This is prompted by questions related to gun control. I've seen many express the opinion that the populace should be armed to 'defend against oppression'- that a sufficiently unhappy population should be able to rise up and overthrow the government forcibly.
I'm not American, but I'll go on record as thinking that the Second Amendment was a very good and worthwhile thing when it was written in the 1700s and muskets and cannons were the pinnacle of military technology.
Today, however, I'm not so sure. The US army is huge and many Americans are proud to boast that it is the largest and most powerful in the world. In the last 200 years there have been huge advances in crowd control; the military has everything from APCs and tanks to rocket launchers and napalm to gunships and bombers, and all sorts of intelligence-gathering resources. And above all, organisation and communication.
So is it feasible to think that an uprising of unorganised civilians, armed with the guns they own, could successfully overthrow the government? Would weight of numbers be enough? Do you think it matters whether they could succeed, or that it's enough to know they could try? Is the Second Amendment still relevant, or should it just guarantee that every American can own a musket? What are your views?
I'm looking for thoughtful responses.
Nature Boy2009-07-05T04:08:16Z
Favorite Answer
It depends on what you would accept as a victory.
As a Vietnam Vet, I can tell you from experience (and so can our current troops) that even a small portion of a population can keep the best Military in the world tied up for decades, until they get tired, broke and go home. Guerilla warfare has never been successfully defeated, yet. By anyone. It worked in Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afganistan, and it still appears to be working in Iraq, since the Tailiban still exist.
Although governments have been overthrown by guerillas, no one in the US wants to overthrow our Government. There are just some who would like to resign from it, peacefuly, if allowed. If the US was smart, and learned anything from the War for Southern Independence, they would allow it peacefully, then work on a diplomatic solution to their differences. Had they done that in 1860, all the states would've returned to the US voluntarily within 10 years, and no harm done.
But the answer to your question is an unqualified YES. A civilian population, with enough public support, using the right tractics, can eventually defeat a professional military force. It's been done many times.
That would be tough.... The military would have its work cut out for them being the citizens would know their towns, landscapes, terrain, etc. kind of like Iraq and Afghanistan. The locals would have the advantage, they could hide among the regular people and the military wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a normal citizen or a "rebel". The military would do some serious damage with their technology and weapons and strength in numbers. It would be very very bad for both sides, which is why an armed populace is still one to be feared.
Let's not forget the weddings bombed in outposts like Nangarhar in 2007. Now, I don't claim to be a military strategist, but even I can see that bombing a wedding (were the Taliban getting pissed up at the reception?) and killing 45 people including 39 women & children, is not going to endear you to neutral locals. It is an idisputable fact that the USA has an appalling record when it comes to civilian casualties, in Iraq & Afghanistan, and also throughout its past military campaigns-or were the 600,000 civilians killed in Cambodia between 1969-1973 as a result of the USAF's highly illegal bombing campaign deemed to be military targets too?
Depends on political will of the politicians in charge - Viet Nam had US army winning and Viet Army holding own until American democrat politicians cut off ammo resupply- political will ran out first and Viet Cong and North Viet Army now has South Vietnam. If you're talking a US revolution? Look at riots in cities in past years in LA, Detroit or Chicago- I was there for 1968 disturbance. A small number of armed thugs caused a lot of damage, a greater number of armed civilians supporting police get rioters confined- the Polish neighborhood deadline had over 30 bodies stacked up by warning sign next morning, no police did the shooting. IF they'd joined riots, might have had to bring in tanks with national guard. Ferguson is latest disturbance- political will kept away military from criminal element, civilians in a couple stores protected their stores. Armed civilians not violating constitution will have military setting and watching just like Waco- the request by justice dept for armed military crews was denied by military commander- they got to borrow the engineering vehicle base on a tank but it wasn't military crew driving it. Military commander said bring the martial law declaration and then we'll go to the site- BUT a sergeant will ORDER the FBI and ATF to GET AWAY from the site and if justice dept people don't leave when ordered the sergeant WILL kill you and it'll be JAG court instead of federal court determining any charges extra AGAINST the justice dept people. Donets region in Ukraine has armed rebel/civilians defeating the Ukrainian Army last month- figure some Russian army help likely there true- but US military personel could go on leave to support their relatives with a conflict against a politician and bring some equipment with them is more than likely. As for automatic weapons in civilian possession ? Already a 1/4 million class 3 registered and taxed weapons in civilian hands, about the same untaxed in police armories that might go to civilians in a conflict. Estimates of un taxed, unregistered, not exactly known where they are automatics? 100,000 is the low number from military 'can't find in the armory at this time' for current issue and the old war trophies aren't accounted for prior to 1958. During the cutoff to register amnesty 4000 M14s were registered- most by X marines that had paid for issue rifle not turned in at discharge. About 40,000 WW2 trophys got $200.00 tax stamps- Thompsons, MG42, M38/42 Berettas, and some MP40s like cousin had. These were the ones formerly unknown held by Democrats mostly that believed the government wouldn't hassle them afterwards- lots of cynics registered on of the 3 to 5 they had. I know of one guy in Chicago that turned in BAR to ATF- he was griping they got the best one and most of magazines , now he has to fix up the other two- and he was a cop.
No Way! The US military has the best equipment and weaponry in the world. We also have some of the best troops in the world.
This is an extremely controversial subject for many Americans. A lot of people feet that this Amendment gives them the right to have guns of any shape, size or power. I disagree.
The Second Amendment reads: “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.”
Of course this is open to individual interpretation, but I read it as this: The military shall keep and bear arms. It doesn't say that an individual has the same right. It says people (as a whole, not individually).
I am sure there are going to be a lot of people who disagree with me, but I am just stating my opinion.