It's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused and supported unlawful government.
Wait til you hear what happened when the Black Panthers tried to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Something bad. Is it something bad? I bet it was something bad.
Funnily enough it resulted in more gun control, so it was something good.
Look at the results of that 90s LA bank robbery. It was the first time that two guys had enough body armour and firepower to challenge the local police. What was the end result? Every police officer across the country getting assigned body armour and high powered rifles, and every police agency militarizing and buying APCS, tactical units, etc.
The idea that the government would allow you to own weaponry that would legitimately challenge them is asinine.
It was of course always the plan to radicalize these people and then utilize them
I wish I had enough faith in people's planning abilities to believe this
Steve Bannon, as much of a piece of shit as he is, had a good plan and executed it well. He's talked about it openly. This has been brewing for decades, at least.
That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny
You can’t expect everyone to agree with you ideologically, and obviously they won’t rise up against a government they agree with. Conservatives don’t see the current administration as tyrannical, so there is no conflict for them between the ideals of the second amendment and their actions.
However, you can absolutely choose to exercise your second amendment rights.
As a gun owning liberal, I’m tired of my peers acting like the second amendment is some conservative agenda. The right to firearm ownership is an eminently liberal ideal. More liberals and leftists should own guns— the second amendment is more important now than ever before.
If you think there is a pressing need for an armed liberal/leftist citizenry, go buy guns and arm yourselves.
If you need to exercise your right to bear arms, you have already lost. The battle is won in education, critical skills, and mobilising together (unions, etc).
You aren't wrong... but leaving guns off the table feels short sighted.
If we ever need to raise arms against the government, it will be a dark day indeed. No reasonable person wants that. We have many methods of recourse before that even enters the conversation IMO.
However, there can eventually come a time where resistance is appropriate. Hitler never would have taken complete control of the country, exterminated so many Jews, and started Europe on the path to a world war if the Germans were armed and actively resisting his rule.
It seems self evident that the German people would been better off resisting Nazi rule than allowing the death camps and WW2 to come to fruition.
This is honestly, the dumbest, most American take in the world.
It literally ignores the plainly obvious fact that not a single other developed country allows gun ownership, and yet, still have rights and democracy and freedom.
Guns did not get your rights, and they do not protect you from a government that has AI powered drones with anti tank mines on them. Hell a fucking APC with a sound cannon will make your AR look like a child's toy.
Guess what happened when a pair of guys had enough guns and body armour to challenge the local LA government in the 90s? Oh would you look at that, every single local government's police force across the country just militarized and bought tanks and SWAT teams in response. The idea that the government will let any random potentially mentally ill or terrorist citizen, buy enough firepower that they could legitimately challenge the government, is dumb on its face. No government anywhere allows that or would for obvious (see: terroristic) reasons.
Wide spread gun ownership just makes everyone less safe. Full stop.
This is honestly, the dumbest, most American take in the world.
Hell yeah brother 🦅🦅🦅
It literally ignores the plainly obvious fact that not a single other developed country allows gun ownership, and yet, still have rights and democracy and freedom.
Many other developed countries allow gun ownership. Educate yourself, my man.
But more importantly, I literally do not care if they do or not. The point was never that democracy cannot exist without firearms, but rather that in the worst case scenario an armed citizenry can act as a force against tyranny. It’s a rare thing that it might be needed, and a last resort. No sane person wants a civil war
Guns did not get your rights
Except they literally did. How do you think the revolutionary war was won, softly spoken words?
they do not protect you from a government that has AI powered drones with anti tank mines on them. Hell a fucking APC with a sound cannon will make your AR look like a child's toy.
Guerrillas with small arms in developing countries have repelled the US military repeatedly over the past half century. More importantly, if you don’t think a combination of small arms and low cost homemade munitions are effective against a modern military you haven’t been paying attention to the war in Ukraine at all.
You're right. It's a liberal idea to allow the (largely) unregulated possession of firearms. However, it takes a certain mindset to pickup that forearm and try to decide how the country is run with it through armed insurrection. One that's more akin to authoritarian, or at least paternalism.
