| I see similar statements to this quite frequently around this topic, and every time they strike me as quite simplistic. If such a conflict were to ever happen (and let us pray that it doesn't), I feel that it would be quite a bit more complicated than "government brings out the big guns, game over," for several reasons: 1. This ignores the historical track record of the US military in asymmetric warfare, fighting determined foes with inferior equipment and weaponry. I'm thinking of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Not perfect comparisons, but worth some thought. 2. It is likely that the US military would see significant desertion and insubordination in such a situation. Military personnel are people too, and many may be reluctant to go to war against their own country. 3. Every state has an Army National Guard and an Air National Guard, and many states has state defense forces. While the National Guard units are legally obligated to obey orders from the federal government, there is no guarantee of what would happen were there to actually be a domestic insurgency. A populace armed with AR-15s may well be enough of a problem that the opposing force weakens its opposition and starts to fracture. Again, let us all hope that nothing like this ever happens, but that shouldn't stop us from analyzing in more detail what might happen. |
Sure but the whole "we need guns as protection against the government" argument is equally simplistic.
> many may be reluctant to go to war against their own country
Perhaps but the enthusiasm with which e.g. ICE officers have turned against their own country does not give optimism here.