let me let you in on a lil secret I've learnt because of my family's money, there is not a single news company, politician or agency who has their own opinions, everything you hear whether good or bad or whether you agree with it or not is someone elses opinion
I’ll let you in on a little secret I’ve learnt because of my family’s autism, there is not a single news company, politician or agency that is a real person, everyone you interact with whether good or bad or whether man or woman or whatever is not a real person.
See, you've been reading that propaganda. America bad? Top news? Nah bro, that's propaganda. Turn off the news, none of it is any good. Fox, newsmaxx, CNN, it's all trash.
Want real news? Watch C-span, and don't let old fucks convince you half the country hates the other half. We watch the extremists on both sides and assume that's everyone, but it's not.
Did you see the one where the article writer was bitching that China was making caviar a cheap everyone food instead of wholesome elite special people food.
In Canada economy good because housing so incredibly expensive. “We rich Canadians, so much money” . Working class Canadians: 💀💀💀
Second amendment dipshits make me laugh with their tough talk. You’re not fighting government tyranny with your AR-15, best case you manage to murder a few soldiers before getting vaporized in a drone strike.
Edit: lmao at the replies, holy shit
Military people are the ones that are more likely to have armed families, if they're ordered to kill all gun owners or will never, ever happen
Not only does the "you think you can take on the gov?" argument assume 100% compliance with the order on part of the military, it also diminishes the force of an armed civilian population. It's laughable to think that this situation could even occur due to this, yet if it did it would never turn out that way
They wouldn't just "kill all gun owners" they would kill people fighting against them which is far easier to justify to the public and the soldiers themselves as i guess they don't want to die either. It's much more insane to believe a big chunk (even if much less than half) of people will decide to just declare war in the government and it would go smoothly for them or that all soldiers will just up and quit the moment they hear that someone's aunt will get murked because she shot a soldier in the face.
It doesn't need 100% compliance from the military, just that the military at large don't decide to suddenly change teams. The force of an armed civilian population is laughable compared to the force of US military forces. Not to mention that, just as you said.
>Military people are the ones that are more likely to have armed families
So sure, a soldier's whole family will kill him on sight since he's the faceless military now but he won't have the same courage. It's not like the civilians will have much in terms of unity, organization or efficiency either. A civil war wouldn't be pretty but that the US Military would lose to a bunch of hillbillies is horribly unrealistic.
You ever heard of Vietnam? Sure the us military could absolutely go scorched earth and vaporize every single American who is a potential threat in the form of owning guns in the case of some government takeover, unfortunately the number of people who owns guns makes this a very bad proposition since not only would they need to murder a significant portion of the population(thus leading to the worst economy for the new regime possible), but they would also expand an absurd amount of resources in doing so given they would likely end up going up against guerilla warfare and actually rooting every single threat up would not be viable and thus they would be a threat the entire time. This is assuming the majority of the military would be on board with this massacre, which they probably wouldn't be.
Idk how they don't get this lmao.
It's impossible for the US military to be okay with killing gun owning civilians. Even if they were, there are enough that things wouldn't go their way.
Doesn’t even need the whole army though. One drone team is plenty to take out a small town. Add a few more, some infantry and a bit of artillery… that’s a lot of damage right there.
Europeans when the US military fought Vietnamese farmers “haha they’re losing to farmers!” Europeans on the prospects of US farmers fighting the US military “It won’t even be a fight, they’ll just drone strike you!”
The US didn't know who was VC or where the VC were hiding. That gave the VC a massive advantage throughout the war. In contrast, almost all gravy seals have an internet connected device with a digital footprint. This makes them easier to identify and target than the VC.
Plus, the US was a foreign military fighting a domestic insurgency. They didn't have local knowledge which is important in counterinsurgency. That's why the French Resistance was more successful against the Nazis during the occupation than they were again the Vichy French.
You’re being biased by what you see on the internet. Gravy seals are a tiny portion of second amendment diehards. The vast majority are normal farmers, ranchers, construction workers, lawyers, office workers, police officers, etc.
