Current Events > I legit wanna hear from people who think guns will protect them from the army

(+) Yeah! (+)

I honestly want the explanation for how you plan on effectively waging war against the US government in the event of them deciding to establish authoritarian dystopian rule

what is the logic here
---

If you can't understand this logically, then I doubt you've actually tried to understand the concept very well.

Put some thought into it and then come back later.
---

That our respect for one another as fellow Americans will prevail and most of the soldiers will refuse to follow orders. Love and our belief in one another will prevail.
---

Steve Nick posted...

If you can't understand this logically, then I doubt you've actually tried to understand the concept very well.

Put some thought into it and then come back later.

I asked a question. You gonna answer it or nah?

RedWhiteBlue posted...

First of all, you're missing 2 key things

1) The military are people, too. They won't mindlessly follow the government's orders. If a large amount of people revolt, millions, I'm sure parts of the military would, too.

2) How many people are there? How many government officials and/or evil, rich douchebags are there? Numbers are very powerful.

1) That's cool, but no one is arguing that the military should have their guns taken away.

2) How many people have bombs and drones?
---

I don't know what people think they do to soldiers in our all volunteer right wing leaning military that would make them follow orders to fight Americans who won't hand over their second amendment rights.
---

USA aren't good against guerrilla warfare tbh
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Steve Nick posted...

If you can't understand this logically, then I doubt you've actually tried to understand the concept very well.

Put some thought into it and then come back later.

I asked a question. You gonna answer it or nah?

RedWhiteBlue posted...

First of all, you're missing 2 key things

1) The military are people, too. They won't mindlessly follow the government's orders. If a large amount of people revolt, millions, I'm sure parts of the military would, too.

2) How many people are there? How many government officials and/or evil, rich douchebags are there? Numbers are very powerful.

1) That's cool, but no one is arguing that the military should have their guns taken away.

2) How many people have bombs and drones?

Your response to this guy is the very reason I didn't bother typing out a thoughtful response. He posted correct answers, and you're responding with total nonsense, indicating that, going back to my original post, you've not yet even TRIED to understand this subject, and are just looking to antagonize others.
---

Drop a nuke in California, New York and Texas and break the morale of the people--GAMER OVER. It only takes a few men, loyal to the bureaucracy to accomplish this too.

Lol @ the people that thinks guns are going to do shit. If a tyrannical government does form, they will DEFINITELY prevail.
---

There are ~2 million us soldiers iirc.

There are over 300 million people in the us.

Typhon posted...

There are ~2 million us soldiers iirc.

There are over 300 million people in the us.

If you've ever studied history, you should know that numbers do not mean shit.
---

Steve Nick posted...

He posted correct answers, and you're responding with total nonsense

I countered and he hasn't answered yet. Neither have you, which tells me that you don't have actual answers. Do you think the number of gun owners in America can stand up to the governing body if they chose to firebomb cities or employ drones?
---

Lets see if I could give a realistic answer here, and this is barring half the military forces turning on the government due to their beliefs:

Civilian forces wouldnt, and couldnt, take on the military in a head-on confrontation. This would mean that rebels would use guerrilla hit-and-run tactics to minimize the militarys obvious technological advances in weaponry. The government wouldnt resort to carpet bombing the rebels because of collateral risk. You dont want to destroy half the landscape just to spend millions rebuilding it. Not to mention the loss of public support...I mean we have people who get angry that we bomb terrorists forces overseas. Espionage would also play a big factor in this civil war. So yes, civilians with firearms could absolutely cause all sorts of problems and cripple the government if it ever came down to it.
---

Obviously, soldiers will be more powerful than civilians in an equal fight. But civilians would have greater numbers and would be difficult to defeat. It would be a long conflict.
---

iPhone_7 posted...

That our respect for one another as fellow Americans will prevail and most of the soldiers will refuse to follow orders. Love and our belief in one another will prevail.

I completely understand why you want to believe this, and I for one also do... but when it comes to actually believing it... lol
---

scorpion41 posted...

