Could civilian gun owners defeat the US military?

That's my point though, the US Gov will need more soldiers other then the 1.5 million members of the active reserve if they wanted to forcefully impose some kind of military dictatorship. In order to get these soldiers they will probably have to call up the reserves (who are not professional soldiers) and they most likely will not be crazy about taking part in this little "civil war". Also the US government will probably have to start up the draft again if they really wanted to impose a military dictatorship effectively (because the active military+reserves are still outnumbered 100 to 1 by civilians) and I can almost guarantee the individuals drafted will not be crazy about this disruption to their lives.

The second part of your rebuttal is a whole other issue that I'm not willing to get into.

Bob the Bookie wrote:

The second part of your rebuttal is a whole other issue that I'm not willing to get into.

"Starving but Free"

The idea that all America's gun owners would be united in a domestic insurgency is a romantic myth. Rebellions don't go like that.

There would not even be a million, let alone 50 million. An insurgent army would not involve a million combatants even if it could. The logistics and security risks are too high. Even if America was occupied by a foreign army, an insurgency could not operate like that.

Take the example of the French Resistance, who numbered only about 200,000, 1% of the adults in France. And they had the advantage of support from a major foreign power and a government in exile. A civil war in America would be no patriotic battle against the Nazis, it would be a domestic political struggle between the army and a few hundred thousand shadowy, self-sufficient guerrillas.

Another good example is the "popular" revolutions in the Arab Spring. Libya is a nation of 6 million, 6 thousand of whom attacked the government in a "mass uprising." Helped by the armed forces of foreign countries, they succeeded, but they aren't the people of Libya by any stretch. Likewise, Syria, a nation of 23 million, has 23,000 guerrillas claiming to be "the people."

That is what civil wars are like. Most people aren't involved at all. They would use their guns for defense against all the idiots running around civil-warring, but they wouldn't join the war.

I just skipped to the end without reading the whole thread but Bag Wigins nails a lot of this.

Yeah, there are a lot of pissed off gun owners, but they're as likely to shoot each as attack the military.

The government just needs 100 guys to win any war against the crazy gun nuts. One fighter pilot, one drone operator, one gas re-filler... repeat.

And the idea that a volunteer United States military would be unified in coup d'état to overthrow a democratic government (especially in the US where democracy is so ingrained into the culture) is also an absurd notion. If a military dictatorship really wants to be able to control the population its going to need to disarm a large amount of the population and take away the private weapons of individuals in the military. Since soldiers are usually the most avid supporters of gun rights I have a hard time believing they will get on board with this or enforce a gun ban.

The two examples you gave of the French and the Arab Spring aren't quite comparable to the situation the OP mapped out. The French were very easy to conquer because they were simply "morally exhausted" from the first World War where they had the most per captia deaths of any country and simply were unwilling to fight. Also French military and the civilian population was not totally against Nazi ideological goals thus it was relatively easy for the Nazis to walk in. It is simply not comparable to a military take over in the United States in todays current climate.

The Arab Spring uprising would pale in comparison to an uprising in the United States because what these countries were asking for was democracy (or at least a "pseudo" islamic democracy) which was not seen in these countries before. Thus, they were seen as radicals and the revolutionaries compared to the more conservative national government that didn't want anything to change. In the situation described by the OP the radical party would be the national government who would try to impose a military regime.

Government Lover wrote:

The government just needs 100 guys to win any war against the crazy gun nuts. One fighter pilot, one drone operator, one gas re-filler... repeat.

You still need to put men on the ground and occupy the "rebellious areas". During World War II we bombed the the Japan into smithereens but the war was not won until we actually put boots on the ground and occupied the land.

The better comparison is Syria. In the Middle East, everyone has guns and there is a thriving black market for heavy weapons thanks to all the weapons Western powers have poured into conflicts in the region. In Syria, the rebels have plenty of guns and have numbers but they are regularly slaughtered by a small number of elite forces loyal to Assad.

History is full of examples of violent uprisings against tyranical governments. By and large, the uprisings and civil/guerilla wars just end up being horrid blood baths and the rebels end up being the new oppressors.

Yes, of course.

The only thing keeping the US military from imposing a military dictatorship is that the military knows that patriotic American gun owners are armed to the teeth and are fully prepared to kill members of the armed forces and law enforcement.

Bob the Bookie wrote: The French were very easy to conquer because they were simply "morally exhausted" from the first World War where they had the most per captia deaths of any country.

Incredibly wrong; the French fought very well during WW2. I hate how this stereotype of the French as cheese eating surrender monkeys gets perpetuated. They lost the battle of France due to superior Germany techniques and NOT superior German weapons. France had the best army in Europe and near parity with the German air force. German won the battle of France due to the following:

1. Concentration of armor. The prevailing doctrine was that tanks should support infantry and be dispersed throughout the divisions. The Germans used revolutionary tactics; concentrating their tanks in armored divisions to achieve local superiority in numbers even though their tanks were neither as good nor did they have as many tanks as the allies.