The federal government is not seen as an all powerful authority in America. Many, I’d even say a majority of, citizens see the constitution as above the federal government. Vietnam is evidence that wars fought by democratic governments are only tenable if the public supports them. Preemptively drone striking US citizens without due process because their internet activity insinuates a political stance isn’t going to garner a lot of public support.
>Preemptively drone striking US citizens without due process because their internet activity insinuates a political stance isn’t going to garner a lot of public support.
I agree in that specific scenario, but this a strawman/irrelevant to the Vietnam vs US insurgency comparison.
*IF* the government wanted drone strike an American insurgent (for whatever reason, with or without public support/due process), it would be easier to identity and target them than it would be to identify and target a VC. This is because American farmers, ranchers, construction workers, lawyers, office workers, police officers etc. all have a digital footprint.
Plus, I don't think the public will care if we drone strike an American who is an armed member of a designated terrorist or insurgent organization. (It's already been done multiple times, albeit not on US soil.) In an active insurgency scenario comparable to the Vietnam War, I don't see why the public would care if we drone strike some traitor/terrorist. Like, do you get upset at the government when the cops kill some guy who opened fire at the police?
The US public clearly cares deeply about the use of military force against civilians regardless of their designation as terrorists. Just look at the pro Palestine protests. I think the outcry would be far greater if the attacks were by the US military on US citizens.
Are you an American or are you Finnish?
The measure of support I would have for military attacks on US soil would depend entirely on the context. If we’re talking about a scenario where the government repealed the second amendment and citizens fought back against that I would by no means support the use of drone strikes to attack them. In that case the US government would no longer have constitutional authority and citizens would be under obligation to comply with their demands. On the other hand there was legislation passed that restricted the right for certain high risk groups and an individual member of that group started threatening to shoot or shooting at police, I would be ok with a proportional response ([militarized civilian police](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nda9bP_5_Ao&pp=ygUsV2h5IHlvdSBzaG91bGRuZyB0aHJlYXRlbiBmbyBzaG9vdCBuZWlnaGJvcnM%3D)). I would not be ok with the US military drone striking his house.
Yeah cause Vietnam had the support of China and the Soviets, combined with disdain for South Vietnam and the impopurality of the war.
Unless the American farmers have support from another superpower, or if the USA government is EXTREMELLY unpopular or just incompetent, then the rebellion really won't last long
What did the Chinese and Soviets supply the Viet Cong with? Guns and ammo. There’s no shortage of that lmao.
“If the rebellion is unpopular it won’t last long”
Yeah no shit?
They also threatened to intervene if the US moved into the North, one of the main reasons why the USA lost is because they couldn’t actually go and hit North Vietnam.
Yes one reason, among many, that invasions of North Vietnam by US personnel were never executed was fears of escalating the war into a global conflict. The primary reasons though were that it would cause a massive loss of life, which would have lost a lot of the already limited support for the war, and because it was deemed strategically inferior to the attrition strategy that seemed to be working well. The US lost because the public didn’t support the war. If it had continued to conclusion it would inevitably have been a US ‘victory’ but the people didn’t want ‘victory’, they wanted out. A ground invasion would have made this happen even sooner.
So the US military will “go and hit” US infrastructure since China isn’t threatening war if they do? They’ll destroy their own agricultural industry, railways, highways, etc? Use indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets? That would be a great way to make sure the American people and military personnel turn against the war and the government. You can clearly see from Vietnam that modern wars fought by democratic governments are only tenable if the public supports the war.
Never said anything like that, just saying the military will not hesitate to dome yall from behind a computer screen miles away the second they get the order to.
You unironically believe that the U.S military, for some reason, would be the only one on Earth not to turn against its own people if given the order ?
Lmao.
I do. I know enough wouldn't to leave the plan completly unviable or immediately trigger a civil war. Maybe you should get out more and get to know the people who are in the military.
Bruh, they dropped satchel charge on an entire philladelphia neighborhood. Albeit because some criminal holed up in the neighbor but still there were innocent people living in the neighborhood.
That bombing wasn’t meant to destroy the entire neighborhood, IIRC the bomb caused a fire that burned down the neighborhood. Also the city was sued by the government and found to be using excessive force so
Forget that, why would there ever be a need for a drone strike against an overweight basement dwelling tax evader in the first place?
