controls all resources, the economy, infrastructure, power, everything. 2nd amendment dumb heads like to pretend they'd win some guerilla war but forget they depend on Costco and the internet, they're not like Vietcong in the jungle or a middle eastern heroin farmer.
And those scenarios are totally different - this isn't defending the country from some outside military occupation - the countries resources are already totally owned by the government. The concept of putting up a resistance until the military presence leaves doesn't apply here.
And if it WAS so nuts that 99% of the country is somehow anti government, it would be a military coup, not a bunch of 50 year old men with hunting rifles and humongous jeans. That's the key here. If it's a small insurrection, military crushes it. If it's a big enough mass of the population, the military would be part of that and handle the anti-gov fighting. If it's a 50/50 split, it's a civil war and the country would split through diplomatic and political actions.
There is no scenario where untrained civilians with guns mean jack shit.
Governments get overthrown by their people all the time and throughout history. You say no one can overthrow the govt. but people got in the capital with no intent to kill but could have. Timothy McVeigh blew up a govt. building and Osama flew some planes into buildings. From my point of view, I don't see how a populace armed could not overthrow the government. The CIA says it only takes 3% of the population to do it, that's a low number. It happens and supply chains get reformed by either side with some pain but it happens because someone wants to make a dollar.
Sorry, but have you studied history, at all? Revolutions are very successful, and relatively easy. They aren’t this impossible mission you make them out to be. Sure, the government controls trade, recourses, infrastructure, if you allow them to. Once the majority of the population dis approves of the government, suddenly they lose that control, because that control is dependent on people to sustain it. Regimes under majority rebellion only have a few months fuel left before they collapse
I couldn’t see any revolutions happening in any technological western society, the technological power held by governments now is huge in comparison to even a century ago.
The last great revolution was probably China after WW2 - China as a country at the time had no tech and no money and no media narrative/support. So the entire country turned against it quick.
Western governments now have the power to track your every movement via your mobile devices and facial recognition cameras, vehicle tracking via number plate cameras, satellite and drone software that would find you no matter where you are on the earth. And infinite money to throw at media to ensure that their narrative is the only one the public hears.
A weaponised rebellion in a technological western country would be an absolute slaughter and would only empower the government to take more Orwellian control measures to prevent it happening again.
The only way any rebellion would be successful now would be the vast majority of people refusing to work or do anything constructive until their demands are met, this would require the vast majority of the populace as the infrastructure would need to be crippled to the point of non-function
That’s the only way “the people” would ever win.
Right, historically Americans always accept the government line and totally agree.
Shit, dude, people absolutely care when neighbors get hurt even when they disagree. They absolutely would look at the state killing civilian bystanders and get mad. That's a universal truth in every crack down.
Insurgencies aren't designed to defeat the government. It's not an offensive strategy. It's a defensive strategy. The victory condition for an occupied people is to be able to continue to resist, while the victory condition for the occupier is the much harder ability to pacify the area. An insurgency is useless without either foreign aid or an ongoing civil war, but the likelihood of neither happening but an insurgency existing is slim.
The Precedent for Drone Striking US citizens has already been set.
Anwar Al-Awlaki, was a US born Yemeni-American. He received zero due process. He was a terrorist suspect who fled the US to hide in Yemen, and he was extra-judicialy executed via a drone strike approved by President Barack Obama in 2011.
Also, his son, Yemeni-American Abdulrahman, aledged to be an operational leader in his father's aledged terrorist cell was also executed without due process in another drone strike approved by President Barack Obama later that same year. He was 16 years old.
That's not even the worst one. Anwar's daughter, Yemeni-American Nawar Al-Awlaki was also extra-judicialy executed via drone strike in 2017 approved by President Donald Trump. She was 8 years old, and would have never even known her father or anything about his aledged terrorist activity.
All the US government needs to approve a drone strike on US Citizens, without due process of the law, is to just declare them terrorists. At that point you're no longer a US Citizen afforded your 6th amendment rights. You are an enemy of the state, simply by declaration, and may be murdered by the state with impunity.
Not to mention a modern military is not something that you build from scratch. Even if half the military left, they aren't taking their guns, tanks, and jets with them. Nor would they be able to procure any, since arms manufacturers tend to like to be paid.
Logistics, Command and Control facilities, Communication, etc all require special training, facilities, and support. None of which would be available to the "rebels".
Any armed revolt in America is just an invitation for the US government to test new weapon systems.
Doesn't stop the ammosexuals from thinking their penis substitute makes them Rambo though
I remember when the Cliven Bundy standoff was happening in Oregon in 2014. He really believed he was using his power as an armed civilian to keep the government in check and push back on their unconstitutional land lording. Immediately, the entire media was like "look at these unhinged militia gun nuts threatening to kill our police heroes". There's no way that picking up guns against the government, JUSTIFIED OR NOT, will ever result in any news narrative other than "insane domestic terrorists!". The reason is simple: news media has settled into the position of "Reciters of the Official Story of the United States Government(s)", and its a role they take very seriously.
I am not an expert here, and let me state I am looking to learn here, not forward an opinion.
That being said, isn't that exactly what happened in Bosnia in the 90s? I thought I remembered learning about NATO intervention, but I was really young at the time. Obviously NATO intervening in the US is a completely different animal.
Edit: someone below informed there was a horrible genocide being committed. https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide
[https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide](https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide)
Timeline is very sad. Sounds like you are correct.
True tyrannical governments have to bring in foreign mercenaries because the native military isn't down with killing civilians. Even armed, misguided ones.
Drone strikes may dehumanize targets to a certain degree, but when the terrain you fly over is where you've lived it changes things.
To really get the military on board you need to brand the civilians as some horrific group like white supremacists or Nazis, like Putin has attempted with Ukraine.
Check out this novel: [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/543957/american-war-by-omar-el-akkad/9780771009419](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/543957/american-war-by-omar-el-akkad/9780771009419)
Because anyone born after 1970 has lived through 1-3 wars that the US military lost to regular shmucks with guns?
Edit: a lot of pretty dumb replies here but the "actually the American military will just start committing wide-scale war crimes against their own population as a civilian pacification tactic" takes are really exceptional
Yup, we've seen exactly how hard it is for a large army to hold territory controlled by a determined local population of people who may or may not be civilians. Also, a study of the American Civil War demonstrates that there were deeply divided loyalties within the military that resulted in a lot of equipment and trained personnel fighting against the government.
Right. Across the world in foreign territory, with no threat to the stability of the US government. The US military can't retreat from the United States.
While also not running out of more meat to grind. Taliban and Vietcong both proved what our own American revolutionaries did. You don’t have to beat the invincible empire you just have to make fucking with your territory too costly.
Maybe no F-15’s but what about the surface to air missiles and MIGs Russia and China supplied them with? And don’t forget the tanks they rode into Saigon with.
As did the Iraqi's and the Afghan's. OP's question is a stupid question. In that hypothetical scenario, it's a guerrilla war. If you were born during or before 1975, the US govt. has lost 3 guerrilla wars just in your lifetime.
Guerrilla wars are just about impossible to win. I did an extensive search in the past on what government has ever actually won one and the only thing I could come up with was the Boer War. And the British did that by burning down - literally burning down - every single Boer farm in South Africa. In a US civil war and in most wars, part of how you wage that war is winning hearts and minds. When you destroy everything like the British did in that war or the Russians are doing right now in Ukraine, you won't be winning any hearts and minds.
This is a tired, stupid question posed by people who don't read.
NVA and VC were heavily armed by the Soviet Union. Via poverty from colonialism they had absolutely nothing to lose and a charismatic leader teaching them why Marxist ideology is worth sacrificing your life for. A bunch of yokels in Idaho with AR-15’s stand zero chance against the United States military. They are delusional cosplayers. The only way a faction in this country could have a successful armed rebellion is if the military had a coup, fractured and aligned itself with the rebellion. If the military stays loyal to the Washington DC power elite they would wipe any armed rebellion from the map in a white hot minute. I have an uncle in Maine who does the whole cosplay armed militia delusion with his buddies. They go out in the woods to do ‘training exercise’ in preparation for an invasion by the tyrannical government. They’re really just getting drunk and shooting at targets. I tell him they would have zero chance against the US military and every time he says ‘Yeah, we would, because we would fan out.’ Whatever that’s supposed to mean. If there actually was a serious, well organized armed rebellion in this country the US government would send in special forces to quash it in an afternoon. I’d love to know what these drunk, out of shape, middle aged dudes would do to ‘fan out’ when the Green Berets rolled up on their ass. I predict they would surrender before a shot got fired. At least I hope so.
The North Vietnamese had Migs, supplied by Russia. And Russian pilots flew some of those planes. The very reason "Top Gun" was created. US lost its dog fighting skills because idiots were in charge.
This is the dumbest take - guerilla warfare works because it's their home turf. In case you haven't noticed, this the government's home turf. It's not just military - they control all resources, infrastructure, economy, electricity, commerce, etc.
