4 ms·
Except that this time the difference between a regular army and a militia would be far beyond just the color of their coat. Having weapons at home can barely c
by partycoder 9y ago
Except that this time the difference between a regular army and a militia would be far beyond just the color of their coat.
Having weapons at home can barely counter law enforcement, let alone a professional military force.
This time there's more technology supporting each area of warfare: logistics, reconnaissance, equipment, vehicles...
A militia, however organized, has everything to lose against an regular army in the 21st century. In fact, chances are you would die before you are in range to fire your weapon.
Your only chance to win would be insurgency or guerrilla warfare.
- kakarot 9y agoYou are absolutely correct and it's a horrible state of affairs. There's still no need to starve the beast and remove one of the few weapons we have against the slaughtering of our rights and freedoms. Just being able to purchase guns of reasonable firepower without scrutiny is extremely important to the freedom of our posterity and their ability to organize. I know this almost makes me sound like some sort of radical terrorist, but these ideals are at the core of our Constitution and to not value these ideals is to be devoid of true patriotism.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bitJericho 9y agoGuerilla warfare... without guns? You're exactly right, "Your only chance to win would be insurgency or guerrilla warfare." but I'll add "with guns."
- partycoder 9y agoGood luck shooting at an Apache helicopter with a mounted minigun with your semi-automatic gun.
- bitJericho 9y agoThat argument would be much more effective if we didn't have groups like ISIS taking the piss out of the US.