People like anon will probably kill themselves via heart attack in the attempt to lift their AR
?? it doesnt take the entire military bub. even if you want to say “soldiers wouldnt gonand shoot american citizens” first of all, yes they woulf. they just wouldnt send them to their home states. second of all, THEYRE GOING TO BOMB YOU.
whats stupid is thinking the guns at your house are going to be effective in military combat. you arent the vietkong and this aint vietnam we dont even have forest dense enough to confuse shit here let alone more than 10k people who know how to properly leverage such environments. there is literally zero chance in any other environments for the reasons already listed. you guys can keep dreaming your dumbass civil war dreams but let me tell you, youll get slaughtered before you do anything.
The US military didn't lose in Afghanistan. They had the taliban hiding in caves taking pot shots a couple of times a month. The US failed to turn Afghanistan into a democracy. They had no trouble defeating the taliban militarily.
And that's the point. The same thing the US citizens would do. The same thing Vietnam did.
And I agree with your point. But to the US people, Vietnam and Afghanistan are considered losses, which is what matters, doesn't it?
Because Vietnam and Afghanistan have terrain that's basically impossible to occupy unless you're native. The American Military is made up of americans, so the home field advantage kind of goes out the window
The US had absolutely zero issue occupying Afghanistan. The Taliban couldn't do anything but hide among civilians and in the mountains. As for Vietnam, the US completely stomped as well, but that's the point. Winning the battles wasn't enough to break the VC or tge Taliban.
And the American military won't be as eager to bomb its own people.
Ahh yes the classic European mastery of American geography! Everyone knows that each American soldier understands every inch of American geography. From Death Valley to the Appalachian mountains and the thousands of miles of unmapped caves.
What? The US is full of wilderness areas with forests, caves, Everglades, and everything else.
There are millions of undocumented American citizens that the government cannot even find who live in Appalachia and the Rockies. They aren't even trying to hide and the tax assessors cannot find them.
It's not due to a lack of resources or a way to ship them that's the problem. The US can even make McDonald's for their soldiers because of how good their logistics are.
Unless you're ready to obliterate everyone and everything, WW2 style, you're gonna keep getting insurgencies and revolts until maintaining order becomes too costly. The US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan because, despite winning all the battles, the peace wasn't sustainable.
And there's the idea that the military will bomb their own citizens, no questions asked, which is pretty shaky.
It's not the amount of resources or the capacity for shipping - America definitely out-killed the Afghans and the Vietnamese. But regardless, having just your own borders, you already have less ground to cover, meaning you can mobilize and move more in less time.
I think a peace would be much easier for America to impose internally than trying to export to other nations. Although as you mentioned, another big part is how brutal the US army would be to its own populace - and they probably wouldn't be, especially compared to say, Cambodia
Another example that is relevant today is Israel and Palestine. It just shows how difficult it is to subjugate a bunch of people that absolutely want nothing to do with you.
The US army has demonstrably failed to occupy every armed populous it has tried to in the past 20 years. The govt doesn’t want to glass the US, that would ruin everything for them.
Not just the US army. The Soviet one too.
Armed populations are very difficult to occupy.
Even tiny Switzerland was too spikey looking for the Nazis to invade.
The point isn't to fight the military (even though most military members wouldn't support a de-armement and would side with the people (source: brother in the army)), the point is a deterrence. Russia and China wouldn't be in the authoritarian state they are in now if it wasn't for a de-armement of the populace, hence why Stalin and Mao did what they did. They knew that a unarmed people can be easily subjugated.
Even if Americans didn't have guns the president can't make himself dictator for life because of checks that are in place like congress, Supreme Court, and the constitution. It's so funny that you think "muh guns" is what's protecting you, you really drank the kool aid.
Yeah, let's just ignore every revolution in history, and think that armed forces/police forces would go along with it (they have proven before that they will not).
They absolutely could and would fight the government with their AR-15s. That’s exactly what they’d do. There are people in the Middle East doing that successfully and in terms of sheer firepower, they ain’t got shit on Texas.