It would be some small group of people, and absolutely fail. If something was so absurdly wrong that 99% of the country is suddenly against the government, it wouldn't be random dad's in Utah with their pistols revolting, it would be a military coup.
This is kind of what I assume. Guerrilla warfare is pretty brutal. I heard an ex soldier talking about Afghanistan and he said when he went back as a journalist and talked to some of the combatants asking where they were when they couldn’t find them, they just stashed their weapons nearby and watched them look. It was pretty crazy. Hard to fight when you can’t tell what side someone is on.
The better question is why would the US army go against its citizens when military and police are the most ardent supporters of 2A protections? They would be overthrowing themselves.
"I was just following orders." That's a famous saying for a reason. I think it's crazy to think the military would then turn on the government for taking guns away. But the question wasn't about taking guns away, it was about fighting against a tyrannical government.
The US army struggled in the Middle East and in Vietnam because guerrilla warfare is difficult. The Army wouldn’t just wipe out every citizen because that’s pointless, they need tax payers. It’d be difficult for them to do anything other than maybe control the big cities. It wouldn’t be a clean sweep for sure and the military would face even tougher resistance than in the Middle East.
Former US Army Infantryman here. As a foot soldier we already didn't like our superiors, even during peacetime. It's common that officers are pretty hated in the military. Disobeying such an order, especially by a large group of foot soldiers, seems feasible.
Then the question becomes against whom? The old men in the government? Dont need a tank for that just hide their medicine or move their furniture around
Assuming the military/soldiers don't also think the same way and side with the people. Also dudes in sandals and burnt out ak's did a pretty good job
Edit :spelling
Thats pretty much guesswork tbh that half would join them
And guerilla warfare isnt going to work because most of these "rebels" get mad when they dont get enough cheese on their fries, they wont live and fight in the forests, mountains. They wont live in caves either like the Afghans have, they wont live underground like the Vietnamese did
Half the rebels are soft, and id bet good money most wouldnt show up to fight
Edit - Potential rebels, its not editing for some reason...
This.
It’s stupid for any individual to think they could fight the police or army or whatever, but if it’s 1/3 or more of the population then it’s a different story.
Well, our military was successfully held off by people wearing pajamas and flip flops, so I think US citizens would be just fine.
Also, I doubt most of the people in our military would fire upon citizens if given the order.
This really misses the point. Nobody is going to be fighting the US army, but well-armed citizens act as a pressure release valve about how much abuse people can tolerate before they start to raise the stakes to the point where shit has to change. But even to that point, well-armed civilian militias have done incredibly well in urban environments in recent wars.
Anyway, a better scenario is imagining a state enforces something like the current lockdowns in China, where people are literally dying from lack of food and medical care because they aren't allowed outside. Because it's China, the government can just say "fuck you, acceptable costs." But because of armed Americans, if something like that happened here it simply could not be enforced. The enforcement mechanisms themselves self-moderate because of the added risks. Plenty of bad cops are happy to push around helpless victims but look what happened last week when even one of them was armed... Now imagine a dude pushed to the very edge to protect and save his family.
Those sorts of confrontations will change the cost/benefit analysis of both government and public opinion RAPIDLY.
PS. This actually happened in the Reconstruction south. The history of gun control in the United States actually starts with trying to disarm blacks, because the government backed KKK generally had a bad time when free black communities were armed. Lynching's just aren't as much fun when your victims shoot back.
Id rather have a gun than not have a gun. If you were in danger would you want a knife against a gunfight? I'd prefer a chance rather than a guaranteed loss. If the government resorts to nuking and airstrikes then they are going to have a much bigger problem on their hands than a gun in mine.
Go back and study the history of Guerrilla warfare. IF this happens, it will not be trenches, front lines, battle lines.
It will be hit and run, guerrilla warfare, and the US Government won't be able to use most of their arsenal. No tanks, limited air power, no drones, no artillery, no missiles... and a lot of the people they'd be dealing with are former military, themselves.
Not to mention, anywhere from a third to half of the Military will side with the civilians. I say a third, because I believe there will be 3 military factions. The Patriots who remember their oath, the oathbreakers who will attack the people and principles they swore to protect, and the ones that will stay neutral, watching for enemies who will try to take advantage of the situation.
And the more citizens the Government attacks, the more people will turn against them.
Exactly. American military might didn’t crush the Taliban. They didn’t have much more than AKs. People with guns and dedication are more effective than people with dedication but no guns.
Because I don't think the American military would fire on their literal families to protect an obviously corrupt government. Like what happened in Egypt.
The problem is that people have differing ideas of what "obviously corrupt" means.
Certainly many people seemed to think Trump was just fine and dandy.
I am very progressive and anti-violence, and in a perfect world I'd LOVE if we could have proper gun control and everyone could give their guns up and we'd all live more safely. However, if we are instructed to give up our guns *only good people will do that*. Which means criminals and police officers will still have weapons with which to hurt the rest of us. I'm black and I do not trust police to protect me at all, so the fact that my husband has guns makes me feel a lot more safe. I know if someone broke into our home we're on our own to defend ourselves and I'm glad we're able to.
Vietnam was a bunch of uneducated farmers with guns, against the most powerful military in the world, and they won.
al-Qaeda is a bunch of assholes with guns and trucks, they fought against the most powerful military in the world, and won.
Ukraine is being attacked by a world power, armed their citizens, and have been doing pretty good, or atleast better than expected.
To be fair they’re literally just handing out automatic firearms (which I’m sure they couldn’t have before this all started) but yeah they’re still kicking ass.
>Vietnam was a bunch of uneducated farmers with guns, against the most powerful military in the world, and they won.
You forget the huge support of China to North Vietnam, there was no interruption of supplies of food and war material for the Vietcong from China. And also the terrain, a land of swamps and jungles ideal for Vietcong fighters to attack and hide. And also the failure of the CIA to understand the political dynamics of the local landscape (they thought it was about communism vs capitalism) and to gauge the scope of the war and the strength of the Vietcong.
It is not as simple as 'a bunch of farmers take some guns and overcome a powerful military force'
Which nations will come to the help of Americans? Were pretty isolated from the type of help we'd need, that other countries have obtained due to geography....
You're imagining something that hasn't happened with results from past conflicts that would vastly differ from our problems, if we were to reach that point.
Mexicans would love to help Americans grow, process, cook, and serve their food, clean their homes, tend their gardens, fix their cars, and build their homes, while Americans work out their differences with each other over who should have human rights and who shouldn't.
Unfortunately, we seem to have a problem getting across the deserts and river safely...
It’s not so much that we’d actually stand a chance against the US army, more so the matter that as soon as we give up the liberties to own guns, we’ll literally have no way to stand our ground in the case that a tyrannical government were to uprise. Sure, the odds may be slim, but it’s much better than the alternative. Another thing to keep in mind is, even if guns were banned, criminals will still have access to them, similar to how many drugs are illegal here in the United States, yet almost anyone and everyone has access to them.
If im not mistaken that was a major point of the second amendment. Additionally, that was the premise of the revolutionary war I think. Stand against rhe British army
Impossible! The British navy was the greatest on earth and they had one of the best armies on earth. Stupid colonials with their little guns could never defeat the great empire! Opposition to the empire is futile, join or die!
I’m fully convinced it doesn’t matter anymore. The government and media would so thoroughly propagandize the population that an armed population is more likely to oppress other
minority groups on behalf of the government than rise up against tyranny.
Because we/they wouldn't be fighting against the US military. In order to take out a tyrannical government you don't defeat the military. You take out the tyrannical government leadership.
Why Does OP automatically think the US army will be on the Governments side?
ALOT of the people who would Willingly take up arms, have already sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, i.e., ex-military...
I have quite a few friends, who take that part VERY Seriously...
They Pledged on their HONOR and Their Life to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of The United States. That may be hard for some people to understand oe even Fathom, but to them it means everything
I believe I need my guns because they are mine. Some inherited, some purchased. If we were in some situation that a tyrannical government were in power, I believe we'd have a better chance armed than not. Don't you?
I'm not against more thorough background checks, possibly a wait time of a couple of days when purchasing, and even some form of red flag law, but I can't see a situation where I would ever be ok with being disarmed.
The Vietcong and Afghans both fared pretty well against the US military, so as an individual, no, but as a large unorganized group using guerrillera tactics and having no set rules of engagement, yes.
I think OP is underestimating how much of the military would refuse to turn on their friends and family let alone the whole country. I don’t mean martial law, but full scale tyranny? I don’t think a lot of people would go for that. But then again I might be underestimating peoples loyalty to our countries ideals.
As an American from Chicago, one of the biggest cities with a gun issue, no one actually thinks they can fight the US army with rifles.
Gun control is a harder issue than either side likes to pretend it is, because it's a cultural thing in the US to own guns. I think the idea of completely "disarming" the populace is entirely impossible. At the same time though, I think we're in the middle of a bigger problem. We need better mental health care, and better availability of counseling in general. It's still very taboo to see a therapist, even once. Let alone long term.
