I would take violent action towards the government in the same situation I would take violent action towards a civilian: When I or my family are threatened with imminent physical violence. I suspect most people would do the same. I admit, if it were my kids locked up in those prison camps, I’d be blowing up the doors with explosives and rushing in guns blazing to rescue them. And if someone does that they’ll have my full support. But my kids aren’t in a prison camp, so while I sympathize greatly with those who are, I don’t sympathize enough to risk my life for them.
As for a revolt or rebellion, a very wide cross-section of the public would have to feel threatened in the same way for that to become a reasonable choice to make such that an insurgency would be large enough to sustain itself. Things like our first amendment (rights of free speech and assembly) act as a relief valve to prevent that choice becoming necessary. You start killing protesters and silencing critics, all the sudden it doesn’t feel safe to be walking around in public with those ideas in your head, and if enough people feel that way, you’ve got a rebellion on your hands. Governments have gotten good at oppressing as much as they can while staying on this side of that line, and of course that line varies from culture to culture, so if they miscalculate and oppress too hard, watch out.
So you know various people who are a) violent lunatics or b) full of shit?
The reality is that I suspect the vast majority of people would do nothing until their actual quality of life suffered in some real tangible way. How many of these people you mention have families and careers (or at least decent jobs)? How many own homes? Are they going to rise up from their couch in outrage, grab their recently banned assault riffle, kiss their wife and kids, and then go become a wanted domestic terrorist?
And for those on the Left, it’s not like these militias would just rally up on a hill under some leader giving his Braveheart/St Crispin’s Day speech and wait for a squadron of National Guard A-10s rain 30mm cannon fire down on them. They would blend into the local population and take pot shots at soldiers or set roadside bombs for tanks and whatnot like every other insurgency.
This bit is true for the right as well as the left. It is a fond belief on the left that right wing gun owners are cowardly and/or retarded and, thus, will either do nothing or go out and get splatterkilled by The Military. That cherished belief is not based in reality…
Well, the belief is more that there is no chance whatsoever that either the population as a whole will rise in rebellion over guns or that the police and military will look fondly upon armed terrorists shooting at the police and military. And without at least one of the populace, the police, or the military on your side, any rebellion is going to be completely boned.
So whatever your reasons for taking up arms, you’d better hope that a lot of your neighbors are taking them up as well. Otherwise the neighbors will be calling the police and giving them your location.
Sarcasm, while awesome, ain’t a rebuttal. If you have specific examples of a “minority” that successfully rose up and is in any way equivalent to the utterly disconnected, disorganized, and completely unsupported individuals described by the phrase “gun owner so unhinged by a gun ban that they will choose to launch a military assault against the local police, the national guard, and innocent civilians”, feel free to present it, because otherwise you’re blowing smoke.
Rephrase that, insofar as you are capapable, without the smear words and we might have a conversation. I know, in advance, that you would rather stick your naughty bits in a sausage grinder than concede I was ever, even once, right about anything.
Who are you again? Sorry, you’re not one of the dozen people here I remember by name.
You misspelled “capable”. Just letting you know. Anybody can misspell a word, I do it myself sometimes. It’s not a crime. But, well, it happened.
Okay, yes, you’re not right about your absurd attempt to claim that a bunch of bozos with more guns than hands to shoot them with could hold a successful revolution. I get that you’re not right. You don’t need to rub my face in it.
Upon re-reading my earlier post I’d like to add that upon further reflection, I melted down all my guns, took the resulting slag and dumped it in a river that I filled in with a backhoe and now I forgot where that river used to be and no one else knows it because it’s in Canada maybe. Bottom line, I am now utterly gunless. Not that I ever wanted to own one. Can’t really remember what guns are exactly.
Other than the US Civil War, how many other civil wars and rebellions involved a country where the military swore allegiance to upholding a Constitution instead of to a person?
Gonna jump in and say the question you asked was answered, even if it isn’t the question you thought you were asking. The US military is a pretty good cross sectional representation of US society and culture. There would without doubt some who would become contentious objectors, some who would support the government whole heartedly and some who would leave, either legally or illegally to oppose the government, thats three different factions right there with differing views and interpretation of both the constitution and their oath to uphold and defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic
Does anyone really believe any significant part of the military would be willing to operate against American citizens on American soil? And I suspect that anything that would provoke the citizens to take up arms would find themselves with the full support of the rank and file members of the military.
The government would pretty much have to have devolved into an authoritarian police state for me to take up arms against it.
But to get to that point, all of the military branches would have to be subverted to support the police state and I can’t see that happening quickly enough to be an issue in my lifetime.