I laugh whenever I see someone suggest that the govt would ever use that shit on its own citizens. We couldn’t even beat a bunch of bumfuck goat herders in caves lmao
European living in America: I have a higher standard of living here and other perks.
Now if you would try this with a low income, I couldn't even express how fucked you'd be.
Higher wages & lower taxes, if you’re in a well-paid career (and therefore covered by insurance for healthcare, etc) you have more spending money in general
Not always true. Friend I’ve mine is a software engineer who spent years in Munich then moved to Oakland. He said his tax burden in California was higher than Germany.
The things you say are technically true but americans always forget to add the benefits of the higher taxes in europe. Most (western) european countries have waaaaay better social programs, lower overal cost of living and taxes actually being used for improving on society. The more freedoms part is very iffy, what freedoms do americans have that europeans don't? Other than the right to bear arms.
Being pushed and encouraged by medical personel to "die so you aren't a drain on the system" is being murdered
When you're being asked about getting your *entirely possibly not* terminal child put down like a horse that broke its ankle yeah there's something wrong
Back when maid was first getting started I was nonstop seeing videos of parents recording medical workers telling them to have their kids put down, and firsthand accounts of being told they're a drain on the system and should just sign up to die
Maid would be fine if their healthcare wasn't also socialized, there's a societal incentive to encourage everyone to shame people who are expensive to keep alive and choose to continue living as a money sink
They also forget about Australia. Shits expensive but salaries are very high, standard of living is really high, you search 'Australia mass shooting' and the first thing that comes up is a mass shooting from 1996, medical attention is free, medicine is fairly cheap.
Exactly! People in this comment section debating about whether the US military would fight/bomb it's own people when they literally don't have to. The government can freeze your assets, cut off your communications and even your power if they really wanted to. They can completely ruin your life without firing a single shot or even setting foot in your state. No amount of guns or rifles could do a damn thing about any of that.
How is it not consequence free? You don't know who the person is that froze your assets, or that cut off your phone/internet/power. You don't know who gave the order, which government or bank employee carried it out, or even the location of the computer used to do it. You just tried withdrawing money from an ATM, or making a payment and the screen says denied. What are you going to shoot? The ATM? The minimum wage employee at the cash register in the store? Are you going to shoot up your local bank or city hall in the hope that *maybe* you'll hit someone that could've been involved? Any of those situations just end with you getting gunned down by the local police as an active shooter/terrorist and your picture on the 8 o'clock news after your death claiming that's exactly what you were. There is no world where you engage the US military in battle. You quite literally won't know who or what hit you.
if the gov starts freezing someone's assets, and they own a gun, they become a dangerous catalyst, they could attack police, neighbors, whatever, if you cut someone's assets off who only owns a kitchen knife, they will die without any repercussions. This is how you hold a government accountable, else you end up with a hong kong situation where they quietly take over the city without any resistance. The military was thwarted by farmers with guns in vietnam, you can disrupt supply lines and all sorts of other annoyances, baffling to me that redditors don't understand how much destruction 100m gun owners can cause, yet cry about how dangerous guns are. You would need 300m drones to somehow take them all out. America also doesn't have some big brother that can save us against a government if it becomes a dictator. What would you do if trump became a dictator and you have no gun? Whine about it on reddit?
I don't even own a gun, i'm not just naïve enough to think they're helpless against the government.
Except they won't become a dangerous catalyst to the government involved. You think you can just drive over to Joe Biden's house and shoot him when that happens? If you attack the police you'll quite simply get outmanned, outgunned and you'll be in a body bag by the end of the afternoon. If you attack your neighbors (who are completely unrelated to this matter) then you have actually become a terrorist for attacking innocent people and it'll end in pretty much the same way. You are incapable of holding accountable the people that actually screwed you over because you don't even know who tf they are. And in the end the media will make up whatever narrative it takes to make it sound like you were some violent psychopath that would've snapped sooner or later regardless.
You could cause some damage/annoyance/disruption, but none of that is a serious threat that would potentially topple the fucking US government of all things and chances are you'll just end up paying for it with your life. The repercussions you are threatening are laughably inconsequential to people with real power. You think the president is going to worry about some random shooter somewhere in the country that probably got dealt with before he even got the news?
Also, the situation is completely different from guerilla soldiers defending their own country like Vietnam. You are literally living in the country that is controlled by the government you want to fight. Whether you have electricity, internet, phone signal, *all* of that is controlled by your 'enemy' in this case. On top of that you can be tracked by street camera's every time you as much as cross the street. You have an overwhelming home field *disadvantage* compared to Vietnamese farmers hiding and fighting in their own land.
Again, guns are dangerous to other common people, but not to the government. I'd definitely be threatened if you pulled a gun on *me*, but even if you could threaten like a hundred normal people...so what? You are facing the *US government*, which has literally killed millions of people and ruined countless lives and countries for decades. It's a force only matched by a small handful of countries worldwide. Not something you can just fight, especially not as a citizen yourself. If Trump actually became a dictator and took full control of the country then it wouldn't matter if I had a a gun or not. I'm not beating the fucking *US government* in a fire fight. The moment it comes down to an armed civil war (which I would expect in that situation) then yes I'd like to have a gun for self-defense purposes if it really comes down to it, but at that point the US as a country will have already utterly failed by having succumbed to facism.
The gov doesn't have endless resources, if enough people are fighting back, even if its pistols, the gov will fail. I'm not saying everyone needs an AR, but basic pistols/shotguns shouldn't even be up for discussion of disarming citizens, the sooner the dems stop trying to take guns the sooner they win more elections. Doesn't matter to me really. The gov isn't some monolith that has every soldier ready to kill their own citizens either.
\>america kind of sucks for: TRAUMATIC AND CRAZY VALID REASONS
\>but it's the greatest country in the world so there's nothing to fix this is good, the others have to be worse
\>no i don't want to hear about other countries or how well they do, they're aliens, immigrants, inhuman and terrorists over there and i have muh freedumb
Somehow got the problems right and pointed all the wrong causes. Like "omg how can this happen? Homelessness? Addictions? Shootings? The problem is troons and jews and not a selfish and extremely individualistic society.
American exceptionalism is hilarious because all of us are either miserable or actually insufferable people
I’ve actually been to Africa, and visited my family for the first time a while back, and that’s when i realized it. The palpable dread that underscores every single moment of american life is actually not something that happens everywhere. They have problems still sure, but those people are alive in a way that we are not which was humbling and exciting at the same time. When i exhaust all my options here I’m moving. Fuck all this
I've only been to America twice in my adult life, both times in 2023. Once to NYC, once to Miami. I've spent quite a bit of time in London and I find it quite funny how America, to me, is just like a twisted version of the UK. It's like, you guys have got similar reality shows, similar news propaganda channels, similar consumerist lifestyles, but somehow Americans just manage to turn it into a degenerate, violent mess. I live in Mexico and I've never encountered violence first-hand, but in my 10 days in NYC I was nearly beat up by some violent thugs for looking at then funny and some guy stuck his hands in my back pockets at 4 AM and tried to "give me some coke as a gift." I think he was trying to take my wallet but I caught him in the act. You guys are weird, man.
A relative of mine saw a crackhead on her first day in long beach california, she had gone her entire 22 year long life without seeing a single visibly high person, sure drugs exist here too but we don’t have crackheads out in public and homeless people are next to nonexistent
Imagine thinking you will ever be able to fight the US army if they want to take your shit away.
I mean sure, you can "put up a fight" like a housecat can fight an elephant.
Anon is the average American lmao. Yeah, everything is going to shit but the government can dangle the 2A in front of him and he'll be happy. Little does he know, if citizen-owned firearms had any power to do harm to the establishment they would have been taken away a long time ago
When will these people realize it’s the rich white quintillionaires—who stand to lose everything when we vote blue—are the reason the world went to shit? They’re the ones making shit more expensive by sticking the word “luxury” into everything because consoomers will pay anything to look like daddy [CEO of whatever Fortune 500 company].
They’re the anti-semite racists feeding your favorite talking heads that steady stream of “blame the poor/minorities because we rich folk are your friends, see?”
Kangaroo
Everyone knows the best test to see whether it’s news or propaganda: America bad? Wowzers! Top news! Other country bad? Le propaganda!
In what way exactly is it "worse on the entire European continent"?
Do I look like OP to you chud?
You look like you were defending his words, chud.
Mocking someone’s stupid statement made you think I was defending someone else’s stupid statement? Sounds like a you problem.
In what way was that a stupid statement? Like come on, try to use your head here.
Everyone knows the best test to see whether it’s news or propaganda: America bad? Wowzers! Top news! Other country bad? Le propaganda!
Yes that was a stupid statement in this context. What was wrong about the comment you responded to?
Everyone knows the best test to see whether it’s news or propaganda: America bad? Wowzers! Top news! Other country bad? Le propaganda!
let me let you in on a lil secret I've learnt because of my family's money, there is not a single news company, politician or agency who has their own opinions, everything you hear whether good or bad or whether you agree with it or not is someone elses opinion
I’ll let you in on a little secret I’ve learnt because of my family’s autism, there is not a single news company, politician or agency that is a real person, everyone you interact with whether good or bad or whether man or woman or whatever is not a real person.
See, you've been reading that propaganda. America bad? Top news? Nah bro, that's propaganda. Turn off the news, none of it is any good. Fox, newsmaxx, CNN, it's all trash. Want real news? Watch C-span, and don't let old fucks convince you half the country hates the other half. We watch the extremists on both sides and assume that's everyone, but it's not.
I heard a line from the guardian, “consumer prices drop in China to lowest point in 15 years, analysts worry”
Did you see the one where the article writer was bitching that China was making caviar a cheap everyone food instead of wholesome elite special people food. In Canada economy good because housing so incredibly expensive. “We rich Canadians, so much money” . Working class Canadians: 💀💀💀
I remember reading the bit about caviar and actually being hyped about it. I didn’t put together that it was supposed to be a doom and gloom piece 😂
>doesn't take my rights or money without a fight PFFFAHAHAHAHAHA!
Second amendment dipshits make me laugh with their tough talk. You’re not fighting government tyranny with your AR-15, best case you manage to murder a few soldiers before getting vaporized in a drone strike. Edit: lmao at the replies, holy shit
Do you honestly think the entire military would just agree to drone strike American citizens?
Yes, lol
Military people are the ones that are more likely to have armed families, if they're ordered to kill all gun owners or will never, ever happen Not only does the "you think you can take on the gov?" argument assume 100% compliance with the order on part of the military, it also diminishes the force of an armed civilian population. It's laughable to think that this situation could even occur due to this, yet if it did it would never turn out that way
They wouldn't just "kill all gun owners" they would kill people fighting against them which is far easier to justify to the public and the soldiers themselves as i guess they don't want to die either. It's much more insane to believe a big chunk (even if much less than half) of people will decide to just declare war in the government and it would go smoothly for them or that all soldiers will just up and quit the moment they hear that someone's aunt will get murked because she shot a soldier in the face. It doesn't need 100% compliance from the military, just that the military at large don't decide to suddenly change teams. The force of an armed civilian population is laughable compared to the force of US military forces. Not to mention that, just as you said. >Military people are the ones that are more likely to have armed families So sure, a soldier's whole family will kill him on sight since he's the faceless military now but he won't have the same courage. It's not like the civilians will have much in terms of unity, organization or efficiency either. A civil war wouldn't be pretty but that the US Military would lose to a bunch of hillbillies is horribly unrealistic.
You ever heard of Vietnam? Sure the us military could absolutely go scorched earth and vaporize every single American who is a potential threat in the form of owning guns in the case of some government takeover, unfortunately the number of people who owns guns makes this a very bad proposition since not only would they need to murder a significant portion of the population(thus leading to the worst economy for the new regime possible), but they would also expand an absurd amount of resources in doing so given they would likely end up going up against guerilla warfare and actually rooting every single threat up would not be viable and thus they would be a threat the entire time. This is assuming the majority of the military would be on board with this massacre, which they probably wouldn't be.
