Hither had popular support, if the tiny % of the population made up of Jews had firearms it wouldn't have made much difference. Entire armies across Europe couldn't stop him, we were fortunate to have a sea in the way and a strong Navy + airforce.
Active shooter in Texas high school
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Hither had popular support, if the tiny % of the population made up of Jews had firearms it wouldn't have made much difference. Entire armies across Europe couldn't stop him, we were fortunate to have a sea in the way and a strong Navy + airforce.
Wow I didn't realise that Harris made brushes that wide.
Not everyone calling for gun control is a "liberal" (even a lot of gun owners and republicans are in favour of it), and not all liberals are calling Trump Hitler (although I have seen a number pointing out his rhetoric and tactics are very similar to how various dictators/authoritarian regimes came to power)
It's simply not the case - it has nothing to do with liberal lefties or whatever - the vast majority of Americans across the spectrum do want common sense gun legislation. The problem isn't the people, it's the government who are owned lock stock and barrel by the NRA, because it's putting $millions into the pockets of US politicians.
Would you vote against someone who's giving you millions of dollars, when all the "vote" means, is keeping the status quo?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,506
I doubt very much you have remotely the same concept to freedom as anyone on this planet who lives outside the US would have.
Define 'freedom' for me.
Yeah, that's why we don't have any safety regulations. Or an army. Or a police force.
Thing is even the US military would lose the war of attrition using cruise missiles to try and win a war against soft targets - assuming anything like a significant percentage of the potential civilian population got themselves half organised and were fit enough to make it to the end of their street on foot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,760
Yeah, that's why we don't have any safety regulations. Or an army. Or a police force.
We have safety because a dead workforce isn't an efficient workforce
The police are generally there to clean up crimes after they have been committed as they're generally too slow to respond in a timely manner and don't have psychic abilities (yet) to stop a crime before it has happened, the government also does its best to underpay and undermine the good they can potentially do
The military is there to protect the country and the government and its interests mainly the industry which provides revenue for government to sustain, protection of citizens is only a side effect of being on the lands the military designated to protect and again but again it falls into the realm of workforce issues
What does it matter ? It's clear my views and yours are never going to find an agreement so what's the point ? You and the rest of the Left seem to want to force your opinion on others in the form of laws, I however am not arrogant or psychotic enough to presume my opinions are more important than anybody else and the thing is I would fight for your freedom to be so vocally oppressive. I doubt you and your ilk would do the same
No it wouldn't.
Who said anything about cruise missiles?
No chance. The last time Americans took up arms to overthrow their government, the government won. The US war machine is the most powerful in the entire world. Any suggestion that an uprising of civilians could defeat it is utterly delusional.
Congratulations, you've just contradicted yourself.
This is the problem - people seem to always assume that it would be current US military with the current state of the country behind it versus a militia - with a reasonably large country wide uprising there would be defections from the military, some who'd refuse to take a side, the military would be unable to defend all its installations and bases, etc. and have to concentrate at least initially into positions of strength. There is no guarantee it would go like the last civil war and even Syria is an example that things like tanks, aircraft, ballistic missiles, etc. are of limited use against a mobile, organised, soft target that is fighting on its own home turf - it has taken what almost 7 years to just wear down ISIS who've rarely numbered above the lower tens of thousands in what is largely open terrain.
The realities, as to what is most likely to defeat an attempt to fight back by a militia are more in actual numbers and organisation than the disparity in equipment, etc. most of the militias and the likes in the US struggle to keep any kind of active membership going in any kind of numbers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,760
I don't see how, if a government wants a more efficient workforce then it will add more laws/regulations which promote that efficiency
Look at communism to see how tyranny manifests in order to create a more efficient workforce, capitalism is really not much different we just get paid more fairly for our labour but our labour is the only thing the government concerned about
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,506
I am not left wing.
You used the word freedom again, but you haven't told us what you mean by it.
You 'would fight for my freedom', that is what you have stated.
Tell me what you actually mean by that. Tell me what it means to you, that doesn't involve a government deployed army, seeing as the government are the people you do not trust.
Explain it for me. Tell me what you mean.
Every time you comment on this issue, you demonstrate how little you know about it.
So the government does care about our safety.
How so? we have multiple examples some going on right now that demonstrate that large militaries like the US do not win decisive wars in the way often banded about as a counter to the militia thing (they may or may not win in the long run) against soft targets operating on their home territory - look at Vietnam, etc.
Sure if a few 100 or so US citizens decided to rebel against the government that would be unlikely to last long but when talking about opposing a tyrannical government the concept is country wide discontent.
Most of those posting from the kind of position you are talking about often don't seem to look at it in any more detail than Apache > Toyota Hilux like it is a game of Top Trumps.
The moment you used the Syrian Civil War to argue the possible success of hypothetical armed uprising in America, it was obvious that you don't have a sufficient grasp of the issues.
The Syrian Civil War involves multiple belligerents of varying ethnicity and ideologies, backed by multiple foreign nations, terrorists, and local militias. It is so far removed from the concept of an armed American uprising as to exist in a parallel dimension.
When looked at in more detail though you can study many aspects in isolation such as the usefulness of advanced SIGINT/ELINT capabilities when engaging low tech targets and the successes and failures when using things like cruise missiles, etc. I'm not even saying that a militia uprising will win I'm just saying it isn't as black and white as Apache trumps "technical" as some seem to try and portray it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,760
I think you're confused with what I said
I said our best interests aren't first consideration when it comes to government protecting us
That is entirely different to saying what you think I said or what you're trying twist as I said
Take Amazon for instance, they care for your safety in the sense they don't want you hurting yourself because that means you're not working, they however don't care if you happen to be overworked or stressed and die as a result
Same with any sweat shop, the owners only care if you're alive enough to do the job, anything else is irrelevant
Or are you incapable of distinguishing the difference ?
You're assuming the people with guns would be opposed to the tyranncal dictator.
They could well be on thier side and be more than happy to use those guns to round up or massacre whatever group the government and the army is targeting.
Looking at the type of people who have large gun collections in the USA it seems far more likley theyd be on the opressing side than the opressed
I'm assuming the idealistic scenario that is often talked about of country wide discontent against a tyrant determined to hold onto power with atleast some degree of loyalty on the part of the military.
The reality is the actual numbers that actively get organised would probably fall far short never mind things like fitness levels.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
That's the only way they would ever win, if they had any military support. Pretty much the same situation that happened in Syria with Army units switching sides and supporting the terrorists.
Without that heavy equipment and supplies plus the training that came from the military defectors, they would had been crushed far quicker.
That said, it's very possible, after all, they already had a Civil War. It's possible it could happen again.
In the end, there is no way anyone with just some AR-15's and some local radios are gonna survive against the combined might of the military and the highly militarised police forces.
And the gap of what is possible as in resistance is getting bigger with more high tech equipment and advanced weapons that the military get compared to what civilians are getting or have access too.
Last edited: