gwidomains

I think it naturally depends on the circumstances of the protest and the size of the force.
In U.S. history from inception to present the government has had no problem enslaving, assaulting, brutalizing, moving, torturing and interning ( etc.) citizens all with the help of the military.

No one sits back and says they will do awful things to another human being--let alone a fellow citizen; however, if you can objectify the enemy, define them in harsh uncivilized terms, then anything is possible.

All it takes is watching Japanese citizens interned during WII or the return of black soldiers from WWII full of pride of country or Vietnam Veterans -- and see them brutally treated and degraded by fellow citizens and/or the government. It does not take much for the government to persaude the general population to scapegoat an entire segment of the populace or world (consider muslim Americans presently).

However, consider that before the military would even be necessary, local law enforcement would have already been called in -- given the faith that the majority of Americans have in the system of governance, judicial system and the rule of law -- EXCEPTIONAL circumstances would have to arise for the local law enforcement to be called in and FAIL, and then the national guard, and later the military to be utilized against a domestic disturbance (that refuses to take all of the other amazing avenues of available -- public office, press, courts, clergy, even United Nations and foreign governments).

How long would U.S. soldiers avoid firing on an armed militia that poses a proven direct threat to their well-being, the rule of law, and the democratic way of life in America?

How likely would it be that a militia so willing to disregard the rule of law, democracy and the safety of the public would actually bother to continue to call themselves Americans anyway?

So, yes while anything is possible, armed uprisings are often brutally quelled in developing countries with little thought b/c of the complicity of the government and the military. However, by the time the military would be necessary in the U.S. considerable barriers would have been broken-down, so I kind of find it hard to understand the senarios that have been presented.

That's why non-violent protest is an appeal to the best of humanity, rather than the animalistic instincts of self-preservation.

1.) It is a numbers thing -- if you don't have the numbers and weaponry to support an armed uprising than forget about it. (e.g. Native Americans v. colonial powers, African Slave population in South v. Aristocratic Southern Ante-bellum society, or better comparisons Jim Crow and Anti-war protesters)

2.) Also you have to consider the cause and whether people will actually be sympathetic to the cause both foreign and domestic. e.g. American Revolution etc.

Considering the U.S. has already faced a national election with a disputed outcome decided in a dubious manner without full recounts, revotes etc.(where all that resulted was a lot of hee-hawing and hurt feelings) -- I'm sort of at a loss as to understand the type of scenario that would justify armed uprising in the U.S.