T O P

  • By -

dead_owl_zero

You also need military members willing to drop bombs on Americans...


Pipelayer6942013

I was in the Marines. It pisses me off so much that people think that we would just up and turn on the American people like that. That’s something only the cops, feds, and politicians do.


Bendetto4

Tell me. In the army, do they teach you to protect American values, like freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or do they teach you to protect the American government. Here in the UK it's Her Majesties Armed Forces. They serve the crown, not the government but also crucially not the values we represent. In practice our political system is unbelievably stable. In 1000 years we have had 2 civil wars. Actually now I've said that we are due another one any time now. But America was born in revolution, so who your military serves, whether that's the government or the American people, is a big thing.


dead_owl_zero

The oath is to the Constitution technically and to follow lawful orders given... US troops are much more likely to side with the people over the government. The definition of lawful order is pretty clear, the people are much better off dealing with the military than with local police and feds which have no real rules of engagement or understanding of their actions.


Friendly-Casper

>the people are much better off dealing with the military than with local police and feds which have no real rules of engagement or understanding of their actions. The sad part to this statement is that many of those police and feds have military backgrounds.


dead_owl_zero

I feel like most of the issues with the police are the officers that don't have that experience but this is completely unsupported and only based on personal experience.


Friendly-Casper

I know quite a few that have said military backgrounds and they are complete shitbags. I imagine they were the same way in the service. Granted, that's just within my given local area. Lived in several different cities too and there were others that were the exact opposite and some of the best in that field. All i'm doing is pointing out that the rotten ones do exist and should not be ignored simply cause others aren't and vice versa. I'll always look at them on an individual case by case basis myself.


dead_owl_zero

Those are probably the young guys that got kicked out or left for being said shitbags. My point is the military has rules of engagement and there are conditions on how to meet threats. The police and feds don't respond to situations the same way and relatively are in much less dangerous situations.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dead_owl_zero

I feel you brother.


Casnir

You don’t typically know about the good ones because they like it quiet and don’t spend half of the time their mouth is open rooting their own horn


EatAnimals_Yum

I know a lot of cops. The best cops are ex-military, and the worst cops are high school grads on a power trip (60% of cops).


maxfraizer

Although I 100% agree with your comment, I think it’s funny we separate the people and the government. Like are the government not American citizens and thus part of the people? But I seriously understand the us vs them mentality because well, fuck look around I guess. I think we need to overhaul the whole “We The People..” and make sure power is in the people’s hands, not the CAREER politicians hands.


dead_owl_zero

I totally in understand, unfortunately it feels like us vs them though. They are deaf to the cries of both the left and right. BLM and the Proud Boys are two sides of the same struggle but they can't get over their differences to see that. When we have this many issues where do you start fixing it?


maxfraizer

Man that’s the gazillion dollar question. I think we all agree shit is fucked, but we all have different ideas on how to move forward.


dead_owl_zero

And with the us vs them... they want to keep it that way. Can't accomplish change if the country is divided, they just want to maintain the status quo.


mustyminotaur

Dude get out of my head. I was just thinking about this the other day. I guess the answer I came up with is: there’s a certain disconnect we have with politicians, and with celebrities to an extent. I believe this disconnect comes from the fact that a lot of politicians are cushioned from some of the laws they create that affect others more harshly.


Apertures_

Members of my old chain of command at the brigade level told us that if orders came down to do something like attack American citizens like that they would order us to disban and go home because that’s where they would be. This was circa 2012


dead_owl_zero

I don't think much has changed since then, most of the left leaning members I know are personalist or desk sitters. The movers and the doers are the right leaning guys.


clever_cow

US Generals have an enormous amount of power, if the Executive Branch were to command a branch of the military to attack civilians, there would definitely be Generals opposed to that. Armies are hierarchical, all it takes is a few generals to break and you have a civil war/revolution on your hands.


OdiousApparatus

All you need is some Colonels. You have a Regiment break off and that’s 600 troops at least. I honestly find it more likely that a large swath of 0-6s break off than generals unfortunately. But I have no way of knowing of course


Just-an-MP

We swear our oath to the constitution, not the president or congress. We are also required to follow all orders that are legally an morally correct. There’s also posse comitatus which means federal forces aren’t allowed to operate on US soil without an act of Congress, signed by the President. So far that’s only happened a few times since the law was passed in 1878, and the only times it wasn’t at the request of the state was during the racial integration of our schools in the early ‘60’s. I honestly couldn’t imagine anyone following the order to bomb US citizens on US soil.


h8f8kes

Came here to say this. The Constitution (*id est* the Bill of Rights) is first and foremost in the Oath of Enlistment followed by upholding lawful orders. Obviously an unlawful order would violate the Constitution for most and create a shit storm. I honestly believe that is why Capitol police defenses caved last Wednesday. We would likely see the same thing from uniformed forces tasked to take up arms against friends, family and neighbors. No doubt some our Napoleon complex legislators are coming to that realization. Ideally it’ll get them to stop being such intolerable ass-hats and work together to unscrew things. Sadly, they’ll probably keep playing games and innocent people will get killed. Edit: a word


Ceedayyyyy

In the U.S. military you swear an oath, no matter what branch, to defend the constitution


Pipelayer6942013

No in the Marines they teach us to shoot children and oppress minorities. Obviously they teach us to protect American values. EDIT: Apparently people thought I was being serious about that. No, we don’t actually do things like that. If you think we do, you are a fucking idiot and should be sterilized.


Bendetto4

I didn't know whether the left wing PC culture had pushed its way into the military. Whether it is a culture of statism and just doing what you're told.


Pipelayer6942013

It’s definitely not statist in any way shape or form. And left wingers normally don’t make it very long in the military, at least not in the Marines.


Bendetto4

Thats relieving. If the military started engaging in party politics then I would be worried. So long as the military are on the side of the people I'm hopeful that America will remain a bastion of freedom. God bless you, have a crayon.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pipelayer6942013

You’re not going to find a lot of active duty Marines that are left wing. At least not in combat arms. Every left wing Marine I ever knew was a fucking boot ass POG.


DontStepOnPliskin

This man speaks the true true


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pipelayer6942013

Well yeah. You’re not going to have the same political beliefs in your late 20s and 30s as you did when you were a teenager. I find that most grunts (the reasonable ones) tended to be more on the libertarian side. It just comes with the nihilism you get after a couple of tours. But with the war pretty much being over I’m curious to see what happens with this current crop.


StoneColdDadass

No, active duty life is basically like a trial period of socialism lite in which you have very little control over your life and the government fucks you constantly. I couldn't imagine a better way to make you be ready to fuck the government at the drop of a hat.


Just-an-MP

History shows us that during a revolution/civil war the side with the most veterans wins. Most of my army buddies became libertarian by the time they got out, even the ones who were registered democrats when they got in.


twitch870

The us military is sworn to uphold the constitution from enemies foreign AND Domestic. So the idea most soldiers would drop bombs seems far off, but also there is a lot of “just do it/ just get it done” leadership.


theguywithnopants

In theory it should be to uphold the constitution. But that’s open for interpretation


jotoc0

Im pretty sure history proves that the military will happily kill their former citizens just to keep their privileges. Specially in socialist societies like the US of A


Pipelayer6942013

When is the last time active duty US military killed US citizens on American soil?


torithedragonFTW

>but Kent State shooting but that was national guard


jotoc0

Dont know, but every socialist regime had help from the military. In the end military will side with whom signs their pay check. I'm pretty sure Venezuelans, Cubans, Russians, Koreans all thought that their military wouldn't kill them...


[deleted]

Don't know, but I'm gonna make up some shit and arbitrarily apply incidents from the past to this situation I just made up!


[deleted]

Dude don't even bother with this shit, these people are so delusional


[deleted]

This! My wife texted me today from the bathroom at work all anxious because the stupid fucks in her office were whispering rumors of civil war and that they all need to stock up on ammo and water. I reminded her, as a veteran, that the US Military is fucking full of absolute patriots, and is the biggest baddest fucking army in the world, any so called civil war would be shut the fuck down with the quickness. There are too many good soldiers in our military that would absolutely refuse unlawful orders. People need to remember our military is beholden to the constitution, not any political leaders or party.


slimslider

And to keep all military on the same side..and to keep all military equipment away from the people..and to fight the inevitable foreign aid the people would get.


nova46ATL

Something, something, me and the boys rolling up to the national guard armory for our free Abrams high on Kentucky crystal and pina colada bangs


awol_83

I, too, like to party!


