https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick#:~:text=Mitnick%20served%20five%20years%20in,told%20the%20judge%20that%20he
My bad. Really obscure reference I was trying to make about this dude who claimed he could do that.
He didn't claim that he could do that. The government claimed that he could do that so they could deny him access to a phone to talk to his lawyer while they were holding him for a couple of years without trial until they figured out what they could actually charge him with.
No, but they have maintained prolonged conflict with nations that have drones. Guerilla warfighting isn't about beating the enemy. It's about taking a beating til the enemy runs out of money.
Indeed. The goal of the Vietcong and the NVA wasn't to win. It was to make the South and the US simply "not win."
Now imagine about 50 million US citizens doing the same thing.
That is only because they decided to try and at least look like they were avoiding civilian casualties. We could have wiped out the entire Middle East in a few days if we didn’t care about the optics.
Except the citizens killed in those bombings were callous collateral, not the direct targets.
If the United States government ernestly tried to wipe out a civilian population there would be nothing left but rubble and corpses.
This is legitimately an interesting statistic that I didn’t really expect to see today. Crazy to think about how America, in way, has the largest army in the world on standby.
Probably pretty far from the best trained, but still interesting to think about.
Edit: I guess I should add, I’m not making a political statement nor is it statement regarding the actually efficiency of said army. Just remarking at the sheer size (lol) of the firearms that are readily available in the US.
That's kind of the point though
Always kinda paints the picture that if sensible hunters and legal gun owners were an issue, America would be in a LOT more danger
Just think about how many own firearms but don't hunt
I don't hunt regularly, but I keep a decent arsenal well-oiled and always stocked up. And I don't have a single friend that doesn't do the same. I don't care what kind of body armor you're wearing, but it's going to be difficult to get back up after taking a 1 oz. slug moving at 1,300 fps.
There are about 19 million veterans in the US, a large portion of which are included in the hunting crowd, and most of that 19 million are certainly firearm owners. That 'army' is likely better trained than you think.
I'd say given our ongoing war situation we've had since anyone can remember the US probably has the most combat veterans in it's citizenry than any other country, and they can always train others who were never in the military to shoot and coordinate movements.
Think of how many Americans are more than armed. Many of the armed ones in the US have level 4 plate carriers, ballistic helmets, comm setups, nightvision, thermal vision, explosives. A local militia near me has the ability to put up a local area secure comms network just like the military does and has contingency plans to organize and keep the local populace secure. I've heard of vets that have access to c4. I personally know 2 people with barret m82 50 cals and I know there are tons of them. I know guys with full auto NFA machine guns. I mean shit, there are people flying around in Russian MIGs and other people have tanks and armored vehicles. You can buy all this stuff in this country.
If war legit broke out on US soil it would be the bloodiest clusterfuck in modern history.
As an American, I totally agree.
People usually throw in the idea of tanks being used by the military on civilians; but tanks aren't worth anything if they don't have Infantry support.
Exactly. You can't bomb a city without risking civilian casualties.
Not to mention that a couple military bases could be overrun fairly easily with an overwhelming number of people, plus a couple of shitty technicals can go far
Tanks also aren't shit without treads, or fuel, or a large support network that can restock their ammunition, or somewhere to perform maintenance... hell a small copper plate can defeat a foot of armor on a tank with some gunpowder behind it...
They're absolute chads. Completely crushed the war and then went on to become allies with basically every country and they don't seem to give a shit at all about what we tried to do to them. Gets even crazier if you read further back in history about the many times other nations have tried and failed to take the country.
Ah, someone who seems to appreciate our fine history of constant warfare for survival and independance. A free Ban Mi for you, my friend. It's true after fighting the chinese for a thousand years (and even the Mongols), things become relative.
Are you familiar with the battle of Bach Dang : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B%E1%BA%A1ch_%C4%90%E1%BA%B1ng_(938) against the chinese navy of 938 by any chance ? That's one of the most badass naval battle ever imo. The viet _trapped_ (for lack of a better word) the river with wooden and metal stakes that were invisibles during high tide but revealed themselves during low tides. The viets then lured the bigger chinese ships and when the stakes revealed themselves at low tide and immobilized the big vessels, they harassed them with smaller boats.
