Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why people are so convinced, were this to happen, a good portion of the military wouldn't side with the people?

Realistically, there would be a good chunk of the military that would defect.

Of course, its also possible that this tyrannical government has spent several years grooming the military to remain loyal to the state in the event of a rebellion. Ensuring its only filled with the most loyal soldiers.

But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anyone who has the cash to purchase an artillery piece is going to have the foresight to ensure they don't accidentally hit something they shouldn't.

Just like people who have the cash to purchase cars that cost more than artillery have the foresight to ensure they don't accidentally wreck it and hurt others?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why people are so convinced, were this to happen, a good portion of the military wouldn't side with the people?

Realistically, there would be a good chunk of the military that would defect.

Of course, its also possible that this tyrannical government has spent several years grooming the military to remain loyal to the state in the event of a rebellion. Ensuring its only filled with the most loyal soldiers.

But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.

If there was a lawful constitutional change to the 2nd resulting in an uprising and a good chunk of the military decided to defect and ignore their oaths, then they should be shot on sight and we should feel sorry for letting those idiots enlist.

That's not a fair assessment, d-usa. A vehicle is handled completelely different by its purchaser than an artillery piece. They're in two completely different categories; why would you even seek to compare them?

Edit: Damn autocorrect.

 The Airman wrote:
That's not a fair assessment, d-usa. A vehicle is handled completelely different by its purchaser than an artillery piece. They're in two completely different categories; why would you even seek to compare them?

Edit: Damn autocorrect.

Because "they spend a lot of money, so they are going to use it well" is a stupid argument.

 d-usa wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
That's not a fair assessment, d-usa. A vehicle is handled completelely different by its purchaser than an artillery piece. They're in two completely different categories; why would you even seek to compare them?

Edit: Damn autocorrect.

Because "they spend a lot of money, so they are going to use it well" is a stupid argument.

You can borrow money to buy a car. You probably can't to buy an artillery piece.

Which means it was your own personal money that you had to spend on it. Which means you're reasonably in control of your finances. Which is a sign of a stable individual. Which means you're not the type of person who would make a mistake as huge as miscalculating the trajectory of an artillery shell or being stupid enough to fire one in a location where it has any chance of hitting something it shouldn't.

Its a completely wrong comparison.

Got any sort if facts to base your allegations on, or are you just sad that your argument has no basis on reality?

"They spend money so they won't screw up" is an argument that makes zero sense considering that we see people who spend money on things constantly screw up with those things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hell. People who spend cold hard cash on guns manage to have negligent discharges every single day, responsible and stable people with responsible and stable lives. Justin Bieber spends cold hard cash on all kinds of stupid crap and doesn't have to use credit, but I would imagine that he alone ruins your entire argument of "spend money, be responsible".

We're not talking an amount of money that just anyone has. We're talking easily half a million or more. Thats not something anyone can just plunk down.

I don't have anything yet. But I'll try and find something.


Edit: here we go.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309632/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24103823

The higher your socioeconomic status, the less likely you are to have a traffic accident. This indirectly shows that people have better judgement if they have money. its not necessarily true, but we can definitely make some conjecture.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Realistically, there would be a good chunk of the military that would defect.

That is impossible to say with any certainty, so just stop saying it.

Of course, its also possible that this tyrannical government has spent several years grooming the military to remain loyal to the state in the event of a rebellion. Ensuring its only filled with the most loyal soldiers.

How are you to say that the service members currently serving aren't loyal to the government right now? I know it's common to think that most service members are "on your side," but if you really took up arms against the government even with an accusation of "tyranny," it would be their duty to defend it... you know, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.

No, you really couldn't. It is a fantasy. A rag tag band of "militia" wouldn't stand a chance against the military, no matter how much MOLLE gear and AR-15s you had... the real world isn't like Red Dawn.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Realistically, there would be a good chunk of the military that would defect.

That is impossible to say with any certainty, so just stop saying it.

Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.

It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.

Of course, its also possible that this tyrannical government has spent several years grooming the military to remain loyal to the state in the event of a rebellion. Ensuring its only filled with the most loyal soldiers.

How are you to say that the service members currently serving aren't loyal to the government right now? I know it's common to think that most service members are "on your side," but if you really took up arms against the government even with an accusation of "tyranny," it would be their duty to defend it... you know, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.

No, you really couldn't. It is a fantasy. A rag tag band of "militia" wouldn't stand a chance against the military, no matter how much MOLLE gear and AR-15s you had... the real world isn't like Red Dawn.

Real world revolutions and conflicts say you are wrong.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have had remarkable success resisting the US military with no tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc...

