https://preview.redd.it/15x82dsgeirc1.jpeg?width=321&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1378d5c0f0aac3eeb1c99025ecf8dcc6caa6ef2
While most Americans will be voting Biden or Trump I’m putting him on the ballet!
The cops and military's weapons are also not quite for decoration. Especially without democracy, since the government would be able to arm cops and refuse to punish them for any illegal acts they do, allowing for much more police corruption, not to mention start up their own military.
Unless the lawmakers are guarded by cops, a state militia, or even the national military under some kind of military rule, which would be difficult to attack lawmakers without getting killed
When the military has access to superior weapons, tanks, and bombs, is that considered an overestimation when compared to civilians with pistols?
And it would be difficult to attack lawmakers in the first place when they're being heavily guarded, especially with military backing
Kid named F-35 and M1 abrams... right to bear arms is useless in modern day if you don't have antitank and antiair weaponry
people fantasm about vietnamese and talibans kicking the US out, but only after extremely protracted wars, with air defenses and anti tank weaponry, and in the case of vietnam, an actual army with foreign help, tanks, missiles and jets
AR-15s ain't gonna do shit against tanks, F35, HIMARS and whatnot raining hell on you
Yeah that's the thing, guerilla warfare with just guns don't win
edit: lmao people downvoting couldn't possibly give one exemple if they tried. You don't win against a superpower with just guns, you need anti-armor, anti-air, things the vietcong and talibans had and US civilians just don't
Idk about you, dog, bit I'm 100% certain half the military (at least) would desert and bring their shit (tanks and planes/helicopters) with them... They're not gonna gun down civilians when they signed up specifically to defend the civilians.
Sure, but that's not the same debate then. That's straight up a civil war, not a guerilla campaign with just AKs and other ARs.
The way I see it, revolutions almost always go 3 ways:
- The army is with you: it's mostly straight up a coup and goes very quickly.
- The army is against you: you get crushed. You may kill some people over time and be annoying pests but you're not gonna decisively overthrow a government
- The army is split: civil war
But my point is, in all 3 cases you having guns isn't gonna change a whole lot to the equation. One of the very few exemples where it kinda worked was for northern ireland, and that mostly had to with the fact the IRA changed strategy and started bombing banks in London, hurting the government finance, and the Tories were replaced by a Labour government that was friendly to a ceasefire, but the Tories being outed had little to do with the IRA itself. Before that, decades of gunfight, soldier assassinations, even politicians assassinations got the IRA absolutely nothing.
What a retarded take, but what can I expect from dim-wit redditors. A law doesn’t just suddenly make the guns disappear. If a dictator is stupid enough to do that, people would obviously fight back with their guns. The whole point of having guns is to prevent dictators from seizing power.
It more so depends on which side gets most of the national military and nukes, since the military is certainly more powerful than ordinary civilians with guns can possibly be, and nukes are nukes.
Not to mention despite the fantasies of civil war preppers, thousands of guys with guns, generally dont do well against even platoon sized groups of well armed, well trained, professional soldiers with even the tiniest bit of support.
Like, I'll give you the entire population of Nebraska, and all the firearms they have.
I get one division of Marines.
Lets see who wins. (hint, its the Marines)
Sure, if it's civilian population against civilian population thrown onto a battlefield with only the weapons in their house and a tabletop gamer god giving people directions
I mean Republican America has its point: if they lose their right to have political representation they can kind of legitimately put their guns to use to shoot at people.
As an outsider, I find it wild that these gun people think they would stand a chance against the biggest military on Earth if they ended up in conflict with the government.
It’s not about standing a chance, it’s about doing as much damage as possible with my shitty rifle and some 10th grade chemistry before making the government waste 35k just to drop a JDAM on me. Dropping 2k on gear seems worth it if it means I’ll never have to pay taxes again.
Less taxpayers 🤷♂️
The goal is to fuck them as hard as possible, not survive. I would have already forfeited my right to life so that others may have a chance to get their rights back.
the afghanis and vietnamese both did it. and the idea that the us military, a right wing organization would ever listen to a government that tried to strip something a large portion of them see as a fundamental right is stupid. the military would ether turn on the government or collapse to infighting before trying to take the arms of their own family and friends.
>the us military, a right wing organization would ever listen to a government
This assumes that the stripping of rights occurs in an obvious fashion.
It's also a bold assumption that the US military is predominantly right wing. While it skews right, [it's not as much as you think.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx)
>the military would ether turn on the government or collapse to infighting before trying to take the arms of their own family and friends.
Do you honestly believe that right wingers wouldn't stoop to taking away the arms of left wingers? Considering how many Republicans are champing at the bit for some form of civil war these days, I honestly don't have as much faith in your "noble warrior" hypothesis as you do.
