Like I said, I do see the logic, though I'm not as sanguine about you regarding the chances of 'gun owners' vs. the state. The following is a purely hypothetical exercise, and not intended to incite anything against the noble US government, which is very ethical and a force for good in the world.
It's true that government claims that individuals can do nothing against a government force is untrue, given the fact that it got its ass kicked in Afghanistan. At the same time, Afghanistan was a very peripheral territory to the US Empire - much easier to abandon than its heartland, whose tax revenues fund the entire extent of the empire.
Assuming for a moment that there were to be an uprising by gun owners, very deplorable, then it will be scattered. For one, there are many people with different thresholds of what constitutes tyranny, which means the government can just salami-slice them - or rather, crush one group to strike fear into the rest. It would be the response to January 6 but then cubed. And I can see even here, the deterrent effects of January 6, that people fear engaging in any sort of peaceful protest, and claim that e.g. calls to peacefully protest the political process against DJT are 'federal efforts'. That may be wise, but what is the likelihood that such individuals would be persuaded to engage in (very deplorable) violence, especially after any grossly disproportionate fed response to any previous very deplorable violence?
People would rather peacefully perish than take action that risks their person and their property. If you keep your head down, then maybe the regime will leave you in peace, but if you attempt something, you will definitely not be left in peace.
Even those people were persuaded of the desirability of very deplorable actions, and they were not deterred by the government, and they thought it worthy to risk their lives. How many of the 40 million people will be left? And given that, how likely is it that it would be successful?
A very small-scale revolt that is easily crushed would be blown out of proportion, leading to even greater crackdowns on dissent and then on guns as well. Most of those 40 million will obey, as they call themselves law-abiding citizens, the rest will hide their guns and do absolutely nothing.
Like I said, I do see the logic, though I'm not as sanguine about you regarding the chances of 'gun owners' vs. the state. The following is a purely hypothetical exercise, and not intended to incite anything against the noble US government, which is very ethical and a force for good in the world.
It's true that government claims that individuals can do nothing against a government force is untrue, given the fact that it got its ass kicked in Afghanistan. At the same time, Afghanistan was a very peripheral territory to the US Empire - much easier to abandon than its heartland, whose tax revenues fund the entire extent of the empire.
Assuming for a moment that there were to be an uprising by gun owners, very deplorable, then it will be scattered. For one, there are many people with different thresholds of what constitutes tyranny, which means the government can just salami-slice them - or rather, crush one group to strike fear into the rest. It would be the response to January 6 but then cubed. And I can see even here, the deterrent effects of January 6, that people fear engaging in any sort of peaceful protest, and claim that e.g. calls to peacefully protest the political process against DJT are 'federal efforts'. That may be wise, but what is the likelihood that such individuals would be persuaded to engage in (very deplorable) violence, especially after any grossly disproportionate fed response to any previous very deplorable violence?
People would rather peacefully perish than take action that risks their person and their property. If you keep your head down, then maybe the regime will leave you in peace, but if you attempt something, you will definitely not be left in peace.
Even those people were persuaded of the desirability of very deplorable actions, and they were not deterred by the government, and they thought it worthy to risk their lives. How many of the 40 million people will be left? And given that, how likely is it that it would be successful?
A very small-scale revolt that is easily crushed would be blown out of proportion, leading to even greater crackdowns on dissent and then on guns as well. Most of those 40 million will obey, as they call themselves law-abiding citizens, the rest will hide their guns and do absolutely nothing.