The Viet Cong did a pretty good job of it too.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anyone who has the cash to purchase an artillery piece is going to have the foresight to ensure they don't accidentally hit something they shouldn't.

Only because currently the price to own and operate artillery is artificially limited by the extreme scarcity of legal guns and ammunition, and the mountain of paperwork and licenses you'd have to get to use them. If you remove those regulations the price goes down.

They're also quite useless against an insurgency that blends into the civilian population.

Why are you assuming that the civilian population is on the revolution's side?

 Peregrine wrote:


Why are you assuming that the civilian population is on the revolution's side?

Not all of them necessarily. But a chunk of them do, if they didn't there wouldn't be a revolution in the first place. That should be painfully obvious.

The American Revolution succeeded with maybe 20% of the population on its side.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can borrow money to buy a car. You probably can't to buy an artillery piece.

Why not? You can borrow money to buy all kinds of non-essential things. I don't see why you assume that no bank would offer a loan to buy artillery, assuming that the potential buyer's credit is in good shape and the market value of the weapon they're buying is sufficient for the bank to recover their money if the buyer can't pay it back.

Which means it was your own personal money that you had to spend on it. Which means you're reasonably in control of your finances. Which is a sign of a stable individual. Which means you're not the type of person who would make a mistake as huge as miscalculating the trajectory of an artillery shell or being stupid enough to fire one in a location where it has any chance of hitting something it shouldn't.

History disagrees with you about this assumption. Ex-military aircraft have always been expensive, even in the good old days when there were a lot more of them available to buy. And yet the FAA had to step in and impose strict rules about flying them because a lot of people with more money than sense were buying them and getting into fatal accidents (and only some of them were limited to killing the idiot pilot). It turns out that people with lots of money can still make mistakes like trying to take a P-51 out for a test flight without realizing that quickly giving it full throttle on an aborted landing (standard procedure in most other aircraft) will flip the plane on its back and kill you.

The revolution will succeed because people who spend money on stuff are automatically responsible and won't feth it up and the military will join the revolutionaries because civilian families will join the revolutionaries who will be successful in a domestic insurgency against the largest military complex on the planet because of reasons.

This thread had reached Palin levels of non-evidence based hypothetical outcomes.

I did post some evidence that people with more education(and education is positively linked to being wealthier) are less prone to accidents, which are caused by lapses in judgement.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.

Then why does it matter if random civilians have guns? If half the military defects and takes their weapons with them then a few more AR-15s isn't contributing very much. Civilian weapons only matter in a case where the military doesn't defect and the rebellion doesn't have that easy option for getting weapons.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have had remarkable success resisting the US military with no tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc...

The Viet Cong did a pretty good job of it too.

Except there's one key difference: they did it in wars against an occupying power with little incentive to be there, not their own government. It's much easier to win a war when all you have to do is convince the enemy that the minimal benefits of continuing to fight are not worth the trouble. It's not so easy to win a war when the enemy is your own government and they have nowhere to retreat to.

Again, history is full of successful rebellions without aid from a defecting military.

You keep ignoring that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.

It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.

It hasn't stopped them in the past. We've already had one civil war in this country (and two really, as the Revolution was basically one).

Real world revolutions and conflicts say you are wrong.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have had remarkable success resisting the US military with no tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc...

The Viet Cong did a pretty good job of it too.

Yeah, no. You're vastly overlooking how politically complex the Vietnam War was and also that it was a proxy war against the USSR. It was also mismanaged by people who expected to be fighting another Korean War, which it most definitely not. As far as the war in Afghanistan goes, the insurgency against coalition forces is not the resounding success you're making it out to be.

In fact, you've been droning on and on about the American Revolution about how you think it proves your point while completely ignoring the reality of the war.

Again, history is full of successful rebellions without aid from a defecting military.

You keep ignoring that.

Such as...?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I did post some evidence that people with more education(and education is positively linked to being wealthier) are less prone to accidents, which are caused by lapses in judgement.

And I posted some evidence that this doesn't mean much. If people can make stupid decisions and crash million-dollar warbirds then they can make stupid decisions with their toy artillery guns.

I think it speaks volumes about gun culture in this country that any thread that even tangentially touches on it inevitably, and with 100% accuracy, eventually because a discussion on the logistics of a violent overthrow of the US government.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.

It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.

It hasn't stopped them in the past. We've already had one civil war in this country (and two really, as the Revolution was basically one).

You mean the civil war in which a large part of the US military defected to the CSA?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Typically, but not always. The Hopper network springs to mind, they were not big on working with others, and still conducted one of the most effective assassination sprees the French resistance managed to field during the Occupation.. And, again, my point about numbers is not refuted by this.

