Can the armed citizens overthrow the tyrany government in modern times?

[crazyorc]

I just finish looking through the thread about whether to ban the firearm or not. Some guys say firearm can help them defend themselves from the repression from the government. But i am doubt whether it makes sense in modern times when the government has much more powerful military than any times before.

Try to imagine, the militia armed with guns VS official army armed with tanks and fighters.

[Barry Goldwater]

Probably not, but we can go down looking like badasses

Seriously though, it largely depends on how much popular support we have, how we fight and the reaction of the international community (if they react at all).

[NogaOsibisa]

Can the armed citizens overthrow the tyrany government?

This would be an argument against professional armies. Beside, there are ways to stop tanks for citizens even if they do not drive tanks.

[Tiwaz]

This would be an argument against professional armies. Beside, there are ways to stop tanks for citizens even if they do not drive tanks.

Throw their bodies at the tracks in faint hope of dislodging them?

Let's be honest. Citizen revolt without military support has no chance in hell to succeed in modern world.

Today, more than ever before, army decides who is the leader. If army is behind government, then government can do anything it pleases. Militiamen can today only be nuisance to army, and bring down rather brutal retribution from military.

Rifles vs gunships, tanks and artillery is clear case.

Sorry guys, age of minutemen being credible threat to army are long gone.

[NogaOsibisa]

Well, this*
or that:



*non-violent measures

[Mikelus Trento]

Throw their bodies at the tracks in faint hope of dislodging them?

Let's be honest. Citizen revolt without military support has no chance in hell to succeed in modern world.

Today, more than ever before, army decides who is the leader. If army is behind government, then government can do anything it pleases. Militiamen can today only be nuisance to army, and bring down rather brutal retribution from military.

Rifles vs gunships, tanks and artillery is clear case.

Sorry guys, age of minutemen being credible threat to army are long gone.

Agree totally, which therefore makes the arguement for allowing private ownership of guns moot. The military is either with the citizenry or not, and if not, no chance of success. None.

[IrishHitman]

Throw their bodies at the tracks in faint hope of dislodging them?

Let's be honest. Citizen revolt without military support has no chance in hell to succeed in modern world.

Today, more than ever before, army decides who is the leader. If army is behind government, then government can do anything it pleases. Militiamen can today only be nuisance to army, and bring down rather brutal retribution from military.

Rifles vs gunships, tanks and artillery is clear case.

Sorry guys, age of minutemen being credible threat to army are long gone.

Perhaps you need to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_Warfare

[Indiana_Jones]

Throw their bodies at the tracks in faint hope of dislodging them?

Let's be honest. Citizen revolt without military support has no chance in hell to succeed in modern world.

Today, more than ever before, army decides who is the leader. If army is behind government, then government can do anything it pleases. Militiamen can today only be nuisance to army, and bring down rather brutal retribution from military.

Rifles vs gunships, tanks and artillery is clear case.

Sorry guys, age of minutemen being credible threat to army are long gone.

Guess you havn't seen 'Red Dawn'!

[Pious Agnost]

Is any government whose citizens can afford to arm themselves gonna deploy tanks and fighters within their own country? Only if they want to be trade-sanctioned back to the stone-age

[crazyorc]

Is any government whose citizens can afford to arm themselves gonna deploy tanks and fighters within their own country? Only if they want to be trade-sanctioned back to the stone-age

CCP did. But it is the closest trade parter of US today.

[Pious Agnost]

CCP did. But it is the closest trade parter of US today.

I meant Western governments, that's what I was implying by citizens who can arm themselves
I bet if, say, Spain fell to a cou'p and became a brutal Dictatorship, supposing no-one invaded, they would be sanctioned to hell and back

[NogaOsibisa]

Members of armed services are also citizens.

I do not think people should own this kind of things as private persons.

[Plutarch]

I would like to think so. It is a notion that one cannot help but consider, especially when you look at our Declaration of Independence. I think that if enough of the public was outraged, that the federal government would cave in to populist demand rather than face revolution or rebellion.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson - My favorite (albeit well-known) quote concerning the matter.

Obviously were not talking about militia men vs the federal government. But someone has to fight in the army. They are US citizens. Our military isn't made up of factions or loyalties to one General or another. The people are loyal to the country alone, and if that country fails to provide for them...What is to stop them from leaving the military? It may seem far fetched yes. But what can tanks or gunships do with no one to man them?

[Tiwaz]

I would like to think so. It is a notion that one cannot help but consider, especially when you look at our Declaration of Independence. I think that if enough of the public was outraged, that the federal government would cave in to populist demand rather than face revolution or rebellion.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson - My favorite (albeit well-known) quote concerning the matter.

Obviously were not talking about militia men vs the federal government. But someone has to fight in the army. They are US citizens. Our military isn't made up of factions or loyalties to one General or another. The people are loyal to the country alone, and if that country fails to provide for them...What is to stop them from leaving the military? It may seem far fetched yes. But what can tanks or gunships do with no one to man them?

So in essence you speak of situation where army does NOT support government.

Again, my point stands. The side where army is, wins by default. Because if army does not support government, then government falls.

Unless you have factions in army which turn it into civil war.

[Plutarch]

So in essence you speak of situation where army does NOT support government.

Again, my point stands. The side where army is, wins by default. Because if army does not support government, then government falls.

Unless you have factions in army which turn it into civil war.

Since this is all so far fetched....Imagine, if you will, that people leave the Federal Military for their State "National Guard." What type of situation does this provide for?

[NogaOsibisa]

I am against professional armies. To kill people can't be a profession. It can be a citizen's duty however should it be necessary.

[VALIS]

No. Citizens with little handguns vs Abrams & F22's = Bad bad loss for the citizens.

The only way to force a revolution in the country is to upset the military elite and the soldiers.

[crazyorc]

Well, is RPG got easily in US?

[Plutarch]

Well, is RPG got easily in US?

....ebay?

[NogaOsibisa]

Well, is RPG got easily in US?

Hopefully, it does not.