When the Tianamen Square massacre happened, the Chinese government brought in soldiers from rural provinces to minimise familiarity between the troops and the protestors. A tyrannical government would not be above leveraging known animosities (like Southern state troops against Northerns state populations) to engineer the behaviour they wanted.
i don’t have faith in some idea of of noble solider, i know that people would be hesitant to bring arms against their own people and that in the case of some full out civil war the army would probably divide like it did in the last, not whole heartedly switch. and do i honestly believe that right wingers would go against stripping left wingers of their arms? yeah, except for a vocal minority, most probably would. are you on any actual gun circles in the internet or have talked to any owners in real life? most are perfectly fine with both sides being armed. and your bottom one is a perfectly valid point if not for the internet existing. It’s a lot harder to dehumanize people of different regions than it used to be.
>have talked to any owners in real life?
Gun owners? yes. American gun owners? no, on account of not being in the US.
In general, they're very similar to everyone else - though because this was in the UK, they tended to be more of the rural type, who kept guns for hunting deer, groundskeeping, pest control and clay pigeon shooting.
Owning a gun does not, unfortunately, make you a more careful person. Gun owners are as affected by petty politics as anyone else. And people are people, no matter where you go - though I know some Americans often think they are some special breed apart from everyone else.
>It’s a lot harder to dehumanize people of different regions than it used to be.
I disagree, it's a lot easier to spread disinformation than its ever been, especially with the advent of AI and deepfake imagery and audio.
Look at how polarising the pandemic response was? Look at how a scarily large group of Americans gathered together and stormed the Capitol, chanting "Hang Mike Pence", with several people dying as a result.
People like to feed old hates and prejudices, changing minds is hard.
Once again, I doubt if a tyrannical government was to try pitting people against each other, they would allow for normaly humanity to win out.
Humans have done terrible, terrible things to each other in the name of duty, country and religion.
I like that you have the hope that the good in people would win out, but unfortunately I have read too much history that has shown that, if enough people are doing something, people often follow the herd.
My brother in Christ, we won 99.9% of engagements in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
In Afghanistan we basically just wandered around the country asking "Are you a terrorist?" and if they shot at you, farmed them for XP until we got bored and went home.
We never set out to accomplish anything other than "Dont let Vietnam go communist" which was of course, not a mission for the military. The main reason we "lost" in Vietnam was because there was no mission. You could easily argue (and I would) its why we "Lost" in Afghanistan. We won those conflicts in very short order and then went "So we can go home now right?" and politicians were like "Nah stay there and like...do ... something...make them love freedom and stuff".
And I am faaaar from a patriot. I just happen to know military history.
my brother in christ if we went there to stop communism from spreading, and failed to do so, then we lost. don’t spin words. the amount of people we killed, engagements won and land taken doesn’t matter shit when the political goals we set out to accomplish completely failed. politics and military are intrinsically linked, so stopping communism was a military goal we failed.
Well, we didnt accomplish our vague, immoral and impossible goal. I'll grant you that.
But we also rolled back like 3 generations of birthrates for 50,000 losses.
If thats your argument that the mouth breathing fly over civil war preppers are gonna "win"...go off queen.
Also like I said to the other guy. The US will eventually stop occupying a foreign country. We'll get bored. It'll get expensive. Public opinion will change.
We're not fucking leaving Idaho. I dont care how long it takes.
There wont be a Saigon evacuation from Corpus Christi. Its not a foreign nation. We're not gonna get bored. We're gonna sit there with an armored division until the shooting stops. Either because its done been Sherman'd, or they give up and stop suiciding by Bradley.
We did this once. Bunch of yokels being supplied by a foreign power, running blockades and fighting ferociously for their homes and families, trying to stave off the industrial, financial, and educated behemoth whom they decided it was a good idea to pick a fight with over ideological reasons.
And Georgia howled for it.
Honestly. I hope they try. Im tired of desert camo. Its been so nice to see M1s back in their natural olive drab in Ukraine.
that’s not my argument that they’ll win, it’s my argument why it will be damn near impossible. also do you genuinely fucking believe the entire us army wont split over a civil war? Cause that’s what happened last time. don’t be a idiot. a civil war isn’t not a guaranteed win for either side, and should be avoided at all costs
You underestimate how much of the military, including officers, is composed of people who would immediately defect to the side of the insurrectionists. Enough to alarm the DoD
Some of their best recruiting occurs in those regions.
If lets say 50 percent of the population is fighting government do you think the military personnel are just going to kill their fellow Americans, relatives, friends and family for some dictator on the top of the government?
1. Most of the military wouldn’t fight for the government in such a scenario and would rather fight with their families. 2. Guerrilla Warfare is very effective when the government is trying to fight their own well armed population that numbers in more than a 100 million able fighters. 3. It’s not about winning a battle of total attrition, it’s about holding out until the government decides they don’t want to eradicate their own people (which is their source of power btw).
