Revolution: How would the US government put down an attempt by the white population to overthrow the government?
Considering white people constitute 62% of the USA, and including Hispanic people it's 77% then I don't think they're inching towards minority status - this is merely from an outside perspective though (I don't live in the USA). But as long as the Government, Congress and Senate are representative of the population then it shouldn't matter. If they serve the interests of the population as a whole then there shouldn't be discontent. Obama is a black president, but the Vice-chair is white and lots of his administration is white.
What's preventing people to over throw the governement?
An effective police force, an effective intelligence service, and democracy in general.An effective police force – These would be able to find and stop anyone who was trying to overthrow the government. They would be able to find the arms, find the perpetrators and send them for prosecution.An effective intelligence service – they would find the signals that indicate that someone is looking to do this, find out their conspirators, and what they were planning and be able to send this information into the relevant police forces in order to enforce upon.Democracy in general – Anyone looking to overthrow most western democracies, would find that the people would look to stop them OR use the government back. For example, if there was some bonkers and wanted to set up a dictatorship, most people would not accept this and would try to stop this happening. Even then if there was some political party that was working against people, they would be voted out, before too long.
In modern times, how would armed citizens in the United States rise up against a government they deemed tyrannical?
A lot of unduly dismissive answers here. All these responses seem to forget recent history. The US fought (or is fighting) two counter-insurgencies against “armed citizens,” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those went particularly well for the US military.Factors to consider:The US is huge. Around 20 times bigger than Iraq and 15 times bigger than Afghanistan. Much of it is remote . There are a lot of places for freedom fighters to hide.Conversely, the US is very urban. 80 percent of the population lives in cities. Urban counter-insurgencies are a nightmare to fight.The US is awash in guns - around 300 million of them. I agree that Joe Sixpack’s 12 gauge and 9 mm pistol aren’t a match for a M4 carbine or a M249, but they can still kill or wound someone.There are around 20 million veterans in the US - men and women with military training and even combat experience. And guess what the combat experience was in - counter-insurgency. These veterans, who will form the core of the freedom fighters, will know the tactics that would be used against them by the active military.The US is highly decentralized - states, counties, municipalities/cities all have relatively independent governments. Some of these lower governmental units will support the freedom fighters, providing shelter, food, medicine, etc., either explicitly or covertly.Similarly, we can expect foreign aid to our freedom fighters. Russia would delight in getting some payback for Afghanistan 1980–88. Depending on how “tyrannical” the federal government is, and how hostile it is to the rest of the world, I could see other countries lining up to support the freedom fighters.The freedom fighters don’t have to win, they just have to not lose. Gain the hearts and minds of the population, avoid big set-piece battles, hit and run.Interestingly, this question allows people on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum to reach the same (I think incorrect) conclusion: People on the right can argue that America’s military is too strong for mere “armed citizens” to have any effect, while people on the left can argue against the Second Amendment. Both interpretations are overly simplistic.
What would happen if thousands of citizens rebelled against the U.S. government?
There is nothing unusual about citizens getting together to make their particular issue known to the US Government. It would look like tea party. It is a first amendment right called freedom of speech and right to assemble.If you are talking about a violent protest like the 1967 Democratic convention or even recent Occupy Wall Street protests, then expect that your assembly will be met with an equal and opposing government force. With the representative democracy we have, there is no need for violence.The left has learned this lesson well. The 67 riots and Rob Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn blowing up people has mutated into a "overwhelm the system" type objection to representative democracy. It is more devastating to the system than outright confrontation but at least the protesters don't get their head cracked