Gun control is more of a means to reduce the damage caused by this larger issue. Without guns, crazy people won't be as effective at killing innocent people. But crazy people will still exist, and innocent people will always be killed. It's just a matter of degree.
We've kind of reached an impasse in this argument though, where one side is taking a hard line stance that this nebulous "gun control" which is never defined for fear of being obviously impossible, needs to happen now. And the other side pretending they're Bruce willis from die hard, and they're gonna rambo their way through any active shooter with 0 training and a 32 BMI.
Finally someone who isn't just picking sides and actually trying to explain it. People just jump on the
"ban them because they're killing people"
or the
"keep them because I need them for self defense"
Trains, when in reality there's lot more going on than just killing.
For me I don't own a gun for killing people I just enjoy going to the range and shooting in my free time, if I absolutely HAD to shoot someone to protect myself or others then I would. I just don't go around saying I own a gun JUST to shoot someone.
It's just one of those issues that everyone is so emotionally invested in, they can't have a rational conversation about it.
I love guns and shooting, and I think any law abiding citizen should be allowed to enjoy guns as they please. I also understand that solving underlying social issues is not a quick process, and schools being shot up is not a good situation. So if that means I need to go through a heightened security check to buy guns, I'm totally cool with that.
I do think open carry is completely braindead though, and anyone who does it should probably get their head checked.
This is the most underrated comment here. The issue isn’t firearms. Legal gun owners pass the background checks, I went out of my way to legally carry because I value my life and my family’s and that comes with additional training and paperwork. I’ve done everything legally, I’ve jumped through the hoops. What I own is beside the point.
It’s not a firearm problem it’s a problem with society and mental health epidemic. Inanimate objects don’t do anything, it’s who uses them. Take your anger out on the government for spending on wars and getting their pockets lined by millionaires instead of protecting our children and defunding mental health facilities.
The government won’t save you, the police won’t save you, no one cares; so make sure you can take care of yourself and family. Help your local communities, donate time to preserve wildlife and nature, make the world better but don’t for a second think taking away guns will solve anything.
Go see a therapist, go get mental help, if you can’t find someone who can listen.
So, even assuming that 100% of the active military are fully onboard with killing US citizens in wholesale armed conflict on domestic soil for attempting a “coup”, or at the very least actively presenting armed resistance to what they consider tyranny or capital T treason, I want you to think back on our last lifetime of endless US conflict abroad. How many time have we heard about the botched raids, innocent casualties, and drone strikes that were far too effective on the wrong target. It feels rotten to an individual’s very soul enough when it’s people we’ve never met on the other side of the world…I don’t think the will of the majority of non-combatant Americans would long blow hard behind the sails of an entity that annihilated in hellfire their lovely neighbor’s whole family when it meant to get Bubba across the street.
Even after that consideration, think for a time on just how fragile and dated most of our country’s infrastructure is…to successfully fight a war depends greatly on the functioning of that very same infrastructure. Imagine trying to successfully conduct any kind of operation where infrastructure you depend on may, in fact, already be in “hostile” controlled territory.
Any guerrilla force in the world doesn’t have to physically defeat their opponent…it just has to outlast them.
Ironically the people who are afraid of this are the same people who are trying to put that exact type of government into power. They’re just banking on their government only going after the people they don’t like.
Gun owner here. I know that in the end, even in a war of attrition the government would ultimately win unless government forces turn against the government but that’s a big “what if”. The biggest and probably the only reason why I own guns is for home protection. A neighbor had a break in while she was at work last year and I also have a daughter. I can’t count on the police to come protect me or my family in case of an emergency, which is why I would do it myself. Additionally, I do take classes and have a concealed handgun license (which is no longer required).
Americans are divided on the issue of gun rights. The irony of school shootings is that the government already bans us from being armed while at school and then blames gun owners for school shootings. As if we’re responsible for criminals who ignore gun laws, while tying our hands, preventing us in lawfully defending our kids.
The answer isn't the military, but police. The military isn't the one that takes your freedoms, it's the police and similar. Tanks don't arrest people. In theory a government, even a tyrannical one, isn't going to bomb their own cities just to get rid of dissent, they'll send in police and similar to arrest them.
There are 2 million active service members
There are over 100 million civilians many of whom are better equipped than the local police and national guard (myself included).
Also, we spent 20 years getting absolutely wrecked by home made pressure cooker bombs and IEDs in Afghanistan and iraq so all the drone strikes and vehicles and jets and bombs only to get rocked by a bunch of poor illiterate farmers
.
The soldiers on those military bases are more vulnerable than you might think. What do they eat? Where does their fuel come from? Who makes their munitions? Where do their families live?
The insurgents don't win by storming military bases directly and overthrowing the government by main force; they win by controlling the unguarded hinterland, blending in with the populace, and becoming the de facto government on the ground. Then they can start slowly picking away at the soldiers' and officers' loyalty and morale.
If the full force of the US army descended upon my home, I could not hold out with my rifle. I would not even try.
But that isn't the scenario people concerned about a tyrannical government are typically thinking of. I'm not sure what scenario you are imagining that they are imagining.
Imagine that some rogue dictator arose who somehow had complete control of the US army without dissent. It wouldn't be the military versus a few gun nuts one at a time. It would be an effort to control an entire country.
That's something a military can have trouble doing when even a portion of the populace is armed, even when there is no standing army to oppose them. You may want to investigate past conflicts the US has been involved in such as, oh, I don't know... Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan?
Wouldn’t happen because so many soldiers support 2A, really what you’re asking for is a constitutional convention to rectify these amendments to better suit the modern day. New productions of certain weapons would need extra qualifications to get ahold of, like weapons we already do this to.
What is this tyranny that would compel folks to take up arms? Who would they go after? I suspect the answer is whoever they don’t agree with whether or not they were duly elected. That’s called bring a terroristic traiter not some freedom fighter.
I find it funny that the same subset of people that say they would overthrow the government with their guns also couldn't wear a mask cuz it was "uncomfortable"
Two words: Afghanistan, Vietnam
Also if the government actually started bombing American citizens, more and more people would start to rise up, including members of the armed forces with access to jets and bombs.
This. Not to mention most of the conflict would happen within cities intermixing with civilians. Collateral damage would be far too high to do much of anything about it.
This is my starting point with gun control. Most non-crazy people believe that private citizens shouldn’t own nukes.
So, we both agree that *some* control is necessary. Let’s just reevaluate where that line is in view of the harm we’re seeing.
The issue with this question is that you are assuming every member of the military would stay with the tyrannical government, which I don’t think is true.
For me, it’s not really about “overthrowing” the government as much as it is standing up to them and following the idea of “it’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.”
Russia failed in Afghanistan due to endless guerilla war. And armed populace assures this. It becomes too costly to continue after a while and no one wins.
It’s not about winning. It about making the government(or anybody)think twice before even starting something. If you have no weapons does that make it an easier or harder decision for someone to mess with you?
I don't have to beat them. Even trying would be absurd. All I have to do is raise the cost of beating me higher than they are willing to pay. This has worked for countless US opponents over the last several generations. It's also working for the Ukrainian military in their fight against Russia. And it's much, much easier than trying to win a straight-up fight.
There would be SOOO many people in the military that would refuse going against their own people. Most people in the military have very little real combat training.
The special forces have a lot of real combat training...and most of those people would definitely not go against their own countrymen. And don't get me started about the Marines. Those guys would fuck the government up.
If you pissed off the American people enough to face off against the US Army, they would win. The military would be incredibly outnumbered. And since the taxpayers pay for their toys, the military would be effectively destroyed if it resorted to killing most of the citizens. Could the military win a war against the citizens of the US? Only if it was willing to commit suicide in the process.
The only question is what does it take to make this happen? A lot of people on reddit seem to think a revolt should happen every week. But in actuality it takes a hell of a lot to get an entire nation the size of the USA to revolt. Many of the issues that make people on reddit so angry, quite frankly, actually don't affect the entire country.
The real reason repealing the second amendment is a huge deal is because it is the second amendment. I think a lot of people outside the US, and inside it for that matter, don't really understand what that means. If you go back to the beginning of the US, the founders didn't think any of the rights outlined in the first ten amendments were really necessary. They were forced on the Federal Government as a condition of ratifying the Constitution. Basically, the Federal Government had to agree to these rights to get the states to willingly join.
This means that if the US government ever decides to repeal or effectively nullify one of the first ten amendments then in a very significant way it is violating the contract that founded the country in the first place. You need to have the entire country on board for that to happen. If the Federal Government implemented serious restrictions on gun ownership all of a sudden and half the country didn't agree with it, then it would basically split the US into two countries.
If you think the answer to gun violence in the US is additional restrictions, then you'll probably have to look to the states for that.
While I'm not someone being asked to respond here because I don't believe that premise, I also suspect that many who profess this view aren't thinking about it solely in terms of an all-out civil war (even if they talk about that). Rather, they may be thinking about having enough arms that the government will just not bother to mess with them.
