Guns are over. It's 1s and 0s and microbes now.

That said, economic fuckery > "armed conflict."

Onlyif some right wing nut factions try to stage some kind of uprising.

Not an open armed conflict. The government has already fractured and divided us so much that any group that tries to mobilize will not have significant numbers. The posse comentatus, the various white supremacist and for that matter all supremacist groups have been advocating armed struggle for decades, to no avail. This government has learned from the Nazis, the russians under stalin, the imperialist japanese and many others on how to keep the populaces under control and implemented those lessons. We are too "comfortable" on the whole as a nation and too fractured to ever take up arms against this government.

Lastly, the military of the United States is the most powerful this world has ever seen. It is also very loyal to the Government. Kent state comes to mind as well as the WATTS riots. The military if called out would slaughter the armed citizens and would do so legally. So, no.

Have to figure it would be a losing battle for them forcing people in the military to take control over the population would be a non sequitur too many people would opto help their families rather than point a weapon at them.

It has happened. There are numerous examples of the US government repressing civil liberties by force. The union movement is a perfect example.

I'm so sick of hearing this as an argument for gun ownership. Because your AR-15 is totally going to protect you from an entity that can pinpoint you from an AC-130 30,000 feet up and turn you and your whole house into a crater.

I don't think the government, as composed of generally rational people in most of the departments, military, justice, and most the other offices are the problem. It is the corruption of elected officals and the unelected cabinet who are attempting to destroy the government and loot the treasury who are the problem. They are corrupt because they take bribes from social organizations seeking to divide the American people and make them too weak to change the status quo and a network of international oligarichs who are literally stealing money from the future by running up the deficit with probably uneeded and unaccounted for military and security spending. Headline today - deficit spending in Feb 2018 the highest since 2012 ... and climbing.

With Der Orange Fuhrer in the W.H..I think there is a chance..he has a fetish for people like Putin and Peng and, in an odd twist, Kim of No.Korea.
I agree there wouldn't be a shot fired..until the people were on their knees and starving.

If you want the gun nuts' point of view, they also cite the possibility of civil chaos and defense against rogue citizenry.

I agree with your theory of control via money and armed conflict with the government is a pipe dream

According to the framers of the constitution, the reason for the second amendment was to fight our government in case it became too tyrannical. However, it is a tough debate, since back then they didn't know we would advance so much in technology that we would have the weapons we have today. Moreover, I personally do not think that an armed conflict with the government is a real possibility knowing that they have the most powerful military in the world on their corner. But, the second amendment does create security issues amongs the citizens of this country and there should be some form of regulation. One political reason why I think politicians should push towards gun control is because the baby boomers generation is decreasing, which leads, more importantly without leaving Gen Xers out of this, millenials and new generation of kids behind the millenials who are growing in a society and era in the United States of mass shootings to create a change in policy and voting. We have a wave of new voters coming who are very much for gun control and we may see big changes in this country. So if politicians want to keep their seats, they should start providing stricter gun laws.

With my government? No. We in the UK prefer to reserve military force for our foreign enemies.

In the USA, the entire argument is stupid. The civilian populace is armed with pseudo-assault rifles, handguns and the odd shotgun. A ruthless military is armed with some of the finest fighter jets in the world, drones, tanks, AFVs and around two million highly trained personnel. The civiliam populace would lose. Badly.

In addition, a ruthless bastard in government who actually wanted to enforce tyranny would be ousted... by the military.

I agree with you. I think that if a confrontation was to occur on a large scale that it would come mostly without a physical fight.

No one has yet mentioned the constant surveillance we are under. How to organize a standing militia when the phones, email, twitter and probably our mail are under constant surveillance. Not to mention security cameras strategically placed anywhere big enough to fill a minivan with these militants.

Darn, now I am on the radar.

Not at this time but with a continued administration like trumpie yes. People would dislodge any idiot like him. I think in his case the military would be on our side.

It seems unlikely. We are such a diverse society it would be impossible to get enough people to agree to an armed insurrection. Even the 30% that follow Agent Orange wouldn't be enough, even if they all went for it, which of course they wouldn't. Our diversity is our strength. When our country swings too far left or right, the people pull us back toward the center. Our government is huge and just as diverse, making it impossible to succumb to a dictator. I don't trust any government, but given the fact that human beings are so terribly flawed, someone has to be in charge. I could be wrong.

This is perhaps one of the most unreasonable arguments against gun laws—that the government could ‘take advantage’ of its unarmed citizens to ‘move against them’ and that the only thing protecting our freedoms from such abuse is our right to bear arms. Bollocks!

The case of Nazi Germany is sometimes used, without any recognition of history. Namely, that Germans voted for Hitler and his expanded powers freely, and without Nazi guns held to their heads. Is there any doubt that, no matter how large one’s personal armory, the government will always have more? How stupidly arrogant is such a concept as this: the only thing keeping the government from raiding my property is my ownership of guns!

We had armed conflict with government in Northern Ireland - Scary stuff I had a massive gun pointed in my car window at me, held by a spotty 16 year old kid after The IRA tossed a bomb into Army barracks and the hard borders were awful - So many guns.

Well if there is a Puerto Rican Uprising.... Yeah, I see that possibility... it is the only way of obtaining Freedom. Thank You for your Question WitchieMom.

The govt has a standing army, navy and,
Air. Are you kidding?

Orwell was wrong, Huxley was right.

They don't have to take what they already have.

Get back on your phone and pay your bills.

Kent State

How? That's easy. Have the government try to disarm the populace and take away citizens' guns. You'd have a helluva fight on your hands.

Don't assume that the U.S. military is no match for an armed U.S. citizen uprising. Our military is strong but still can't control Afghanistan after all these years. Korea was a draw. We lost in Vietnam. Add to that the fact that it's unlikely that the military would have much appetite for firing on its own people. Many in the military would desert and help their families instead. Plus, remember it is the pledge of every soldier, sailor, or other fighting individual to defend the Constitution, not the government.

Citizens throughout history have tolerated much tyranny before rebelling with force. Superior firepower doesn't help much when the opponent is using guerilla tactics, as we have learned time and time again in other conflicts around the planet. When one does not have a well-defined enemy, it makes it a nearly impossible task to win.

If it ever does become a real possibility it will not be because citizens have been stockpiling weapons. If anyone ever watched "V" in 1983 (and I think it was re-made later) you plainly see that we get the weapons to fight back directly from our oppressors as we fight them. This is the most common sense way of fighting tyranny either from outer space or from your government.

The people that they are not able to controll, they put in jail for as long as possible for cirmes they get fined for in most other countries, but putting them in privately owned jails, because that is profitable. Is cheap for the government and profitable for the shareholders of the jail, as the inmates are doing a slaves job, making money for the jail company.