2. Coordinated air, tank, and infantry attacks were used by Germany.

3. Germany attacked through the Ardennes where third line, "C" French divisions were stationed. In other words, the best Germans fought against the worst French divisions.

4. Germany had 3 army groups, A, B, and C. Army group A executed the "Sickle stroke" that tore through the Ardennes and surrounded the main French forces that were in Northern France. Army group B baited the French and made them think that the main thrust was going to be through Belgium and the Netherlands like in WW1. Army group C opposed the Maginot line and just held the line.

5. The flank of the armored thrust of Army Group A was very vulnerable to counterattack but the allies weren't decisive and didn't counterattack effectively.

Also, most German tanks were the terrible Panzer I and Panzer II's; they had few Panzer III's or IV's. Finally, the vast majority (like 90%) of the german army was horse-drawn--it was far from being mechanized like propaganda movies shoe them as.

Bob the Bookie wrote:

During World War II we bombed the the Japan into smithereens but the war was not won until we actually put boots on the ground and occupied the land.

Sure about that one, cowboy?

The French did not fight well and if they did fight well they wouldn't have fallen in three weeks. The French were only prepared for a defensive war and thought their defensive Maginot Line was impetretable. The French could've crushed the Germans had they attacked after the Anschluss, German remilitarization (which Hitler announced), or after invading Czechoslovakia. But the French and the English weren't willing to lose anymore lives after WWI. The French military command structure was also horrible, behind the times, and did not communicate well.

The fact France was possibly the best military in Europe and lost so quickly is inexcusable. Especially after WWI where they showed they were capable of fighting Germany to a standstill.

Yeah big guy I'm sure. After the US dropped those two atomic bombs on Japan the Japanese signed a treaty with the US surrendering. One of the main parts of that treaty is that US forces would be allowed to occupy Japan, thus solidifying US victory. Without US occupation all other clauses in the treaty would have been largely useless.

Yeah big guy I'm sure. After the US dropped those two atomic bombs on Japan the Japanese signed a treaty with the US surrendering. One of the main parts of that treaty is that US forces would be allowed to occupy Japan, thus solidifying US victory. Without US occupation all other clauses in the treaty would have been largely useless.

tardbro wrote:

Civilian gun owners in the U.S would overpower any military on earth including its own in a matter of weeks.

Who would lead them? How would they organize? Internet might be scarce in such a situation, making communication between citizens difficult.

Bob the Bookie wrote:

Yeah big guy I'm sure. After the US dropped those two atomic bombs on Japan the Japanese signed a treaty with the US surrendering. One of the main parts of that treaty is that US forces would be allowed to occupy Japan, thus solidifying US victory. Without US occupation all other clauses in the treaty would have been largely useless.

Except of course the part where the war was over and japan gave up occupied territory

French can't fight wrote:

The French did not fight well and if they did fight well they wouldn't have fallen in three weeks. The French were only prepared for a defensive war and thought their defensive Maginot Line was impetretable. The French could've crushed the Germans had they attacked after the Anschluss, German remilitarization (which Hitler announced), or after invading Czechoslovakia. But the French and the English weren't willing to lose anymore lives after WWI. The French military command structure was also horrible, behind the times, and did not communicate well.

The fact France was possibly the best military in Europe and lost so quickly is inexcusable. Especially after WWI where they showed they were capable of fighting Germany to a standstill.

Every other military the world except for Germany had the same issues with organization, combined arms coordination, and tactics....try to win a war when the enemy has 100 tanks massed against your 30.

Ever see Tombstone? There is a scene in the movie where Wyatt Earp holds off a whole mob of people with just his revolver by calmly explaining to them that though he doesn't have enough bullets to kill everyone in the crowed, he is going to kill the first person who makes a move. He's completely outgunned, but no one has the balls to be the first.

Real life example: people have highjacked planes and robbed stores with nothing more than a pocketknife or box cutter. A group of six or seven average size unarmed guys could easily beat the hell out of one dude with a tiny blade that's made for cutting tape and cardboard. But no single individual knows whether or not other people are going to help out, so no one does anything. I know that if all hundred plus people on my flight decide to kill the hijacker, he'll be dead in about 20 seconds. But If I run at him all by myself and no one else joins, I'll get cut to shreds. So a hijacker really only needs to be adequately armed to take out one person in order to control hundreds.

I think the same idea applies here. As has been pointed out, there are more armed civilians than military people in this country. 2.5 million people probably can't kill 50 million people. But it's almost certain that the first civilian who takes up arms against the military will be killed. And who is going to do that?

Watch a production of Les Miserables to get an idea of how it would go down.