Considering the majority of civilian owned guns, which are obviously of less than comparable sophistication vs those weapons the military has, that “estimation” significance is grossly overstated.
Ok, but I fail to see your point. Can you elaborate?
The military members are also ‘civilians’ to an extent.
Some of the Agency types, maybe not so much.
There are asymmetrical methods to defeat sophisticated hardware and technologies.
” “A rifle behind every blade of grass” ‘ [circlecity, post 4]
“Considering the majority of civilian owned guns, which are obviously of less than comparable sophistication vs those weapons the military has, that “estimation” significance is grossly overstated.” [DaveA37, post 8]
“Ok, but I fail to see your point. Can you elaborate?” [central_va, post 11]
Posts by circlecity and central_va allude to the belief - widely held by American gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment supporters - that the high rate of gun ownership among US citizens will prevent takeover of the country by any military force, foreign or domestic.
DaveA37’s post questions this, arguing that the nature and capabilities of modern military armaments degrade any effectiveness to be found in large masses of civilians bearing very light firearms.
The belief’s more of a conceit. It’s not supported by any historical case. The most succinct summary of available evidence can be found in _Winston’s War: Churchill, 1940-1945_ by Max Hastings (Vintage: 2011; ISBN-10: 0307388719; ISBN-13: 978-0307388711). After examining the various resistance movements in the nations occupied by Nazi Germany during World War Two, author Hastings concluded that they accomplished very little against German units - no matter how important they were in keeping up morale among occupied populations, or reviving national self-respect after the German surrender.
Many Americans attribute success in the American War of Independence to the existence of an armed populace; national defense was based on this “militia are better” notion for many years after 1783. But the concept was invalidated soon after: the War of 1812 came as a rude shock. Something more substantive was needed, beyond townspeople and farmers toting muskets in the ranks of hurriedly-raised militia. Professionalization and better armaments were indispensable. John R Elting’s _Amateurs, To Arms!: A Military History Of The War Of 1812_ (Da Capo, 1995; ISBN-10: 0306806533; ISBN-13: 978-0306806537).
It’s not merely weaponry. A regular military unit will be organized, trained, supplied, cohesive, and motivated. These attributes can improve its changes against a unit - even a larger one - not up to snuff in said areas. Average citizens rarely have the time, resources, or knowledge to reach such a level.