3 ms·
Yea but the civil war happened, which was super deadly. I see what you are getting at. But honestly, if the gov wants to do a genocide, they have tanks and bom
by rvo 9y ago
Yea but the civil war happened, which was super deadly.
I see what you are getting at. But honestly, if the gov wants to do a genocide, they have tanks and bombers to do it. No AR15 will help against that anyway.
- Consultant32452 9y agoIraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam beg to differ. The armed population there did an excellent job of fending off a technologically superior force.
- rvo 9y agoI won't call it excellent. If they didn't have weapons, then the US government would have caused less destruction and would have fixed those countries much more quickly. Similarly, if America didn't have guns, the civil war would have been faster and less bloody.
- Consultant32452 9y agoIf you're a native person living there opposed to US occupation, it went very well. That's the whole point of using them as an example to how a population armed with little more than rifles and IEDs in many cases can hold back the might of the US military.
- dingaling 9y agoTanks and bombers can do genocide, but they can't occupy & control. We saw that throughout the past 100 years, from the RAF's attempts to do 'air policing' in the Middle East in the 1920s to shock-and-awe in Iraq. To control a population you need boots on the ground.