Lets see if I could give a realistic answer here, and this is barring half the military forces turning on the government due to their beliefs:

Civilian forces wouldnt, and couldnt, take on the military in a head-on confrontation. This would mean that rebels would use guerrilla hit-and-run tactics to minimize the militarys obvious technological advances in weaponry. The government wouldnt resort to carpet bombing the rebels because of collateral risk. You dont want to destroy half the landscape just to spend millions rebuilding it. Not to mention the loss of public support...I mean we have people who get angry that we bomb terrorists forces overseas. Espionage would also play a big factor in this civil war. So yes, civilians with firearms could absolutely cause all sorts of problems and cripple the government if it ever came down to it.

This is a pretty fair answer.

I do, however, still have a hard time believing that the number of gunowners in America could effectively militarize and form a meaningful resistance. The hypotheticals you typed out read like The Hunger Games. I just don't see it.
---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Typhon posted...

There are ~2 million us soldiers iirc.

There are over 300 million people in the us.

If you've ever studied history, you should know that numbers do not mean shit.

First you posted about a government nuking several of its own cities, now youre posting about history and numbers gaps bein irrelevant.

Are you absolutely sure you paid attention in your History class because Im pretty damn sure you didnt.
---

RedWhiteBlue posted...

1) The military are people, too. They won't mindlessly follow the government's orders. If a large amount of people revolt, millions, I'm sure parts of the military would, too.

... That's exactly what they are trained to do. People think that the military will just throw down their arms and join the resistance, despite every single example in history proving the exact opposite. Look at any country with martial law; did the military ever switch sides en masse? It's pretty easy to justify, i.e. "we are just following orders, we need to establish martial law to sort things out, etc".

RedWhiteBlue posted...

2) How many people are there? How many government officials and/or evil, rich douchebags are there? Numbers are very powerful.

Not as much as you think. Missiles, tanks, fighter jets, etc all can take on large groups without suffering any serious casualties.

What you don't seem to understand is that the government also controls the entire infrastructure. What happens to, say, New York, if the government shuts down the power grid, establishes a perimeter, cut off all food and medical supplies, and continuously run bombing runs on military targets? Are the people in densely populated metropolitan eras going to be able to hold out without power or food or medicine forever?

That's not even getting into the fact that they have near perfect recon in the area, already have strategically important points under their control, have far, far superior weapons, have the numbers, have training, and have easily justifiable goals. It's ridiculous to think that Joe Sixpack could fight off a tank with no food or medicine because he bought an AR-15 from K-Mart.

I don't know why people assume the military will just defect in numbers that would render them ineffective because they're citizens of this country too when that didn't happen when they interred their own citizens in camps during WW2. We already have a precedent where they didn't disobey a tyrannical government action and yet the underlying assumption for the 2Aer wet dream is that they will.
---

You dont need a gun in your house period.
---

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Drop a nuke in California, New York and Texas and break the morale of the people--GAMER OVER. It only takes a few men, loyal to the bureaucracy to accomplish this too.

That's a good way to get other countries to intervine, though. No one wants fallout to come to their country not to mention watch while we slaughter civilians.
---

Stallion_Prime posted...

You dont need a gun in your house period.

Youre right...I need several.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I do, however, still have a hard time believing that the number of gunowners in America could effectively militarize and form a meaningful resistance.

The presence of an armed population overwhelmingly outnumbering the military is sufficient cause to stave off a military takeover - domestic or foreign. Japan during WWII basically never entertained the notion of a land invasion because they knew what the 2nd amendment meant and how impossible it would be on the ground.
---

myzz7 posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I do, however, still have a hard time believing that the number of gunowners in America could effectively militarize and form a meaningful resistance.

The presence of an armed population overwhelmingly outnumbering the military is sufficient cause to stave off a military takeover - domestic or foreign. Japan during WWII basically never entertained the notion of a land invasion because they knew what the 2nd amendment meant and how impossible it would be on the ground.

Japan during WWII was only a small fraction of America's power.

Guns weren't even necessary as a deterrent.

The assumption is that the military wont bomb its own population into oblivion I suppose.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Typhon posted...

