I know you're just willfully dumb, but other people reading might think you actually have a point.
No army in the world including the US could stop a civilian uprising of even a million people who have just rifles and the will to fight. They don't need nukes, tanks, or airplanes. If a large enough percentage of people, say 2% of the population, decided to fight a civil war, the US army/gov would fall in a few months if the rebels knew what they were doing.
It would be a guerilla war. And all of the critical infrastructure in the US could be destroyed in a month. No gas. No electricity. Smaller uprisings would be easily squashed.
Now, would this ever happen? Unlikely. Americans can barely get their fat asses out of bed much less do military operations for weeks at a time. Things would have to get incredibly bad and a leader would have to organize it. But it is possible.
My problem with this thought is that a civil war = government forces vs cilivilan militias.
I imagine it more a weakened government (but still with a functioning military) supported by civilian militias backing the government, versus various large and small insurgencies possibly with foreign backing.
I mean, don't color me surprised if a civilian uses a drone to commit an act of violence in the future. We're on the precipice of autonomous drone assassinations.
I don’t mean to be snarky or insensitive, but it is really ironic to ask that question in a thread discussing the assassination of a far-right political figure.
I would have agreed with you but look at what is happening in some Asian countries right now. Imagine a situation where the thugs knock on your door with their guns. I will probably never own guns but there is an argument to make.
When those thugs show up at your door with all of the weapons drawn and at the ready, what do you think you and your little hand gun or even riffle are going to do? Wound the first person at the door before you get lit up? To what purpose?
This argument is always kind of silly to me. You really think they'd use a weapon of mass destruction just to take out a few people they don't like? On their home soil? I mean, I find myself being surprised by Trump daily, but still... It's far more likely that they'd use more surgical means, like the ICE raids, to root out people they don't like. In that case, I'd say being armed would make at least somewhat of a difference, or at least give pause.
Some guys with AK-47s kept the world's most powerful military pretty busy for 20 years, so I wouldn't underestimate the value of a few rifles against authoritarianism.
Do you think they’d bother shooting anyone themselves?
Either of these situations are going to be stochastic and with difficult attribution.
And don’t forget - they want a degree of unhinged shooting back, it feeds the authoritarian tendencies and ‘justifies’ the increasingly unhinged violent responses.