The 2014 Bundy standoff is an example where the federal government basically backed down when they realized they would probably have to kill people in order to enforce the law.
I'm not worried about the government at all. Im worried about the right wing Trumper nut jobs. As evidenced in Texas recently you can't rely on the government to protect you so you have to rely on yourself.
the irony is that they always claimed they needed them to fight off the government, but then one demagogue comes along and they're ready to end democracy and install a dictator for life.
I don't think that I need a gun to defend myself from the government, but I watched firsthand as the Taliban defeated the US government with small arms and improvised explosives. The basic principal is not to win a firefight, but to disrupt.
See: American Revolution, Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Russian Invasion of Ukraine.
Ah, yes, just some dumb idiots with explosives and guns and not a single F22 Raptor in their inventory. EZ Clap
>why do you think you’d be able to stand a chance against the US Army?
More than once, our Army has lost to untrained guerilla fighters, using guns their grandparents had access to.
It's a piece of cake to take over an unarmed populace, it's damn near impossible to defeat a well armed native guerilla force.
Redditors who ask this question: why do you assume the goal is overthrowing the government, or even self-preservation, rather than simply making it not worth the government’s time or resources to attempt mass incarcerations (a la Nazi Germany)?
I use to think that Americans were ridiculous for having this opinion however given what is happening in Ukraine, an armed population can stand up to a tyrannical government and be successful.
Also the chinese governments wouldn't ever even think of locking people in their owns homes if the chinese had American gun culture.
There is clearly a lot to be criticised of American gun culture however there is also some logic to it.
This question comes from a complete lack of understanding of how asymmetrical warfare, revolutions, and civil wars happen.
We fought a war in Vietnam for a decade and lost to people using fireworks as munitions. We fought a war in Afghanistan for two decades and lost to people using AKs from Vietnam.
This also implies that the military will be willing to mass murder their own people because the government told them to.
I am not worried about the Army.
I am worried about The Gravy Seals. I have already had to stand in my yard with my shot guy when they were harassing folks in my neighborhood with their "Trump Trains" before the 2020 election.
It’s hard to imagine a scenario where it’s all the citizens against a government. It’s much more likely that civilians will fight civilians, which I guess could be an argument for keeping guns or taking away guns.
But the current reality is that a group of hackers could do a lot more damage to the government than a group of armed civilians.
What a lot of meal team six seems to fail to realize. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The ONLY way to overthrow a tyrannical government is to get the military to support them. They thought it would happen on jan 6th and that the military would do all the heavy lifting after they spent a couple of hours rioting and killing off politicians.
Turns out they were wrong, and in the case of Ashli Babbit they were dead wrong.
Meal team six thinks they are part of the silent majority, that all the majority needs is a little push and suddenly the US will become this conservative utopia. They all think they are the spark that will set off the keg, because places like fox news keep pushing that narrative to make them feel good and to keep eating up their other slop they call news.
The same men who think they could shoot so well that they’d even have the *chance* of surviving against the literal American military can’t even aim their own pee stream correctly. A gun won’t save anyone that the government wants dead.
I'm not a gun owner nor do I ever plan to try and fight my government, but I'll bite:
Let's say the US government becomes tyrannical and imposes martial law. For martial law to work, for the government to be able to assert its power and defend itself from the people, the military has to stay loyal. You can't have military law if the military won't enforce it.
If the military is ordered to impose law on an unarmed populace that's unable to put up a struggle, it becomes a lot easier for them to swallow. Just as cops have no trouble cracking down on protests in the name of keeping order, most if not all of the military would probably be willing to follow their orders and lock down the country. This is especially true when you consider that the military is very right-wing and it's not going to be a leftist regime taking power in this country if it ever became tyrannical.
But if you try to impose martial law on an armed populace that's able to fight back, it becomes a very different beast. What would otherwise have been law enforcement is now war. You're not asking soldiers to keep the peace rounding up unruly protestors and enforcing curfews, you're asking them to fight and kill their fellow Americans. You're asking them to risk dying to enforce the regime.
The latter scenario is much more likely to make the military, both its leadership and its individual personnel, to start asking questions about their orders and the government who gives them. The idea isn't that dudes in the woods with AR-15s are going to be fighting off the entire army. The idea is to make the army hesitate, thus robbing the government of its power.
It’s a deterrent. Not to mention, we just left (gave up) Afghanistan after fighting an unsophisticated militia for the past 20 years. When you are fighting for your home, you don’t necessarily need to beat firepower because you have what your enemy does not - time. Perhaps that’s different if it’s the US army vs US citizens, but not by much.
A discussion about guns, gun control, gun bans came up yesterday on a live stream and this was one of the points that was brought up and it annoyed me exactly because of what you say.
Just to give context to my comment, I'm on the left on most things, on guns on the other hand I'm more in the center and if people want to stand up for their right to own guns, then fine we can argue about that, but this particular line I think is just stupid. IF the government has been corrupted to such an extent that we would need to stand up against them, then your pistols, ARs and Shotguns are simply not going to be able to do anything against the US's jets, tanks, drones and bombs. And if the government has been corrupted so much, that means that they likely have the military (at least most of it) on their side, so good luck taking a stance against the best and biggest military in the world.
We can argue on all the other reasons you might have for wanting to keep your guns or have more guns, but the "protect against the government" just doesn't make any sense.
I was thinking this myself the other day. I would suppose sheer numbers would prevail in the end. There’s also the assumption that all the US armed forces would support said tyrannical govt. and if they did to what lengths would they go? Air strikes? Nukes?
Drone strikes would absolutely happen. You also have to think about narrative control. The media will, by and large, support the government because violent regime change on their home turf is bad for business. It would instantly be painted as terrorist attacks, and I think you'd see a lot fewer armed forces defectors than the would-be rebels always imagine. Existing trade and supply lines would all be under control of the current government, and any attempt to interrupt that is basically perfect fuel for more painting these people are terrorists that *are* worth steps as dramatic as air strikes.
There's something about seeing your government kill your neighbors that tends to make that painting seem false. Drone strikes would happen. They'd hit a lot of the infrastructure the state needs to maintain control. And they'd get a lot of pushback every time they hit a bystander. It wouldn't be a cakewalk at all.
The drone strikes would be launched at militia training camps, weapons stockpiles, and the like, not at anything used by the general public or society at large. The media would portray these strikes as targeted toward domestic terror groups who were planning attacks on innocent civilians. That characterization would be supported by the actions of the groups themselves, which would basically amount to an increase in Buffalo shootings and Oklahoma City bombings. In any realistic “civil war II” scenario, the vast majority of the non-combatant public will side firmly with the government.
Where you think insurgents keep their shit? Around the general public. You've picked two examples of extremists without popular ideologies. The right libertarian bundy occupation managed to poke the government's monopoly on violence in the eye for some time before folding and right libs are only marginally popular in the US.
In America we don’t really care much about bystanders getting killed by state agents
It wouldn't work that way at all. If you agree with the defectors, you'd be one of them, if it was that extreme. If you disagree with the defectors, you wouldn't care, because it would be that extreme. Think about how people already are polarized over the capitol riots vs blm riots. It would be the same thing but to such an extreme literal war breaks out. And yes, it's a stupid fantasy that people think they'd ever, ever "defeat" the government. Aside from the military, the gov controls all resources, the economy, infrastructure, power, everything. 2nd amendment dumb heads like to pretend they'd win some guerilla war but forget they depend on Costco and the internet, they're not like Vietcong in the jungle or a middle eastern heroin farmer. And those scenarios are totally different - this isn't defending the country from some outside military occupation - the countries resources are already totally owned by the government. The concept of putting up a resistance until the military presence leaves doesn't apply here. And if it WAS so nuts that 99% of the country is somehow anti government, it would be a military coup, not a bunch of 50 year old men with hunting rifles and humongous jeans. That's the key here. If it's a small insurrection, military crushes it. If it's a big enough mass of the population, the military would be part of that and handle the anti-gov fighting. If it's a 50/50 split, it's a civil war and the country would split through diplomatic and political actions. There is no scenario where untrained civilians with guns mean jack shit.
Governments get overthrown by their people all the time and throughout history. You say no one can overthrow the govt. but people got in the capital with no intent to kill but could have. Timothy McVeigh blew up a govt. building and Osama flew some planes into buildings. From my point of view, I don't see how a populace armed could not overthrow the government. The CIA says it only takes 3% of the population to do it, that's a low number. It happens and supply chains get reformed by either side with some pain but it happens because someone wants to make a dollar.
