“You can’t stand up to the military might of the United States Government!” Debunking the myth of the weakness of The People.
Note by INCTBON: Please understand we are not advocating violent overthrow of the government. We are advocating for a society where the power dynamic between citizens and government reflects the ability for civilian overthrow of the government, violent or otherwise. In a word; accountability.
Please also understand that there are provisions of the Constitution and other founding documents that EXPLICITLY provide for such an occasion, should the need arise. To wit: “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.“ So we feel comfortable discussing this, as the Right of Revolution literally could not be more foundational of an idea to our country.
There is a long well worn discussion. It goes something like this:
Anti-Gun Person: Why do you “need” guns/standard capacity magazines/modern hunting rifles?
Free Person: “Well, it’s not called the Bill of Needs™ , but accepting your premise: Personal protection and protection against tyrannical governments.
Anti-Gun Person: Actually owning a gun doesn’t make you safer, it makes you less safe (this is disputed and another topic for another time), and there is no way you could stand up to the government if they were coming after you. They have tanks and drones and jets and bombs. Furthermore, the government would never turn on it’s own citizens! (False, Double False)
Free Person: Well, I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Well, we guess it’s pretty clear from the above where my bias lies. But if you’ve engaged across the divide about the gun rights issue you have encountered this discussion, guaranteed.
This is absolutely a point worthy of enunciation. People who don’t believe that all humans have the right to tyranny resistance tools posit that the United States military would outright obliterate any armed opposition to their might within the US due to superior numbers and superior firepower.
This is false for several reasons. Read on:
Outnumbered:
The military absolutely doesn’t have superior numbers. If only 3% of Americans (it is often said that this is the percentage that fought in the American Revolution. Actual participation rates were closer to 6.5% or 20.7 million of today’s population ) opposed an occupying force, that would mean that there would be 9.5 million civilians versus approximately 1.4 million active duty military personnel. This is of course presuming that 100% of active duty soldiers are totally okay with being an occupying force of their own country and depriving their fellow citizens of their liberty.
Even if it was only 3% of gun owners (who made up 32% of the population in 2010) fought that would mean it would be 3 million civilians versus 1.4 million.
Even if 50% of Americans fought (~160 million people!), there would still be enough guns in civilian hands in the United States to arm each. Twice.
Outgunned due to advanced equipment:
This appears to be the stronger point, but immediately crumbles when you consider events of the last 20 years. It’s often said that idea that armed civilians could stand up to a better armed government is ridiculous because of things like drones and tanks and jets.
Well riddle us this: if that’s true, why are we still in Afghanistan and back again in Iraq? Wouldn’t our MASSIVE advantage in firepower and technology have ended those wars a long time ago if indeed it was the deciding factor?
So yeah, the next time this comes up, tell them that if 3% of gun owners (who are only one third of the population anyway) rose up, and the entire active duty military fought, it would still be 2:1 in the citizen’s favor. And that’s the OPTIMISTIC forecast for a tyrannical US government. Worst case (with a 6.5% civilian participation rate) is about 20:1, in favor of the people. With there being enough civilian guns in America to arm each fighting civilian not once, not twice, not three times, but fifteen times over.