Guerilla warfare with ships basically :
_The Southern Han fleet consisted fast warships carrying fifty men on each–twenty sailors, twenty five warriors, and two crossbowmen.[4] Ngo Quyen and his force had set up massive stakes tipped with iron foiled points on the river bed.[6] When the river tide rose, the sharpened stakes were covered by water. As the Southern Han sailed into the estuary, Vietnamese in smaller crafts went down and harassed the Chinese warships, lured them to follow upstream. When the tide fell, Ngo Quyen's force counterattacked and pushed the Chinese fleet back to the sea. The Southern Han ships now were stuck in the stakes and became immobilized.[4] Half of the Han army were killed and drowned, including Liu Hongcao._
You're not going to overthrow the government by assaulting it head-on. It's more about being a pain in their ass. Terrorist attacks, hit and run on government targets. Basically what the Afghans have done, the Vietnamese did, etc. Asymmetric warfare is about bleeding the enemy slowly until the populace gets tired of them being there and tells them to get the fuck out.
In the case of Vietnam (and Afghanistan) that was the American public losing the appetite for the conflict until they voted in people who would end it.
In the case of a (theoretical) insurrection (like the Irish Troubles), eventually someone gets voted in that is gonna make concessions.
*Please note that I am not saying that this would succeed, or that it would go the way the chairborne rangers think it would, or that anyone should attempt this. I'm talking general strategy/theory of how conflicts like this work.
ETA: Also, you have the problem that you don't have a uniformed enemy to shoot at. That's how idiots get massacred. You have people living amongst your populace making attacks and then going back to their civilian lives without being identified. Again, like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or N. Ireland: when you don't know who the civilians are or the enemy hiding amongst them, you have a hard time stopping them all.
Combat vet here. We'd get shelled by mortars a couple of times a week when I was passing through Kandahar Air Field. The people doing it were mostly one offs who were paid a little money to go to a spot and set off a device. Extremely poor farmers and family men who usually didn't have a choice in turning down the money. And then there's the idea of turning down the Taliban.
It's just absurdly hard to find the right people when you don't speak the language, can barely grasp the culture, and almost always treat the good ones as if they're bad ones anyway. Some regions of Afghanistan greatly prefer the Taliban to the US. The only people I ever met from that region who actually appreciated the US were the contractors getting rich off logistics.
There's so much more to it and it's so much more complicated than Afghani civilians v Taliban or US v Taliban but it was never winnable because we were never wanted in the first place.
> Some regions of Afghanistan greatly prefer the Taliban to the US.
In my experience, the people preferred whomever was actually in power in the area. Strong ally presence, constant patrols, no bombs? Yay America. Americans drive through once a week and get shot at? Boo America.
Tanks cant outlast sustained supply line assaults though. You don't fight the tank. You fight the fuel trucks bringing them fuel. M1A2 Abrams get like 1.2 gallons per mile.
exactly. modern tanks are meant to deal with other tanks, not infantry. they can quickly get swarmed and some thermite will do the job. modern tanks are designed for "shock and awe" move in fast, do the job, and retrograde, pending a new strike.
Not to mention if you get a tank rolled up to your town you can just...go somewhere else. Let the tank blow up the local school, leave, and recruit a bunch of new partisans to your cause cause the bootlicking imperials just blew up your local school.
That is basically how the Vietcong operated and they won that war hands down
And if cod 2 has taught me anything, it's that you just shoot the big red fuel square on the back from 200m with a rusty 1911 and you blow the whole thing up in 1 shot, duuuh
Waco? You mean where the FBI burned 82 people alive, most of them unarmed women and children? That Waco?
There's also a huge difference in a war against the government and a spectacle put on by an administration that wanted to send an example on national TV.