That's a classic example of why one skilled fighter is irrelevant in isolation. For all his remarkable success, Hopper did nothing to threaten German control of France. Hoping that a whole bunch of Hoppers will rise up in armed rebellion, and all run about fighting their own personal wars until government collapses is not very sensible.

Incorrect. Actually, stop by SCOTUS next time you have a moment when they're in session to see how much 'Not Protesting' is still going on.

Been there!

And there were protestors numbering at least 50, but they were all abortion protestors. Possibly one of the people off on the side might have been there for campaign finance reform, I guess. I guess you and Fraz should contact that guy for setting up your armed rebellion.

Oh, and TRY getting a new political party on the ballot. If you think running as a member of a party other than whatever party is dominant in a district is hard, wait till you see the rules to get a new PARTY on the ballot. Hell, PA doesn't even put most existing parties on the ballot. You have to have gotten at least 20% of the National vote, the previous year, IIRC, before PA will put you on.

Meh, then move in force in to an existing party, and use primaries to elect your candidates.

Point being, if you've got the tens of millions of dedicated believers needed for a revolution to have any chance, then those kinds of numbers at the ballot box will have a massive impact through simple brute force, no matter the legal obstacles built in to the system.

And yet we see no such effort, little real effort in new parties. What efforts there have been, such as the Tea Party, are still fundamentally business as usual (the Tea Party could be best described as conservatism that was filled up with a lot more hyperbole than usual).

Where are the millions who just can't take it any more, who'd accept death over another day like today? They don't exist. So talk of rebellion is silly.

You can snipe, don't get me wrong, but it's far less effective in this terrain, than, say, an IED. Lots of heavy brush and thick canopy. Lot of hidden sink holes and natural caves, too. Low visibility. Generally not fun.

An interesting point on the tactical front, but irrelevant to the point I'm trying to explain - one guy acting in isolation is irrelevant. Change the explanation to one guy disappearing in to the woods and planting IEDs, and the result is still the same - no effective rebellion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I love how gun advocates love bringing up that little bit of Luke while ignoring all the other times Jesus professed a distaste for violence.

What I love is how threads on Islam will always have a bunch of verses from the Koran pointing out Islam is a religion of violence, and any response with biblical passages of violence will get a most unpleasant reaction. But then in a thread like this the same people will quote those verses pointing out that violence is fine.

It's almost as if a certain political mindset wants their own religion to have moral superiority by claiming it is the religion of peace, but at the same time doesn't want their religion to stop them acting in violence whenever they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Actually, the two are antithetical to each other. Democracy is the unlimited power of the majority over that of the individual, whereas Republic is the limited power of the majority protecting the rights of the individual and the minority.

Nope, having a bill of rights or any other form of in-built protection for individuals does not stop you being a democracy. Nor does it make you a republic.

Seriously, democracy and republic are words with actual, formal and agreed upon meanings. But we've had this conversation before. Definitions have been provided, and ignored, because ultimately you just don't give a gak what words actually mean, you've a political theory to prop up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
How do you prove a negative?

By looking to the rest of the world, and identifying all the countries which shared rights similar to the US except gun rights, but lost those rights to government intrusion, while the population said 'gee we'd like to do something about this but we don't have any guns'.

Find one example, and the notion of US gun rights protecting freedom begins to make sense.

Got one example?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KiloFiX wrote:
I was once at a golf club in the Middle East and I saw some royal bash a caddie on the head with a golf club simply because the former had hit a poor shot. Yeah, that ain't happening with 2A.

And that was all because of a lack of guns? No thought for inequality of wealth, status and effective legal protection?

Come on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I think it speaks volumes about gun culture in this country that any thread that even tangentially touches on it inevitably, and with 100% accuracy, eventually because a discussion on the logistics of a violent overthrow of the US government.

Yes, exactly. I've said in probably every gun laws thread I've gone in to – guns are far less of a concern, the problem is with US gun culture.

So much of US gun culture is all built around a macho fantasy. You aren’t just buying a useful tool for hunting or target shooting, but you’re buying the capability to be a real, honest to god fighter that can take on the government. That armed insurrection like that makes little sense given current US society, and that guns aren’t actually the important part of effective rebellion doesn’t matter. The fantasy is all important.

The other part of the fantasy is self-defence, of course. In fact it’s basically the same thing, handing some money over the counter has made you a defender of your family. That violent home invasions and other similar events in which a gun would be useful are statistically very unlikely just doesn’t matter. People want the fantasy.



