1)How many souls in the US standing armed forces?--no clue; 500,000?
2)How many private citizens that are discharged/retired from armed forces of the US? 1,000,000? under age 65.
3)How many people in the CONUS that can hit a pie plate at 600 yards with a rifle?--200,000?
I really don't know the answers to your questions. My point was that after considering questions like yours and mine, the "authorities" are likely to conclude that the only wining move in imposing tyranny on the American people is not to force a violent reaction. Slow and steady has been working fine for them since the 1930's.
the "authorities" are likely to conclude that the only wining move in imposing tyranny on the American people is not to force a violent reaction. Slow and steady has been working fine for them since the 1930's.
Your assumed conclusion has been the operational one for decades. However it has been the preferred one used because those in power had neither the legal framework nor an extreme enough ideology to propel them to take the radical action I think they might now take.
In the past "winning", even for the most extreme lefty leader was to preserve the nation relatively intact and prosperous. Their definition for "winning" is different, today than it was in the past. With the best opportunity in American history to take permanent control and since they want an America that is less of a leader and more of an equal to other nations anyway, taking permanent control now of a less prosperous nation is OK by them.
My view is that they are so corrupt that taking power is their primary concern and all others pale in significance to that. Is Kim Il Jung more concerned about his personal power or the prosperity of North Korea? This new ultra- radical leadership is cut from the same cloth as Kim.