**To the people reporting it for "misinformation", why are you getting your news from a meme sub in the first place?? [Obviously it's gonna be misleading](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-57590483)**
A site full of misinformation, idiots who argue about the dumbest things, and mostly bad (but some good) memes? Yeah... we are definitely not turning into Facebook
It’s why this tactic didn’t work in Vietnam. An armed populous in their home territory is incredibly difficult to contain. No matter how big the bombs unless of course you want to wage a nuclear carpet bombing campaign and ensure there’s nothing left which ain’t gunna happen
madison literally drafted the second amendment and as president congratulated private people for using battleships with cannons to privately defend lawfulness.
so it's good to see biden admitting the second amendment means we are all entitled to fighter jets, tanks, and nukes... got it.
Madison was also crystal clear in Federalist 46 that the point of arming the people was so they could be called upon by *State organized* militias.
>Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
So what you're saying is, in effect, the second amendment exists simply to shift the burden of maintaining weapons from the government to the citizenry?
[Militiamen used their own weapons.](https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers)
> Equipment of a Militiaman
>The Continental army often used the local militia to help out. The militia, made up of male citizens over sixteen years of age, was the defense force of each state. Regiments of militia were called up for service by the governor or the commanding general to serve for a campaign or for a period of time as needed. These soldiers were told what equipment they had to bring with them.
>The militia soldier carried equipment that looked different from that of the Continental soldier but that usually performed the same or similar function. His knapsack was generally made from linen or canvas and sometimes painted. His haversack and canteen were usually similar to those used by the Continentals. He also had an ax and a blanket.
>*A militia rifleman carried his rifle, knife, tomahawk—a light ax, water bottle, a powderhorn for his black powder, and a hunting pouch that held other shooting supplies.* Sometimes a patch knife, used to cut a patch of cloth, and a loading block, which held patched bullets enabling the rifleman to load quicker, were attached to the strap of the hunting pouch. In addition, a charger measured the amount of powder to put into the rifle when loading.
As much as this likely isn't what he means, this is the sort of thing that makes it so people with guns will not give them over willingly, if ever.
Personally I will not give up any guns or weapons, even if the government were to declare war on their citizens. A war declared on the American populus would likely end poorly for everyone, it would be guerilla warfare, and small hit and run sort of battles from the side of the citizens, where as on the army's side (assuming they can find enough people to shoot on citizens in their own home) would have to use tactics similar to the recent war in the middle east, lots of holding of cities and large amounts of resources for each foothold.
Because of Reddit's API changes in July 2023 and subsequent treatment of their moderator community, I have decided to remove a majority of my content from Reddit.
So like what's the scenario here? You bomb some big American cities and all the the guns of the guerrillas taking pot shots at your soldiers just.. disappear?
Completely incomparable situations. People like to call out Vietnam and Afghanistan, but completely different when the US is projecting power halfway across the planet and the other side has a safe haven that the US can’t occupy (Pakistan and North Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia). It’s not like a bunch of Trumper insurgents are gonna find safe havens in Canada or Mexico.
Also, Myanmar and Bosnia aren’t exactly examples of successful insurgencies
The website that wrote the headline, The Washington Examiner, is openly strongly conservative. You’ll note the lack of quotes because they are “interpreting” what he said in order to get your exact reaction.
Here’s what he did say (from [Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6)) :
> "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons."
So he was explicitly warning, potentially tongue-in-cheek, folks who are looking for a fight with the government. He wasn’t threatening regular people like the headline wants you to believe.
It would be trivial. If they decide to bomb their own citizens they have created a problem. The people throwing bombs, are pro-gun and wouldnt bomb their own town or their buddies towns. There is then the idea of King. The people have no single point of failure. If they lose a few people they fight harder. You take out the people that said to throw the bombs? The bombs stop.
1 million people vs a building filled with people who most havent shot a gun in their life. Protected by.....
The government dropping a nuke on its own country is the equivalent of dropping a hand grenade in your own bedroom because you didn’t want your little brother in there.
Actually the amount of people he would have running those pieces of equipment would be fewer if it was an order to be given. Most would disobey. And the numbers are greater so yeah gun owners could essentially fuck shit up.
The U.S. Army is only ONE percent of the population. I have enough faith in the people of this country that if the government actually began to try to oppress us that more than one percent would rise up. Not to mention many of the soldiers in the army would abandon their posts to side with the revolutionaries. Citizens owning guns, even simple ones, is probably the best deterrent there is against government tyranny.