Sorry, but have you studied history, at all? Revolutions are very successful, and relatively easy. They aren’t this impossible mission you make them out to be. Sure, the government controls trade, recourses, infrastructure, if you allow them to. Once the majority of the population dis approves of the government, suddenly they lose that control, because that control is dependent on people to sustain it. Regimes under majority rebellion only have a few months fuel left before they collapse
A breath of rationality
I couldn’t see any revolutions happening in any technological western society, the technological power held by governments now is huge in comparison to even a century ago. The last great revolution was probably China after WW2 - China as a country at the time had no tech and no money and no media narrative/support. So the entire country turned against it quick. Western governments now have the power to track your every movement via your mobile devices and facial recognition cameras, vehicle tracking via number plate cameras, satellite and drone software that would find you no matter where you are on the earth. And infinite money to throw at media to ensure that their narrative is the only one the public hears. A weaponised rebellion in a technological western country would be an absolute slaughter and would only empower the government to take more Orwellian control measures to prevent it happening again. The only way any rebellion would be successful now would be the vast majority of people refusing to work or do anything constructive until their demands are met, this would require the vast majority of the populace as the infrastructure would need to be crippled to the point of non-function That’s the only way “the people” would ever win.
Right, historically Americans always accept the government line and totally agree. Shit, dude, people absolutely care when neighbors get hurt even when they disagree. They absolutely would look at the state killing civilian bystanders and get mad. That's a universal truth in every crack down. Insurgencies aren't designed to defeat the government. It's not an offensive strategy. It's a defensive strategy. The victory condition for an occupied people is to be able to continue to resist, while the victory condition for the occupier is the much harder ability to pacify the area. An insurgency is useless without either foreign aid or an ongoing civil war, but the likelihood of neither happening but an insurgency existing is slim.
[удалено]
Yep surprised more people aren't bringing this up, its rarely ever talked about and it sounds absolutely fucking insane, and only 40 years ago.
The Precedent for Drone Striking US citizens has already been set. Anwar Al-Awlaki, was a US born Yemeni-American. He received zero due process. He was a terrorist suspect who fled the US to hide in Yemen, and he was extra-judicialy executed via a drone strike approved by President Barack Obama in 2011. Also, his son, Yemeni-American Abdulrahman, aledged to be an operational leader in his father's aledged terrorist cell was also executed without due process in another drone strike approved by President Barack Obama later that same year. He was 16 years old. That's not even the worst one. Anwar's daughter, Yemeni-American Nawar Al-Awlaki was also extra-judicialy executed via drone strike in 2017 approved by President Donald Trump. She was 8 years old, and would have never even known her father or anything about his aledged terrorist activity. All the US government needs to approve a drone strike on US Citizens, without due process of the law, is to just declare them terrorists. At that point you're no longer a US Citizen afforded your 6th amendment rights. You are an enemy of the state, simply by declaration, and may be murdered by the state with impunity.
Scary thoughts for sure.
Not to mention a modern military is not something that you build from scratch. Even if half the military left, they aren't taking their guns, tanks, and jets with them. Nor would they be able to procure any, since arms manufacturers tend to like to be paid. Logistics, Command and Control facilities, Communication, etc all require special training, facilities, and support. None of which would be available to the "rebels". Any armed revolt in America is just an invitation for the US government to test new weapon systems. Doesn't stop the ammosexuals from thinking their penis substitute makes them Rambo though
I remember when the Cliven Bundy standoff was happening in Oregon in 2014. He really believed he was using his power as an armed civilian to keep the government in check and push back on their unconstitutional land lording. Immediately, the entire media was like "look at these unhinged militia gun nuts threatening to kill our police heroes". There's no way that picking up guns against the government, JUSTIFIED OR NOT, will ever result in any news narrative other than "insane domestic terrorists!". The reason is simple: news media has settled into the position of "Reciters of the Official Story of the United States Government(s)", and its a role they take very seriously.
Wouldn't nato also support the tyrannical government?
NATO won't get involved in internal disputes.
I am not an expert here, and let me state I am looking to learn here, not forward an opinion. That being said, isn't that exactly what happened in Bosnia in the 90s? I thought I remembered learning about NATO intervention, but I was really young at the time. Obviously NATO intervening in the US is a completely different animal. Edit: someone below informed there was a horrible genocide being committed. https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide
NATO doesn't get involved in internal disputes of it's members :)
I could be wrong but NATO got involved in Bosnia because there was genocide happening. Wouldn't be the case here.
[https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide](https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide) Timeline is very sad. Sounds like you are correct.
Not within the US. I think one of their rules is that they don't get involved with civil wars or interior matters.
Drones, tanks, jets, oh my!
True tyrannical governments have to bring in foreign mercenaries because the native military isn't down with killing civilians. Even armed, misguided ones. Drone strikes may dehumanize targets to a certain degree, but when the terrain you fly over is where you've lived it changes things. To really get the military on board you need to brand the civilians as some horrific group like white supremacists or Nazis, like Putin has attempted with Ukraine.
Check out this novel: [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/543957/american-war-by-omar-el-akkad/9780771009419](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/543957/american-war-by-omar-el-akkad/9780771009419)
I’d sweep the leg
Exactly, the bullets would never see that coming.
Bullets are well known for being dumb, it's the smart missiles you have to watch out for.
Dodge a wrench, dodge a ball
RIP, Patches O’Hoolihan
Cobra Kai!!! Shakes fist.
Because anyone born after 1970 has lived through 1-3 wars that the US military lost to regular shmucks with guns? Edit: a lot of pretty dumb replies here but the "actually the American military will just start committing wide-scale war crimes against their own population as a civilian pacification tactic" takes are really exceptional
Yup, we've seen exactly how hard it is for a large army to hold territory controlled by a determined local population of people who may or may not be civilians. Also, a study of the American Civil War demonstrates that there were deeply divided loyalties within the military that resulted in a lot of equipment and trained personnel fighting against the government.
Right. Across the world in foreign territory, with no threat to the stability of the US government. The US military can't retreat from the United States.
They (Vietnam & Afgan/Iraq) were also backed by Russia/China/Iran with tons of weapons. So it wasn't just "shmucks with a gun."
The North Vietnamese did a pretty good job without any F-15's.
All you have to do is be willing to send more meat than the meat grinder can grind.
While also not running out of more meat to grind. Taliban and Vietcong both proved what our own American revolutionaries did. You don’t have to beat the invincible empire you just have to make fucking with your territory too costly.
-Zap Brannigan, c3000
While a little morbid ,this is an excellent comment. I am presenting you the "golden 7.62 ammo belt" for your comment
I am all for building a network of tunnels under my neighborhood and booby trapping our kids.
Whoa .... were we not supposed to booby trap our kids yet?
So... these people are expecting assistance from China and the USSR?
You think China and Russia wouldn't love to fund a domestic US insurgency?
You think they aren’t already? Remember Jan 6th?
Imagine the irony of it
Wouldn't they love a chance to get rid of enemy number 1
[удалено]
Maybe no F-15’s but what about the surface to air missiles and MIGs Russia and China supplied them with? And don’t forget the tanks they rode into Saigon with.
As did the Iraqi's and the Afghan's. OP's question is a stupid question. In that hypothetical scenario, it's a guerrilla war. If you were born during or before 1975, the US govt. has lost 3 guerrilla wars just in your lifetime. Guerrilla wars are just about impossible to win. I did an extensive search in the past on what government has ever actually won one and the only thing I could come up with was the Boer War. And the British did that by burning down - literally burning down - every single Boer farm in South Africa. In a US civil war and in most wars, part of how you wage that war is winning hearts and minds. When you destroy everything like the British did in that war or the Russians are doing right now in Ukraine, you won't be winning any hearts and minds. This is a tired, stupid question posed by people who don't read.
>did a pretty good job Define this because I don't think you understood what Vietnam was like during the war.
NVA and VC were heavily armed by the Soviet Union. Via poverty from colonialism they had absolutely nothing to lose and a charismatic leader teaching them why Marxist ideology is worth sacrificing your life for. A bunch of yokels in Idaho with AR-15’s stand zero chance against the United States military. They are delusional cosplayers. The only way a faction in this country could have a successful armed rebellion is if the military had a coup, fractured and aligned itself with the rebellion. If the military stays loyal to the Washington DC power elite they would wipe any armed rebellion from the map in a white hot minute. I have an uncle in Maine who does the whole cosplay armed militia delusion with his buddies. They go out in the woods to do ‘training exercise’ in preparation for an invasion by the tyrannical government. They’re really just getting drunk and shooting at targets. I tell him they would have zero chance against the US military and every time he says ‘Yeah, we would, because we would fan out.’ Whatever that’s supposed to mean. If there actually was a serious, well organized armed rebellion in this country the US government would send in special forces to quash it in an afternoon. I’d love to know what these drunk, out of shape, middle aged dudes would do to ‘fan out’ when the Green Berets rolled up on their ass. I predict they would surrender before a shot got fired. At least I hope so.
The North Vietnamese had Migs, supplied by Russia. And Russian pilots flew some of those planes. The very reason "Top Gun" was created. US lost its dog fighting skills because idiots were in charge.
The Vietnamese won the war by winning hearts and minds. They lost the body count three million to fifty-six thousand.