Personally I feel if the 2nd amendment is there for this reason, the ln the no kings marches should have had arms. That's a powderkeg scenario and we'd probably be looking at hundreds dead at this point. However if there was ever a reason for the 2nd amendment, this is it and that's the cost. Otherwise there's no point in the right to bear arms and you should scrap it.
You have proven the second amendment is just so you can shoot your neighbour. None of you rose up against his first term, none of you will now. All the child sacrifices you have been doing were just so you can feel cool with your gun and dream of shooting someone one day.
Its time to admit it.
That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny
No it isn't and it never was. Go read it. It's about defending the state from invaders. Wars at the time we're mostly fought with militias, especially for more poor or smaller nations, like the new United States at the time. We didn't have a standing professional military for a while, so our military was solely militias, and as such they should be legal and trained, hence the 2nd amendment.
I largely support (safe and with training) gun rights. They're protected by the 9th amendment, whether the 2nd does or not. It's just this blatantly incorrect repetition that the 2nd amendment is about something that isn't written in it is crazy. It's really short and pretty clear. I feel like no one supporting this idea has actually ever read it, or at least hasn't considered what it actually says.
Is it worth the amount of problems that guns brings to a country in exchange for a chance of a shooting competition against an M1 Abrams?
Yeah, this is my thought. The 2nd amendment is not against fighting tyranny (go read it). If that fight comes it'll be won with gorilla warfare and explosives, not guns—at least not most of it. It'll be utilizing fast attacks where they're vulnerable and taking their equipment to use against them. It will not be a fair fight where you go head-to-head. You wouldn't stand a chance.
I believe it’s fundamentally important that we keep that right to an equalizing force.
Acting like we are going to directly fight a tank with an AR-15 is either a straw man or just frankly ignorant. The US military has repeatedly been repelled by guerrilla forces with small arms, and if you have been paying any attention at all in Ukraine you will see what can be done with very little technology in terms of drones etc.
That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny
It isn't, and has never been. The language of the constitution is plain as day:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The mythos of the 2nd amendment being this poison pill for a tyrannical state government is only so pervasive because institutions like the NRA perpetuated it for decades in service of arms manufacturers and their bottom line. No sane government anywhere in the world would bake such a clause into their constitution, it's antithetical to government itself.
The 2nd amendment is absolutely an artifact of a bygone era of American history where, as a fledgling nation, we did not have a powerful standing army to rely on for defense against foreign adversaries. A people's militia was the final defense against such a threat.
However, all that being said, I agree with your sentiment that leftists should be arming themselves. Just because the 2nd amendment has almost completely lost it's original intent or meaning, doesn't mean we can't take advantage of the fact that it exists with tons of legal precedent to strap up in preparation for what might come next. Things are unlikely to get better from here, and if things get worse you will be glad you have a firearm for protection.
The founding fathers have written at length on their reasoning for including the right to bear arms in the constitution. It is very clear that they believed in the people’s ability to resist and overthrow the government if needed.
After all, this was a group who escaped the grip of the monarchy through force of arms. It’s odd to think that they didn’t see value in the ability of the people to do the same, especially when they repeatedly wrote about it in period.
However, all that being said, I agree with your sentiment that leftists should be arming themselves. Just because the 2nd amendment has almost completely lost it's original intent or meaning, doesn't mean we can't take advantage of the fact that it exists with tons of legal precedent to strap up in preparation for what might come next. Things are unlikely to get better from here, and if things get worse you will be glad you have a firearm for protection.
Also this here is kind of the point. The original intent is not important; many people believe in the modern era that an armed citizenry is important as a last ditch balancing force to government overreach. We are all better off if left leaning people arm themselves instead of using pro-gun arguments as some sort of self-righteous gotcha against the right.
I feel like it makes more sense if the guns were always there to protect stolen land.
The ones that created the government had to actually fight for their freedom. People became complacent afterwards, and seem to think that freedom is a given.
It reminds me of some quote “freedom isn’t owned, it’s rented, and rent is due everyday.”
Guns are naught but tools. They have no moral nor political ambition. All they can do is provide an amplifier of force, no matter your ideology.
Sure but I don't see how people can think certain bans should exist and not others. Sawn off shotguns have been banned for as long as I've ever known, yet people don't question it. The reasoning is they could be dangerous to others on accident. Yet if you take any round .223 with a fmj (cheapest format to buy) it's going straight through your wall, and through the entire apartment across the hall. So when you fire 3 shots towards the door they are trying to go through, most people with adrenaline or freaking out enough to think a gun is necessary at that point in time, 2 of those rounds are going into the next residence. Even the 1 that hits the person very well might go straight through.
Guy stacked sheet rock up in a row and they went through
.223 - 17 sheets, .308 - 20 sheets, 30-06 - 23 sheets
Granted with gaps between them the wobble will make it more like 3-4.. so anyone in the living room/dining room or if the bedroom is towards the wall facing the hall... Is possibly getting a hunk of lead in them.
Hollow points almost make more sense there, as hopefully they'd split on the first sheet rock and the smaller shards may get stuck in the second, if not hopefully not have enough momentum to penetrate a person after if their lucky.
Should they ban those rifles, in my opinion no, but I think if you use one for home defense and fire a round that penetrates into another person's residence, you should get an attempted murder charge for being irresponsible. It isn't a moose coming in the front door. For people who believe they need home defense a 9mm hollow point will save money, be easier to navigate in close quarters and dump all the energy into stopping the person instead of going out their back. (Unfortunately for them, much more organ damage, and high chances of death). (Personally I think most should use revolvers anyways if they aren't using it often, because 20 years from now even if it hasn't been cleaned, it's more than likely going to do exactly what you want it to do.. while a semi automatic spring loaded contraption, may jam)
I encourage people to educate themselves on guns and what type and size gun is appropriate for what they want to do.
Lots of FUDD here.
Over pen is going to happen on pretty much any round period. Slower rounds with larger mass will go through more usually in real life situations. The drywall videos are ok, but the issue with them is that they don't show the other shit in the walls. Wires/firestops/insulation/studs. Exterior walls might have brick or stucco with tile. Doesn't matter the round, you're going to have over pen. Shoot a deer slug at a 2x4 stud and drywall, vs a 223/556 round....deer slug is winning every time.
Second, a AR pattern rifle is much, much easier to get on target and shoot for pretty much anyone compared to a shotgun or handgun.
Secondly people do call out the absolute bullshit rules of from the ATF and NFA. A shorter barrel doesn't magically make a firearm more deadly, just like a suppressor doesn't magically make a firearm silent. FUDD shit.
Lastly, a revolver is trash for defense, there is a reason pretty much every branch of LE or military has swapped to semi-auto mag fed handguns. They are easier to shoot, more accurate, hold more rounds, easier to reload, etc. On top of all this, you shouldn't be loading something and tossing it in a drawer until you need it. You should be practicing with it at minimum monthly.
They are tools designed with the singular purpose of killing.
Ignoring that fact is incredibly disingenous.
What a hot take, as if firearm owners are all the same, as if there are not left leaning gun owners.
There aren't enough leftist gun owners, sadly.
As clearly can be seen by the distinct lack of ICE shootouts.
Well the founding fathers and the powers at be are directly opposed. If I ran a tyranny, the first thing I would do is push propaganda to heavily stigmatize anything that could jeopardize it. The result I'd be aiming for would be a dynamic where firearms are only in the hands of people who support the tyranny, while making sure anyone who would oppose it is piss scared to even be in the same room as a gun. I'd make sure to instill a complex stigma, such that the opposition not only feels a primal fear of guns, but also a fear of social consequences, since there are plenty of people for whom social outcast is worse than death.
You're describing exactly how the tyranny is done
And still today, right here in this thread, you have obviously privileged people tut-tutting gun ownership. Urging their comrades to forsake any defense at all against rising fascism.
If the people in power get their way there are going to be camps for undesirables on U.S. soil in the next decade.
I tell people as often as I can, especially my trans and bipoc friends; now is the time. Get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Learn some basic first aid, you really just need to know how to stabilize someone. Start networking with like-minded people in your communities. The police will not protect us, they’ve proven they’ll happily club senior citizens to the ground and shoot any protesters in the face with rubber bullets while escorting a rightwing murderer to safety.
Get to know people in your community. Take an interest in growing food, learn how to fix things. Get a gun (or two) and learn how to use them. Iran was a secular, liberal state until almost 1980 when they (mostly legitimately) elected an Islamist theocracy; it could happen here.
He is describing what you are implying
One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.
When the Amendment was written, weaponry was still in its early stages of development, and the assumption was that a well-armed populace could, with sufficient numbers, overthrow a tyrannical regime. However, in today's world, this seems unrealistic. Even if someone owned a thousand .50 caliber Desert Eagles, it wouldn’t make a significant difference against such overwhelming governmental power.
The Vietnamese and Afghans could probably tell us a thing or two.
One aspect I don't think many appreciate is the deterrent effect of private gun ownership. The fascists would have already overrun us were we not armed. Notice the major ICE raids have been in NYC and California? Those are the two places in America with the strictest, and often dumbest, gun laws. Anecdotally, being visibly armed likely saved me two ass beatings in the past year. LOL, one guy was so fucking mad he was shaking, choking himself to be polite.
Most of our military might can't be brought to bear on civilians. The examples you gave are purpose built to fight another military on their turf. The Air Force isn't going to deploy fighter jets to put down a riot. And NONE of those things will continue working about a week after civilians pull support.
Guerilla warfare works. It's great against large systems with small vulnerabilities. In those cases a small imbedded group is far better than outside force.
I hear.
You see, if the government bombs it's cities flat, it no longer has anything to govern, and falls anyways.
What we need are armed protests. Something you can't just easily police thug your way out of. We can all go protest and wave signs all we want, but until those in power are once again afraid of it's people, nothing will change.
Look at somewhere like Syria. Governments still get taken down by armed revolutionaries. Yes, there is the issue that governments are better armed. But there are a few fatal flaws in the idea that this makes them invincible:
If a group of revolutionaries deposes the California state government, declares the New California Republic, and tries to secede from the US, they won't be fighting with AR-15s for long. They'll be using the strongest available civilian weapons to raid National Guard armories and other locations that may not be so heavily defended. They may even do so with the tacit support of those working at those facilities. Then their goal will be to hold out long enough against the US government that they can petition foreign powers like China to support their rebellion against the US federal government.
Revolts don't happen in a vacuum. Rebels don't need to hold out against the central government indefinitely armed only with light weaponry. At the end of the day, there's going to be some other well armed country out there that's going to be more than happy to see their geopolitical rival be embroiled in a war of secession. If California decided to rebel on Monday, by Friday the PRC would be loading every drone, antitank missile, and MANPAD they can find into crates, ready to smuggle them in container ships past the US Navy. Even if China didn't support the aims of the California rebels, it wouldn't matter. Hell, they wouldn't even care about the final outcome of the war. They would happily fund heavy weapons to the rebels just to make sure the US federal government was too embroiled in a crisis at home to devote many resources to places like Taiwan.
Thank you for detailed explanation, I do see your point that government is not as omnipotent and superior as I might have made it out to be.
Could you just clarify, are you arguing in favor of Second Amendment or against it? I can see it being used in both cases
People completely ignore logistics. That fighter jet needs hundreds of human hours by dozens of people for every hour it operates. And when the fighter jet drops bombs in the neighborhoods of those maintenance people, not only does the Jets stop being maintained, but people in the military ranks begin to switch sides. That's to say nothing about fuel delivery drivers, businesses, etc that are all necessary to keep the machine working.
Because the military would fracture during a civil war.
So what your saying is we need to give people more weapons to even up the fight.
even much simpler than that.. being more than just one guy.
One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.
No shit they'll just burn your place to the ground Tulsa style. USA is quickly becoming North Korea.
The government still needs people to enforce their laws, you can't use fighter jets, bioweapons, and nuclear weapons against your own citizenry without losing legitimacy and leading to a civil war where foreign governments would arm all sides. Take a look at Syria, they successfully overthrew the Assad regime with the support of other nations.
We currently have armed unidentified state thugs snatching random minorities off the streets, that's the sort of government abuse that could be stopped if liberals were armed. The state can only go so far in using force against their own citizens before it fractures and we look like the Syrian civil war.
I agree with you that the government is losing legitimacy. However, I'm deeply confused and frustrated by the second part of your argument. The United States was literally built by immigrants from its very beginning. People moved there seeking a future in a brave new world, and this diversity made the country a cultural and intellectual leader in music, literature, science, and finance. Yet now, immigration is somehow viewed as negative, largely because a few loud voices claim immigrants are criminals or spread absurd rumors like them eating dogs.
What's even more troubling is how politically divided the country has become. The simple act of helping a fellow human— a fellow American—avoid unjust ICE arrests is labeled a "liberal" issue. In my view, watching Americans being essentially kidnapped by government-paid agents is exactly the kind of tyranny the Second Amendment was meant to prevent. This division and inaction feel entirely pointless and contrary to the values the nation was founded on if i am to be convinced by conservative side.
I await with interest your explanation as to how and why private gun ownership "caused and supported" the current unlawful government, considering that the government is perfectly capable of obtaining its own guns and supplying them to its goons without our input or intervention. And has been doing so for a little over two centuries. Furthermore, gun laws are deliberately structured such that the police and various government forces throughout the country enjoy considerably less restriction (or even none) on the type, number, and nature of guns that they're allowed to own and use. Even if the individuals in question are retired or no longer on active duty.
The 2A crowd brought us fascism by voting for literally anyone who told them they could keep their AR's. Now we have fascism-lite with our government disappearing people unlawfully with plain-clothed goon squads, and the 2A crowd is on the side of the fascists. In other words, they were the ones screaming about the importance of the people being able to protect themselves from the government, for decades, and now that we're in a situation were people actually need to do that, they're on the sidelines cheering on the authoritarian government. A lot of people like me aren't surprised at all.
I have a strong suspicion this crowd would have voted for their fascist candidates regardless of whether or not Americans had gun rights at the time. Fascism (not to mention other broadly similar strains of right wing authoritarianism) has managed to rise in several places throughout history and all over the world, without the specific assistance of our deep south gun nuts.
Tons of liberal supporters are also in favor of gun rights. It's just that nobody's catering to them, because they're less lucrative of a voting bloc than racist rednecks.
I await with interest your explanation as to how and why private gun ownership “caused and supported” the current unlawful government
Dollars to Donuts half those badgeless, masked vigilantes kidnapping people from immigration courts are members of the NRA.
Furthermore, gun laws are deliberately structured such that the police and various government forces throughout the country enjoy considerably less restriction (or even none) on the type, number, and nature of guns that they’re allowed to own and use.
Mulford Act, etc. Sure. The disarming of the public is always at the expense of the working class progressive. It never seems to come for the right-wing reactionaries, the domestic terrorists, or the conservative-aligned militia movements.
But that's where things get sticky, because "Gun Rights" has become synonymous with "Fascist Politics" as a result. Guns are regularly touted as the tools to overthrow liberal politicians. And as a result liberal politicians champion gun control out of a sense of self-preservation. Meanwhile conservative politicians champion more money spent on the security state, because it allows them to arm and organize far-right police, private security, and paramilitary groups.
What becomes extra frustrating is when liberal politicians give conservative paramilitary groups the weapons and funds they need to organize, on the grounds that these conservative paramilitaries will protect the liberals from the Lone Wolf / Rogue Agent. Rather than guarding them, these police agencies effectively take the liberal political class hostage.
The things that radical fascist media talking heads are hyperbolically lying about nonstop are justification for invoking 2A rights.
Unfortunately liberals are pussy-assed bitches so nothing will happen and they'll all be chunked into an oven.
At some point people confused peaceful with harmless. Harmless people who got accustomed to the idea of outsourcing the capacity for violence... but then the vendor had a change in ownership...
This is more a consequence of manipulative propaganda and poor education being weaponized against people, rather than a direct reflection of constitutional gun laws.
People don't understand the game.
that was always a transparent excuse... only a total rube would believe that was a legitimate reason to sell guns like popcorn in a theatre
That's kind of been the whole thing about the anti-2a people: they've kept saying "the people"in "the militia" are the cops and states (as opposed to the federal government), and the law-and-order conservatives aren't saying no to militarizing law enforcement, and the pro-gun right for decades (60s-90s) played along with all the "2a is for hunting" nonsense. The point of 2A is for the government to be afraid to do this crap, but 2A is too watered down at this point to have that effect. The kind of population that could live armed as well as any military (not ours) would just have a different behavior in general.
Given sufficient time and inaction, the unlawful government will become the lawful government.
I mean, the rest of the western world already knows this for decades. You silly Americans are just starting to try and catch up.
We love us some guns
😢
How?
Almost every tyrannical regime in the 20th century systematically disarmed their citizenry, leading to some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever seen. It's not a coincidence.
That's not true, they disarmed their undesirables.
However private gun ownership would have done next to nothing in those scenarios anyway.
I guess "undesirables" don't count as part of the citizenry? You're only reinforcing my point, that the government stripped firearms from the people they wanted to kill/oppress. If it wasn't worth doing, nobody would have done it. Instead, Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Kim I'll Sung, Mao, Mussolini, etc., have ALL taken away firearms in some way from their peoples.
Counterpoint, civilian gun ownership is the only reason why most marginalized identities in the US aren't already rounded up into extermination camps en masse. You don't have the first clue about the history and nature of this country if you think we wouldn't quickly accelerate organized genocide without that last line of deterrence. Arm every single minority.
Gun rights weren't sold on that. That is not the original meaning of the amendment, which talked about a standing militia being armed against foreign invasion. But yeah, they have been sold on that in modern times, and it is no surprise to see that that premise is not being questioned in the slightest even in this thread. Just people regurgitating right wing gun rhetoric.
"Resisting Unlawful Government" is when you need to fight a Ranger who is trying to keep your stray cows from grazing in a public park.
"Stop Breaking the Law, Asshole!" is when you need to throw on a mask, wave a gun, and snatch someone into a van after they showed up to court for a green card hearing.
What's unlawful? You voted them in. Bearing arms against the government is unlawful. Anyone who thinks they can make a stand and shoot a few people to stand up to the government will find themselves arrested quickly and with all their neighbours supporting their arrest.
There is no amount of force that could reasonably be brought that would topple the government.
I did not vote them in. AND they were elected and swore to uphold the Constitution, and they have broken that vow.
BTW, bearing arms against the government is not only legal, it's constitutional.
The idea of the right to revolt was famously articulated in the Declaration of Independence, which declared that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”
The Declaration went on to argue that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
That's what most failed governments said. Nothing was ever taken without force.
Ask the native Americans. The Seminoles were badass in Florida, governer kept sending in soldiers to move them, Indians kept killing them all. So many the governor finally said to leave them the fuck alone. One of the only tribes left in Florida. My ancestors were pushed from their land on the trail of tears.
That's just inherently not true, and something that medieval serfs also probably heard a lot.
Well one party told gun owners that they're awful people. Of course a chunk of them are gonna be okay with what's going on. The people who hated on them are being "owned". Can you blame them for not rising up to fight the party that pretends to give them lip service?
can you blame them
Yes.
"A Republic, if you can keep it"
They can't do the work because their feelings were hurt? I will absolutely blame them
You guys should take these thoughts somewhere else. This specific sub is for just small silly thoughts not politics like 2a rights and the rise of fascism.
That's what you get if you believe that laws written a quarter millenium ago are still some kind of holy infallable scripture.
Weapons have changed enormously since then and so has every part of society.
Back when the 2nd ammendment was written, the average weapon of the military and of private citizens would be about the same: front-loaded, single-shot gun. Soldiers had very low standards of training and militias still formed the backbone of the military.
It's totally possible for a large amount of private citizens to stand a decent chance against the military.
Nowadays a private citizen would have some kind of gun, while the military has tanks, planes, missiles and aircraft carriers. Even if half the country would take up arms, they'd stand no chance against the US military, which makes the whole point of "resisting unlawful government" moot.
Bro look at Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan,
Better toys for your soldiers doesn't mean you automatically win the war.
quarter millennium
Thanks for spotting the typo