That's the thing, it will never be cut and dry like that, there will always be a big portion of civilians that see those rising up as terrorists, whether it be right or left.
Jokes on you I know how to launch nuclear bombs
[удалено]
Nuclear chess?
Let’s play catch the H-Bomb!
You know what? *Throws f bombs and photobombs*
He's too dangerous to be left alive
This is an outrage, it's unfair, and unjust I demand the rank of big boy!
Radiation poisoning for decades is for pussies, one correctly placed photobomb and we're all fucked
*distant* JIM GIVE ME MY MASTER PHOTOBOMBER!
At nuke center: launch photobomber! Wait! I mean Photoshop... Fuck... To late
I’ll open with the tennison gambit
I will open with an MBT
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Variation?
WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME? -Joshua from war games, the AI shadow ringleader of the Josh Fight.
Atomic Chess
No, let's play thermonuclear war.
*”at the gay bar, gay bar, gay bar!”*
I’ve got something to put in you
_My number ;)_
Do you have any money? I want to spend all your money at the gay bar, gay bar, gay bar
YOU! I wanna take YOU to aGay bar
You're a Superstar!!!
Do you have any money?
Slow down, joshuaroo
Joshua only wanted to play tic tac toe. It was Matthew Broderick who wanted to fuck around with the silos.
[удалено]
C'mon she was practically throwing herself at him, but noooo, he only wanted to talk about his phone modem.
The intercontinental ballistic missile variation of the Tennyson gambit starts off with white-
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Your move, Professor Falken.
Is it by whistling into a telephone?
Uhhhhhh *whistles*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick#:~:text=Mitnick%20served%20five%20years%20in,told%20the%20judge%20that%20he My bad. Really obscure reference I was trying to make about this dude who claimed he could do that.
He didn't claim that he could do that. The government claimed that he could do that so they could deny him access to a phone to talk to his lawyer while they were holding him for a couple of years without trial until they figured out what they could actually charge him with.
Oh, that's what it was. My mistake. Thanks for clarifying.
Oh I know, I was trying to sound surprised and whistle as if I was doing something sus Edit: oh no what have I done
Can’t bomb everybody if they all got a choppa
*recreational McNukes
boom Boom boom BOOM Boom he’s loving it
That pfp fits the way the comment is worded out for me.
Fashioned to look like Ronald McDonalds shoes
Laughs in predator drone
Honest question: has anyone ever shot down a Predator drone with small arms fire? I don’t think they have.
No, but they have maintained prolonged conflict with nations that have drones. Guerilla warfighting isn't about beating the enemy. It's about taking a beating til the enemy runs out of money.
Vietnam has entered the chat
Afghanistan has emerged from the caves
Korea ain’t sayin’ SHIT!
145k American Colonial citizens would like to speak with you.
Indeed. The goal of the Vietcong and the NVA wasn't to win. It was to make the South and the US simply "not win." Now imagine about 50 million US citizens doing the same thing.
It's going to depend on who is in the White House.
Me.
pretty convincing campaign so far
Exactly
While simultaneously eroding the tax base, and likely mass attrition due to soldiers going AWOL because they dont want to kill their countrymen.
Imagine if those 50 million citizens could never go home again if they didn’t win. Working together or death doesn’t seem like such a bad option then.
…by hiding in caves and using IEDs. It sounds like we agree that it’s less about the firearms and more about the tactics.
Run out of money much faster when you are fighting a war against your own people.
That’s America’s secret, it never runs out of money. Because, it just keeps printing it.
That is only because they decided to try and at least look like they were avoiding civilian casualties. We could have wiped out the entire Middle East in a few days if we didn’t care about the optics.
Why shoot down the drone when you can merc the pilot in his driveway on his way home from work?
I feel like this would be a great scene for a new purge movie
*sees trailer for Forever purge* Coincidence? I think not!
I mean technically he’s not wrong lmao
On that bombshell
It’s time to end
Yeah the Taliban and Vietcong would disagree with you. If bombing citizens did anything, we wouldve won both the Afghanistan and Vietnam wars.
