1
229
230

Giving the 1%..100% (imgur.com)

submitted by I_am_spartacuss

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MyriadThingsHurr Durr -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

I'm sorry, but what power does your cabinet full of shotguns and assault rifles give you against the largest military in the world?

[–]Citadel_97EConservative 6 ポイント7 ポイント

The individual may be killed by an army..

But the army cannot survive an armed conflict with the entirety of the citizenry. This is the purpose of 2A.

Another way to look at it, the Afghans have been giving our army hell for over a decade.

[–]suicide_is_painlesss 4 ポイント5 ポイント

And the Russians for 20 years before that... And the British empire... Before that

[–]Reefedb3ach 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Since when have guns in the US in modern society changed anything remotely.important to the long term prosperity of the country?

Other than their sale adding to the economy.

[–]Citadel_97EConservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Battle of Athens

[–]suicide_is_painlesss 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Certainly everything from april19 1775 to when ever the banisters took charge

[–]MyriadThingsHurr Durr 4 ポイント5 ポイント

The Second Amendment was written before the advent of machine guns, tanks, helicopters, laser guided missiles and all the rest of it.

Afghanistan is a conflict characterized by a small guerrilla/terrorist force in a largely rural setting who make the task of state building and imposed democracy difficult for an overextended military (America, British, Russian) who is in a foreign land and is widely distrusted by the vast majority of the population. Any such conflict in the heart of America would not be comparable, I guarantee it.

I'm interested in anyone that can logically connect the argument of 2A with the fact that you'd be fighting the most technologically sophisticated military in the world on it's home turf. Anything that is going to be remotely usefully in that conflict is already illegal (Read: most of the armament used by Afghani Rebels).

[–]troygates 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Most of the people in the military would readily leave to side with the citizens and even use that advanced weaponry to assist.

Military personnel wouldn't blindly follow a tyrannical leadership that is ordering the killing of their family and friends.

[–]Citadel_97EConservative 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Right now there are 1,369,532 people in the armed forces as of 31 December, 2013. For some perspective, that is only half of the population of Chicago.

For further perspective, not all of those people are trigger pullers. The vast majority of them are support personnel, cooks, spoons, spooks, officers, veterinarians, communications personnel and mechanics. For example, I was an interrogator/counter intelligence guy. I can't tell you much about setting an ambush aside from what I learned anecdotally, but I sure as hell can extract information and prove a real hassle to the oppositional intelligence apparatus.

Also, many soldiers WILL NOT mobilize against the citizenry. They won't engage U.S. Citizens stateside. If a captain tells a squad of soldiers to round up some civilians, put them to a wall and shoot them, that captain can expect the nearest sergeant to blow his brains out.

Also, because our army is actually quite small, it wouldn't be difficult to cause it very significant problems stateside. The most likely people to stop doing their jobs, get killed or desert will be the support personnel. It is hard to use a tank against the american people when its broken. That goes for every mechanized piece of kit we have. Because of the size of this country and the number of guns we have, if only 1% of the citizenry decides to fight we already outnumber the military. This doesn't take into account the Oathkeepers in the military ranks right now either.

2A is meant as a final bulwark against tyranny. 2A being written before machine guns is irrelevant. Back then cutting edge technology was a smooth bore musket and galloper guns. The reason a laser guided missile isn't much good stateside is because the soldier firing the weapon is stateside. If he's lasing a target in Marietta, GA, he knows there is a good chance there is a fire team down the street from his parents house. Soldiers are not automatons, they think, feel, and watch the news. They aren't about to wake up one day and say, "Well damn, the old man said we're gonna go into Fayetville tomorrow and shoot some people, damn I love military life."

[–]Wasp-ish -1 ポイント0 ポイント

You're also assuming that the government won't have any support from the citizens. Given that they control the media and will switch off the internet, who do you think is going to gain more recruits? Given that they have the ability to draft in people to fight for them too, i'd say you're screwed. I'm not sure where the mentality comes from that all you need is a gun. The majority of America is obese and couldn't run more than 3 miles. Gun or no gun you'd be like lambs led to the slaughter.