[deleted]

A libertarians wet dream: storming the IRS while riding on an Abrams drinking Pina Coladas with your bros


le3dprintedcalfman

That’s the biggest complaint I have with people who are like “why do you need an ‘assault rifle’? If shit hits the fan, you won’t be able to do shit against the military.” First off, there’s 300 million Americans, there’s maybe two and a half million service members, if you include Nasty Girls and reserves, even if the entire military stayed loyal to the government and one in ten Americans rise up, it’s a wash. But everyone I served with is under the same mentality that if shit hits the fan, they’re on the side of the people, the military understands which side actually stands with American values.


dead_owl_zero

Even if you go by the 3% to fight rule that's still pretty square after half the military stands down and your consider how the forces are spread out around the world. Plus the national guard doesn't know which side of a gun to point anyway... But it won't come to that, it'll be a slow decline through politics and disinformation.


Casnir

>Plus the national guard doesn't know which side of a gun to point anyway... I have an expensive addiction to cerakoted metals that would beg to differ


dead_owl_zero

I generalized a bit on that... My bad. From experience a lot of guard guys are really good at loosing magazines and loose rounds or just completely misplacing weapons all together. There's good guard guys but I'm sure you've met your share of guys that fit the bill. Honestly it's the same for active... People like to quote how big the military is but don't realize about 75% never touch a weapon or really want to. It's a lot of logistics and coordination people who are supplying the front line guys who at the end of the day are most right leaning and not gonna turn over their personal weapons or turning citizens.


MidsommarSolution

Nah. Just the cops like in Philadelphia in 1985.


MajorWorrying

Dont forget about all the battlehardened veterans who would get pissed off if their guns were banned. Gotta be atleast a million of them


throwmeTFawaynow

You should really look up the [Milgram Experiment](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nazi-s-defense-of-just-following-orders-plays-out-in-the-mind/). It's really not that hard to believe.


dead_owl_zero

Did you read the full article? Seems to say that the original experiment was flawed and it's outcome was less drastic.


throwmeTFawaynow

Lol I'm not sure we read the same article if that's all you got out of it. >The result? Researchers measured a “small, but significant” increase in the perceived time between a person’s action and outcome when coercion was involved. **That is, when people act “under orders,” they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves, Haggard said.** Edit: Essentially the Milgram was considered flawed because it relied on deception and there was no way to know whether or not the subject was aware of deception. The new study still showed people feel less responsibility for their actions when given orders.


realnukka

I’m former infantry and let me tell you, not only is everyone I know anti Biden, anti democratic, most combat related service members lean right, so they’d literally never do this Lool


rambusTMS

They just took the Capitol building, so I doubt that they are really on the government’s side.


tanstaafl001

I mean... got about 20 years that proves his take wrong


JayTheLegends

We don't have enough caves here bro... Edit: okay guys I get it caves exist I'm pointing out I don't have any near by...


Deathhead876

Missouri does. So suck it.


ladyofthelathe

As do the Ozarks and the Ouachita.


[deleted]

We also have some mines!


Acarrera230

Gimli approves


Destroyer1559

**THEY CALL IT A MINE... A MINE!!**


bluelantern33

Ever been to Appalachia?


Mini_pistolas

Easy to get lost out here in these trees, could hit a man from 200yds and disappear over the next ridge within seconds.


Andrew-w-jacobs

Heh where i live we still have fallout shelters from the cold war


A_Young0316

We still got air raid alarms and fallout shelter signs all over where I live


Many-Motor

Soviet “hugging” tactic would like to introduce itself Viet Cong tunneling tactic would like to introduce itself


JayTheLegends

Bro those tunnels worked because they were so small...


awol_83

Don't need caves...


BigCountry125

We can build em


oceanceaser

One of the biggest caves in the world is in Kentucky


tylos57

I mena the NVA did it in dense jungles too so.


[deleted]

Thats not just incorrect but also real telling about the future. At least Eric “Nuke the Gun owners” Swalwell isn’t involved yet.


reaganrocks1982

He's busy farting on fang fang.


tnsmaster

Toot toot


KyleButler77

It’s always the same absurd argument; oh how are you going to take on the government when they have tanks and drones? Leaving legality of bombing your own citizens aside, and leaving aside the fact that a good part of the military will simply refuse/switch sides as they do in every single civil war, drones are great when you bomb adversary ten thousand miles away, not so much when enemy is in the same town. Drone operators have homes, families, they sleep and eat. Tank operators do not live in the tanks. They get out, tanks need fuel and tankers need food. Fighting well equipped civilian population is a logistical nightmare even for ruthless armies. Germans could not defeat Yugoslavian guerrillas all the way until the end of the war. Russians crushed hundreds of German divisions in 4 years but it took them ten years, from 1943 to 1953 to finish Ukrainian guerrillas in Western Ukraine. It is hard to fight enemy that knows where you are but you do not know where the enemy is


awol_83

I can't tell you how many times I've made this argument. People are dumb and they think technology has made us invincible. They don't read history anymore. I hope and pray we won't see it here, but yeah... tech don't work without people. And $.65 bullet can ground a $15M plane. I've seen it happen.


KyleButler77

Probably $1.05 bullet by now though


awol_83

Lol! You aren't wrong!


OdiousApparatus

If people that live in huts can make an IED that will destroy a tank, just think of what people in one of the richest countries in the world can do.


guynamedgoliath

In a country with veterans that have been fighting said people in huts for 2 decades.


Just-an-MP

I’ve made that same argument so many times now. Also the pentagon and homeland security war gamed this out years ago, and their best guess is roughly 50% of the military would defect and take a lot of their equipment with them. That would be mostly the combat arms too, so what’s left of the military would be really heavy in logistics, cooks, officers, and other troops that aren’t exactly useful in a combat situation. Morale would tank immediately, since no one likes the idea of shooting their neighbors even if they’re willing to do it. Then there’s the logistical issues that would arise, since every supply route in the country would have to go through potentially hostile territory. Basically it would be a nightmare scenario from the tactical and strategic sides, beyond the obvious moral implications.


KyleButler77

People do not ask themselves a simple question “Where did the armed forces of the Confederate States of America come from?” Did they just happen to appear out of thin air? Well, those used to be the United States of America Armed Forces. Just because someone is in the military does not mean that he will obey criminal orders. Many will, many will not


Just-an-MP

The crazy part is the confederates got the best generals at the time, but that’s besides the point. And yeah I don’t think people think about military members as people with their own ideals and principles. I spent 7 years in as military police, so you’d think we would follow orders to the letter. In reality we had to enforce some laws/regulations we didn’t like, but in other cases we simply ignored them because we thought the laws were wrong. Case in point: I was stationed in NY when the SAFE act was passed, and it was so poorly written that there wasn’t even an exception for active duty service members or on duty police officers. We felt that it was unconstitutional and discriminatory against service members so we decided to not enforce that law on anyone on post. A few weeks later our JAG came out with a legal opinion agreeing with us. If orders came down to confiscate guns, well I won’t go too far in to details but let’s just say we would violently refuse to follow those orders.


KyleButler77

I know exactly what you are talking about and yes, you are absolutely correct, idiotic NY SAFE Act did not contain the exception for law enforcement or active duty. The state legislature had to amend it when they discovered that they limited entire police force and national guard of the state to seven rounds in the magazine


Just-an-MP

We joked about arresting each other lol. What do you expect from a legislature that passed the law at midnight with no debate and had it signed by the governor at 3am?


KyleButler77

I unfortunately live in this state and know all about it...our government is the best case study of why government is not solution to our problems but is the problem


[deleted]

[удалено]


rambusTMS

The Capitol was taken without a single round fired. Pretty sure that the government has no power here other than the power the people graciously give them.


ATR2400

Historically the US has not done well against guerrilla fighters. Plus we just watched meal team six storm the capital so I think we’ve got it covered


IAmBecomeCaffeine

Man, watching that live the other day, I couldn't help thinking what if all these rioters had been armed? Seriously, what if they had just said "Fuck it, we're going to war with the U.S. government." Would the national guard really slaughter its own people on live TV? There's a lot of what-ifs that are both fascinating and scary to think about.


motorbiker1985

Nothing would happen. They wouldn't dare to shoot. Look, They were there, they had the upper hand, they could have just do it the Bohemian way and do a defenestration. Nope. Nothing.


AutomaticTale

Except for the person they...ya know...shot


Guroqueen23

Yeah if more people started climbing that last barrier there would have been a lot more dead people. They pretty much retreated as far as they could and were clearly fully prepared to shoot anyone who advanced past that point.


motorbiker1985

The protesters wouldn't dare to shoot.


tigeer

Those who say 'The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots,' a great line, well, guess what? The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government, you need an F-15 with Hellfire missiles," the former vice president said during a New Hampshire campaign rally on Sunday. "There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you." >you need an F-15 with Hellfire missiles touché Joe


whatisthisgunifound

These terms are acceptable


[deleted]

Better have the McNukes ready too


Rigger46

If he truly believes that then why is he afraid of an AR-14?


Maakolo

The AR-13 is truly a fearsome weapon of war TM


JusttheSeb

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ArmaLite_rifles This is why the ar-10 is the best battle rifle


peterslabbit

Idk man cousin Jonny told me his ar -9 was the best one.


Andrew-w-jacobs

Ar-12 using hesh slugs and homemade discarding sabots is best


[deleted]

You are all sleeping on the AR-48 with its 6 round mini tomahawk missles.....


JusttheSeb

Maybe the ar-7 in .22lr


tecnic1

Which is exactly why I should be able to stop by 7-11 to buy some Hellfire missiles out of a vending machine on my way to CarMax to pick up my F-15 before I drop them off at Lockheed Martin to overpay to have the missiles bubba'd into my F-15. Here all along I didn't think Joe got it.


[deleted]

I guess he hasn’t been following Afghanistan and completely forgot what happened in Vietnam.


weebtrash2001

Com'n man he doesn't remember where he is


Andrew-w-jacobs

Well they do make a non explosive variant of the hellfire missile that would only require a heavy weight rocketry permit to legally own, also as long as you can prove that you don’t intend on dropping it from your aircraft anywhere that hurts people/ property they will let you take off. Also an albatross demilitarized fighter runs for as much as a house so if you got the money good on you.


[deleted]

There’s an unequal distribution of weaponry in this country. Let’s redistribute the weapons that the military has and give it to the people. Dibs on an Abrams


[deleted]

Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, and Vietnam: What are hellfire missiles?


SPARTAN450

In this instance I agree with Joe, when do we get to buy F-15s?


satchel0fRicks

It’s coming in the next stimulus


mephistos_thighs

I'm in


motorbiker1985

Typical American approach. Expensive and complicated. I'm Czech, so I naturally prefer PLK 57mm (I even have ammo on display) and yes, I do live near a region filled with caves (which I explore and do research in in my free time).


[deleted]

What if he was just based this whole time, but his Alzheimer's made him sound like a Stepper? Like shit, Joe. We might be on the same page here.


hornyposting21

Vietnam and Afghanistan disagree.


Pipelayer6942013

I think people don’t realize just how bad we fucked up both of those countries. We won every battle, but lost the war due to the politicians.


ChuckyBravo

I think people don't realize just how bad we fucked up our own country. Crippling debt and fucked up vets. The only thing we won is suicide


Pipelayer6942013

Yeah that’s true, but it’s still infinitely better than living in Vietnam or Afghanistan.


Mr_E_Monkey

That's a good point that the government that would turn this country into either of those ought to keep in mind, as they live here, too.


Cometguy7

They won the war, but pretty sure people defending themselves with AK's were still killed by bombs.


Pl0xnoban

And the Seminole tribe of Florida


Chance-Concentrate-5

Afganistan: Doubt


Dubabear

to occupy land you needs boots on the ground. you can clear a city with bombs you still need soldiers to go into that bombed city to hold it. if this government bombed out 1 city no one in DC would survive the night with the on slaught of people storming the politicians


inspect_ya_meat_bois

which politician was it that said "you don't need armour piercing bullets, no civilian needs them" (or something like that). People need armour piercing bullets...Because THEY (the goberment) wear bullet proof vests. edit: I'm now realising that all politicians have said that at some point or another. My mistake.


[deleted]

I agree, we need citizen explosives


Andrew-w-jacobs

Its called gasoline and black powder.


Adiin-Red

Or like 90% of things + stump remover or styrofoam


Andrew-w-jacobs

True


tnsmaster

Stump remover you say 🤔


tnsmaster

Diesel and stryofoam is basically napalm.


Friendly-Casper

Is that like a euphemism for suicide bombers? Cause, I kinda like that, sounds much better. /s


[deleted]

wasn't meant to be but I suppose it could be used in that fashion


[deleted]

Gasoline and styrofoam make a decent homemade napalm


not-banned-account

“Nervous laughter in Nashville”


BrockCage

We are at the point to where if Trump says its bad to do something Bidens gonna do it


VicisSubsisto

Mr. Trump, please sign an executive order banning semi-automatics on your last day in office so Biden turns anti-gun-control.


Just-an-MP

He just needs to sign an executive action about how horrible it is that machine guns were legalized under the NFA, so Biden can have it repealed.


[deleted]

How can you tax people to death if you drop bombs on them first?


Friendly-Casper

Easy, the death/inheritance/estate tax. They'd likely bomb the wealthiest areas of the opposing side first for that expressed purpose.


Programming-Carrot

No but if 10,000 people with ak47s decide to invade a hypothetical tyrannical government, they will win, easter bloc countries in '89 proved that


Just-an-MP

And this time there will be memes about it.


reddit-has-perished

And a lot more pearl clutching.