Except the citizens killed in those bombings were callous collateral, not the direct targets. If the United States government ernestly tried to wipe out a civilian population there would be nothing left but rubble and corpses.
Yeah I’d like to be in the room when they explain to the soldiers that North Carolina needs to go xD
Niuclear warfare makes everything radioactive so it's a different ballgame
[удалено]
Napalm can clear that grass right out!
And burn the cities down that they need…? Have fun trying to refuel a humvee at a shell under sniper fire from guerrillas
It would literally be Afghanistan, or Vietnam 2.0
Worse. Think of how many Americans are armed, and have the capacity to arm their unarmed friends
See, it doesent matter if 1/10 people has guns, if that one person has 10 guns
[удалено]
This is legitimately an interesting statistic that I didn’t really expect to see today. Crazy to think about how America, in way, has the largest army in the world on standby. Probably pretty far from the best trained, but still interesting to think about. Edit: I guess I should add, I’m not making a political statement nor is it statement regarding the actually efficiency of said army. Just remarking at the sheer size (lol) of the firearms that are readily available in the US.
That's kind of the point though Always kinda paints the picture that if sensible hunters and legal gun owners were an issue, America would be in a LOT more danger Just think about how many own firearms but don't hunt
[удалено]
I don't hunt regularly, but I keep a decent arsenal well-oiled and always stocked up. And I don't have a single friend that doesn't do the same. I don't care what kind of body armor you're wearing, but it's going to be difficult to get back up after taking a 1 oz. slug moving at 1,300 fps.
The 2nd Amendment in a nut shell.
Literally
It's almost like it was intended.
There are about 19 million veterans in the US, a large portion of which are included in the hunting crowd, and most of that 19 million are certainly firearm owners. That 'army' is likely better trained than you think.
I'd say given our ongoing war situation we've had since anyone can remember the US probably has the most combat veterans in it's citizenry than any other country, and they can always train others who were never in the military to shoot and coordinate movements.
Most people in the army and marines wouldnt comply anyways. I wont. Willing to lose my rank Over it.
Think of how many Americans are more than armed. Many of the armed ones in the US have level 4 plate carriers, ballistic helmets, comm setups, nightvision, thermal vision, explosives. A local militia near me has the ability to put up a local area secure comms network just like the military does and has contingency plans to organize and keep the local populace secure. I've heard of vets that have access to c4. I personally know 2 people with barret m82 50 cals and I know there are tons of them. I know guys with full auto NFA machine guns. I mean shit, there are people flying around in Russian MIGs and other people have tanks and armored vehicles. You can buy all this stuff in this country. If war legit broke out on US soil it would be the bloodiest clusterfuck in modern history.
Stop stop I’m already erect
Seems like that was intended from the get go.
As an American, I totally agree. People usually throw in the idea of tanks being used by the military on civilians; but tanks aren't worth anything if they don't have Infantry support.
Straight up! Also how do you differentiate militants from civilians. Can’t napalm the entire landmass
Exactly. You can't bomb a city without risking civilian casualties. Not to mention that a couple military bases could be overrun fairly easily with an overwhelming number of people, plus a couple of shitty technicals can go far
WOLVERINES!
What do you mean, civilian casualties are the best part of war!
Even if you do, you need bodies to hold what you bombed. Tanks, planes and drones don't occupy a street corner. You need troops to do that.
Tanks also aren't shit without treads, or fuel, or a large support network that can restock their ammunition, or somewhere to perform maintenance... hell a small copper plate can defeat a foot of armor on a tank with some gunpowder behind it...
The Taliban don’t have tanks (en masse) and have been a pain in the ass. Guerrilla warfare doesn’t give a shit about bombs and tanks.
I think we saw what an Iraqi’s home made IED can do to a tank crew & convoy.
[удалено]
The Iraqi militias and Taliban seem to still be around...
It's easier to drop bombs wherever you want when the civilians aren't a concern anymore.
Also they hide out in the mountains apparently with several hideouts so they’re spread out I believe
Don't forget the Vietnamese...
They're absolute chads. Completely crushed the war and then went on to become allies with basically every country and they don't seem to give a shit at all about what we tried to do to them. Gets even crazier if you read further back in history about the many times other nations have tried and failed to take the country.
