Current Events > People actually believe that owning a gun can fight off the government?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Hangman posted...

It's called asymmetric warfare. Of course AR-15s don't beat nukes and tanks and F-22s and predator drones. That's why you don't engage them. For all the US's overwhelming military might, the conflicts it's currently engaged in aren't going very well, wouldn't you say?

For those who remember history... the Vietnam war was one where the Americans were vastly outclassing the people they were fighting... and still lost. Its about how, when and who to engage.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

Mr Hangman posted...

It's called asymmetric warfare. Of course AR-15s don't beat nukes and tanks and F-22s and predator drones. That's why you don't engage them. For all the US's overwhelming military might, the conflicts it's currently engaged in aren't going very well, wouldn't you say?

For those who remember history... the Vietnam war was one where the Americans were vastly outclassing the people they were fighting... and still lost. Its about how, when and who to engage.

Vietnam is a bad example, it's theorized that North Vietnam was fairly exhausted after Saigon, but by that point we'd lost the war with the press. Though, it is a good example of fighting a morale war.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

I never changed the subject. I'm addressing the central point of the topic which is the relevance of gun ownership to resisting the government. You are obsessing over whether I agree that in your contrived scenario the government would win, which is irrelevant because of course you don't use a tool only in scenarios where you're going to lose.

I'm not obsessing, you stated I was wrong and when I asked you to clarify, you deflected. Now you are making up something about how the scenario is stupid in the first place. I really don't know what elese to say. I'll take that as an apology from you since you seem to be able to admit that you said I was wrong and then realized I wasn't.

Crazyman93 posted...

Vietnam is a bad example, it's theorized that North Vietnam was fairly exhausted after Saigon, but by that point we'd lost the war with the press. Though, it is a good example of fighting a morale war.

It's also a bad example because of the previously listed differences, not to mention the advances in warfare since the 1970's. Not only has the military moved towards smaller forces with bigger vehicles and weapons, but they've also developed artillery that can strike tactical targets, tanks that can be run twice as effectively with crews half the size, and motherfucking autonomous drones that can take out entire fucking buildings full of rebels without risking a single pilot. Oh, and all of those things are constantly maintained, heavily guarded, fully staffed, and not commercially available.

I always find it weird in these fantasies the Government is some evil entity. I'm guessing people are imagining Stormtroopers.

Wouldn't most people side with the Government in reality? How else would they gain power? The people who would believe in the Government's atrocities would also have guns available to murder and kill people. Then you've got the majority of people who'd live their lives as long as it doesn't personally impact them.

You'd basically need to be capable of being a terrorist. When are you prepared to cross that line? People like Timothy McVeigh believed they were fighting a tyrannical Government.
---

Dark_Spiret posted...

you can not withstand an insurgency in this country. its not possible. army and police stations are intermixed with civilian populations. there is no front line and fallback points. it would be an endless stream of supply lines being cut off and propaganda disrupted (take down the power grid and youll push more people to your cause). drones and tanks wont do much with most of the populations being in large cities where collateral damage is a massive factor and people very easily able to run and hide in the hills and forests and make do with a vast amount of natural choke points. the US is one of the most diverse and defensible land masses in the entire world.

with that the US has been at war every day to some capacity since our foundation which has amassed a large veteran population. people willing to train and who know how to fight. with that our gun culture has gotten to silly levels. i know people, normal civies who have shot more rounds in their weapons and have camped and done more out doors actives than probably most of any single soldier in the service right now. on top of that because of our gun and military culture and massive capitalistic society normal civilians actually have easy access to a lot of military grade equipment barring heavy weapons even to the point of having newer versions of certain items that the military tends to buy older versions of in bulk to save money. and with no official registry you woudlnt know who has what making everyone a potential threat.

of course the whole thing is one big hypothetical especially when most of the actual military wouldnt stand for that kind of leadership and would most likely start a coup. and this isnt even adding outside forces. the day any of this happens is the day the US dies.

/topic

VectorChaos posted...

It amazes me every time this topic comes up that people believe that our military, incapable of containing poorly trained and equipped cave dwellers in just the Middle East, would have any ability whatsoever to combat open rebellion in a country as large, varied in terrain, and with such a heavily armed population as America.

foreveraIone posted...

the people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point are the most likely to become fascists and support an authoritarian government

In the event of a fascist government takeover which seems to be the current fearmonger fantasy since Trumps election, the "people who support the 2a hardcore and use this talking point" are literally your last line of defense against authoritarian government.

Also still baffles me, the overlap between people who think "The Nazis are coming!" since the election are the same people who think we could never fight the government, think all cops and military are evil but also want to disarm civilians so only cops and military have the guns...

It's like some of you more regressive motherfuckers can't even make up your minds.

They're extremely toxic and dishonest individuals who feign ignorance and refuse to even try to understand where their arguments are horse shit.

Wouldnt the American economy go to hell in this scenario?
---

Darmik posted...

I always find it weird in these fantasies the Government is some evil entity. I'm guessing people are imagining Stormtroopers.

Wouldn't most people side with the Government in reality? How else would they gain power? The people who would believe in the Government's atrocities would also have guns available to murder and kill people. Then you've got the majority of people who'd live their lives as long as it doesn't personally impact them.

You'd basically need to be capable of being a terrorist. When are you prepared to cross that line? People like Timothy McVeigh believed they were fighting a tyrannical Government.

Well isn't that what the amendment is for?

The right to bear arms and fight if the government over steps?
---

_wwKd_ posted...

Darmik posted...

I always find it weird in these fantasies the Government is some evil entity. I'm guessing people are imagining Stormtroopers.

Wouldn't most people side with the Government in reality? How else would they gain power? The people who would believe in the Government's atrocities would also have guns available to murder and kill people. Then you've got the majority of people who'd live their lives as long as it doesn't personally impact them.

You'd basically need to be capable of being a terrorist. When are you prepared to cross that line? People like Timothy McVeigh believed they were fighting a tyrannical Government.

Well isn't that what the amendment is for?

The right to bear arms and fight if the government over steps?

And what do you consider 'overstepping' for you to justify shooting people?
---

The Government have overstepped multiple times in the past, and you all allowed it.
---

The US gov't owns something like 8,300 working tanks and has 3,144 counties... so roughly 2.5 tanks per county. And that's only if 0% of the military sides with the general citizenry.
---

Darmik posted...

_wwKd_ posted...

Darmik posted...

I always find it weird in these fantasies the Government is some evil entity. I'm guessing people are imagining Stormtroopers.

Wouldn't most people side with the Government in reality? How else would they gain power? The people who would believe in the Government's atrocities would also have guns available to murder and kill people. Then you've got the majority of people who'd live their lives as long as it doesn't personally impact them.

You'd basically need to be capable of being a terrorist. When are you prepared to cross that line? People like Timothy McVeigh believed they were fighting a tyrannical Government.

Well isn't that what the amendment is for?

The right to bear arms and fight if the government over steps?

And what do you consider 'overstepping' for you to justify shooting people?

good question! I'd like to know dude's follow up thoughts. or anybody's to that question.
---

"This is a misreading of history on two levels. First, German citizens as a whole were not disarmed by the Nazis. Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized. But for most German citizens, the Nazi period was one in which gun regulations were loosened, not tightened."

That politifact article gets cited from time to time when people try to use it as a counterpoint to Nazi Germany's gun control, but does the bold not perfectly illustrate why government infringement on right to defense is a bad thing?