4 ms·

> Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". It is, until i

> Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". It is, until it isn't. > Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? See: Middle East

rtkwe 5y ago
> See: Middle East That's always tricky because the most successful examples of a guerilla army winning like that are all a foreign army coming into a local rebelling population. They mostly work by just wearing down the invaders until the cost and time requirements wear heavy enough that the foreign army decides to just go home, that same dynamic doesn't map as well when it's the state fighting for it's own survival to me.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  It's actually probably easier since the government would be asking its own people to kill its own people. If the local government were in broadly thought to be tyrannical, a guerilla civil war would have a high chance of success. Ask Cuba.
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    It's impossible to say with certainty which way it will go. There's factors pushing in both directions. You're right there will be some defection from the military to any US insurgent side but there's also a lot of space to draw divisions in the US and given enough people you can assign soldiers to fight places they're not particularly aligned to support. My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam). There are completely different incentives there, on the extreme end of things losing means you might be killed Also don't be so sure about Cuba if you're talking about the current situation, it's far from over and they're not exactly a peer comparison to make to a theoretical US insurgency.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      > My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam). Do you think the guns in civilian ownership are to be used for foreign wars? They are exactly for homeland invasion. And who will back the US with arms? In the examples you gave it’s a richer country, or multiple, helping a poorer country. Who’s going to help the richest country in its death throes? What will be the benefit for all that aid should that nation fall? It’s better to pre-stage the weapons as that also serves to deter those that think the US is inadequately armed. When presented with historical events supporting these claims your response is “cannot say with certainty”… The interesting and terrifying part is, if I were China or Russia, I would be online trying to convince the US to disarm itself too.
      - rtkwe 5y ago
        We’re talking about armed US residents vs US government not a foreign invasion of the US.
        tekknik 5y ago
        Well the US gov fighting it’s citizens would be a war crime. And then hopefully the entirety of NATO would come down on them. A gov cannot use their own military force against their citizens. Full stop. And speaking as a veteran, my willingness to fight would be based on the side my beliefs were based upon. If the order was given to kill US citizens, it was an illegal order and the chain of command has been broken. All bets are off.
        rtkwe 5y ago
        That's not really what NATO is for and it'd depend a lot on what the actual events looked like. If it's frameable as armed violent uprising/terrorism being controlled then it's much less likely to pull explicit foreign intervention and the prototypical '2A to protect against a tyrannical government usage' will almost definitely fit that bill.
mustardo 5y ago
Also see: Vietnam

rtkwe 5y ago

> See: Middle East That's always tricky because the most successful examples of a guerilla army winning like that are all a foreign army coming into a local rebelling population. They mostly work by just wearing down the invaders until the cost and time requirements wear heavy enough that the foreign army decides to just go home, that same dynamic doesn't map as well when it's the state fighting for it's own survival to me.

nemo44x 5y ago
It's actually probably easier since the government would be asking its own people to kill its own people. If the local government were in broadly thought to be tyrannical, a guerilla civil war would have a high chance of success. Ask Cuba.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  It's impossible to say with certainty which way it will go. There's factors pushing in both directions. You're right there will be some defection from the military to any US insurgent side but there's also a lot of space to draw divisions in the US and given enough people you can assign soldiers to fight places they're not particularly aligned to support. My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam). There are completely different incentives there, on the extreme end of things losing means you might be killed Also don't be so sure about Cuba if you're talking about the current situation, it's far from over and they're not exactly a peer comparison to make to a theoretical US insurgency.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    > My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam). Do you think the guns in civilian ownership are to be used for foreign wars? They are exactly for homeland invasion. And who will back the US with arms? In the examples you gave it’s a richer country, or multiple, helping a poorer country. Who’s going to help the richest country in its death throes? What will be the benefit for all that aid should that nation fall? It’s better to pre-stage the weapons as that also serves to deter those that think the US is inadequately armed. When presented with historical events supporting these claims your response is “cannot say with certainty”… The interesting and terrifying part is, if I were China or Russia, I would be online trying to convince the US to disarm itself too.
    - rtkwe 5y ago
      We’re talking about armed US residents vs US government not a foreign invasion of the US.
      - tekknik 5y ago
        Well the US gov fighting it’s citizens would be a war crime. And then hopefully the entirety of NATO would come down on them. A gov cannot use their own military force against their citizens. Full stop. And speaking as a veteran, my willingness to fight would be based on the side my beliefs were based upon. If the order was given to kill US citizens, it was an illegal order and the chain of command has been broken. All bets are off.
        rtkwe 5y ago
        That's not really what NATO is for and it'd depend a lot on what the actual events looked like. If it's frameable as armed violent uprising/terrorism being controlled then it's much less likely to pull explicit foreign intervention and the prototypical '2A to protect against a tyrannical government usage' will almost definitely fit that bill.

mustardo 5y ago

Also see: Vietnam