No offense, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. First, one redneck with a gun is not the situation I'm describing. I'm talking about 265 million guns, half of which are owned by 3 percent of the 242 million adults in the US. I'm talking about the guy who can literally arm a squad of guys from his basement. That's the guys I'm talking about. Not the guy with a .50 cal, who by the way probably isn't a redneck in the trailer park because that's a $10,000 gun that shoots $5 rounds. A much better example would be the field of deer rifles that can pierce bullet proof vests with Wal-Mart ammo costing 50 cents a round out of a $400 gun with a $400 mil dot scope. I'm not even an amazing shot, and I know for a fact that I've hit a deer's heart when I was amped up with adrenaline, on the spot for time, unexpecting anything, and the deer was so far away I had to check for antlers in the scope to make sure it wasn't a dog. And there are plenty of 'rednecks' who know this very common ammo can also penetrate body armor. Second, over and over running through history are examples of lesser armed military's and guerilla groups defeating larger and more powerful millitaries. Guerilla tactics, including selected assassinations, IEDs, stick-and-moves, etc. have long been effective. You think the US military doesn't outgun the Taliban? I've spent hours in nasty planes with nasty guns overhead watching and waiting for the Taliban to do something while they just waited for us to leave. Partisans in the Spanish Civil war took out bridges, ISIS gained tanks and anti-aircraft weaponry, took over Iraqi bases and armories. It happened not some far off and long time ago, it happened last year. These guys are already well-armed, they are more knowledgeable than you give them credit for, and they would quickly arm themselves with better equipment. As well, you discount the very real possibility that many of them either are currently, or have in the past, in easy access of military equipment. Perhaps they are in the National Guard in Kentucky where there are huge amounts of surplus tanks, or near Herlong, California where there are thousands of mothballed and ready to go M1A1s. You can't just assume that some General would have the final say over what happens with his base. He is heavily outnumbered and one Colonel in the ranks that takes forces for some rebels can completely change the balance of power. The point is, you can start with a gun. A single bullet in the right/wrong person's hands can change the world.
I love that you think the guns are the limiting factor here. Just like you say with the Taliban, the weapons don't matter, in the end. The tactics do. And who is going to have better tactics, supply lines, equipment, money, support, water supplies, control of the air, control of the electronics in the area, etc? A dude that gave fifteen of his friends his extra AR's and MP10's? Or people who have extensive training, experience in actual wars, and a sworn duty to protect their homeland from insurgent forces bent on destroying the Constitution? The "guns protect me from my gummint" argument is cute, but there is no scenario in which it has the underdog winning. And what, exactly, are they "winning"? They gonna go to DC and dismantle the government? Even when you put a total tit in the Big Chair, they can't accomplish a single thing. This is the core problem with ALL of these movements: They define themselves as AGAINST something, not FOR anything. So once there is nothing to push against... they fall apart. They're all shiny and triumphant when they take over a bird sanctuary in Oregon. But within two days they became the laughingstock of the world. The Bundys, the Michigan Militia, and the others are useful clowns, to allow the police state to show their toys off, and remind the Joe The Plumber why he doesn't rise up against the state in any meaningful way. But ... a force to be reckoned with? Not by any measure.
I may be putting words in yellowoftops mouth here, but I don't think the goal of any anti-government militia is a military 'win' condition. I think the goal would be to force a high level political change when soldiers refuse to raise arms against countrymen with legitimate grievances.there is no scenario in which it has the underdog winning.
I got that. But that assumption is that soldiers would refuse to raise arms against insurgents who were specifically trying to undermine the Constitution, which soldiers are sworn to "...defend it from all enemies, both domestic and foreign..." Which is why we know about the My Lai Massacre, etc: Soldiers obeying their OATH, not their orders. I know a lot of soldiers, and worked with the peacekeeping forces from 44 different nations. They take their oath very seriously.
Or, more to the point, the Austro-Hungarian parliament, who was looking for a reason to attack Serbia, and had been for more than two years. They re-branded Princip as "Serbian military" - which he wasn't, in any way shape or form - which then they used as pretext to attack Serbia, and start the war. The bullet helped. But only because the rest of the machine had been waiting for a starter's pistol for years...
And this is where the difference of opinion comes into play, mostly. Some believe that there is enough dissatisfaction for there to be change, some don't. In the current political climate I cannot in good faith rule out ANYTHING that doesn't go against the laws of physics.But only because the rest of the machine had been waiting for a starter's pistol for years...