You're viewing a single thread.
Zero civilians need AR15s unless they're planning a mass shooting.
Or a revolution ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(agreed we're not there but that's another use of civilians owning warfare weapons)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Except no they definitely did not.
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."
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.
Your last point is the one that gets me, the left needs firearms as much as the right does if shit hits the fan.
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.
The biggest military in the world seems to have trouble with insurgents. See Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
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.
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.
Just look at how well the largest military in the world held onto Afghanistan.
This is a really dumb comparison that implies you know Jack shit about warfare btw.
Ask Vietnam, or Afghanistan.
....both sides live here though and speak the same language. It's hardly a fair comparison.
Because they're all Rambo. Didn't you know that?
Meal team 6 ain't going to put up a fight lmao. There is zero chance these dumb random civilians have the ability or desire to kill all the cops. These are the same chuds that want police more heavily armed too and "back the blue". It would literally never happen.
Lol. Try to shoot the hellfire missile with your AR 15
Good thing we had hellfire missiles to establish a permanent and stable government in Afghanistan
yeah it would be like a group of settlers going up against the greatest army in the world and somehow winning. absolutely no way that ever happens, or has ever happened, to my knowledge twice at least
Did that army have hellfire missiles and nukes? Or was it maybe the case that this army you mean back then was occupied with more important matters and the settlers had help of powerful other countries? Lets be real, if there ever was a full on authocracy in america it would be celebrated by half your population, usually the gun owning population. All the dictator would need to do is promise to hurt some kind of minority.
i dont know, did the us army have hellfire missiles and nukes in the vietnam war? which they pulled out of because farmers with guns was too much for them to face?
Oh god what a dumb take. Vietnam was an aggressive war in unknown terrain. A civil war in the own country against your military is completely different. That scenario is so completely stupid, because half your population would be on the governments side. Meanwhile your fear of a hypethetical scenario kills your kids.
What a dummy take. "You're helpless against missiles and jets, so why fight back in the first place"
More "Why do you use this excuse even though it has no merit at all, when the thing you want to keep is killing your children in the thousands each year?"
Do you really believe this? Lmao. You think the reason most support the second is so children will be killed? Clearly you don't, so why comment that?
I've got no horse in this race, but I'll tell you, the amount of time people spend fixating on AR-15s, when rifles in general (including AR-15s) are only responsible for 3% of gun deaths...it really doesn't give the impression that people are in command of the facts. And it doesn't seem like pretty much any characteristic of a gun being effective for a mass shooting doesn't also carry over to the gun being effective for self-defense against more than a single person. Or even a single person, for that matter. I feel like people just kind of dug their trenches on this one and nobody's really thinking too hard about it.
Listen, this is the internet, no critical thinking please, just raw emotional divisive group think okay?
What's a good reason why anyone needs one of these killing devices
Nukes are also incredibly safe you look at the total amount out there and the percentage that actually blow up on cities
Clearly you feel that way but you definitely don't speak for everyone.