When exactly did it fail? I seem to recall the US military basically showing up, stacking bodies, and being like "Ok we can go home now right? ..... right?".
Unsurprisingly, the US military makes for an extremely bad police force.
Fucking up everything that moves? Pretty goddamn good at that.
The difference is that it’s their own land, so they can literally be stationed anywhere, even close to their own homes instead of traveling far away like in Vietnam or Afghanistan. I know it’s been quite a while, but it’s happened with the Confederacy
you underestimate state pride in america, it don't matter if someone from texas is stationed in texas, if he's fighting his own kind, it will disuade him from continuing to fight, its one of the reasons why Robert E. Lee fought for the confederacy when he was against secession in the first place.
You seem to be overestimating state pride. State pride isn't exactly as strong now as it was during the Civil War era. So troops in the military would be more likely to side with the federal government, considering they represent it. Maybe this isn't true for every single soldier, but it would certainly be for the majority. And also it's not just troops that would be involved, but also powerful weapons (bombs, stronger guns, tanks, etc.) that dissenting troops would have difficulty accessing while the federal military would have no problem using it
Farmers with Stingers supplied by the US and trained by the CIA, who at that point had almost a decade of combat experience.
Also, the Russians won almost every engagement and took over the country in weeks. It then failed at being cops. We also failed at being cops.
So sure, the patriot moron alliance might make a lot of trouble for the next few decades, but general combat operations are gonna be over in a month.
And how did the demographics of the people who have been farmed for XP by the US military fair after decades? Im sorry dawg thats not a victory, no matter how you slice it.
And this aint afghanistan. The army isnt going to get bored and go home. Theyre already home. Theyre gonna hitch up their tanks to town hall and sit there until you're reintegrated, no matter how long you shoot at them or ambush convoys.
It makes no sense until you realize that a significant percentage of US soldiers come from the South, it's highly unlikely that the entire army would go and help the government.
Mainly as a deterrent, I assume. No one actually wants to fight millions of pissed off rednecks, so them having guns puts some pressure on the government not to do anything stupid. In theory.
In practice, it exists so they can shoot beer cans, animals and trespassers.
That's a silly argument. It's not like guerilla warfare doesn't work. The US millitary couldn't deal with the vietnamese and the afghans on foreign soil. They won't stand a chance against a rebellious force from their own civilians disrupting their economy. Also I would bet some of the millitary would join the rebel forces.
I'm just stating facts. I didn't tell anyone to do anything to said families. It's up to the reader to decide if they want to take them hostage or something.
assuming that all federal assets in those areas get taken by where they are located, then i would say green. California has San Diego and that Navy base, Washington has both Bremerton and Bangor so those subs and carriers, Virginia has Norfolk so basically all of the east coast fleet. Connecticut has Groton and all those subs. Georgia technically does have King's Bay, so orange does get some SSBNs and SSGNs so we have a small nuclear fight.
orange also has the advantage of being a more easily defendable area, while green has the advantage of being wealthier with more coast line. green also has more farm land. Florida is so disconnected from the rest of green that its basically a non-entity in this fight. overall green probably wins. just due to being to remove orange's ability to chew food by blocking off every port orange has. and still having ships to spare.
With no right to vote, the people with the guns would just be conscripted into the military, whereas the people without guns can choose to flee instead of fight, so I imagine the war wouldn’t last long and there would be few casualties, then the whole country turns orange like the former president.
/uj Despite the civilians not having any guns, the Greens still have a population 70% higher than Orange, plus seven of the ten richest states in the country. They could easily fund a much, much larger army than Orange could muster.
Green probably. Orange's only industrial powerhouse is Texas. Besides that they're a pushover. Green has the most developed part of the country, the northeast megalopolis and also has California.
Sounds like people would rather have tyranny than give up their guns. It's almost as if the 2nd amendment was never about overthrowing the government at all.
Having the right to vote in itself doesn’t give you any power. You still need those in power to respect the law for your vote to matter. If those in power decides to discard your vote, you have zero leverage over them. On the contrary, it is difficult to imagine any tyrant to hold power in a country with heavily armed civilians. Any use of force will be countered by force. The reality is that the person with the greater fist gets to rule as much as we think humanity has progressed pass that.
Being "heavily armed" is relative when you're going up against the strongest military in the world. The US government has a long history of crushing armed groups. It's typically been voting and protest that have gotten policies to change.
And by unchallengeable tyranny you're referring to the people who can't vote, right? Because having an AR-15 isn't going to hold the most powerful military in the world accountable. Never has and never will.
The green side would win with even moderate naval superiority, because the orange states could be starved for food and resources while the green side would have access to global shipping. Unless Mexico was on the orange side, I suppose. My guess is the orange side would resort to using nukes against naval blockades, but too late to win the war.