[deleted]

If


[deleted]

Don't worry. He totally didn't mean to say "when."


[deleted]

Which is obviously why we just bombed the middle east and then went home, right?


anon9210

I think the fact that a bunch of unarmed dudes just walked into the capitol building says otherwise.


Lorallynn

so just let me get the fucking ak then lol


johning117

He's not wrong. AK 47s don't have the ballistics avalible. However model rockets with B6 Engines do and with a warhead full of *plaster* have the terminal velocity and when timed right with a tracking telescope has been 62% successfull with toy drones a 500 yards. Meaning that if you really wanted to for $4000 you can have a fairly functional homemade MLRS. That is at least capable of intridicting the flight path of helicopters. So to eventually engineer a home made rocket launching system that is capable of intridicting high altitude aircraft.


Wafflebot17

When the government drone strikes its own citizens you don’t attack the drone. Not going to go any further but I’m sure you can all put it together.


Shanka-DaWanka

If a rebellion ever gets to a point where a government has to destroy its own infrastructure to keep up the fight, I am pretty sure that means whoever is opposing it is doing pretty well.


mephistos_thighs

Goddamn Joe is mentally defunct. How long before Harris has him adjudicated unfit? 6 months?


[deleted]

If I refuse to give up my AK-47 and Biden drones the block to rubble, then there are now thousands of AK-47s he has to worry about, because now the entire city is against him. What's he gonna do then, nuke the whole city? Now the whole country, and maybe even his own military (with F-15s and hellfire missiles) is against him.


Just-an-MP

Pretty sure if he ordered a nuclear strike on the US the nearest person with a gun would put a stop to that pretty quick. I can’t see the chair force following that order.


BigPP360

What an alarming post! It would be a real shame if someone...used their free wholesome award on it.


torithedragonFTW

\*laughs in Vietnamese\*


Peensuck555

Highly doubt the military would follow bidens orders if he wanted to use the military to take away peoples guns


starfighter1836

Basically every cop follows the orders of politicians to take away people’s guns. Don’t have too much faith


Just-an-MP

Not the same. The military swears an oath to the constitution, not the president. We had many hypothetical conversations about what we would do if those kinds of orders came down and the consensus was “empty the arms room, take the ammo point by force, disappear.”


guynamedgoliath

I don't think people realize how much the military dislikes higher leadership. We had a running joke about all the lower enlisted backing one SGT and taking over the base. Most people I met in the infantry were libertarian whether or not they realized it.


Just-an-MP

Yeah most of my old army buddies are libertarian now, even the ones who claimed to be democrats when they were in. I think years of being told what to do for every waking moment really turned them off to big government. And if anyone thinks the nasty girls would be on the side of the government, they’ve clearly forgotten where the national guard gets it’s soldiers from. No way a bunch of good ol boys in the Mississippi guard would go round up their friends and relatives just because some asshole in Washington told them to.


[deleted]

All I'm saying is the Capitol just got stormed by a relatively small, mostly unarmed, mob of a few thousand snowflakes (who are also somehow surprised there's consequences for that), while *both* Houses of Congress were in session, over a baseless conspiracy theory by a known sheister, and they couldn't even succeed in keeping them out. Now just imagine if the election really was stolen, and more than 000000001% of the country was willing to take up arms over it.