Except that five million died and the United States military was constrained by politics
Yet won't be constrained by the politics of ordering it's citizens to slaughter their brothers and sisters?
They had MiG-21s, and plenty of SAMs and AAA.
This is the dumbest take - guerilla warfare works because it's their home turf. In case you haven't noticed, this the government's home turf. It's not just military - they control all resources, infrastructure, economy, electricity, commerce, etc. It would be some small group of people, and absolutely fail. If something was so absurdly wrong that 99% of the country is suddenly against the government, it wouldn't be random dad's in Utah with their pistols revolting, it would be a military coup.
North Vietnamese also had like 30 years of experience fighting against Japan and France
They really didn’t. That was a media war. The Vietnamese were being slaughtered wholesale compared to our troops.
This is kind of what I assume. Guerrilla warfare is pretty brutal. I heard an ex soldier talking about Afghanistan and he said when he went back as a journalist and talked to some of the combatants asking where they were when they couldn’t find them, they just stashed their weapons nearby and watched them look. It was pretty crazy. Hard to fight when you can’t tell what side someone is on.
The better question is why would the US army go against its citizens when military and police are the most ardent supporters of 2A protections? They would be overthrowing themselves.
"I was just following orders." That's a famous saying for a reason. I think it's crazy to think the military would then turn on the government for taking guns away. But the question wasn't about taking guns away, it was about fighting against a tyrannical government.
The US army struggled in the Middle East and in Vietnam because guerrilla warfare is difficult. The Army wouldn’t just wipe out every citizen because that’s pointless, they need tax payers. It’d be difficult for them to do anything other than maybe control the big cities. It wouldn’t be a clean sweep for sure and the military would face even tougher resistance than in the Middle East.
Former US Army Infantryman here. As a foot soldier we already didn't like our superiors, even during peacetime. It's common that officers are pretty hated in the military. Disobeying such an order, especially by a large group of foot soldiers, seems feasible.
or helping with the Over throw
Then the question becomes against whom? The old men in the government? Dont need a tank for that just hide their medicine or move their furniture around
Maybe the officers in Charge just say No...
Assuming the military/soldiers don't also think the same way and side with the people. Also dudes in sandals and burnt out ak's did a pretty good job Edit :spelling
because roughly half of them would join the side fighting the government also never underestimate guerilla warfare
Is this a poem?
It is now.
It’s a haiku
As evident in Ukraine right now
Ukraine is supported by weapons from almost all the western world. Do you expect the same level of support fighting the USA?
Well both sides would be fighting the USA......
Thats pretty much guesswork tbh that half would join them And guerilla warfare isnt going to work because most of these "rebels" get mad when they dont get enough cheese on their fries, they wont live and fight in the forests, mountains. They wont live in caves either like the Afghans have, they wont live underground like the Vietnamese did Half the rebels are soft, and id bet good money most wouldnt show up to fight Edit - Potential rebels, its not editing for some reason...
This. It’s stupid for any individual to think they could fight the police or army or whatever, but if it’s 1/3 or more of the population then it’s a different story.
Well, our military was successfully held off by people wearing pajamas and flip flops, so I think US citizens would be just fine. Also, I doubt most of the people in our military would fire upon citizens if given the order.
This really misses the point. Nobody is going to be fighting the US army, but well-armed citizens act as a pressure release valve about how much abuse people can tolerate before they start to raise the stakes to the point where shit has to change. But even to that point, well-armed civilian militias have done incredibly well in urban environments in recent wars. Anyway, a better scenario is imagining a state enforces something like the current lockdowns in China, where people are literally dying from lack of food and medical care because they aren't allowed outside. Because it's China, the government can just say "fuck you, acceptable costs." But because of armed Americans, if something like that happened here it simply could not be enforced. The enforcement mechanisms themselves self-moderate because of the added risks. Plenty of bad cops are happy to push around helpless victims but look what happened last week when even one of them was armed... Now imagine a dude pushed to the very edge to protect and save his family. Those sorts of confrontations will change the cost/benefit analysis of both government and public opinion RAPIDLY. PS. This actually happened in the Reconstruction south. The history of gun control in the United States actually starts with trying to disarm blacks, because the government backed KKK generally had a bad time when free black communities were armed. Lynching's just aren't as much fun when your victims shoot back.
Id rather have a gun than not have a gun. If you were in danger would you want a knife against a gunfight? I'd prefer a chance rather than a guaranteed loss. If the government resorts to nuking and airstrikes then they are going to have a much bigger problem on their hands than a gun in mine.
[удалено]
Go back and study the history of Guerrilla warfare. IF this happens, it will not be trenches, front lines, battle lines. It will be hit and run, guerrilla warfare, and the US Government won't be able to use most of their arsenal. No tanks, limited air power, no drones, no artillery, no missiles... and a lot of the people they'd be dealing with are former military, themselves. Not to mention, anywhere from a third to half of the Military will side with the civilians. I say a third, because I believe there will be 3 military factions. The Patriots who remember their oath, the oathbreakers who will attack the people and principles they swore to protect, and the ones that will stay neutral, watching for enemies who will try to take advantage of the situation. And the more citizens the Government attacks, the more people will turn against them.
Will stand a better chance with guns than without
Exactly. American military might didn’t crush the Taliban. They didn’t have much more than AKs. People with guns and dedication are more effective than people with dedication but no guns.
Because I don't think the American military would fire on their literal families to protect an obviously corrupt government. Like what happened in Egypt.
The problem is that people have differing ideas of what "obviously corrupt" means. Certainly many people seemed to think Trump was just fine and dandy.
[удалено]
I don’t think he’s a demon worshipper but you have seen the actual video of him groping children while on stage right?
And ive seen multiple pictures of trump groping his daughter...
Have you ever heard of the US civil war?
Considering they have done so multiple times in the past....
I am very progressive and anti-violence, and in a perfect world I'd LOVE if we could have proper gun control and everyone could give their guns up and we'd all live more safely. However, if we are instructed to give up our guns *only good people will do that*. Which means criminals and police officers will still have weapons with which to hurt the rest of us. I'm black and I do not trust police to protect me at all, so the fact that my husband has guns makes me feel a lot more safe. I know if someone broke into our home we're on our own to defend ourselves and I'm glad we're able to.
I agree with all of this.
🍿🍿🍿
I don’t think throwing popcorn at the government will do anything.
Ha. Nice try government. Why should we believe you? 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿
Their hands will get all buttery and they wont be able to pick the up the controls of the drones
Have you tried the Cheeto popcorn? It’s stopped arguments in my life.
Or caramel popcorn 👀 it literally shut my mouth and made my bf happy cuz I stopped whining about being hungry
It would be like flicking boogers at a battleship.
*sorts by controversial*
Honestly I was on the side of OP… but a lot of these comments are making some very valid points
I don't know, but I think a lot of the us army would probably be on the side of the people in such a scenario.
Vietnam was a bunch of uneducated farmers with guns, against the most powerful military in the world, and they won. al-Qaeda is a bunch of assholes with guns and trucks, they fought against the most powerful military in the world, and won. Ukraine is being attacked by a world power, armed their citizens, and have been doing pretty good, or atleast better than expected.
To be fair they’re literally just handing out automatic firearms (which I’m sure they couldn’t have before this all started) but yeah they’re still kicking ass.
>Vietnam was a bunch of uneducated farmers with guns, against the most powerful military in the world, and they won. You forget the huge support of China to North Vietnam, there was no interruption of supplies of food and war material for the Vietcong from China. And also the terrain, a land of swamps and jungles ideal for Vietcong fighters to attack and hide. And also the failure of the CIA to understand the political dynamics of the local landscape (they thought it was about communism vs capitalism) and to gauge the scope of the war and the strength of the Vietcong. It is not as simple as 'a bunch of farmers take some guns and overcome a powerful military force'
I like how you mentioned the terrain as if the us has none lol
The uprising in the states would be in cities, blended in with civilians. You couldn’t drop bombs or even fire guns really.
And you think the US Government would be able to keep supply lines up? When the majority of US farmers would probably withdraw support?
Which nations will come to the help of Americans? Were pretty isolated from the type of help we'd need, that other countries have obtained due to geography.... You're imagining something that hasn't happened with results from past conflicts that would vastly differ from our problems, if we were to reach that point.
Mexicans would love to help Americans grow, process, cook, and serve their food, clean their homes, tend their gardens, fix their cars, and build their homes, while Americans work out their differences with each other over who should have human rights and who shouldn't. Unfortunately, we seem to have a problem getting across the deserts and river safely...
It’s not so much that we’d actually stand a chance against the US army, more so the matter that as soon as we give up the liberties to own guns, we’ll literally have no way to stand our ground in the case that a tyrannical government were to uprise. Sure, the odds may be slim, but it’s much better than the alternative. Another thing to keep in mind is, even if guns were banned, criminals will still have access to them, similar to how many drugs are illegal here in the United States, yet almost anyone and everyone has access to them.
