NJ5 said:
HappySqurriel said:
NJ5 said:
I always hear about this notion that owning weapons in the USA is for "overthrowing the government" if needed. I find it hilarious.
Does anyone really think the population could overthrow the government without support of the military? Imagine a bunch of guys carrying assault rifles and marching towards the white house... without the support of the military they would get immediately flattened by artillery or a plane bomber or something.
If, on the other hand you have the support of the military, you don't need the assault rifles to overthrow the government.
In either case, I don't really see how assault rifles help you overthrow the government.
|
Modern warfare has taught us that a handful of poorly trained individuals take an amazing amount of resources to suppress; and if just 1% of the population of the United States (roughly 300,000 people) decided to resist government action through force, the US military is not powerful enough to suppress them. A conflict like this would become a war of attrition, and the side which had the most support from the citizens would eventually win.
|
That's true if those individuals are fighting a passive war of hiding and terrorizing, not the kind of action which would be needed to take over the government.
In reality... let's imagine that 3 million Americans start marching towards the white house to overthrow the government with or without weapons... would the military really dare going against them, and killing millions of their countrymen?
|
Today in the United States you probably would not see violence in reaction to a peaceful protest, but it has happened quite regularly throughout history; including incidents in most western nations.
