That’s a complete fallacy of the “weapons-of-war” NRA defense. If there was a military coup in this country, the military would destroy these rogue cowboys in one flash.
Just imagine, a group of several hundred men that didn't even have guns were almost able to overthrow democracy as we know it on January the 6th. It seems like people with small arms and improvised explosives and simple booby traps have been giving the US military hell for basically every war they've ever been in. Afghanistan, Vietnam.... Why do you think gorilla warfare would be any different here?
The militia in Finland using their own personal firearms stopped the Communist takeover after WWI. These local "White Guards" were also able to stop the Red Army in its tracks when it launched a massive invasion of Finland as WWII began during the period of the Hitler/Stalin Pact. Professional armies have always found it difficult to deal with motivated irregular forces. There are many examples including the battles of Lexington, Concord, 'Bunker Hill' and Isandlwana: "The British and colonial troops were armed with the modern[16] Martini–Henry breechloading rifle and two 7-pounder mountain guns deployed as field guns,[17][18] as well as a Hale rocket battery. Despite a vast disadvantage in weapons technology,[19] the Zulus ultimately overwhelmed[20] the British, killing over 1,300 troops, including all those out on the forward firing line. The Zulu army suffered anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 killed.[21][22] The battle was a decisive victory for the Zulus and caused the defeat of the first British invasion of Zululand.[23] The British Army had suffered its worst defeat against an indigenous foe with vastly inferior military technology." Wikip
"Regular troops alone are equal to the exigencies of modern war, as well for defense as for offense.... No militia will ever acquire the habits necessary to resist regular force.... The Firmness requisite for the real business of fighting is only to be attained by a constant course of discipline and service. I have never been yet been witness to a single instance that would justify a different opinion." - George Washington
And yet it was a ragtag group of militiamen known as the Continental army that defeated the British. The Red Coats cried and complained because the militia man didn't fight in normal military formation, but adopted gorilla tactics such as sniping at the enemy from concealment. But what were they going to do? Stand there and die? Lol
The American militia defeated the British regulars in early battles and would have destroyed the British force in Boston if they had not run out of ammunition. "Victory at Bunker Hill came at a terrible price for the British, with nearly half of the 2,200 Redcoats who entered the battle killed or wounded in just two hours of fighting. The patriots sustained over 400 casualties. “The loss we have sustained is greater than we can bear,” General Thomas Gage. "The casualty count was the highest suffered by the British in any single encounter during the entire war.[79] General Clinton echoed Pyrrhus of Epirus, remarking in his diary that "A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America."[11] British dead and wounded included 100 commissioned officers, a significant portion of the British officer corps in America.[80] Much of General Howe's field staff was among the casualties.[81]" Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bunker_Hill The British military dominated the Americans under Washington's command until he was able to "surprise" the Hessians at Trenton.
When we start fighting with muskets again, we’ll keep that in mind. In the meantime your entire militia would be wiped out with one artillery shell or grenade.
The British had grenades and explosive shells during the American Revolution. Much later a far more powerful British army was routed by a force of tribal warriors with spears. "The British and colonial troops were armed with the modern[16] Martini–Henry breechloading rifle and two 7-pounder mountain guns deployed as field guns,[17][18] as well as a Hale rocket battery. Despite a vast disadvantage in weapons technology,[19] the Zulus ultimately overwhelmed[20] the British, killing over 1,300 troops, including all those out on the forward firing line. The Zulu army suffered anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 killed.[21][22] The battle was a decisive victory for the Zulus and caused the defeat of the first British invasion of Zululand.[23] The British Army had suffered its worst defeat against an indigenous foe with vastly inferior military technology." Wikip Militia can be very effective against regulars, but when it comes to overthrowing governments the professional military is by far the greater threat.
you are projecting your cultural disgust of American gun owners that prevents you from having a valid understanding of this issue
Yeah but take it from an Aussie - the Brits also has a long history of idiot generals with antiquated ideas in relation to strategy
I studied these Zulu wars under Leonard Thompson (look him up-he wrote the Oxford history of South Africa). the reason why the British were crushed at Islandlwana was due to several failures including the fact that British ammo boxes required a special key to open and the soldiers were only give a few rounds. NCOs who controlled these keys would not give ammo to soldiers not directly under them and that was a main reason why the Brits were overrun even though they killed as many or more Zulus than they lost (one Welsh NCO armed with a revolver and saber was found dead from multiple assegai stab wounds-surrounded by approximately 26 dead Zulu=several of which were shot with his revolver, and many more decapitated or dismembered by the saber. when the Zulu impis attacked the hospital encampment at Rorke's drift, LT Chard made sure that the ample supplies of ammunition were well distributed to the 140 or so regulars defending the position. meal bags were arranged to create a killing funnel were the british-in three lines of approximately 40 men each unleashed a concentrated killing wall of rifle fire. On top of that-the British rifle with its long bayonet, gave a soldier an advantage in length over the Zulu assegai. British soldiers were the best bayonet fighters in the world and one on one, a zulu warrior stood little chance against a british regular using a Martini-Henry with a bayonet-even an unloaded one. The Brits lost less than 17 men, the Zulu suffered over 300 kill and twice as many wounded-most of which ultimately died
A bunch of hardscrabble pioneers defeated the world's best army at that time. So don't tell me small arms can't give the military hell
Washington's Continental Army was transformed into a professional military force by the late 1770s. This put them in a much better position to defeat the British. " 'They went from a ragtag collection of militias to a professional force,' says Larrie Ferreiro, whose recent book, Brothers at Arms, tells the story of foreign support for the American Revolution. Ferreiro considers von Steuben the most important of all the volunteers from overseas who flocked to America to join the Revolution. '[It was] Steuben’s ability to bring this army the kind of training and understanding of tactics that made them able to stand toe to toe with the British,' he says." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/baron-von-steuben-180963048/ In addition to the training that this German nobleman provided, France and Spain provided hundreds of thousands of arms. "A growing number of American manufacturers produced weapons on government contracts, as the domestic arms industry expanded to try to meet the demand, but they could not sustain the American troops through a long conflict. Success on the battlefield ultimately depended on the hundreds of thousands of arms supplied by France and Spain. Shipments of arms and ammunition from France began arriving in 1776 and continued for the rest of the war." https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/exhibition/a-revolution-in-arms It seems that the American rebels were very dependent on foreign aid during their war to gain independence from Britain. So be skeptical about oversimplified narratives of ordinary, untrained people using their guns to defeat professional militaries.
I guess you've never heard of Harpers ferry? That's only one of the colonial armories where countless guns were produced by Americans. In fact the history of American firearms manufacturing is quite a fascinating topic