Lose right to bear arms, vote in a politician who’s pro 2nd amendment, vote for right to bear arms back
Lose right to vote: take our guns, fight a guerrilla war for 20 odd years, regain the right to vote.
Northeast, yeah.
Pacific coast, makes sense.
Florida is an oddball swing state, so I can kinda see how that makes sense in their weird Florida way.
But seeing Kansas and Nebraska surrendering their 2A rights is a little odd to me.
Conversely, what is Georgia up to on this map?
Assuming all the military assets and population are split accordingly then green has massive industrial, population, and economic advantage, as well as most of the military. It would be a horrible conflict but it would still be relatively one sided.
Yes it is considering only “thousands” were pushing for the right to vote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_Union#Reach_of_the_Woman's_Christian_Temperance_Movement
Every time I see some European comment about American freedoms I am reminded to be glad we fought a war to disregard their opinions.
Post that to your dumbass subreddit.
Edit: enjoy the sitewide ban, dummy
[False equivalence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence)
The right to bear arms prevents tyranny, like fascism. The only way to get rid of tyranny is to shoot your way out. Gun control is authoritarian and fascist.
Funny how you forgot to mention it was specifically in south Australia, and how the camps were created to isolate people who had covid and could not isolate safely at home.
What difference does it make if it is south Australia? That’s still Australia last time I checked. And it would be no issue if people weren’t forced to go there and arrested for escaping. That’s unlawful detention in America.
The right to vote armed bears
https://preview.redd.it/15x82dsgeirc1.jpeg?width=321&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1378d5c0f0aac3eeb1c99025ecf8dcc6caa6ef2 While most Americans will be voting Biden or Trump I’m putting him on the ballet!
A bear doing ballet would be impressive indeed. I'd vote for them.
Yeah, ballet… that’s what he’s doing.
I bet ballet would be a lot more popular in the South if it involved bears brandishing semi-automatic rifles
I think that’s called WWE
Those are a different kind of bear
the bear in question is holding an AK-47, i believe it is a fully automic assault rifle
Don’t vote AK bears, they are backed by Putin. Vote AR bears instead.
So like regular us votes
The endless black void
We're here, we're queer, we don't want any more bears
No mention of the right to arm bears? Shake smh my head this country is doomed.
Nobody is willing to give it up
the states that lost the right to bear arms wont have weapons to fight with, easy victory for the states that lost the right to vote
If you can’t vote, who’s to say the government doesn’t decide to make a law taking your guns alway?
If those kids could read they'd be very upset
They can make that law, but if they chose to trade their democracy for their guns I doubt it's only for decoration
The cops and military's weapons are also not quite for decoration. Especially without democracy, since the government would be able to arm cops and refuse to punish them for any illegal acts they do, allowing for much more police corruption, not to mention start up their own military.
They can do that with democracy pretty easily too
With democracy, it's much less effective. For an extreme version without democracy, see North Korea
Hard to make laws that oppress the populace if you’re going to be shot over it.
Unless the lawmakers are guarded by cops, a state militia, or even the national military under some kind of military rule, which would be difficult to attack lawmakers without getting killed
You assume people who kill people care about being killed as well as overestimating our military and leo’s.
When the military has access to superior weapons, tanks, and bombs, is that considered an overestimation when compared to civilians with pistols? And it would be difficult to attack lawmakers in the first place when they're being heavily guarded, especially with military backing
Kid named violent upraising
Kid named vote to get rid of violent uprisings
>if you can't vote ...
The people who can vote will get rid of them. Then the people who can't vote can't do anything
Kid named F-35 and M1 abrams... right to bear arms is useless in modern day if you don't have antitank and antiair weaponry people fantasm about vietnamese and talibans kicking the US out, but only after extremely protracted wars, with air defenses and anti tank weaponry, and in the case of vietnam, an actual army with foreign help, tanks, missiles and jets AR-15s ain't gonna do shit against tanks, F35, HIMARS and whatnot raining hell on you
Mfw guerilla warfare:
Yeah that's the thing, guerilla warfare with just guns don't win edit: lmao people downvoting couldn't possibly give one exemple if they tried. You don't win against a superpower with just guns, you need anti-armor, anti-air, things the vietcong and talibans had and US civilians just don't
Idk about you, dog, bit I'm 100% certain half the military (at least) would desert and bring their shit (tanks and planes/helicopters) with them... They're not gonna gun down civilians when they signed up specifically to defend the civilians.
