Would a US civilian militia stand any chance against their own federal forces and army?

Question

As I understand it, the US 'right to bear arms' revolves around the safeguard of the citizens being able to form a militia and oust a tyranical government. 200 years ago this may have been possible but today is it possible? I know that guerrilla warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Northern Ireland etc can make life difficult for the 'superior' force, but that is different from removing ones own government.

By the way I'm English. I'm just trying to understand this US 'right to bear arms' which seems to me to be an outdated justification for just about anyone to own a gun because they might one day need to form a militia to overthrow a tyranical government.

My personal view is that if you really feel the need to fire weapons then you should join the armed forces. Trust me once there, the novelty of using automatic weapons will soon wear pretty thin.

Answer 1

No, the only chance it would work is if the militia had enough sympathy from the Federal forces and they refused to fight their own citizens. God help us all if we ever deteriorate to that end.

Answer 2

A citizens' militia might well be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Its just a matter of recruitment really. Once the militia outsizes the armed forces and the National Guard - there's every chance it may succeed in ousting bad government.

Problems arise however because who is to say which government is tyrannical? What you might be looking at is yet another civil war. There would be those who oppose as well as those who support.

From the comfort of the 18th century, I'd say that the idea of a citizens militia taking on a powerful government and its armed forces looks pretty hopeless.

However, since you have the right, as I understand it, to form a militia and bear arms - why not use that right?

Ho-hum!

We have no such right here in UK which is a pity really because I can think of several governments in my lifetime which I surely would have liked to literally KILL!

Answer 3

If the militias are well armed and have a good regular supply of weapons and ammunition then i don't see why not. Explosives are relatively easy to make and use once youhave them then you are talking about a relatively level playing field. The winners would be those who have the majority support of the people as in any guerilla war. If the guerilla war was unpopular then the guerilla would lose. The other thing is that the govt forces are going to be as familiar with the terain as the guerilla forces and that takes away from the guerilla advantage. It would be a tight call but so long as the guerillas never allow themselves to be drawn into a direct battlefield situation then they stand a chance.

Answer 4

Interesting question! I think this would depend a bit upon what section of the community the civilian militia came from. History indicates that the most successful guerrilla armies are formed from peasant farmers. So I guess the US feds should be careful not piss off the residents of Virginia and Kentucky too badly.

Answer 5

I don't think this argument works anymore. For the civilian militia to stand any chance whatsoever in a fight against a tyrannical US government, then the right to bear arms would have to extend to the rights to own and run heavy military equipment (tanks, aircraft, etc.).

What's the use of a few gun nuts with some assault rifles against a platoon of M1A1's?

Answer 6

They would have a reasonable chance of winning a prolonged guerilla war but if they tried to fight a set-piece battle they would be annihilated. The federal forces and regular army would have an overwhelming advantage in heavy weapons and airpower which would devastate a militia type army.

Answer 7

What do you say we kill the mothers of each soldier first?
See we would have too many hostages. Good luck with your plan though.
--
You're totally confused as to why Americans own guns.
It has nothing to do with defending ourselves from the government. It has to do with protecting ourselves from each other. Maybe you should subscribe to the New York Post.
Americans are confused as to why you dont own guns.
You live in a society of hidden and not so hidden cameras. That's a far worse fate than living with the ability to protect your family.
.

Answer 8

I used to think no, but we are a heavily armed civilian population who faniticaly values its freedom. I think the american military would have the hardest fight of its entire history if it wanted to oppress this society. Look how much trouble we're having in Iraq. That is a much smaller country than this one with a much smaller population.

Answer 9

well it would be difficult but not impossible it would be a tactical battle such as using the terrain for camfoulage and hit and run tactics.I suppose a military background with citizens would give them an advantage and small cells causing diversions would help in the survival of the citizens.I wouldnt personally try it as the chances of success are so remote.

Answer 10

i wouldn't worry too much, give them enough time and the American armed forces would end up killing themselves with friendly fire. what a concept, you find that you've been shot in the knee and would happily give it a rub, only to find that you're arm has been blown off and the only consolation you have is knowing that your friends did it. would you find alongside them? it's your choice.