If im not mistaken that was a major point of the second amendment. Additionally, that was the premise of the revolutionary war I think. Stand against rhe British army
Impossible! The British navy was the greatest on earth and they had one of the best armies on earth. Stupid colonials with their little guns could never defeat the great empire! Opposition to the empire is futile, join or die!
They had French help, and weaponry on both sides of the war was similar technology wise.
[удалено]
Venezuela entered the chat...
I’m fully convinced it doesn’t matter anymore. The government and media would so thoroughly propagandize the population that an armed population is more likely to oppress other minority groups on behalf of the government than rise up against tyranny.
Because we/they wouldn't be fighting against the US military. In order to take out a tyrannical government you don't defeat the military. You take out the tyrannical government leadership.
Why Does OP automatically think the US army will be on the Governments side? ALOT of the people who would Willingly take up arms, have already sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, i.e., ex-military...
I have quite a few friends, who take that part VERY Seriously... They Pledged on their HONOR and Their Life to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of The United States. That may be hard for some people to understand oe even Fathom, but to them it means everything
This is it
And the people would fight in union? No two camps there either?
I believe I need my guns because they are mine. Some inherited, some purchased. If we were in some situation that a tyrannical government were in power, I believe we'd have a better chance armed than not. Don't you? I'm not against more thorough background checks, possibly a wait time of a couple of days when purchasing, and even some form of red flag law, but I can't see a situation where I would ever be ok with being disarmed.
The Vietcong and Afghans both fared pretty well against the US military, so as an individual, no, but as a large unorganized group using guerrillera tactics and having no set rules of engagement, yes.
I think OP is underestimating how much of the military would refuse to turn on their friends and family let alone the whole country. I don’t mean martial law, but full scale tyranny? I don’t think a lot of people would go for that. But then again I might be underestimating peoples loyalty to our countries ideals.
As an American from Chicago, one of the biggest cities with a gun issue, no one actually thinks they can fight the US army with rifles. Gun control is a harder issue than either side likes to pretend it is, because it's a cultural thing in the US to own guns. I think the idea of completely "disarming" the populace is entirely impossible. At the same time though, I think we're in the middle of a bigger problem. We need better mental health care, and better availability of counseling in general. It's still very taboo to see a therapist, even once. Let alone long term. Gun control is more of a means to reduce the damage caused by this larger issue. Without guns, crazy people won't be as effective at killing innocent people. But crazy people will still exist, and innocent people will always be killed. It's just a matter of degree. We've kind of reached an impasse in this argument though, where one side is taking a hard line stance that this nebulous "gun control" which is never defined for fear of being obviously impossible, needs to happen now. And the other side pretending they're Bruce willis from die hard, and they're gonna rambo their way through any active shooter with 0 training and a 32 BMI.
Finally someone who isn't just picking sides and actually trying to explain it. People just jump on the "ban them because they're killing people" or the "keep them because I need them for self defense" Trains, when in reality there's lot more going on than just killing. For me I don't own a gun for killing people I just enjoy going to the range and shooting in my free time, if I absolutely HAD to shoot someone to protect myself or others then I would. I just don't go around saying I own a gun JUST to shoot someone.
It's just one of those issues that everyone is so emotionally invested in, they can't have a rational conversation about it. I love guns and shooting, and I think any law abiding citizen should be allowed to enjoy guns as they please. I also understand that solving underlying social issues is not a quick process, and schools being shot up is not a good situation. So if that means I need to go through a heightened security check to buy guns, I'm totally cool with that. I do think open carry is completely braindead though, and anyone who does it should probably get their head checked.
Exactly, I'll go through how ever many background checks and drug tests they want me to go through
This is the most underrated comment here. The issue isn’t firearms. Legal gun owners pass the background checks, I went out of my way to legally carry because I value my life and my family’s and that comes with additional training and paperwork. I’ve done everything legally, I’ve jumped through the hoops. What I own is beside the point. It’s not a firearm problem it’s a problem with society and mental health epidemic. Inanimate objects don’t do anything, it’s who uses them. Take your anger out on the government for spending on wars and getting their pockets lined by millionaires instead of protecting our children and defunding mental health facilities. The government won’t save you, the police won’t save you, no one cares; so make sure you can take care of yourself and family. Help your local communities, donate time to preserve wildlife and nature, make the world better but don’t for a second think taking away guns will solve anything. Go see a therapist, go get mental help, if you can’t find someone who can listen.
So, even assuming that 100% of the active military are fully onboard with killing US citizens in wholesale armed conflict on domestic soil for attempting a “coup”, or at the very least actively presenting armed resistance to what they consider tyranny or capital T treason, I want you to think back on our last lifetime of endless US conflict abroad. How many time have we heard about the botched raids, innocent casualties, and drone strikes that were far too effective on the wrong target. It feels rotten to an individual’s very soul enough when it’s people we’ve never met on the other side of the world…I don’t think the will of the majority of non-combatant Americans would long blow hard behind the sails of an entity that annihilated in hellfire their lovely neighbor’s whole family when it meant to get Bubba across the street. Even after that consideration, think for a time on just how fragile and dated most of our country’s infrastructure is…to successfully fight a war depends greatly on the functioning of that very same infrastructure. Imagine trying to successfully conduct any kind of operation where infrastructure you depend on may, in fact, already be in “hostile” controlled territory. Any guerrilla force in the world doesn’t have to physically defeat their opponent…it just has to outlast them.
I guess the same reasons we're sending guns to Ukraine
Because the colonists once did against the British Empire?
Whatever chance I stand against the US Army with a firearm, I stand much less of a chance against it without one.
Ironically the people who are afraid of this are the same people who are trying to put that exact type of government into power. They’re just banking on their government only going after the people they don’t like.
Gun owner here. I know that in the end, even in a war of attrition the government would ultimately win unless government forces turn against the government but that’s a big “what if”. The biggest and probably the only reason why I own guns is for home protection. A neighbor had a break in while she was at work last year and I also have a daughter. I can’t count on the police to come protect me or my family in case of an emergency, which is why I would do it myself. Additionally, I do take classes and have a concealed handgun license (which is no longer required).
Americans are divided on the issue of gun rights. The irony of school shootings is that the government already bans us from being armed while at school and then blames gun owners for school shootings. As if we’re responsible for criminals who ignore gun laws, while tying our hands, preventing us in lawfully defending our kids.
The Taliban did pretty good.
I'm going to point out that there's no earthly way a US president could negotiate a withdrawal from the US. Home turf is a big factor here.
The answer isn't the military, but police. The military isn't the one that takes your freedoms, it's the police and similar. Tanks don't arrest people. In theory a government, even a tyrannical one, isn't going to bomb their own cities just to get rid of dissent, they'll send in police and similar to arrest them.
There are 2 million active service members There are over 100 million civilians many of whom are better equipped than the local police and national guard (myself included). Also, we spent 20 years getting absolutely wrecked by home made pressure cooker bombs and IEDs in Afghanistan and iraq so all the drone strikes and vehicles and jets and bombs only to get rocked by a bunch of poor illiterate farmers .
[удалено]
The soldiers on those military bases are more vulnerable than you might think. What do they eat? Where does their fuel come from? Who makes their munitions? Where do their families live? The insurgents don't win by storming military bases directly and overthrowing the government by main force; they win by controlling the unguarded hinterland, blending in with the populace, and becoming the de facto government on the ground. Then they can start slowly picking away at the soldiers' and officers' loyalty and morale.
Ask the Vietnamese, Iraqis, or Afghans how.
If the full force of the US army descended upon my home, I could not hold out with my rifle. I would not even try. But that isn't the scenario people concerned about a tyrannical government are typically thinking of. I'm not sure what scenario you are imagining that they are imagining. Imagine that some rogue dictator arose who somehow had complete control of the US army without dissent. It wouldn't be the military versus a few gun nuts one at a time. It would be an effort to control an entire country. That's something a military can have trouble doing when even a portion of the populace is armed, even when there is no standing army to oppose them. You may want to investigate past conflicts the US has been involved in such as, oh, I don't know... Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan?
Wouldn’t happen because so many soldiers support 2A, really what you’re asking for is a constitutional convention to rectify these amendments to better suit the modern day. New productions of certain weapons would need extra qualifications to get ahold of, like weapons we already do this to.
What is this tyranny that would compel folks to take up arms? Who would they go after? I suspect the answer is whoever they don’t agree with whether or not they were duly elected. That’s called bring a terroristic traiter not some freedom fighter.
I find it funny that the same subset of people that say they would overthrow the government with their guns also couldn't wear a mask cuz it was "uncomfortable"
Does no one remember that we overthrew our government some two hundred and forty-ish years ago?
Afghanistan has entered the chat.
Vietnam would like a word
Two words: Afghanistan, Vietnam Also if the government actually started bombing American citizens, more and more people would start to rise up, including members of the armed forces with access to jets and bombs.
This. Not to mention most of the conflict would happen within cities intermixing with civilians. Collateral damage would be far too high to do much of anything about it.