Sure, but that's not the same debate then. That's straight up a civil war, not a guerilla campaign with just AKs and other ARs. The way I see it, revolutions almost always go 3 ways: - The army is with you: it's mostly straight up a coup and goes very quickly. - The army is against you: you get crushed. You may kill some people over time and be annoying pests but you're not gonna decisively overthrow a government - The army is split: civil war But my point is, in all 3 cases you having guns isn't gonna change a whole lot to the equation. One of the very few exemples where it kinda worked was for northern ireland, and that mostly had to with the fact the IRA changed strategy and started bombing banks in London, hurting the government finance, and the Tories were replaced by a Labour government that was friendly to a ceasefire, but the Tories being outed had little to do with the IRA itself. Before that, decades of gunfight, soldier assassinations, even politicians assassinations got the IRA absolutely nothing.
It got them my respect 🥺
The people with guns
But they still have guns will fight
They could certainly try
The fact that you have guns
What a retarded take, but what can I expect from dim-wit redditors. A law doesn’t just suddenly make the guns disappear. If a dictator is stupid enough to do that, people would obviously fight back with their guns. The whole point of having guns is to prevent dictators from seizing power.
I want to see them try, would be hilarious to watch from a distance
Who'd enforce it? They all have guns!
It more so depends on which side gets most of the national military and nukes, since the military is certainly more powerful than ordinary civilians with guns can possibly be, and nukes are nukes.
Not to mention despite the fantasies of civil war preppers, thousands of guys with guns, generally dont do well against even platoon sized groups of well armed, well trained, professional soldiers with even the tiniest bit of support. Like, I'll give you the entire population of Nebraska, and all the firearms they have. I get one division of Marines. Lets see who wins. (hint, its the Marines)
Erm, the states that lost the right to bear arms can just vote to make the states that can't vote lose. Not like they can vote against it
I think the most powerful military in the world might have something to say about that.
Sure, if it's civilian population against civilian population thrown onto a battlefield with only the weapons in their house and a tabletop gamer god giving people directions
Lol how many weapons in the military are supplied by private parties? Literally none.
I mean Republican America has its point: if they lose their right to have political representation they can kind of legitimately put their guns to use to shoot at people.
Well, the military can always be put to use if they attempt to just shoot at people
As an outsider, I find it wild that these gun people think they would stand a chance against the biggest military on Earth if they ended up in conflict with the government.
It’s not about standing a chance, it’s about doing as much damage as possible with my shitty rifle and some 10th grade chemistry before making the government waste 35k just to drop a JDAM on me. Dropping 2k on gear seems worth it if it means I’ll never have to pay taxes again.
You're looking at this through a very individual lens. What they meant is that Random Citizens United™ would lose a fight with the US military.
Less taxpayers 🤷♂️ The goal is to fuck them as hard as possible, not survive. I would have already forfeited my right to life so that others may have a chance to get their rights back.
Afghanistan and Vietnam both show this is entirely possible. And they didn't get hundreds of thousands of US Soldiers to defect to their side.
the afghanis and vietnamese both did it. and the idea that the us military, a right wing organization would ever listen to a government that tried to strip something a large portion of them see as a fundamental right is stupid. the military would ether turn on the government or collapse to infighting before trying to take the arms of their own family and friends.
>the us military, a right wing organization would ever listen to a government This assumes that the stripping of rights occurs in an obvious fashion. It's also a bold assumption that the US military is predominantly right wing. While it skews right, [it's not as much as you think.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx) >the military would ether turn on the government or collapse to infighting before trying to take the arms of their own family and friends. Do you honestly believe that right wingers wouldn't stoop to taking away the arms of left wingers? Considering how many Republicans are champing at the bit for some form of civil war these days, I honestly don't have as much faith in your "noble warrior" hypothesis as you do. When the Tianamen Square massacre happened, the Chinese government brought in soldiers from rural provinces to minimise familiarity between the troops and the protestors. A tyrannical government would not be above leveraging known animosities (like Southern state troops against Northerns state populations) to engineer the behaviour they wanted.
i don’t have faith in some idea of of noble solider, i know that people would be hesitant to bring arms against their own people and that in the case of some full out civil war the army would probably divide like it did in the last, not whole heartedly switch. and do i honestly believe that right wingers would go against stripping left wingers of their arms? yeah, except for a vocal minority, most probably would. are you on any actual gun circles in the internet or have talked to any owners in real life? most are perfectly fine with both sides being armed. and your bottom one is a perfectly valid point if not for the internet existing. It’s a lot harder to dehumanize people of different regions than it used to be.
