If 8.1 billion people marched on a government, even with a full array of advanced and nuclear weapons in their arsenal, would they still definitely lose? What about one billion? A hundred million? Ten million? Where do you think the line is?
Caveat: The government does want to be able to live on earth again within their lifetimes, but can spend up to a year in bunkers, and the military doesn’t revolt- given that nuclear weapons can be deployed by one person, the worst option doesn’t even really require the military’s cooperation.
1 man.
With a particular set of skills…
Armchair general here who is bad at strategy games. Please take with a grain of salt.
The US sent advanced armies at several agricultural societies and still got their asses handed to them. I can imagine that in a domestic setting, the death toll will be high, but that the civilians eventually win. Also, I wonder whether the military would want to fight their own people. Then again, ICE is a thing as well.
ICE is a thing because bullies love when people don’t fight back. The moment their lives are on the lines they reveal themselves as the cowards they have always been.
The populace will eventually win a war of attrition if we stipulate that the world has to be livable afterwards, so you can’t just agent orange the globe.
I’m just wondering if there is a critical mass for a mob, basically, at which point it overpowers even the US military. I think it’s somewhere in the millions or tens of millions, but I have no idea how to narrow it down more.
There is no amount of civilians that beat the US military. You could gather 100% of the “ive got guns to fight the government” crowd, and they wouldnt do shit against tanks, helicopters, and jets… a mob is going to die unless there is an insurrection in the ranks of the people who control the equipment.
With the world being livable afterwards?
I dunno man, maybe marching at the military isn’t the way to go, you’d get a lot more bang for your buck dealing with the sources of the problem directly
It depends.
Are the people actually part of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state? Or had the government spent the last century reframing that right as “any idiot can own a lethal weapon without training”, and as a result the people are a disorganised and easily-suppressible rabble?
It’s worth noting that at the time of writing, the words “well-regulated militia” referred to all fighting age men of sound mind. It wasn’t a thing to join or train for.
That’s half right…
Militias were always things that you joined and they had a chain of command. Just because they were volunteer forces, it doesn’t mean that they weren’t an organisation. The Peterloo Massacre (1819) was conducted by the local militia. They were all volunteers, but they operated as a paramilitary group.
“Well-regulated militia” literally meant what it sounds like today - a well-regulated volunteer armed force.
The amendment is saying that the government shall not prevent people from joining well-regulated armed militias. Which admittedly sounds terrifying to modern ears but, historically, armed militias helped keep the peace in the days before police forces.
No, it’s completely right. At the time of writing, it did literally mean all able men of fighting age. This was determined by the supreme court in 2008. That’s not to say there weren’t specific militia organizations, but it’s not what the amendment is specifically referring to.
I’ll admit, I didn’t know the Supreme Court had said that.
It’s an insane interpretation - and I see that many justices said so at the time.
I guess whether or not the writers of the amendment actually meant every able-bodied man when they wrote “well-regulated militia”, or whether they meant a militia, is impossible to know for sure.
But to say that the word meant something different at the time is patently untrue. Around the English speaking world at that time, local militias - with that specific word used - were used to keep order. It was a common word for an actual thing people would have been familiar with.
Certainly as you approach 8 billion, they’re more disorganized, but they’re not ever an actual militia, more just a horde of people all trying to help each other dismantle any relevant infrastructure and kill/disable any soldiers sent to suppress them. No training, but absolute solidarity.
They were poking fun at the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.
I know, but it’s still a legitimate question, so I answered it.
Fair enough. I just know not every English speaker is from the US and might not be familiar with the US constitution.
Just start with all of them. Restrictions will follow naturally along the way.