*In fact, from a personal POV guns are awesome. I wish my country’s gun laws were more practical so I could get myself some guns and go shooting. Well I’d also need some spare time, so maybe when the kids have grown up and our out of the house… let a man dream, dammit.

 Hordini wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.

It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.

It hasn't stopped them in the past. We've already had one civil war in this country (and two really, as the Revolution was basically one).

You mean the civil war in which a large part of the US military defected to the CSA?

Are you sure about that?

The Union army was not large by the time the Civil War began, with about 16,000 troops while on the other hand, the CSA had almost no army to speak of. It wasn't until Lincoln's call for the states to muster militias after the Battle of Fort Sumter did Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee join the CSA (and of course Virginia brought Robert E. Lee with her, even though he desired for the Union to remain whole). As the threat of war loomed, both the Union and the CSA filled their ranks with eager volunteers and as the luster of the war began to fade, both armies resorted to conscription.

But thanks for bringing that up, with all this talk about revolting against the government, people are forgetting how the last turned out for the South.

 sebster wrote:
The other part of the fantasy is self-defence, of course. In fact it’s basically the same thing, handing some money over the counter has made you a defender of your family. That violent home invasions and other similar events in which a gun would be useful are statistically very unlikely just doesn’t matter. People want the fantasy.

I disagree with this. Violent home invasions are statistically unlikely in the same way that your house burning down and justifying all the money you spent on insurance is pretty unlikely. They happen (and people use guns to stop them), it's just unlikely that they will happen to any particular person. So, much like buying insurance against a fire, it is rational to want to be prepared in case you happen to be one of the unlucky few who experience one of those rare events. A successful violent revolution by civilians with their personal weapons, on the other hand, isn't just unlikely, it's complete fantasy.

Seeing that my wife has had to draw her gun once already for self defense I don't think anyone can convince me that self defense is fantasy.

 Peregrine wrote:
I disagree with this. Violent home invasions are statistically unlikely in the same way that your house burning down and justifying all the money you spent on insurance is pretty unlikely. They happen (and people use guns to stop them), it's just unlikely that they will happen to any particular person. So, much like buying insurance against a fire, it is rational to want to be prepared in case you happen to be one of the unlucky few who experience one of those rare events. A successful violent revolution by civilians with their personal weapons, on the other hand, isn't just unlikely, it's complete fantasy.

Yes, they do happen, and yes there are instances of guns being used to stop them. And for many individuals, for instance people who live in very dodgy neighbourhoods or people with threatening ex-partners, a gun would actually increase their safety. But guns aren’t bought for home defence purely by people in those circumstances, and so for most bringing a gun in to the household there’s actually an increased risk of suicide and accidents far greater than the minute likelihood of defending an invasion.

In itself that’s merely just bad risk assessment, and nothing particularly remarkable (our risk assessment as a species is amazingly bad). But the macho fantasy is there because of how people talk and act about buying a gun to defend their home. Think of it this way, have you ever seen someone brag on-line about having just paid their fire insurance? Ever seen someone brag that they just got a better deadbolt system for their doors and windows? But forums are full of people bragging they got this firearm or that firearm for their homes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Seeing that my wife has had to draw her gun once already for self defense I don't think anyone can convince me that self defense is fantasy.

You’ve misunderstood what I’ve said. Self defence isn't a fantasy, rather it is statistically very unlikely across the general population*. That people ignore that statistical improbability and buy a gun despite there being very little chance of them ever needing it is because there is a fantasy about being taking on criminals.



*In some circumstances it is far more likely than others. Many people will be quite rational and acting according to the most likely outcomes in buying a gun. But there are not that many people in those circumstances, and most of the gun sales for home defence are to people with very, very little chance of ever needing to use them.

 sebster wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I disagree with this. Violent home invasions are statistically unlikely in the same way that your house burning down and justifying all the money you spent on insurance is pretty unlikely. They happen (and people use guns to stop them), it's just unlikely that they will happen to any particular person. So, much like buying insurance against a fire, it is rational to want to be prepared in case you happen to be one of the unlucky few who experience one of those rare events. A successful violent revolution by civilians with their personal weapons, on the other hand, isn't just unlikely, it's complete fantasy.

Yes, they do happen, and yes there are instances of guns being used to stop them. And for many individuals, for instance people who live in very dodgy neighbourhoods or people with threatening ex-partners, a gun would actually increase their safety. But guns aren’t bought for home defence purely by people in those circumstances, and so for most bringing a gun in to the household there’s actually an increased risk of suicide and accidents far greater than the minute likelihood of defending an invasion.