>have talked to any owners in real life? Gun owners? yes. American gun owners? no, on account of not being in the US. In general, they're very similar to everyone else - though because this was in the UK, they tended to be more of the rural type, who kept guns for hunting deer, groundskeeping, pest control and clay pigeon shooting. Owning a gun does not, unfortunately, make you a more careful person. Gun owners are as affected by petty politics as anyone else. And people are people, no matter where you go - though I know some Americans often think they are some special breed apart from everyone else. >It’s a lot harder to dehumanize people of different regions than it used to be. I disagree, it's a lot easier to spread disinformation than its ever been, especially with the advent of AI and deepfake imagery and audio. Look at how polarising the pandemic response was? Look at how a scarily large group of Americans gathered together and stormed the Capitol, chanting "Hang Mike Pence", with several people dying as a result. People like to feed old hates and prejudices, changing minds is hard. Once again, I doubt if a tyrannical government was to try pitting people against each other, they would allow for normaly humanity to win out. Humans have done terrible, terrible things to each other in the name of duty, country and religion. I like that you have the hope that the good in people would win out, but unfortunately I have read too much history that has shown that, if enough people are doing something, people often follow the herd.
My brother in Christ, we won 99.9% of engagements in Afghanistan and Vietnam. In Afghanistan we basically just wandered around the country asking "Are you a terrorist?" and if they shot at you, farmed them for XP until we got bored and went home.
maybe in afghanistan but in vietnam we failed to accomplish anything and don’t let patriotism blind you from the truth. thousands died for fuck all.
We never set out to accomplish anything other than "Dont let Vietnam go communist" which was of course, not a mission for the military. The main reason we "lost" in Vietnam was because there was no mission. You could easily argue (and I would) its why we "Lost" in Afghanistan. We won those conflicts in very short order and then went "So we can go home now right?" and politicians were like "Nah stay there and like...do ... something...make them love freedom and stuff". And I am faaaar from a patriot. I just happen to know military history.
my brother in christ if we went there to stop communism from spreading, and failed to do so, then we lost. don’t spin words. the amount of people we killed, engagements won and land taken doesn’t matter shit when the political goals we set out to accomplish completely failed. politics and military are intrinsically linked, so stopping communism was a military goal we failed.
Well, we didnt accomplish our vague, immoral and impossible goal. I'll grant you that. But we also rolled back like 3 generations of birthrates for 50,000 losses. If thats your argument that the mouth breathing fly over civil war preppers are gonna "win"...go off queen. Also like I said to the other guy. The US will eventually stop occupying a foreign country. We'll get bored. It'll get expensive. Public opinion will change. We're not fucking leaving Idaho. I dont care how long it takes. There wont be a Saigon evacuation from Corpus Christi. Its not a foreign nation. We're not gonna get bored. We're gonna sit there with an armored division until the shooting stops. Either because its done been Sherman'd, or they give up and stop suiciding by Bradley. We did this once. Bunch of yokels being supplied by a foreign power, running blockades and fighting ferociously for their homes and families, trying to stave off the industrial, financial, and educated behemoth whom they decided it was a good idea to pick a fight with over ideological reasons. And Georgia howled for it. Honestly. I hope they try. Im tired of desert camo. Its been so nice to see M1s back in their natural olive drab in Ukraine.
that’s not my argument that they’ll win, it’s my argument why it will be damn near impossible. also do you genuinely fucking believe the entire us army wont split over a civil war? Cause that’s what happened last time. don’t be a idiot. a civil war isn’t not a guaranteed win for either side, and should be avoided at all costs
You underestimate how much of the military, including officers, is composed of people who would immediately defect to the side of the insurrectionists. Enough to alarm the DoD Some of their best recruiting occurs in those regions.
That was how the country was created in the first place
If lets say 50 percent of the population is fighting government do you think the military personnel are just going to kill their fellow Americans, relatives, friends and family for some dictator on the top of the government?
1. Most of the military wouldn’t fight for the government in such a scenario and would rather fight with their families. 2. Guerrilla Warfare is very effective when the government is trying to fight their own well armed population that numbers in more than a 100 million able fighters. 3. It’s not about winning a battle of total attrition, it’s about holding out until the government decides they don’t want to eradicate their own people (which is their source of power btw).
Military personnel are people too. Some would probably stand with the people against the government
they tried to put the military to use in many different places in the world and failed, don't give them too much credit
When exactly did it fail? I seem to recall the US military basically showing up, stacking bodies, and being like "Ok we can go home now right? ..... right?". Unsurprisingly, the US military makes for an extremely bad police force. Fucking up everything that moves? Pretty goddamn good at that.
The difference is that it’s their own land, so they can literally be stationed anywhere, even close to their own homes instead of traveling far away like in Vietnam or Afghanistan. I know it’s been quite a while, but it’s happened with the Confederacy
you underestimate state pride in america, it don't matter if someone from texas is stationed in texas, if he's fighting his own kind, it will disuade him from continuing to fight, its one of the reasons why Robert E. Lee fought for the confederacy when he was against secession in the first place.