There are ~2 million us soldiers iirc.

There are over 300 million people in the us.

If you've ever studied history, you should know that numbers do not mean shit.

First you posted about a government nuking several of its own cities, now youre posting about history and numbers gaps bein irrelevant.

Are you absolutely sure you paid attention in your History class because Im pretty damn sure you didnt.

Well yeah numbers doesn't bare that much significance between ARMIES, a successful war has so many factors that numbers are not at the top of the list of reasons why people win wars. DRILL and DISCIPLINE is what makes an effective army. However logistics, tactics, strategy, plus non-rational forces and so much more affect a battle, and in extension a war. More military men is an advantage, but NOT THE reason a war can be won, not in practice anyways.

And yes, a government, assuming they have turned tyrannical would, and should bomb their own cities if they want to win a war. The government does control an army technically, and the military is not loyal to the government, but rather its nation (his concept originates from the French Revolution). The government thus does not have any significant menpower to resist rebellion using conventional military ways, and thus usage of bombs to end the war quickly might mean killing its own peoples and depleting morale.
---

ilovuuu posted...

Japan during WWII was only a small fraction of America's power.

Guns weren't even necessary as a deterrent.

Japanese WWII generals are on record saying it was a deterrent. They also said the pacific theater of war was foolish and if it wasn't won within the first 6 months it was guaranteed failure.

Japan at the time was very powerful. It did wreck Korea and China afterall with a much lower population compared to those 2 combined.
---

masticatingman posted...

The assumption is that the military wont bomb its own population into oblivion I suppose.

And even if it did what military manpower would be left willing to go along with the monsters in charge?

The only feasible, still not that good of a chance, inner military takeover to happen is for the US government to import millions of foreign soldiers to kill and oppress the american populace - but good luck with that happening with 2 huge oceans on either side of the USA.
---

A government using mercenaries against its own people have been done before--HELL IT'S BEEN DONE IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Remember the Hessian? Or Germans, if you want to call them that.

Master_Bass posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Drop a nuke in California, New York and Texas and break the morale of the people--GAMER OVER. It only takes a few men, loyal to the bureaucracy to accomplish this too.

That's a good way to get other countries to intervine, though. No one wants fallout to come to their country not to mention watch while we slaughter civilians.

Obviously it's an insane proposition, I admit, but I'm assuming that the people WOULD bare arms in preparation of military conflict and incite a war but also assuming that the people in charge (the government) are "tyrannical" and that they have a rational reason to want to hold on to power so desperately.
---

Liberalism: "We should ban guns, because having that small additional degree of safety to society is important."
Also liberalism: "You shouldn't want a gun, because that small additional degree of safety to you isn't important."
---

myzz7 posted...

Japan at the time was very powerful

nowhere near as powerful as the usa.

it's economy was like 1/10th the size of the USA at that time.

Guns were not needed as a deterrent.

Master_Bass posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Drop a nuke in California, New York and Texas and break the morale of the people--GAMER OVER. It only takes a few men, loyal to the bureaucracy to accomplish this too.

That's a good way to get other countries to intervine, though. No one wants fallout to come to their country not to mention watch while we slaughter civilians.

They would happen with or without the civilian having guns.
---

Flintgrandad posted...

Master_Bass posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Drop a nuke in California, New York and Texas and break the morale of the people--GAMER OVER. It only takes a few men, loyal to the bureaucracy to accomplish this too.

That's a good way to get other countries to intervine, though. No one wants fallout to come to their country not to mention watch while we slaughter civilians.

They would happen with or without the civilian having guns.

Yeah obviously countries and organizations would intervene before it all goes to shit, but I was picturing a "it's all gone to hell scenario."
---

r4X0r posted...

Liberalism: "We should ban guns, because having that small additional degree of safety to society is important."
Also liberalism: "You shouldn't want a gun, because that small additional degree of safety to you isn't important."

This is so true it hurts.

Annihilated posted...

r4X0r posted...

Liberalism: "We should ban guns, because having that small additional degree of safety to society is important."
Also liberalism: "You shouldn't want a gun, because that small additional degree of safety to you isn't important."

