3 ms·

This does not quite fit your bill of "successfully using force", but the 2014 Bundy Standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.

This does not quite fit your bill of "successfully using force", but the 2014 Bundy Standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) was an interesting example of armed citizen "militia" facing off against armed federal agents who ultimately backed down. It does not seem like a stretch to assume that a significant part of the BLM's decision calculus involved weighing the cost-benefit analysis of the gun-fight that would likely result from them trying to force the issue. That being said, there are, of course, a bunch of other examples of armed conflicts with the government that do not turn out well for the "citizens" when the government decides to violently pursue its goals (1985 MOVE bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc). But, I guess my point with all of this is that, for better or worse, the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response...

kortex 6y ago
> the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response... This is precisely the intended effect. Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military but for most it is about changing the calculus from "tyrannical takeover of unarmed populace with minimal resistance" to "uh oh, they are fighting back". This results in much more of a cause to rally around, feed into rebel propaganda, win over military members to the "just cause" which of course tips the balance, etc. We saw what only a few hundreds of folks could do when parts of the normal defense are strangely absent. Imagine even a 30% defection.
- abernard1 6y ago
  > Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military If it was ever at that point, the military would not exist in its current form. The "military" is not a monolith that would just suppress a revolt if it was that size and scope that it needed to. The Civil War in the U.S. had almost all of its Confederate soldiers come from the U.S. Army. The current leadership corps in the U.S. military is disproportionately Southern and conservative. They're not going to be going against their countrymen if it came to that, and no one is going to be nuking their own cities.

kortex 6y ago

> the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response... This is precisely the intended effect. Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military but for most it is about changing the calculus from "tyrannical takeover of unarmed populace with minimal resistance" to "uh oh, they are fighting back". This results in much more of a cause to rally around, feed into rebel propaganda, win over military members to the "just cause" which of course tips the balance, etc. We saw what only a few hundreds of folks could do when parts of the normal defense are strangely absent. Imagine even a 30% defection.

abernard1 6y ago
> Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military If it was ever at that point, the military would not exist in its current form. The "military" is not a monolith that would just suppress a revolt if it was that size and scope that it needed to. The Civil War in the U.S. had almost all of its Confederate soldiers come from the U.S. Army. The current leadership corps in the U.S. military is disproportionately Southern and conservative. They're not going to be going against their countrymen if it came to that, and no one is going to be nuking their own cities.