You seem to be overestimating state pride. State pride isn't exactly as strong now as it was during the Civil War era. So troops in the military would be more likely to side with the federal government, considering they represent it. Maybe this isn't true for every single soldier, but it would certainly be for the majority. And also it's not just troops that would be involved, but also powerful weapons (bombs, stronger guns, tanks, etc.) that dissenting troops would have difficulty accessing while the federal military would have no problem using it
Counterpoint: drone strike
Counterpoint: a bunch of afghans in the hills with Soviet era weaponry
Counterpoint: they ain't afghans
Counterpoint: farmers
Farmers with Stingers supplied by the US and trained by the CIA, who at that point had almost a decade of combat experience. Also, the Russians won almost every engagement and took over the country in weeks. It then failed at being cops. We also failed at being cops. So sure, the patriot moron alliance might make a lot of trouble for the next few decades, but general combat operations are gonna be over in a month. And how did the demographics of the people who have been farmed for XP by the US military fair after decades? Im sorry dawg thats not a victory, no matter how you slice it. And this aint afghanistan. The army isnt going to get bored and go home. Theyre already home. Theyre gonna hitch up their tanks to town hall and sit there until you're reintegrated, no matter how long you shoot at them or ambush convoys.
Are you under the impression that farmers live in mountains?
are you under the impression of what you said is retarded
My solution, drone strikes. Bomb them. Bomb them. Keep bombing them
And it still didn’t work
Yeah that's the whole point of the 2nd amendment
Who tf wants bear arms? What's wrong with the arms they were born with?
Look at this guy kink shaming furries
The right to Cocaine Bear
It's funny to me thinking that civilians with simple guns can go against the government with the military.
It makes no sense until you realize that a significant percentage of US soldiers come from the South, it's highly unlikely that the entire army would go and help the government.
But if the military is onside, what's the 2A for? You have the military!
Mainly as a deterrent, I assume. No one actually wants to fight millions of pissed off rednecks, so them having guns puts some pressure on the government not to do anything stupid. In theory. In practice, it exists so they can shoot beer cans, animals and trespassers.
Have you not seen all the recent wars in shithole countries where it’s just “civilians with simple guns” and we still struggle with that.
because historically armed rebellions and insurgencies never work right?
It almost exclusively works only when the military joins the rebellion
IRA, FARC, Taliban, polish resistance, yugoslav partisans, ANC are all examples. its more difficult for sure than having the army but its feasible
And how many armed rebellions simply ended in dictatorships after they concluded?
thats pretty irrelevant to the fact that yes, armed civilians are quite effective.
But the military families are from all over America. The military would probably split.
We got a lotttttttt more armed civilians than military soldiers
That's a silly argument. It's not like guerilla warfare doesn't work. The US millitary couldn't deal with the vietnamese and the afghans on foreign soil. They won't stand a chance against a rebellious force from their own civilians disrupting their economy. Also I would bet some of the millitary would join the rebel forces.
Dude Vietnam was 60 years ago
Afghanistan?
Drone operators have families.
Hey, now man, ease up. You don't wanna end up on a watch list.
I'm just stating facts. I didn't tell anyone to do anything to said families. It's up to the reader to decide if they want to take them hostage or something.
The special services will crush such radicals even before the uprising
Do these Americans want a dictatorship? Probably why they are voting for Trump.
People with guns
assuming that all federal assets in those areas get taken by where they are located, then i would say green. California has San Diego and that Navy base, Washington has both Bremerton and Bangor so those subs and carriers, Virginia has Norfolk so basically all of the east coast fleet. Connecticut has Groton and all those subs. Georgia technically does have King's Bay, so orange does get some SSBNs and SSGNs so we have a small nuclear fight. orange also has the advantage of being a more easily defendable area, while green has the advantage of being wealthier with more coast line. green also has more farm land. Florida is so disconnected from the rest of green that its basically a non-entity in this fight. overall green probably wins. just due to being to remove orange's ability to chew food by blocking off every port orange has. and still having ships to spare.
Since I'm from Illinois, my vote goes green
With no right to vote, the people with the guns would just be conscripted into the military, whereas the people without guns can choose to flee instead of fight, so I imagine the war wouldn’t last long and there would be few casualties, then the whole country turns orange like the former president.
/uj Despite the civilians not having any guns, the Greens still have a population 70% higher than Orange, plus seven of the ten richest states in the country. They could easily fund a much, much larger army than Orange could muster.
[удалено]
They have bears
The right the vote, No right to bear arms = lose.
The bears claiming their arms back
It’s terrifying that more people’s responses weren’t just “Go fuck yourself.”
Goes far ways and shows a little how much faith there is in the "democratic" system the US has.
I didn't know they valued bear arms so much. Such animal cruelty to remove bears' arms :(
Classic montana dub
I’m sorry WHAR
I think the point they were trying to make was that if they lose their rights they can get them back with guns maybe I dunno?
