You're viewing a single thread.
OK, I don't think I have heard people arguing about vietnam, but Afghanistan was retaken in days by an armed rebellion, and they only ever shot down 38 aircraft, and did not down a single fast mover during the entire war. And even so, a countries government can't survive by bombing its infrastructure against a sustained rebellion. If the majority of America decided to rebel against the us government, they would be completely screwed.
If the majority of the population decided to rebel against the government they wouldn't need guns
Uh, yes they would? Have you heard of: the soviet union, the ccp or ww2 Germany? All had different rebellions, but all failed because they did not have any firepower. One of the very first things the fascist government of Germany did was remove weapons from anyone that was an enemy of the state. Now in present day ukraine, because none of the citizens were permitted to own arms, Ukrainians have no way to fight an insurgent war on Russian occupiers. Without any means to violently resist a fascist takeover, the people are at the mercy of the government. I love how so many people post about how "if enough trans or nby people arms themselves then the government will enact gun control" and completely miss the irony of that point completely proving correct the points people make against gun control.
There has virtually never be a revolution in history that had the majority of the population behind it while it was actually happening.
There's also never been a successful revolution when the majority opposed it either. They only succeed when the public, at a minimum, says "Can't be any worse, right?"
I'm a fan of using the argument of the post, but I have given some thought to keeping civilians armed enough to combat LEO. But then they're out there buying surplus military equipment like fuck here we go, endless cycle.