In itself that’s merely just bad risk assessment, and nothing particularly remarkable (our risk assessment as a species is amazingly bad). But the macho fantasy is there because of how people talk and act about buying a gun to defend their home. Think of it this way, have you ever seen someone brag on-line about having just paid their fire insurance? Ever seen someone brag that they just got a better deadbolt system for their doors and windows? But forums are full of people bragging they got this firearm or that firearm for their homes.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

Study by the CDC and IOM after Obama issued his exec order to improve firearm research.

Page 45 : "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence...."
Page 45 : ".... estimates range from 500,000 to more than 3 million per year...."
Page 46 : "....found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

Excerpt From: Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, Patrick W. Kelley, Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, Executive Office, Institute of Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education & National Research Council. “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.” The National Academies Press, 2013-08-24.

So defensive gun use is not a fantasy.

Now, to be fair, the report also says that more guns means more gun deaths.
33,636 in 2013 to be exact (though the same report also says 60% of those gun deaths were suicides). That also makes sense.

So the question should be, are increased gun deaths overall worth the self defense value of guns?

If you make the argument that increased self defense, isn't worth increased gun deaths overall; I would disagree since even on the low end, self defense usage > total gun deaths, including justifiable shootings and suicide), but at least I can understand the position. But to say that guns have no utility whatsoever is far from fact.

It's like cars. More cars means more car deaths. But cars have enough utility that we keep them around.

 d-usa wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
That's not a fair assessment, d-usa. A vehicle is handled completelely different by its purchaser than an artillery piece. They're in two completely different categories; why would you even seek to compare them?

Edit: Damn autocorrect.

Because "they spend a lot of money, so they are going to use it well" is a stupid argument.

And the inference that they'll misuse it is equally as stupid.

Sure, I have no problem with someone owning an artillery piece. Good luck to them when they try to find fireable shells of which to use their weapon. Even if they were able to acquire said shells, it's ridiculous to say they'd use them for ill intent as there's no reasoning for it other than unfounded fear.

@Defense: Increased death when it comes to general crimes with firearms, or when used in self defense? Believe it or not, there is a wide difference on these two things. @Peregrine: Additionally, I'd rather have a firearm and not have to use it than not have such a thing when I need it. I'm sorry your feelings are in conflict with my rights. /shrug

 Grey Templar wrote:
But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.

The more I thought about this statement, the more I realized how absolutely ludicrous it really is.

Think about what you wrote for a minute... you are claiming that the government could be overthrown by "us," even with the entire 1.3 million active duty members of United States armed forces completely dedicated to maintaining it. This is the very same military we entrust to safeguard the nation against any threat abroad. The same military we give the world's largest defense budget to (over $500 billion) in order to keep it the best trained and equipped fighting force the world has ever seen. Yet somehow, a tenacious band of wannabe soldiers, kitted out in their tacticool costumes and their AR-15s, would be so effective that the United States armed forces at 100% fighting capacity wouldn't be "super important."

I've seeing some whoppers in the OT, but... damn, that amount of fantastical thinking is a doozy.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.

It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.

It hasn't stopped them in the past. We've already had one civil war in this country (and two really, as the Revolution was basically one).

You mean the civil war in which a large part of the US military defected to the CSA?

Are you sure about that?

The Union army was not large by the time the Civil War began, with about 16,000 troops while on the other hand, the CSA had almost no army to speak of. It wasn't until Lincoln's call for the states to muster militias after the Battle of Fort Sumter did Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee join the CSA (and of course Virginia brought Robert E. Lee with her, even though he desired for the Union to remain whole). As the threat of war loomed, both the Union and the CSA filled their ranks with eager volunteers and as the luster of the war began to fade, both armies resorted to conscription.

But thanks for bringing that up, with all this talk about revolting against the government, people are forgetting how the last turned out for the South.

Well, you're right that the army was small before the war and most of the troops were volunteers or conscripts who joined after the war started. That said, many of the key leaders in the CSA were former Union officers, and even though the South lost, they were still able to pose a legitimate threat to the Union.

 Hordini wrote:
Well, you're right that the army was small before the war and most of the troops were volunteers or conscripts who joined after the war started. That said, many of the key leaders in the CSA were former Union officers, and even though the South lost, they were still able to pose a legitimate threat to the Union.

Okay, that wasn't the claim you made so now you're just moving goalposts.

The majority of the armed forces on both sides at the beginning of hostilities were made up of state militias mobilized under governors. There weren't massive defections to the Confederate cause because there was much of an army to begin with; the pre-Civil War military was essentially a frontier force.