I’ve got bad news for you buddy, second amendment or not, the side who’s got the army behind them wins. You can have whatever shiny gun you like, you won’t even see the drone that blows you up.
The thing is, people think it will come down to armed conflict. It won’t. It’s much easier duping people into believing the Fuhrer and have them join the movement instead. It has worked innumerable times in history, and is literally what is happening right now and has been going for decades- half the nation willingly votes in tyrants, under the rationale that the non-tyrants will take away the citizens’ rights to defend against being ruled by tyrants.
Flbprprprprprprprblpr is my state of mind since around the turn of the century.
In what scenario does the military not pick sides? No matter if it’s from the get go or not.
All out civil war? Same scenario, military gets involved? The side they’re on will be told to hide, they’ll shoot anyone walking around with a gun and it will come from the sky.
The second amendment was written at a time when it made sense, with today’s military it doesn’t make any anymore and it achieves the opposite of what was intended, putting people in danger instead of keeping them safe.
In the scenario where they fracture in command- most likely that’ll be a regional thing at the base level
Politics has been more easily explained throughout American history as “north” vs “south”. In addition to the regular army, there’s all the nat guards that’ll probably go with their states.
Not only do they not have the 2A, they don’t need it, guns are plentiful and cheap and somehow ignorant farmers who live in caves and huts keep using them to resist drones and smart bombs.
I’m not advocating for 0 gun regulations, I’m pointing out the “the side with the bigger guns wins” argument is stupid and provably false.
What you’re ignoring for the sake of your argument is that the army would be on its own turf instead of going somewhere where they don’t know the land and there’s a big difference between Americans with guns and foreign militias backed by other countries. Also, don’t look up the death rate of Afghans vs foreigners in the 2000s war because it doesn’t look good for the Afghans.
Don’t know why you would bring up Vietnam, drones weren’t a thing back then, today the military wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side.
If the military today wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side (proven false in recent conflicts btw) why does it matter if they’re on their turf? Your own reasoning doesn’t make any sense and ignores a ton of conflicts. You mentioned Afghanistan, who’s in charge there now, is it the US?
The statement wasn’t about how many people on whichever side die, but that pretending that “You don’t need a gun to defend yourself because the federal government has missles” is an extremely poor, provably false argument. I support stronger gun laws, it’s just a really bad take.
It makes sense because they have maps of everything, that’s a huge technical advantage over invading a country where no one but the locals know the terrain.
They have satellites and drones that can map everything relatively quickly, recon isn’t the hard part. Topographical data doesn’t win hearts and minds.
Like I said, I’m not against gun control though. I just feel like blanket “no guns!” statements aren’t really productive to the conversation. It’d be like trying to discuss abortion with a Christian and demanding “abortions on demand up to 10 months no questions asked!”
It’s just such a dismissive, “my way or the highway” take that it makes reasonable discussion impossible and guarantees gridlock.
Republicans prove the value of the second amendment everytime they open their mouths.
Trump is the greatest argument I’ve seen for it.
(Just… for the record… I’m generally pro gun control.)
I’ve got bad news for you buddy, second amendment or not, the side who’s got the army behind them wins. You can have whatever shiny gun you like, you won’t even see the drone that blows you up.
The thing is, people think it will come down to armed conflict. It won’t. It’s much easier duping people into believing the Fuhrer and have them join the movement instead. It has worked innumerable times in history, and is literally what is happening right now and has been going for decades- half the nation willingly votes in tyrants, under the rationale that the non-tyrants will take away the citizens’ rights to defend against being ruled by tyrants.
Flbprprprprprprprblpr is my state of mind since around the turn of the century.
You’re right. If the military comes down on a side, that side probably wins.
You assume that a) such a hypothetical starts with the military and b) I was talking about all out war to start with.
There’s a very large spectrum here.
In what scenario does the military not pick sides? No matter if it’s from the get go or not.
All out civil war? Same scenario, military gets involved? The side they’re on will be told to hide, they’ll shoot anyone walking around with a gun and it will come from the sky.
The second amendment was written at a time when it made sense, with today’s military it doesn’t make any anymore and it achieves the opposite of what was intended, putting people in danger instead of keeping them safe.
In the scenario where they fracture in command- most likely that’ll be a regional thing at the base level
Politics has been more easily explained throughout American history as “north” vs “south”. In addition to the regular army, there’s all the nat guards that’ll probably go with their states.
I’ll be sure to let North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and most recently Gaza know your thoughts on it, buddy.
Didn’t know they had the second amendment over there.
Not only do they not have the 2A, they don’t need it, guns are plentiful and cheap and somehow ignorant farmers who live in caves and huts keep using them to resist drones and smart bombs.
I’m not advocating for 0 gun regulations, I’m pointing out the “the side with the bigger guns wins” argument is stupid and provably false.
What you’re ignoring for the sake of your argument is that the army would be on its own turf instead of going somewhere where they don’t know the land and there’s a big difference between Americans with guns and foreign militias backed by other countries. Also, don’t look up the death rate of Afghans vs foreigners in the 2000s war because it doesn’t look good for the Afghans.
Don’t know why you would bring up Vietnam, drones weren’t a thing back then, today the military wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side.
If the military today wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side (proven false in recent conflicts btw) why does it matter if they’re on their turf? Your own reasoning doesn’t make any sense and ignores a ton of conflicts. You mentioned Afghanistan, who’s in charge there now, is it the US?
The statement wasn’t about how many people on whichever side die, but that pretending that “You don’t need a gun to defend yourself because the federal government has missles” is an extremely poor, provably false argument. I support stronger gun laws, it’s just a really bad take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
It makes sense because they have maps of everything, that’s a huge technical advantage over invading a country where no one but the locals know the terrain.
They have satellites and drones that can map everything relatively quickly, recon isn’t the hard part. Topographical data doesn’t win hearts and minds.
Like I said, I’m not against gun control though. I just feel like blanket “no guns!” statements aren’t really productive to the conversation. It’d be like trying to discuss abortion with a Christian and demanding “abortions on demand up to 10 months no questions asked!”
It’s just such a dismissive, “my way or the highway” take that it makes reasonable discussion impossible and guarantees gridlock.
like I’m on pure face value argument pro self defense and having a gun if someone is breaking into my house
but imagine your daughter is this bozos baby momma