No Stupid Questions

Okay. Let's assume that you and your buddies are a trained militia. Not "I play paintball once or twice a year" or "I spend every weekend at the range shooting". I mean you actually have a command structure, know how to move as a unit, and are dedicated enough that you will lay down your life for the person next to you.

What are you going to do against an armored vehicle? Or a drone? Or even just indirect fire.

Because... any "reasonably" equipped military can kill millions of people with minimal effort. Just look at what is happening to Palestine.

Just because this topic interests me due to being the intersection of history, military history, "guns are cool even if I don't think civilians should have them", and "the thing that comes after social activism":

Even in the 1700s, a farmer with a gun in the shed was pretty much useless. Battles were won by large groups of people and the only reasons the US managed to beat the Brits were a combination of more or less "stealing" the British military structure that had been set up to defend ourselves coupled with most combat boiling down to sheer number of people who could sort of hold up a gun and maybe fire it. A couple angry farmers might be able to kill even twice their number of soldiers. But they would be up against ten or twenty times that number and one person going down doesn't stop the volley. And if you were actually an amazing shot with dozens of muskets and Heath Ledger to reload them for you so that you could constantly unload on anyone who approached your house on the hill? That is when they get the cannon or mortar.

It was largely the late 1800s to mid 1900s where the idea of a militia could actually fight against an army. Particularly the time around World War 2 when we saw a fundamental shift on the battlefield to where even an individual soldier, let alone a squad or company, had enough firepower to make a significant difference. Line of sight was still essential, even for indirect fire, and armored vehicles could still be consistently negated by bottles of gasoline. This is why we even famously saw things like the Wilmington insurrection of 1898 where a relatively limited number of people could cause widespread damage and be "not worth" the army intervening (racism helps a lot too)

But the tail end of the 20th century has largely negated that. Because yes, the individual soldier has more firepower than ever. But satelites and drones mean that you don't even need line of sight to devastate with indirect fire. And those individual soldiers likely have MUCH better gear than civilians (by design and law). For example, there is a lot of talk about whether the US "still owns the night" now that consumer grade night vision is "good enough". And that does make a significant difference in terms of raids. We likely will never be able to walk around double tapping helpless brown people (without prep work involving tying them up, cop style...) ever again. But it still means we can maneuver at night when most countries would need to take a break because their eyes hurt or they are nauseous from the FOV. Same with body armor and, probably, optics if the new rifle is any indication.

Which, funny enough, puts us back to the 1700s. A bunch of farmers/klansmen/activists/whatever can equip themselves and even train into a cohesive unit. Sure. And they'll kill maybe even ten to one in terms of infantry. And then an artillery strike or a missile or even just someone with a joystick inside of an APC will slaughter them and there will be nothing they can do.

Which is why the successful insurgencies are more about unrest and trying to outlast an occupation than anything else. And... that doesn't work when the country occupying your country is... your country.