3 ms·

I have saved a post about this from 4chan, they passed it around on some pro-gun rights forums. Will paraphrase it and spare you the expletives. "You cannot co

I have saved a post about this from 4chan, they passed it around on some pro-gun rights forums. Will paraphrase it and spare you the expletives. "You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drone or any of these things you believe trump's citizen ownership of firearms. A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3am and search your house for contraband. None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrants in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington DC into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of [excrement]. Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why is a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while civilians are unarmed. BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out of the window because now the police are outnumbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them. If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the US military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick-up trucks and improvised explosives because these big weapons you talk about are useless for dealing with them. ".

Chris2048 6y ago
So basically, it can't protect against all out war on it's citizens, or a oppressive government willing to kill innocents in order to terrorise the population; but it could protect against softer power grabs or coups.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
You don't need any of the above if you have an effective media machine that tells people what to think. Which you very much do in the US. The militias aren't there to protect "freedom", they're kept on hand in case they're ever needed to protect privilege.
vagrantJin 6y ago
> If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the US military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick-up trucks and improvised explosives because these big weapons you talk about are useless for dealing with them. Guerilla warfare is a sharp reminder that the biggest weapon a soldier has is the one between his ears. Standing armies, like the story of david and goliath, "deploy" troops with the expectation that the other side will play by their rules. The result? David ain't about that life and uses his head, sling and a rock. You can have all the weapons in the world, nothing can garuantee your victory. So how do the politicians and top brass justify the dead sons and no real, tangible success? They order the army to kill civilians ofcourse. Can you imagine training soldiers for a million bucks a pop, then he gets killed by a homemade bomb in some wadhi? In short, war is a mess. It's not more guns needed, it's diplomacy.
justinclift 6y ago
> A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. Loitering drones sure could. The US seems to have one of the most widely deployed sets of them (so far), spends lots of R&D money to improve (and automate) them, and has already shown they'll be covertly used within US borders for (at least) surveillance operations.

Chris2048 6y ago

So basically, it can't protect against all out war on it's citizens, or a oppressive government willing to kill innocents in order to terrorise the population; but it could protect against softer power grabs or coups.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

You don't need any of the above if you have an effective media machine that tells people what to think. Which you very much do in the US. The militias aren't there to protect "freedom", they're kept on hand in case they're ever needed to protect privilege.

vagrantJin 6y ago

> If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the US military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick-up trucks and improvised explosives because these big weapons you talk about are useless for dealing with them. Guerilla warfare is a sharp reminder that the biggest weapon a soldier has is the one between his ears. Standing armies, like the story of david and goliath, "deploy" troops with the expectation that the other side will play by their rules. The result? David ain't about that life and uses his head, sling and a rock. You can have all the weapons in the world, nothing can garuantee your victory. So how do the politicians and top brass justify the dead sons and no real, tangible success? They order the army to kill civilians ofcourse. Can you imagine training soldiers for a million bucks a pop, then he gets killed by a homemade bomb in some wadhi? In short, war is a mess. It's not more guns needed, it's diplomacy.

justinclift 6y ago

> A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. Loitering drones sure could. The US seems to have one of the most widely deployed sets of them (so far), spends lots of R&D money to improve (and automate) them, and has already shown they'll be covertly used within US borders for (at least) surveillance operations.