Recent examples of 1st world military coups or coups stopped by the armed populace.

[GGG Gloveking]

And its not like they aren't going to be lead by Ex-military Colonel's, seargent's and some privates, the populace would become very strategic if ever they are warned about Government tyranny.

That's a very good point too. We won't just be masses of idiots, well have genuine military leadership among us.

And I have to imagine a large number of active personnel would vacate their posts if ever tasked with killing American people

[Eff Pandas]

I somewhat surprised how they fail to see that a an army infantry would be beaten by hundred thousands of armed civilians.

An army vs 6x more dipsh^ts with guns without leadership or fractured leadership best case probably just leads to more friendly fire deaths than any other battle in history.

Plus a military is gonna have more damaging weapons than a AR-15. An army's weaponry is gonna be blowing up mfers houses & sh^t. Have mfers stepping on landminds & sh^t.

Would look like a Div I football team vs a Div III football team real quick.

[Thraxox]

An army vs 6x more dipsh^ts with guns without leadership or fractured leadership best case probably just leads to more friendly fire deaths than any other battle in history.

Plus a military is gonna have more damaging weapons than a AR-15. An army's weaponry is gonna be blowing up mfers houses & sh^t. Have mfers stepping on landminds & sh^t.

Would look like a Div I football team vs a Div III football team real quick.

I didn't mention bombing runs, tanks. I was saying military infantry vs american populace, similar to how Hitler rounded up the jews with the infantries.

The populace is gonna be led by Ex-Militaries, deserters, defectors, military patriots, leading small raids in out lying bases and steal tanks and trucks.Tthey are not gonna be just a sitting duck with guns they are going to be an organization.

[Eff Pandas]

I didn't mention bombing runs, tanks. I was saying military infantry vs american populace, similar to how Hitler rounded up the jews with the infantries.

The populace is gonna be led by Ex-Militaries, deserters, defectors, military patriots, leading small raids in out lying bases and steal tanks and trucks.Tthey are not gonna be just a sitting duck with guns they are going to be an organization.

I didn't mention bombing runs or tanks either. I'm talking rpg's & various explosive devices that the average US citizen isn't gonna have in their gun cabinet, but soldiers would have access to.

And I'm talking about the Iraqi army vs Texas like the one cat brought up.

I'll take a trained military over a bunch of nitwits with hunting rifles (probably a good % of the armed citizens) any day of the week. Sure there will be people with experience, but they'll be leading mostly a bunch of Police Academy Steve Guttenberg mfers.

I'd imagine the average citizen isn't even THAT loaded up with rounds to maintain a conflict for very long. You could just wait them out & make them waste bullets.

[BrometheusBob.]

I for one fully believe my AR-15 is suitable for preventing government controlled drone bombs from killing me

And don't worry about tanks either I'll go all Tiananmen Square on them b1tches and then what will they do

[Robbie Barrett]

This is how delusional these gun nut yanks are. They believe Texans would beat the US military. These idiots been watching too many rambo films. Tanks rolling down every street what the **** you going to do with your rifles you dumb ****s?

[Mukuro]

It should be noted that coups often take place to preserve democracy or overthrow corrupt/dangerous leaders. This is also far more likely to be the case in modern times in more developed nations such as in the first world. A more fitting question would be to ask for examples of armed populations resisting totalitarian regimes. This gets you closer to the matter at hand and makes it easier to take your understanding of the world seriously.

Anyways, that aside...

I know this is beyond your mental capacity, so I will simplify it as best I can. There is a deterrent effect when it comes to force. By the virtue of having force, one often does not have to use it for it to affect how people treat them.

To show you the flaws in your logic, a more extreme example is nuclear weaponry. Your form of logic would assert that because we have not used nuclear weapons in war since the end of WW2, that they have had no impact geopolitical strategies and war in that span of time. That should be obviously stupid, even to you. War and politics have been shaped by the mere existence of nuclear weapons over the last few decades. You have no understanding of psychology at all if you don't understand this concept.

As for the capacity of armed citizenry to even theoretically resist first world military prowess, perhaps you should take a look at some of the third world theaters the US military has operated in and the fierce resistance mounted by the poorly equipped, malnourished, uneducated populations there. I can give you some examples of that and even explain why their resistances were effective if you'd like.

I can also give you some examples of oppressive totalitarian regimes disarming their populaces in order to exert complete control over, and in some cases commit war crimes against them. Why do you think they disarm them first?

[Vlad_]

It should be noted that coups often take place to preserve democracy or overthrow corrupt/dangerous leaders. This is also far more likely to be the case in modern times in more developed nations such as in the first world. A more fitting question would be to ask for examples of armed populations resisting totalitarian regimes. This gets you closer to the matter at hand and makes it easier to take your understanding of the world seriously.

Anyways, that aside...

I know this is beyond your mental capacity, so I will simplify it as best I can. There is a deterrent effect when it comes to force. By the virtue of having force, one often does not have to use it for it to affect how people treat them.

To show you the flaws in your logic, a more extreme example is nuclear weaponry. Your form of logic would assert that because we have not used nuclear weapons in war since the end of WW2, that they have had no impact geopolitical strategies and war in that span of time. That should be obviously stupid, even to you. War and politics have been shaped by the mere existence of nuclear weapons over the last few decades. You have no understanding of psychology at all if you don't understand this concept.

As for the capacity of armed citizenry to even theoretically resist first world military prowess, perhaps you should take a look at some of the third world theaters the US military has operated in and the fierce resistance mounted by the poorly equipped, malnourished, uneducated populations there. I can give you some examples of that and even explain why their resistances were effective if you'd like.

I can also give you some examples of oppressive totalitarian regimes disarming their populaces in order to exert complete control over, and in some cases commit war crimes against them. Why do you think they disarm them first?

Great post. Well detailed. You put it in better words than I could.

[Chief2ndzOnly!]

The most fundamental thing to establish before really diving off into a subject of this nature is what is the ROE? That makes all the difference in the world when engaging an opposing force. Ijsd.

[DeadLikeMe]

You're crazy if you think the US Military would engage in warfare against the general population. At least half would immediately defect. We're talking generals, bases, you name it. They're not going to fight their own families for globalism and ****holer rights.