Leaving gun laws the same, and fighting the military.

Of course.

Moot point, the American public will never raise arms towards its government no matter how oppressive it gets. We are oppressed already and the War on Drugs and the War on Terror are generally the main devices used. Mass incarceration, CAF, illegal search and seizure, NSA & CIA dragnet domestic spying, etc.

People talk tough about how their guns fends off an oppressive government all while their government is systematically oppressing them. We have a government that has declared war on its population but the population isn’t fighting back.

quote:

---

If gun laws were left exactly as they are, could the American people throw off an oppressive government?

---

You can take two pistol revolvers to a party of 500 where everyone has a knife, you can fire into the crowd as much as you can but you would eventually lose after someone finally stabs you or throws a knife at you like a projectile.

That's how a battle between an insurgency of the most heavily armed population in the world and the American armed forces would go down.

quote:

---

’m thinking of weapons available to both sides now.

---

It’s a numbers game, advantage citizens. I don’t think the government is going to start nuking cities.

LINK

Link to reddit post on T_D discussing this.

Depends on a number of factors, but yes, most likely.

I was an infantry officer in the Army in a former life who has a bit of experience in asymmetric combat. If the military is willing to completely lay waste to the country and use nuclear weapons, then most likely not. However, if the military wishes to subdue then dominate a population without the total annihilation of nuclear weapons, then it is not possible unless the force was at least quintupled (and more likely more) in size.

There are about 200,000 front line troops in the service. That is barely enough to dominate California or Texas if the need arose. Air superiority would be a major concern of any theoretical insurgency, but when you start threatening the life of the CEO of the software supplier to the vendor of the singular contractor of mini-drones or malware protection...

It would depend very much on the cause, purpose, and will of the forces. It really always depends on those kind of factors.

Sir. With due deference - I believe there is separation of powers enough that the military will side with the people over the judiciary, executive, or legislative branch if one side decided to oppress its people.
ETA - I’m pretty sure chain of command would break if Obama had tienamened? Times Square like he wanted too

quote:

---

If the military is willing to completely lay waste to the country and use nuclear weapons, then most likely not.

---

Right. But what government would do that? What would they “win” a flattened nation with no taxpayers.

quote:

---

quote:
You can take two pistol revolvers to a party of 500 where everyone has a knife, you can fire into the crowd as much as you can but you would eventually lose after someone finally stabs you or throws a knife at you like a projectile.

Numbers beat firepower over the long haul.

---

A more accurate statement would be that will and purpose beats both numbers and firepower over the long run.

quote:

---

quote:
If the military is willing to completely lay waste to the country and use nuclear weapons, then most likely not.
Right. But what government would do that? What would they “win” a flattened nation with no taxpayers.

---

I don't think any government would do it realistically, and it's why I laid it out as more of a "not as likely, but theoretically possible" proposition.

The military could never defeat the American public if the public were united and determined. Not a chance.