This is so true it hurts.

Imagine living in a country where you need own an AR-15 to protect yourself
---

At what point does a government look tyrannical to those against gun control?

Also, "the military are people too, not all of them will join against civilians" is a dumb response. Either the vast majority would have to be against civilians for this to even be an issue, and if they wouldn't join than protecting yourself from the government wouldn't be an issue to begin with.
---

Imagine thinking that the USA using nukes/drones/bombs on their own citizens would fly with the rest of the world.
---

Once the government does something like carpet bombs a few cities to show they're serious, I guarantee those brave rebels you think will fight against the tyrants will follow orders. History has shown us that. In exchange for food, money, status, safety, etc...? You are delusional if you think people won't take up arms against their fellow citizens. Basically, we're fucked. That fantasy bullshit where grizzled vets wage war from the shadows using peashooters is just that, bullshit.
---

RedWhiteBlue posted...

First of all, you're missing 2 key things

1) The military are people, too. They won't mindlessly follow the government's orders. If a large amount of people revolt, millions, I'm sure parts of the military would, too.

2) How many people are there? How many government officials and/or evil, rich douchebags are there? Numbers are very powerful.

I consider enlisting and mindlessly following the government orders is what made me abstain from doing it.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I honestly want the explanation for how you plan on effectively waging war against the US government in the event of them deciding to establish authoritarian dystopian rule

what is the logic here

Not every military member is a mindless drone that obeys without question. There would be defectors.
---

babyeatermax posted...

History has shown us that.

What history is that? Vietnam, Iraq?
---

CarlGrimes posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I honestly want the explanation for how you plan on effectively waging war against the US government in the event of them deciding to establish authoritarian dystopian rule

what is the logic here

Not every military member is a mindless drone that obeys without question. There would be defectors.

Most do obey without question or else they wouldn't last long in the military.
---

CarlGrimes posted...

babyeatermax posted...

History has shown us that.

What history is that? Vietnam, Iraq?

The history of the world. The history of authoritarianism. The history of tyrants. Don't be naive.
---

Is moving to Canada an option?

babyeatermax posted...

The history of the world. The history of authoritarianism. The history of tyrants. Don't be naive.

For sure, Vietnam and the Middle East conflicts were super fucking easy when we started bombing them.
---

OldSnakeLiveon8 posted...

Is moving to Canada an option?

Canada has very strict immigration policies.
---

1. the military isnt going to do shit. the civilian population IS the military. you will see a coup before you see drone strikes on american soil on the military's own family's.
2. theres a lot of ways to fight a war against a superior force and especially when that superior force doesnt take a scorched earth approach.
3. firearms are not here to just protect you from a tyrannical govt, but from any threat be it foreign or domestic. our military, our government, a foreign army or crazy bob down the street.
4. firearms act as a deterrent to what the govt. can actually get away with. once guns are severely limited or gone you WILL start to see more police state and authoritarian laws start to pop up. and it wont come like youd expect. your jailers will have smiles and plain cloths telling you its for the greater good.
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

babyeatermax posted...

The history of the world. The history of authoritarianism. The history of tyrants. Don't be naive.

For sure, Vietnam and the Middle East conflicts were super fucking easy when we started bombing them.

Excuse me, I thought we were discussing how effective guns would be at protecting us from our own government
---

Why do people assume all the soldiers will rebel and save us? Sure, a lot of them will, but what good is that? Soldiers don't come magically armed with a battalion of tanks, heavy duty explosives and a dozen fighter jets

Even if three fourths of the military rebel, it's unlikely they'll have much more than their guns, vests, ammo, and what they can carry. Some who are on leave may not even have that. Maybe some might be able to steal a tank, explosives, jets, ect here and there. However, we would still be out matched by an insanely wide margin
---

What kind of crappy dictatorship would NOT ban weapons from the people while trying to suppress an open revolt?

And what kind of crappy resistance would, upon being told they're no longer allowed to have weapons by said crappy dictatorship, actually listen and obey?
---