Let's think further, beyond the whole obesity and fitness issue shall we? How are you going to form a cohesive, interstate, rebellion that can contend with the government? It would require you sewed the seeds between several large groups of men across the entire area of the country. Which just isn't going to happen without intervention before you get anywhere. So there's your first problem - communication is going to be at near zero.

Do you honestly think a million people are all going to get angry enough in unison to begin this effective revolt? How are you going to feed over a million people? If you have a million people fighting, that is a much larger situation compared to Afghanistan. There are 36,000 Taliban fighters (2012 estimates). If there was a million to begin with, then they would have all been killed pretty rapidly to get down to that figure. These men know the terrain and can easily flee to friendly Pakistani, where they are out of the reach of the US military for the most part. Do you think this tyranical government wouldn't chase you down like dogs in Canada? Where are you going to get IEDs and mines etc.

I think your post shows a complete misunderstanding of how large wars are fought and most importantly won. You'd be out numbered, out gunned, out propaganda'd, out trained, have no communication or support, and be unable to feed yourselves effectively. Your force would split into dozens of rival militias. The government would then re-write the history books to brand you as traitors.

Please just think about this: Your government oppressed black people for years and years, resulting in riots that could be construed as revolts. What did the government do? It sent in the national guard and none of the national guard left their posts to join the blacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot

[–]timtom45 1 ポイント2 ポイント

None of the law enforcement switched sides to support bundy/militia against the special forces dudes working for the BLM.

Where are you going to get IEDs and mines etc.

The taliban can make IED's out of MRE's. Hamas makes rockets with sugar and piss for gods sakes...

[–]Citadel_97EConservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント

What makes you think they were Special Forces? They weren't, just government agents.

[–]timtom45 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Oh there was a video comparing the spokesman for the BLM at the gate and an older Special forces documentary. Could be they just look alot alike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAm65SDHPHk

[–]Citadel_97EConservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

They do look alike, but that guy was a contractor. It is illegal for Special Forces or any military entity to do law enforcement work.

[–]timtom45 0 ポイント1 ポイント

They do look alike, but that guy was a contractor.

Don't most contractors come from special forces? Academi/x3/blackwater was started by ex-sf guys.

It is illegal for Special Forces or any military entity to do law enforcement work.

illegal for "current" SF / military ,but not for ex-sf guys i'd imagine

correct me if i'm wrong

[–]Wasp-ish -1 ポイント0 ポイント

The obvious problem you have with using the Taliban as evidence that you can 'win', is that the Taliban only won because the US is packing up it's shit and going home. Where are they going to pack up their stuff and go home to, on home soil? They can fight you indefinitely. And you don't have radical Islam as a prop feeding your frothing mouth hatred that will keep you warm at night. These are dirt farmers who have never really known comfort any way, so it's no skin off their nose.

The most likely thing that will happen if you have a tyrannical government, is that your armed forces will topple it themselves and you'll end up with a military government.

[–]Citadel_97EConservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

From your post it is clear you were never in the military.

You don't have to be seal team Sam to pull a trigger. And what in the world makes you think a revolution fought stateside would be prosecuted by conventional means? Guerrilla warfare would be used, so most of your argument is null and void.

Where would we get IEDs and mines? We would make them.

Also, as of right now, veterans outnumber the conventional forces by a lot.

If the people decided to use 2A against an oppressive state it wouldn't be as open and shut as you assume. In recent history we can look at the Basque independence movement in Spain/ France, those people weren't veterans and they also didn't have access to arms like we do in the states.

[–]NolanChancellor 0 ポイント1 ポイント

You are assuming the military would comply with orders to take up arms against its own citizens.

[–]Clockmaster_Xenos -1 ポイント0 ポイント

largest military in the world?

You are talking about China right?

[–]Redskull673Paleoconservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント

no, obviously best Korea has largest military /s

[–]Clockmaster_Xenos 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Ah yes, East Korea. I also think they are the best Korea. /s