This line of thinking never made sense to me.
How are you going to defend against SWAT teams with whatever guns you have?
Organize a militia? Then how do you defend against the army?
How are you going to defend against SWAT teams with whatever guns you have?
Organize a militia? Then how do you defend against the army?
Even if you are right, that would imply that the US would enter a protacted civil war that would impoverish everyone. I have a feeling popular support would swing away from the millitias very quickly, just how long do you think millenials will survive without their avocados, yoga classes and fair trade locally brewed artisanal beer.
Maybe in a failed state like California or New York, but that's not the entirety of America.
I'm not sure why you started with this. Your odds are way better if it's against your own military, especially in the West. There's going to be a ton of defectors. Have you met anyone from the South? Those same people who are extremely anti government are usually vets. This isn't just speculation either, there's very clear examples.
But something people constantly forget is that you can't rule the dead. People are a resource. You need them to produce your economy, make your food, tax, etc. But there's also an argument here on the converse side, to make your people rich to make your ruling class even richer. But short term thinking...
ROFL. You most likely meant IEDs.
a bunch of people with rifles inside a building can be pretty hard to deal with if the government isn't willing to level the place. a large scale revolt of armed citizens could never "win" against the us military, but the conflict wouldn't leave much left worth controlling.
decisions are made in the margins. it is much less risky for a government to impose unpopular laws on an unarmed populace.
Don't people have the right to die trying to win their freedom?