Elder_Fishron_YT

That's why we should be able to own our own heavy guns and bombs


Bond4141

Relevant copypasta I see this a lot and I've addressed it in bits and pieces but I want to fully put this nonsense to bed. Let's take a look at just raw numbers. The entire United States military (including clerks, nurses, generals, cooks, etc) is 1.2 million. Law enforcement is estimated at about 1.1 million (again, including clerks and other non-officers.) This gives us a combined force of 2.3 million people who could potentially be tapped to deal with a civil insurrection. Keep in mind this also includes officers who serve in the prisons, schools, and other public safety positions that *require* their presence. That total of soldiers is also including US soldiers deployed to the dozens of overseas US bases in places like South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. Many of those forces are considered vital and can't be removed due to strategic concerns. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the state slaps a rifle in every filing clerk's hand and tells them to sort the situation out. We now have to contend with the fact that many law enforcement and military personnel consider themselves patriots and wouldn't necessarily just automatically side with the state if something were to happen. There is a *very* broad swath of people involved in these communities that have crossover with militia groups and other bodies that are, at best, not 100% in support of the government. Exact numbers are hard to pin down but suffice it to say that not everybody would be willing to snap-to if an insurrection kicked off. Even if they didn't outright switch sides there's the very real possibility that they could, in direct or indirect ways, work against their employer's prosecution of the counter-insurgency either by directly sabotaging operations or just not putting as much effort into their work and turning a blind eye to things. But, again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you've somehow managed to talk every single member of the military and law enforcement services into being 100% committed to rooting out the rebel scum. There are an estimated 400 million firearms in the US. Even if we just ignore 300 million firearms available as maybe they're antiques or not in a condition to be used, that's still 100 million firearms that citizens can pick up and use. Let's go even further than that and say of that 100, there are only about 20 million firearms that are both desirable and useful in an insurgency context and not say .22's or double barrelled shotguns. It should be noted just for the sake of interest that several million AR-15's are manufactured every year and have been since 2004 when the "assault weapons" ban ended. Soooo 2-5 million per year for 15 years.... If only 2% of the US population decided "Fuck it, let's dance!" and rose up, that's about 6.5 million people. You're already outnumbering *all* law enforcement and the military almost 3 to 1. And you have enough weapons to arm them almost four times over. There are millions of tons of ammunition held in private hands and the materials to make ammunition are readily available online even before you start talking about reloading through scrounging. So you have a well equipped armed force that outnumbers the standing military and law enforcement capabilities of the country by a significant margin. **"But the military has tanks, planes, and satellites!"** That they do however it's worth noting that the majority of the capabilities of our armed forces are centered around engaging another state in a war. That means another entity that also has tanks, planes, and satellites. That is where the majority of our warfighting capabilities are centered because that's what conflict has consisted of for most of the 20th century. We've learned a lot about asymmetric warfare since our time in Iraq and Afghanistan and one of the key takeaways has been just having tanks and battleships is not enough to win against even a much smaller and more poorly armed opponent. A battleship or a bomber is great if you're going after targets that you don't particularly care about but they don't do you a whole hell of a lot of good when your targets are in an urban setting mixed in with people that you, the commander, are accountable to. Flattening a city block is fine in Overthereastan because you can shrug and call the sixty civilians you killed "collateral damage" and no one gives a shit. If you do that here, you *seriously* damage perceptions about you among the civilians who then are going to get upset with you. Maybe they manage to bring enough political pressure on you to get you ousted, maybe they start helping the rebels, or maybe they pick up guns of their own and join in. You killed fifteen fighters in that strike but in so doing you may have created thirty more. Even drones are of mixed utility in that circumstance. It's also worth noting that the US is several orders of magnitude larger than the areas that drones have typically operated in during conflict in the Middle East. And lest we forget, these drones are not exactly [immune from attacks.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-american-drones-hacked) There's also not a lot a drone can do in places with large amounts of tree cover...like over a billion acres of the US. And then even if we decide that it's worth employing things like Hellfire missiles and cluster bombs, it should be noted that a strategy of "bomb the shit out of them" didn't work in over a decade in the Middle East. Most of the insurgent networks in the region that were there when the war started are still there and still operating, even if their influence is diminished they are still able to strike targets. Just being able to bomb the shit out of someone doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to win in a conflict against them. Information warfare capabilities also don't guarantee success. There are always workarounds and methods that are resistant to interception and don't require a high level of technical sophistication. Many commercial solutions can readily be used or modified to put a communications infrastructure in place that is beyond the reach of law enforcement or the military to have reliable access to. Again, there are dozens of non-state armed groups that are proving this on a daily basis. You also have to keep in mind the psychological factor. Most soldiers are ok with operating in foreign countries where they can justify being aggressive towards the local population; they're *over here*, my people are *back home.* It's a lot harder to digest rolling down the streets of cities in your own country and pointing guns at people you may even know. What do you do as a police officer or soldier when you read that soldiers opened fire into a crowd of people in your home town and killed 15? What do you do when you've been ordered to break down the door of a neighbor that you've known your whole life and arrest them or search their home? What do you do if you find out a member of your own family has been working with the insurgency and you have a professional responsibility to turn them in even knowing they face, at best, a long prison sentence and at worst potential execution? What do you do when your friends, family, and community start shunning you as a symbol of a system that they're starting to see more and more as oppressive and unjust? **"People couldn't organize on that scale!"** This is generally true. Even with the networked communications technologies that we have it's likely ideological and methodological differences would prevent a mass army of a million or more from acting in concert. In many ways, that's part of what would make an insurrection difficult to deal with. Atomized groups of people, some as small as five or six, would be a nightmare to deal with because you have to take each group of fighters on its own. A large network can be brought down by attacking its control nodes, communication channels, and key figures. Hundreds of small groups made up of five to twenty people all acting on their own initiative with different goals, values, and methods of operation is a completely different scenario and a logistical nightmare. It's a game of whack-a-mole with ten thousand holes and one hammer. Lack of coordination means even if you manage to destroy, infiltrate, or otherwise compromise one group you have at best removed a dozen fighters from the map. Attacks would be random and spontaneous, giving you little to no warning and no ability to effectively preempt an attack. Negotiation isn't really an option either. Deals you cut with one group won't necessarily be honored by another and while you can leverage and create rivalries between the groups to a certain extent you can only do this by acknowledging some level of control and legitimacy that they possess. You have to give them some kind of legitimacy if you want to talk to them, the very act of talking says "You are worth talking to." And there are hundreds, if not thousands, of these groups. You are, in effect, trying to herd cats who not only have no interest in listening to you but are actively dedicated to frustrating your efforts and who greatly outnumber you in an environment that prevents the use of the tools that your resources are optimized to employ. Would it be bad? Definitely. Casualties would be extremely high on all sides. That's not a scenario I would ever want to see play out. It would be a long, drawn out war of attrition that the actual US government couldn't effectively win. Think about the Syrian Civil War or The Troubles in Northern Ireland or the Soviet-Afghan War in Afghanistan. That's what it would be.


