• @Kage520
    link
    161 year ago

    That’s exactly the argument that conservatives always give for gun ownership. But like, how would they possibly overrun the largest military in the world with their personal arsenals?

    Maybe they could take a city but I can’t see it being a long lasting victory.

    • @Uncaged_Jay
      link
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If anything, the US’s engagements in Vietnam and, more recently, the Middle East have shown that eradicating an insurgent force is incredibly difficult, to the point of being almost impossible. On top of that, there are weapons used during the GWOT that wouldn’t (shouldn’t(?)) Be used against American citizens, unless their goal is to be rulers of the ashes. On top of that, there are plenty of American Servicemembers that would straight up refuse to attack American citizens, and would potentially aid the insurgency with things like vehicles and ammo.

      Add on top of that the extensive gun culture and sheer number of veterans in the general US population and I’d say they have a fighting chance.

      I say this all as a former military intelligence analyst myself.

      • @SCB
        link
        -3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You were slackin at your job if you don’t understand that the majority of people would oppose these insurgents, by definition, since that is how democracy works.

        There is no situation in which domestic insurgents would not be crushed utterly. They’d be heavily restricted in movement, denied resupply, theyd lose contact with their families, friends, etc as well as all cellular communication. They would not have air superiority. They wouldn’t even be able to contest air superiority. The most advanced counter-terrorism force in human history would be tracking them. When caught, they will absolutely land in Gitmo, at best, and will absolutely give up everything because these are not hardened fighters, these are your neighbors.

        The US is a fucking fortress. This is a complete non-starter. We haven’t even touched on actual military engagement yet. I’m not convinced it would even ever get to a point where it was necessary.

        If it ever was, the US would have to show the world that a challenge to its supremacy on its territory by (now non-)citizens in open rebellion absolutely will not be allowed to happen.

        The affected areas will completely locked down. The insurgents will lose all access to travel, because the entire area will. Then it’s just counter-terrorist procedure practiced over 20 years thousands of miles away.

        • @Uncaged_Jay
          link
          11 year ago

          My friend, I don’t know your qualifications, but I can tell you that the Viet Cong and AL Qaeda won against the most advanced COIN force in the world.

          • @SCB
            link
            01 year ago

            Except no they definitely did not.

              • @SCB
                link
                0
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No you didn’t. You probably don’t even realize the independent nation of Afghanistan negotiated with the Taliban for an American withdrawal, because that would fuck up your fantasy. It’s toward the end, here, and is my favorite response to “Afghanistan was American Imperialism”

                https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan

                The Taliban won zero engagements of significance and retook 0 territory from US forces. US forces toppled the Taliban in weeks. In any engagement, they suffered 30:1 casualty rates or more.

                You don’t even understand the framework of the engagement, much less who “won.”

    • @brygphilomena
      link
      41 year ago

      Insurgent forces are always scary. They know where to hide and they get creative with weaponry. This isn’t the revolutionary war with people marching side by side taking shots at the other side.

      Besides, that’s assuming the military is 100% cohesive in war operations inside this country and against other Americans.

      Oh, and ignoring that it might just be the conservatives in power that would be the aggressor and the rest defending themselves from fascists.

      • @Uncaged_Jay
        link
        81 year ago

        Your last point is the one that gets me, the left needs firearms as much as the right does if shit hits the fan.

        • @Shapillon
          link
          31 year ago

          Amen to that.

          In my country (France) we got single payer healthcare, legally enforced number of work hours in a week, annual PTO, etc because about 25% of the population were card carrying commies with guns.

    • @CADmonkey
      link
      21 year ago

      The biggest military in the world seems to have trouble with insurgents. See Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

      • GladiusB
        link
        21 year ago

        The bigger problem will be staffing. Who they are you going to get to take on your own town or state? No one wants that job. They want easy criminals that “choose” to act up.

    • regalia
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      This is the meal team six we’re talking about lol. One of them would pull out a gun, get shot, then the others would give up right there to go back watching their fox news and drinking diet coke.

    • @FluorideMind
      link
      11 year ago

      Just look at how well the largest military in the world held onto Afghanistan.

      • @SCB
        link
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is a really dumb comparison that implies you know Jack shit about warfare btw.

      • @Dr_pepper_spray
        link
        11 year ago

        …both sides live here though and speak the same language. It’s hardly a fair comparison.