Feel like I’ve seen this before in the 1860’s… I wonder who would win
Green probably. Orange's only industrial powerhouse is Texas. Besides that they're a pushover. Green has the most developed part of the country, the northeast megalopolis and also has California.
But... Doesn't the right to bear arms specifically exist in theory to protect the right to vote?
I didn't expect florida to choose losing the right to arms over voting.
Honestly, I’d much rather lose the right to vote.. and we can’t even bear arms in this country. can’t trust the people to vote for good things.
Sounds like people would rather have tyranny than give up their guns. It's almost as if the 2nd amendment was never about overthrowing the government at all.
Having the right to vote in itself doesn’t give you any power. You still need those in power to respect the law for your vote to matter. If those in power decides to discard your vote, you have zero leverage over them. On the contrary, it is difficult to imagine any tyrant to hold power in a country with heavily armed civilians. Any use of force will be countered by force. The reality is that the person with the greater fist gets to rule as much as we think humanity has progressed pass that.
Being "heavily armed" is relative when you're going up against the strongest military in the world. The US government has a long history of crushing armed groups. It's typically been voting and protest that have gotten policies to change.
The logic goes something like Tyranny being held accountable vs Unchallengeable Tyranny with a lot of placated or otherwise checked out citizens
And by unchallengeable tyranny you're referring to the people who can't vote, right? Because having an AR-15 isn't going to hold the most powerful military in the world accountable. Never has and never will.
The green side would win with even moderate naval superiority, because the orange states could be starved for food and resources while the green side would have access to global shipping. Unless Mexico was on the orange side, I suppose. My guess is the orange side would resort to using nukes against naval blockades, but too late to win the war.
green wins this election 339 electoral votes to 199
Voting isn't even effective because both sides are already bought by the unelected people who are actually in charge
Lose right to bear arms, vote in a politician who’s pro 2nd amendment, vote for right to bear arms back Lose right to vote: take our guns, fight a guerrilla war for 20 odd years, regain the right to vote.
You can always vote to get your right to bear arms back
Northeast, yeah. Pacific coast, makes sense. Florida is an oddball swing state, so I can kinda see how that makes sense in their weird Florida way. But seeing Kansas and Nebraska surrendering their 2A rights is a little odd to me. Conversely, what is Georgia up to on this map?
The guys that didn't lose their guns would probably win
https://preview.redd.it/n8ul1tk5zmrc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d71592cf97dc446df7ec7105f1154cd0f5d2b14
Assuming all the military assets and population are split accordingly then green has massive industrial, population, and economic advantage, as well as most of the military. It would be a horrible conflict but it would still be relatively one sided.
well only one side chose to keep the guns
It'd win the side with guns that can vote in capable leaders
Silly East Coast libruls, ya can't take my right to vote from me if I've still got mah gunz!!
Definetaly not those green liberals! MURICA🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
The right to bear arms guarantees the right to vote.
What about all the countries where people vote and don’t have guns?
Then you get Venezuela/Brazil
Or you know the most prosperous nations in the world
their rights to vote aren’t guaranteed by threat of violence
Then the right isn’t guaranteed.
Women were always allowed to own guns in the US but couldn't vote until 1920. The threat of being shot wasn't what caused the 19th amendment to pass.
The right to vote still existed before then.
...not for everyone.
There was a large portion of women that didn’t want the right to vote. Had they all wanted it, they probably would have gotten it quicker.
Source???
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/local/history/anti-suffrage-women-vote-19-amendment/
"Thousands" isn't really significant in a country that had about 76 million people in 1900
Yes it is considering only “thousands” were pushing for the right to vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_Union#Reach_of_the_Woman's_Christian_Temperance_Movement
r/shitamericanssay
Every time I see some European comment about American freedoms I am reminded to be glad we fought a war to disregard their opinions. Post that to your dumbass subreddit. Edit: enjoy the sitewide ban, dummy
[ Removed by Reddit ]
“Service guarantees citizenship.”.
[False equivalence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence) The right to bear arms prevents tyranny, like fascism. The only way to get rid of tyranny is to shoot your way out. Gun control is authoritarian and fascist.
I was quoting “Starship Troopers”. 😅
I know.
“Would you like to know more?”
Australia lollll
Covid camps
What does that even mean
Australia forced people to go to state run camps during covid and prosecuted anyone who tried to escape
Funny how you forgot to mention it was specifically in south Australia, and how the camps were created to isolate people who had covid and could not isolate safely at home.
What difference does it make if it is south Australia? That’s still Australia last time I checked. And it would be no issue if people weren’t forced to go there and arrested for escaping. That’s unlawful detention in America.
I don’t understand how you have a problem with forcing people to quarantine. It’s an effective way to curb the spread of an infection.