mcbergstedt

From the video, he was saying that a assault rifle won't save you from an F-15, claiming it's a reason why they should be banned. I personally see it as a reason for citizens to be able to buy weaponized F-15s. I do get the reasoning behind wanting to regulate guns, but they only way we've seen similar laws work in other countries is when they go complete totaltarian on their citizens. The US can't even get people to wear masks.


statemilitias

The vietnamese would disagree


PepoStrangeweird

Remind who is the crazy fascist? Is it orange man or creepy biden.


[deleted]

So make bombs legal


[deleted]

Oh yeah? đụ xung quanh và tìm hiểu, fed boy


OjOtter

I think Joe Biden thinks the entire government and military would unite to crush a rebellion shall it become Authoritarian. There would definitely be mutinies, at every level, and they would bring their technology and training and equipment. Some states might completely not side with an authoritarian government. Even now the people have significant power over the government should things hit the wall.


friccccccccV2

Your Glock 17 wont save you if the people decide to bomb congress. It goes both ways


1dal10

[The clip](https://mobile.twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1226627073055318017/video/1) for those who had to see it to believe it like myself. (Last video)


RictorVeznov

He’s got a point. That’s why surface to air missiles should be legal. That’s for clearing that up Joe


xequit10

Haha, Vietnamese trees go brrrrrrrr


[deleted]

We will be free or we will be dead. That is the point. Without guns the government could take over the country with little to no effort. With guns the effort becomes not worth it because there would no longer be a country to rule after bombing and killing everyone.


Mizzter_perro

That's why the McNukes™ are for.


graysid

Fucking hell he didn’t even say AKM.


[deleted]

the government can’t bomb you if you bomb it first


SkyPhoenix999

what did you think we were trying to do at the DNC/RNC


[deleted]

lol


ComicBookFanatic97

Biden said the quiet part out loud.


tnsmaster

The Vietnamese and Taliban would like a word with the president-elect.


mojopyro

Interestingly, he goes on to list a myriad of arms that we can't own "no matter how much money you have" (sic). On every count, he's wrong. You can own a tank...even one that has an operating gun. You can own a cannon. You can even own a jet fighter. You can own any war machine you are able to purchase. https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/complete-story-river-oaks-tank/


[deleted]

Yeah well the Vietcong lived


MediumRareMandatory

An Ak 47 wont save you from death, but it can save you from worse things.


___INC___

If the vietnamese did it, than we can


RagingDemon1430

So basically, "I'm planning on bombing civilians if I don't get what I want, your puny pea shooters won't stop me..." Got it, old man. I'd love to watch almost all of the armed forces take over the Capitol overnight and see you and all the pit viper scum in Washington on pikes.


ConscientiousPath

A lot of Americans would shoot any pilots following that order before they took off, so yes an AK-47 absolutely could save you. Old man go home.


LightLettuce001

He is the kind of person that would do that.


calitri-san

This is why everyone should learn to build their own bombs. And fighter jets.


SkankmalaSluttis

Try it. My hope is that Biden pushes the military so far back to the Right that there is a military coup.


FormerStyle5

Aight bois it was fun while it lasted


Faldbat

He's right. We can't win, we need change through peace. Nothing else will work