• Shapillon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Or a revolution ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    (agreed we’re not there but that’s another use of civilians owning warfare weapons)

    • Kage520@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s exactly the argument that conservatives always give for gun ownership. But like, how would they possibly overrun the largest military in the world with their personal arsenals?

      Maybe they could take a city but I can’t see it being a long lasting victory.

      • Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If anything, the US’s engagements in Vietnam and, more recently, the Middle East have shown that eradicating an insurgent force is incredibly difficult, to the point of being almost impossible. On top of that, there are weapons used during the GWOT that wouldn’t (shouldn’t(?)) Be used against American citizens, unless their goal is to be rulers of the ashes. On top of that, there are plenty of American Servicemembers that would straight up refuse to attack American citizens, and would potentially aid the insurgency with things like vehicles and ammo.

        Add on top of that the extensive gun culture and sheer number of veterans in the general US population and I’d say they have a fighting chance.

        I say this all as a former military intelligence analyst myself.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You were slackin at your job if you don’t understand that the majority of people would oppose these insurgents, by definition, since that is how democracy works.

          There is no situation in which domestic insurgents would not be crushed utterly. They’d be heavily restricted in movement, denied resupply, theyd lose contact with their families, friends, etc as well as all cellular communication. They would not have air superiority. They wouldn’t even be able to contest air superiority. The most advanced counter-terrorism force in human history would be tracking them. When caught, they will absolutely land in Gitmo, at best, and will absolutely give up everything because these are not hardened fighters, these are your neighbors.

          The US is a fucking fortress. This is a complete non-starter. We haven’t even touched on actual military engagement yet. I’m not convinced it would even ever get to a point where it was necessary.

          If it ever was, the US would have to show the world that a challenge to its supremacy on its territory by (now non-)citizens in open rebellion absolutely will not be allowed to happen.

          The affected areas will completely locked down. The insurgents will lose all access to travel, because the entire area will. Then it’s just counter-terrorist procedure practiced over 20 years thousands of miles away.

          • Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            My friend, I don’t know your qualifications, but I can tell you that the Viet Cong and AL Qaeda won against the most advanced COIN force in the world.

      • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The biggest military in the world seems to have trouble with insurgents. See Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The bigger problem will be staffing. Who they are you going to get to take on your own town or state? No one wants that job. They want easy criminals that “choose” to act up.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Insurgent forces are always scary. They know where to hide and they get creative with weaponry. This isn’t the revolutionary war with people marching side by side taking shots at the other side.

        Besides, that’s assuming the military is 100% cohesive in war operations inside this country and against other Americans.

        Oh, and ignoring that it might just be the conservatives in power that would be the aggressor and the rest defending themselves from fascists.

        • Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your last point is the one that gets me, the left needs firearms as much as the right does if shit hits the fan.

          • Shapillon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Amen to that.

            In my country (France) we got single payer healthcare, legally enforced number of work hours in a week, annual PTO, etc because about 25% of the population were card carrying commies with guns.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is a really dumb comparison that implies you know Jack shit about warfare btw.

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good thing we had hellfire missiles to establish a permanent and stable government in Afghanistan

      • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah it would be like a group of settlers going up against the greatest army in the world and somehow winning. absolutely no way that ever happens, or has ever happened, to my knowledge twice at least

        • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did that army have hellfire missiles and nukes? Or was it maybe the case that this army you mean back then was occupied with more important matters and the settlers had help of powerful other countries? Lets be real, if there ever was a full on authocracy in america it would be celebrated by half your population, usually the gun owning population. All the dictator would need to do is promise to hurt some kind of minority.

          • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            i dont know, did the us army have hellfire missiles and nukes in the vietnam war? which they pulled out of because farmers with guns was too much for them to face?

            • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh god what a dumb take. Vietnam was an aggressive war in unknown terrain. A civil war in the own country against your military is completely different. That scenario is so completely stupid, because half your population would be on the governments side. Meanwhile your fear of a hypethetical scenario kills your kids.

        • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          More “Why do you use this excuse even though it has no merit at all, when the thing you want to keep is killing your children in the thousands each year?”

          • FluorideMind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you really believe this? Lmao. You think the reason most support the second is so children will be killed? Clearly you don’t, so why comment that?