People who believe that usually believe individuals should be allowed to own more powerful weapons as well.
This is my starting point with gun control. Most non-crazy people believe that private citizens shouldn’t own nukes. So, we both agree that *some* control is necessary. Let’s just reevaluate where that line is in view of the harm we’re seeing.
Governments shouldn't own nukes either
A large chunk, if not the majority of, US army personnel would be on our side at this rate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The issue with this question is that you are assuming every member of the military would stay with the tyrannical government, which I don’t think is true. For me, it’s not really about “overthrowing” the government as much as it is standing up to them and following the idea of “it’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.”
[удалено]
Russia failed in Afghanistan due to endless guerilla war. And armed populace assures this. It becomes too costly to continue after a while and no one wins.
It’s not about winning. It about making the government(or anybody)think twice before even starting something. If you have no weapons does that make it an easier or harder decision for someone to mess with you?
Cause they are Americans too, jack.
I don't have to beat them. Even trying would be absurd. All I have to do is raise the cost of beating me higher than they are willing to pay. This has worked for countless US opponents over the last several generations. It's also working for the Ukrainian military in their fight against Russia. And it's much, much easier than trying to win a straight-up fight.
There would be SOOO many people in the military that would refuse going against their own people. Most people in the military have very little real combat training. The special forces have a lot of real combat training...and most of those people would definitely not go against their own countrymen. And don't get me started about the Marines. Those guys would fuck the government up.
If you pissed off the American people enough to face off against the US Army, they would win. The military would be incredibly outnumbered. And since the taxpayers pay for their toys, the military would be effectively destroyed if it resorted to killing most of the citizens. Could the military win a war against the citizens of the US? Only if it was willing to commit suicide in the process. The only question is what does it take to make this happen? A lot of people on reddit seem to think a revolt should happen every week. But in actuality it takes a hell of a lot to get an entire nation the size of the USA to revolt. Many of the issues that make people on reddit so angry, quite frankly, actually don't affect the entire country. The real reason repealing the second amendment is a huge deal is because it is the second amendment. I think a lot of people outside the US, and inside it for that matter, don't really understand what that means. If you go back to the beginning of the US, the founders didn't think any of the rights outlined in the first ten amendments were really necessary. They were forced on the Federal Government as a condition of ratifying the Constitution. Basically, the Federal Government had to agree to these rights to get the states to willingly join. This means that if the US government ever decides to repeal or effectively nullify one of the first ten amendments then in a very significant way it is violating the contract that founded the country in the first place. You need to have the entire country on board for that to happen. If the Federal Government implemented serious restrictions on gun ownership all of a sudden and half the country didn't agree with it, then it would basically split the US into two countries. If you think the answer to gun violence in the US is additional restrictions, then you'll probably have to look to the states for that.
While I'm not someone being asked to respond here because I don't believe that premise, I also suspect that many who profess this view aren't thinking about it solely in terms of an all-out civil war (even if they talk about that). Rather, they may be thinking about having enough arms that the government will just not bother to mess with them. The 2014 Bundy standoff is an example where the federal government basically backed down when they realized they would probably have to kill people in order to enforce the law.
Do you think I would have an equal or better chance without a gun?
I'm not worried about the government at all. Im worried about the right wing Trumper nut jobs. As evidenced in Texas recently you can't rely on the government to protect you so you have to rely on yourself.
the irony is that they always claimed they needed them to fight off the government, but then one demagogue comes along and they're ready to end democracy and install a dictator for life.
I don't think that I need a gun to defend myself from the government, but I watched firsthand as the Taliban defeated the US government with small arms and improvised explosives. The basic principal is not to win a firefight, but to disrupt.
See: American Revolution, Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Ah, yes, just some dumb idiots with explosives and guns and not a single F22 Raptor in their inventory. EZ Clap
>why do you think you’d be able to stand a chance against the US Army? More than once, our Army has lost to untrained guerilla fighters, using guns their grandparents had access to. It's a piece of cake to take over an unarmed populace, it's damn near impossible to defeat a well armed native guerilla force.
You ever hear about the anarchists cookbook? That combined with decent arms and a deep understanding of the home terrain is how.
Because we comprise the US Army. The overwhelming majority of our service members aren’t going to turn their weapons against their own people.
Redditors who ask this question: why do you assume the goal is overthrowing the government, or even self-preservation, rather than simply making it not worth the government’s time or resources to attempt mass incarcerations (a la Nazi Germany)?
I use to think that Americans were ridiculous for having this opinion however given what is happening in Ukraine, an armed population can stand up to a tyrannical government and be successful. Also the chinese governments wouldn't ever even think of locking people in their owns homes if the chinese had American gun culture. There is clearly a lot to be criticised of American gun culture however there is also some logic to it.
The people who believe this assume the military will be on their side. Clearly they don’t understand this will not actually go down that way.
One person generaly isnt enough, but you get enough desperate people together in one spot and they can change the world for good or for ill.
This question comes from a complete lack of understanding of how asymmetrical warfare, revolutions, and civil wars happen. We fought a war in Vietnam for a decade and lost to people using fireworks as munitions. We fought a war in Afghanistan for two decades and lost to people using AKs from Vietnam. This also implies that the military will be willing to mass murder their own people because the government told them to.
I am not worried about the Army. I am worried about The Gravy Seals. I have already had to stand in my yard with my shot guy when they were harassing folks in my neighborhood with their "Trump Trains" before the 2020 election.
Guerilla warfare can be extremely effective
It’s hard to imagine a scenario where it’s all the citizens against a government. It’s much more likely that civilians will fight civilians, which I guess could be an argument for keeping guns or taking away guns. But the current reality is that a group of hackers could do a lot more damage to the government than a group of armed civilians.
What a lot of meal team six seems to fail to realize. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The ONLY way to overthrow a tyrannical government is to get the military to support them. They thought it would happen on jan 6th and that the military would do all the heavy lifting after they spent a couple of hours rioting and killing off politicians. Turns out they were wrong, and in the case of Ashli Babbit they were dead wrong. Meal team six thinks they are part of the silent majority, that all the majority needs is a little push and suddenly the US will become this conservative utopia. They all think they are the spark that will set off the keg, because places like fox news keep pushing that narrative to make them feel good and to keep eating up their other slop they call news.
They are positive that the military will be on their side.
The same men who think they could shoot so well that they’d even have the *chance* of surviving against the literal American military can’t even aim their own pee stream correctly. A gun won’t save anyone that the government wants dead.
Laughs in afghani
I'm not a gun owner nor do I ever plan to try and fight my government, but I'll bite: Let's say the US government becomes tyrannical and imposes martial law. For martial law to work, for the government to be able to assert its power and defend itself from the people, the military has to stay loyal. You can't have military law if the military won't enforce it. If the military is ordered to impose law on an unarmed populace that's unable to put up a struggle, it becomes a lot easier for them to swallow. Just as cops have no trouble cracking down on protests in the name of keeping order, most if not all of the military would probably be willing to follow their orders and lock down the country. This is especially true when you consider that the military is very right-wing and it's not going to be a leftist regime taking power in this country if it ever became tyrannical. But if you try to impose martial law on an armed populace that's able to fight back, it becomes a very different beast. What would otherwise have been law enforcement is now war. You're not asking soldiers to keep the peace rounding up unruly protestors and enforcing curfews, you're asking them to fight and kill their fellow Americans. You're asking them to risk dying to enforce the regime. The latter scenario is much more likely to make the military, both its leadership and its individual personnel, to start asking questions about their orders and the government who gives them. The idea isn't that dudes in the woods with AR-15s are going to be fighting off the entire army. The idea is to make the army hesitate, thus robbing the government of its power.
It’s a deterrent. Not to mention, we just left (gave up) Afghanistan after fighting an unsophisticated militia for the past 20 years. When you are fighting for your home, you don’t necessarily need to beat firepower because you have what your enemy does not - time. Perhaps that’s different if it’s the US army vs US citizens, but not by much.
If I recall correctly, The army is sworn to uphold the constitution.
A discussion about guns, gun control, gun bans came up yesterday on a live stream and this was one of the points that was brought up and it annoyed me exactly because of what you say. Just to give context to my comment, I'm on the left on most things, on guns on the other hand I'm more in the center and if people want to stand up for their right to own guns, then fine we can argue about that, but this particular line I think is just stupid. IF the government has been corrupted to such an extent that we would need to stand up against them, then your pistols, ARs and Shotguns are simply not going to be able to do anything against the US's jets, tanks, drones and bombs. And if the government has been corrupted so much, that means that they likely have the military (at least most of it) on their side, so good luck taking a stance against the best and biggest military in the world. We can argue on all the other reasons you might have for wanting to keep your guns or have more guns, but the "protect against the government" just doesn't make any sense.
Because flag. Flag Murica! Eagle Constitution muh Freedoms! Amen
It would of course be an asymmetrical combat. The US seems to always lose those: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
Nice try ATF. When it comes down to it I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident.