Yeah true have you heard of the battle of Athens very interesting.
This is when U.S citizens rebelled against a corrupt government.
This shows the people are capable of defending their rights and freedoms as long as they are armed.
you missed my point , my point is Americans are never going to use ther guns against the US army therefore they are useless . a gun is only as useful as the person wielding it
But American citizens have used their guns before against the government on many separate occasions. The south might have been able to win the civil war if they used guerrilla tactics instead of fighting them head on when they had muskets and the Union army had rifles.
No i do not wish the south won the civil war.
They may not go against the army, but at the same time the sheer population size and their being armed makes it completely impossible for the government to purposefully use the army against the population in the way the Czech communists used the armed forces (mainly state police) against the people in the 50s.
Exactly we have 310 million people living here with enough guns to arm them all twice. Not to mention the US armed forces is only like 2 million.
Read about the civil war, the revolutionary war the , whisky rebellion ( which George Washington crushed) and the battle of athens link i posted up above
different ere people had some bollcks about them then , if the US army rolled up and told you and your entire town to hand in their weapons or they will be dealt with by lethal force , how many do you think would resist ? honestly in todays generation
All of them. And I donât mean all of them in the town, but all of them in all of the towns. That is what makes the difference.
different era men were men back then , im talking about todays generation
Youâve clearly never been to the south or even the midwest. If this happend to the west and east coast yeah they would probably submit. But the south are you kidding me. There are already many militias made up of vets.
i bet 99% would hand the weapons over if faced by armed troops armed to the teeth.
you think them militias would fire on american troops ?
Yes if they were trying to take their guns or harm their families i do. Many of them are ex military. Not to mention each state has national guard that only answers to the governor of that state. Each state has its own private army that would have to go along with the government take over.
They would face huge guerrilla attacks all over the country.
Also like i said most militias are ex military so they would be quite a bit better trained than the taliban.
who ever controls the army , controls the nations . look at syria and libya .
the libyan army split with most turning their guns against the government . the revolution was a success.
the syian army stayed loyal for 90% the countries revolution has dragged on for 2 years + with no end in sight and the syrian army still stands strong and the president remains in power . the army is key to any uprising , no matter how many weapons you own
The army is nothing without backing of the population. It can force the population with guns to back it only if the population is unarmed. Within couple of weeks the soldiers would have to choose between starving, pillaging or refusing orders. I would like to believe that 99% would choose the last, the same as the Czechoslovak army made it clear in 1989 that it wonât engage against the population when the communist government started crumbling due to the general strike.
Neither in Syria nor in Libya is it all out uprising, it is uprising of part of population mostly divided on sectarian lines. That is what makes the difference.
Also its the people who have the knowledge of the land. Thats probably one of the most important things. The indians were able to resist the U.S government for so long because of the knowledge of the land and guerrilla tactics. Even though they were poorly armed but sometimes entire tribes would get their hands on repeater rifles. Look at the seminoles they were never defeated by the U.S army because they knew the land.
errm both are all out uprisings , granted some have sided with the government but they would still happen in this situation .
@SirWarriant as you said earlier the civilans have nothing that can penetrate the police APCâs , you also have nothing they could take down a jet , tank , helicopter (maybe a helicopter with enough effort )
i dont think even 15% of your population would have the balls to do an all out uprising against the army and governments , your only hope is a large portion of the army switch sides.
the government have you at an arms length and always will , with enough of you yes you could hold a gurrilla style war and hold chunks of land but youâre never go to achieve a victory , much like the taliban couldnt ever forcefully push the US force out of Afghanistan , you need heavy equipment , tanks , planes etc
All those can roll around only for as long as they have fuel. The soldiers can soldier on only for as long as they are supplied. Otherwise they end up like Hitlerâs/Napoleonâs armies by Moscow. Nothing there really to stop them technically, and yet having no chance of victory.
Yes but its been seen many times bombing is not enough you need soldiers still. The taliban is able to make explosives able to knock the tracks off tanks and disable apcs so it could be done. The rebels would also be mingled with the people so they would have to bomb innocents to which would turn many more against them.
15% is 4.5 million people that still far outnumbers the U.S military many of the 15% would be ex military as well. I seriously think youâre under estimating how much of the population would rise up. Many already want to.
The taliban is different than America. America is so fast you could never find and defeat all the rebels not to mention the majority of the rebels would also be farmers and stuff like that good luck feeding your army.
Hey, are there any gun-related forums, guys?
1 Like