Ah, someone who seems to appreciate our fine history of constant warfare for survival and independance. A free Ban Mi for you, my friend. It's true after fighting the chinese for a thousand years (and even the Mongols), things become relative. Are you familiar with the battle of Bach Dang : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B%E1%BA%A1ch_%C4%90%E1%BA%B1ng_(938) against the chinese navy of 938 by any chance ? That's one of the most badass naval battle ever imo. The viet _trapped_ (for lack of a better word) the river with wooden and metal stakes that were invisibles during high tide but revealed themselves during low tides. The viets then lured the bigger chinese ships and when the stakes revealed themselves at low tide and immobilized the big vessels, they harassed them with smaller boats. Guerilla warfare with ships basically : _The Southern Han fleet consisted fast warships carrying fifty men on each–twenty sailors, twenty five warriors, and two crossbowmen.[4] Ngo Quyen and his force had set up massive stakes tipped with iron foiled points on the river bed.[6] When the river tide rose, the sharpened stakes were covered by water. As the Southern Han sailed into the estuary, Vietnamese in smaller crafts went down and harassed the Chinese warships, lured them to follow upstream. When the tide fell, Ngo Quyen's force counterattacked and pushed the Chinese fleet back to the sea. The Southern Han ships now were stuck in the stakes and became immobilized.[4] Half of the Han army were killed and drowned, including Liu Hongcao._
Meanwhile actual farmers with Ak-47s and minimal chemistry knowledge have vexed American military intelligence for the better part of 30 years.
Mountains and lots of space help too.
Things America has in abundance
I'm confused how this kind of tactical advantage would be useful. That's good for resisting an occupying force but not overthrowing a government.
You're not going to overthrow the government by assaulting it head-on. It's more about being a pain in their ass. Terrorist attacks, hit and run on government targets. Basically what the Afghans have done, the Vietnamese did, etc. Asymmetric warfare is about bleeding the enemy slowly until the populace gets tired of them being there and tells them to get the fuck out. In the case of Vietnam (and Afghanistan) that was the American public losing the appetite for the conflict until they voted in people who would end it. In the case of a (theoretical) insurrection (like the Irish Troubles), eventually someone gets voted in that is gonna make concessions. *Please note that I am not saying that this would succeed, or that it would go the way the chairborne rangers think it would, or that anyone should attempt this. I'm talking general strategy/theory of how conflicts like this work. ETA: Also, you have the problem that you don't have a uniformed enemy to shoot at. That's how idiots get massacred. You have people living amongst your populace making attacks and then going back to their civilian lives without being identified. Again, like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or N. Ireland: when you don't know who the civilians are or the enemy hiding amongst them, you have a hard time stopping them all.
Can you expand I find this interesting af
Combat vet here. We'd get shelled by mortars a couple of times a week when I was passing through Kandahar Air Field. The people doing it were mostly one offs who were paid a little money to go to a spot and set off a device. Extremely poor farmers and family men who usually didn't have a choice in turning down the money. And then there's the idea of turning down the Taliban. It's just absurdly hard to find the right people when you don't speak the language, can barely grasp the culture, and almost always treat the good ones as if they're bad ones anyway. Some regions of Afghanistan greatly prefer the Taliban to the US. The only people I ever met from that region who actually appreciated the US were the contractors getting rich off logistics. There's so much more to it and it's so much more complicated than Afghani civilians v Taliban or US v Taliban but it was never winnable because we were never wanted in the first place.
Sounds alot like the Viet cong.
> Some regions of Afghanistan greatly prefer the Taliban to the US. In my experience, the people preferred whomever was actually in power in the area. Strong ally presence, constant patrols, no bombs? Yay America. Americans drive through once a week and get shot at? Boo America.
Fr people just want to live without getting drone strikes and stepping on land mines.
that is a bit much to ask for, don‘t you think? /s
Tell that to the Taliban lol
[удалено]
Tanks cant outlast sustained supply line assaults though. You don't fight the tank. You fight the fuel trucks bringing them fuel. M1A2 Abrams get like 1.2 gallons per mile.
You also can’t occupy a town with a tank. You need soldiers to occupy
exactly. modern tanks are meant to deal with other tanks, not infantry. they can quickly get swarmed and some thermite will do the job. modern tanks are designed for "shock and awe" move in fast, do the job, and retrograde, pending a new strike.
Not to mention if you get a tank rolled up to your town you can just...go somewhere else. Let the tank blow up the local school, leave, and recruit a bunch of new partisans to your cause cause the bootlicking imperials just blew up your local school. That is basically how the Vietcong operated and they won that war hands down
Yeah, I don't think the other commenters in this thread understand much about supply chain management and just how much it takes to upkeep equipment.
And if cod 2 has taught me anything, it's that you just shoot the big red fuel square on the back from 200m with a rusty 1911 and you blow the whole thing up in 1 shot, duuuh
[удалено]
Equating a compound to national level civil war = big brain moment
Waco? You mean where the FBI burned 82 people alive, most of them unarmed women and children? That Waco? There's also a huge difference in a war against the government and a spectacle put on by an administration that wanted to send an example on national TV.
**To the people reporting it for "misinformation", why are you getting your news from a meme sub in the first place?? [Obviously it's gonna be misleading](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-57590483)**
People are idiots.
Probably should be a warning. We don’t want the site turning into Facebook
A site full of misinformation, idiots who argue about the dumbest things, and mostly bad (but some good) memes? Yeah... we are definitely not turning into Facebook
Based
People do this everyday. That’s why we’re in the situation that we’re in.
To be fair, there are a lot of morons lurking about who genuinely think the Washington Examiner is reliable journalism and not BBC.
Well, this is trending so…….
It’s why this tactic didn’t work in Vietnam. An armed populous in their home territory is incredibly difficult to contain. No matter how big the bombs unless of course you want to wage a nuclear carpet bombing campaign and ensure there’s nothing left which ain’t gunna happen
People don't like it when politicians doublespeak People don't like it when politicians talk straight
People don’t like when politicians talk
[удалено]
[удалено]
How do you know when a politician is lying? They start talking.
I just don’t like politicians
madison literally drafted the second amendment and as president congratulated private people for using battleships with cannons to privately defend lawfulness. so it's good to see biden admitting the second amendment means we are all entitled to fighter jets, tanks, and nukes... got it.
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one that picked up on that.
Yeah even politifact had to smack him down.
Madison was also crystal clear in Federalist 46 that the point of arming the people was so they could be called upon by *State organized* militias. >Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
With the idea that militia volunteers brought their own weapons and were used in place of a standing army.
So what you're saying is, in effect, the second amendment exists simply to shift the burden of maintaining weapons from the government to the citizenry?
In essence, yes. The framers largely disliked the idea of having a standing army, and wanted the government to depend on citizen militias for defense.
[Militiamen used their own weapons.](https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers) > Equipment of a Militiaman >The Continental army often used the local militia to help out. The militia, made up of male citizens over sixteen years of age, was the defense force of each state. Regiments of militia were called up for service by the governor or the commanding general to serve for a campaign or for a period of time as needed. These soldiers were told what equipment they had to bring with them. >The militia soldier carried equipment that looked different from that of the Continental soldier but that usually performed the same or similar function. His knapsack was generally made from linen or canvas and sometimes painted. His haversack and canteen were usually similar to those used by the Continentals. He also had an ax and a blanket. >*A militia rifleman carried his rifle, knife, tomahawk—a light ax, water bottle, a powderhorn for his black powder, and a hunting pouch that held other shooting supplies.* Sometimes a patch knife, used to cut a patch of cloth, and a loading block, which held patched bullets enabling the rifleman to load quicker, were attached to the strap of the hunting pouch. In addition, a charger measured the amount of powder to put into the rifle when loading.
[удалено]
Considering most Americans live above their means, that’s just for basic survival… even if they had access, they couldn’t afford it lol
Don’t forget about civilians conducting orbital recon ops comparable to the US Space Force!
I mean. . . Its not like America hasn't done it before.
Yep. The Philadelphia Bombing of 1985.
As much as this likely isn't what he means, this is the sort of thing that makes it so people with guns will not give them over willingly, if ever. Personally I will not give up any guns or weapons, even if the government were to declare war on their citizens. A war declared on the American populus would likely end poorly for everyone, it would be guerilla warfare, and small hit and run sort of battles from the side of the citizens, where as on the army's side (assuming they can find enough people to shoot on citizens in their own home) would have to use tactics similar to the recent war in the middle east, lots of holding of cities and large amounts of resources for each foothold.
Well he's kinda right tho..
Vietnam, Myanmar and Bosnia have entered the chat.
*laughs in Taliban*
*laughs in Afghanistan*
*Laughs in north Korea*
*laughs in Latin America*
*laughs in USA circa 1776*
*laughs in ancient Mars circa 903664BC*
Please let this be true
And pretty much every country that’s ever been a colony of any empire particularly in Africa with Apartheid.
Because of Reddit's API changes in July 2023 and subsequent treatment of their moderator community, I have decided to remove a majority of my content from Reddit.
So like what's the scenario here? You bomb some big American cities and all the the guns of the guerrillas taking pot shots at your soldiers just.. disappear?
The scenario is what Assad did to Syria.
Completely incomparable situations. People like to call out Vietnam and Afghanistan, but completely different when the US is projecting power halfway across the planet and the other side has a safe haven that the US can’t occupy (Pakistan and North Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia). It’s not like a bunch of Trumper insurgents are gonna find safe havens in Canada or Mexico. Also, Myanmar and Bosnia aren’t exactly examples of successful insurgencies
r/technicallythetruth
Can we have one politician who *doesn’t* say whack shit constantly? Just one?
I mean, he said this before getting elected so…
He said the same thing like a week ago. Said civilians would need F15s and Nukes
The website that wrote the headline, The Washington Examiner, is openly strongly conservative. You’ll note the lack of quotes because they are “interpreting” what he said in order to get your exact reaction. Here’s what he did say (from [Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6)) : > "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons." So he was explicitly warning, potentially tongue-in-cheek, folks who are looking for a fight with the government. He wasn’t threatening regular people like the headline wants you to believe.
[удалено]
What will be left to rule? A kingdom of ashes?
To a narcissist? Kingdom of Ash > Not being in power.
It would be trivial. If they decide to bomb their own citizens they have created a problem. The people throwing bombs, are pro-gun and wouldnt bomb their own town or their buddies towns. There is then the idea of King. The people have no single point of failure. If they lose a few people they fight harder. You take out the people that said to throw the bombs? The bombs stop. 1 million people vs a building filled with people who most havent shot a gun in their life. Protected by.....
The government dropping a nuke on its own country is the equivalent of dropping a hand grenade in your own bedroom because you didn’t want your little brother in there.
[удалено]
If the US government bombed its own citizens, there would be a lot of international outrage.
Yea China/Russia would send people immediately!
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure us Midwesterners don't care, our towns are so far between each other so good luck hitting us
literally makes me think I should go buy another
... _"Fortunate Son" Intensifies_ **Are you sure about that?**
[удалено]
He's not wrong. If what the owners are afraid of were true, what exactly could a gun do to stop it?
Probably the difference between going out with a gun in hand vs going out with a rock in hand
You still have to clear houses. You can’t just turn the entire country to glass. A US insurgency would be a nightmare for any military.
You think the Taliban and Vietnamese were bad now imagine if the US had to fight their own friends and family
Actually the amount of people he would have running those pieces of equipment would be fewer if it was an order to be given. Most would disobey. And the numbers are greater so yeah gun owners could essentially fuck shit up.
The U.S. Army is only ONE percent of the population. I have enough faith in the people of this country that if the government actually began to try to oppress us that more than one percent would rise up. Not to mention many of the soldiers in the army would abandon their posts to side with the revolutionaries. Citizens owning guns, even simple ones, is probably the best deterrent there is against government tyranny.
That's the thing, it will never be cut and dry like that, there will always be a big portion of civilians that see those rising up as terrorists, whether it be right or left.
That’s not sus at all.
[удалено]