Unless you are a gun banner, any semiautomatic rifle, AR or AK is a garden variety firearm, not an Assault Anything.
And there were armed uprisings to stop the government, without which those things would have continued to this day? Or was the whole idea of people using their guns to oppose a supposedly totalitarian government just a nonsensical fantasy?
Were government officials openly operating in defiance of clearly established laws and protocols regulating matters of elections, or were they not? Did law enforcement engage in voter intimidation, or did they not?
Neither, both suppositions are meaningless, the government disarms the troublemakers and ignores the silly people who believe the first amendment gives them protection from anything more than home invasion.
Government disarms everyone but the known and confirmed criminals who have no qualms with shooting back when confronted.
As I said, meaningless, the government need not bother the vast majority of gun owners, if a serious coalition was formed the military would be brought in and or the supply of ammunition restricted.
Do you believe the military would forcibly disarm their families and friends (or folks very similar to their families and friends)?
If the government brings in the military to enforce the law, effectively, aligning the government against American citizens, it will trigger armed conflict. Hints of what might occur were evident at the Bundy Ranch and in the alarm caused by the Jade Helm excersize.
Oh please stop your fantasies, The Anti Vietnam War Protesters did not use Guns, and Doctor Martin Luther King jr. followers were urged to sell off their guns and not even own any. And to engage in peaceful protests.
We do not have "masses" here in America, "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" those so called "huddled masses" those that yearn to be free come to America.
No. Unlikely. more likely are a few, already enrolled in militia type groups with various motives and goals that will seize oppportunity and actively resist, and others will be watching the wind, but the majority of sympathizers will take a more passive support roll. It doesn’t take great numbers with huge resources to mount resistance. History Northern Ireland’s troubles provides a model; there were not huge numbers of actives nor did they have huge stockpiles of weapons, but they had a sizable number of symithizers that enabled actives to disappear in the population, provide funding, and logistics. The result was’t a win by the British military. Could that happen here? The BLM, cop ambushes, etc. would pale in comparison.
Ireland never had "masses" just free people that could not be enslaved. If you had called Patrick Aliwishes Murphy (spelling?) My paternal Irish Grandad, born in Dublin, Masses, he might have knocked out most of your teeth. And as an old man when I saw him, I was a lad of 8, he was an impressive wreck of a 70 year old man.
Most US gun owners are responsible enough to be trusted with their guns, at least for home defense purposes. By military I am referring to the national guard being brought out, only a widespread revolt could bring the main military out.
in what context? would they rise up tomorrow if taxes were raised another %? no would they rise up if (just as an example) a suitably progressive govt banned guns, private property and beer? absolutely somewhere in the middle is a likely reality, and anyones guess. now that I've answered your question that you provided in liu of an answer to mine... Do you believe the military would forcibly disarm their families and friends (or folks very similar to their families and friends)?
the military would divide along similar lines as the population its derived from. Even now we already have the Oathkeepers and CSPOA (just as examples) vowing to resist orders of firearm confiscation, and such orders have not even yet been given. if they ever are, those ordered will have even their own to worry about.
Then the ones who refuse to quell civil revolt will be arrested for disobeying a direct order and not carrying out their duty, do you honestly think than many of their families would participate in a revolt?
absolutely, if they believed their family member was supportive. i think you're underestimating the numbers here. if even 10% of the military (a very low estimate imo) were to refuse orders of confiscation and resist their implimentation, it would be total chaos. it should go without saying that the military pulls quite heavily from the rural areas for recruitment, where guns and gun rights are seen as an inherent facet of americana, and where any attempt at meaningful reduction of civilian arms MUST go if theres to be any hope of effectivity. not only will the military be demanding that its personnel infringe upon rights that many of them personally hold dear, but they'll be demanding they infringe upon those rights of their families, friends, peers on their home turf. Our military, by-and-large, dont join up to serve the govt. they join up to serve The People that the govt supposedly represents, and the way of life that those people want to protect. when that relationship comes into question, so to will their loyalty. in short, the 'military vs The People' scenario in this country is a farce as fas as gun control goes. If The People 'rise up' in opposition to gun resyrictions, a large chunk of the military (and cops, govt officials, infrastructure, etc) goes with them, and we'll have a huge can-o-worms going on.
There are ongoing asymmetrical conflicts occurring now and in recent history; examine them to answer your questions. I have been in the midst of two, Northern Ireland and Guatemala. Different places, different people, lots of similarities in tactics.