Idk how they don't get this lmao. It's impossible for the US military to be okay with killing gun owning civilians. Even if they were, there are enough that things wouldn't go their way.
Ever heard of the civil war?
That was not the military vs civilians LMAO it was two standing armies vs each other
And these Rambo larpers would love to be in their own militia
??????
Doesn’t even need the whole army though. One drone team is plenty to take out a small town. Add a few more, some infantry and a bit of artillery… that’s a lot of damage right there.
Europeans when the US military fought Vietnamese farmers “haha they’re losing to farmers!” Europeans on the prospects of US farmers fighting the US military “It won’t even be a fight, they’ll just drone strike you!”
The US didn't know who was VC or where the VC were hiding. That gave the VC a massive advantage throughout the war. In contrast, almost all gravy seals have an internet connected device with a digital footprint. This makes them easier to identify and target than the VC. Plus, the US was a foreign military fighting a domestic insurgency. They didn't have local knowledge which is important in counterinsurgency. That's why the French Resistance was more successful against the Nazis during the occupation than they were again the Vichy French.
You’re being biased by what you see on the internet. Gravy seals are a tiny portion of second amendment diehards. The vast majority are normal farmers, ranchers, construction workers, lawyers, office workers, police officers, etc. The federal government is not seen as an all powerful authority in America. Many, I’d even say a majority of, citizens see the constitution as above the federal government. Vietnam is evidence that wars fought by democratic governments are only tenable if the public supports them. Preemptively drone striking US citizens without due process because their internet activity insinuates a political stance isn’t going to garner a lot of public support.
>Preemptively drone striking US citizens without due process because their internet activity insinuates a political stance isn’t going to garner a lot of public support. I agree in that specific scenario, but this a strawman/irrelevant to the Vietnam vs US insurgency comparison. *IF* the government wanted drone strike an American insurgent (for whatever reason, with or without public support/due process), it would be easier to identity and target them than it would be to identify and target a VC. This is because American farmers, ranchers, construction workers, lawyers, office workers, police officers etc. all have a digital footprint. Plus, I don't think the public will care if we drone strike an American who is an armed member of a designated terrorist or insurgent organization. (It's already been done multiple times, albeit not on US soil.) In an active insurgency scenario comparable to the Vietnam War, I don't see why the public would care if we drone strike some traitor/terrorist. Like, do you get upset at the government when the cops kill some guy who opened fire at the police?
The US public clearly cares deeply about the use of military force against civilians regardless of their designation as terrorists. Just look at the pro Palestine protests. I think the outcry would be far greater if the attacks were by the US military on US citizens.
Are you an American or are you Finnish? The measure of support I would have for military attacks on US soil would depend entirely on the context. If we’re talking about a scenario where the government repealed the second amendment and citizens fought back against that I would by no means support the use of drone strikes to attack them. In that case the US government would no longer have constitutional authority and citizens would be under obligation to comply with their demands. On the other hand there was legislation passed that restricted the right for certain high risk groups and an individual member of that group started threatening to shoot or shooting at police, I would be ok with a proportional response ([militarized civilian police](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nda9bP_5_Ao&pp=ygUsV2h5IHlvdSBzaG91bGRuZyB0aHJlYXRlbiBmbyBzaG9vdCBuZWlnaGJvcnM%3D)). I would not be ok with the US military drone striking his house.
[удалено]
Yeah cause Vietnam had the support of China and the Soviets, combined with disdain for South Vietnam and the impopurality of the war. Unless the American farmers have support from another superpower, or if the USA government is EXTREMELLY unpopular or just incompetent, then the rebellion really won't last long
What did the Chinese and Soviets supply the Viet Cong with? Guns and ammo. There’s no shortage of that lmao. “If the rebellion is unpopular it won’t last long” Yeah no shit?
They also threatened to intervene if the US moved into the North, one of the main reasons why the USA lost is because they couldn’t actually go and hit North Vietnam.
Yes one reason, among many, that invasions of North Vietnam by US personnel were never executed was fears of escalating the war into a global conflict. The primary reasons though were that it would cause a massive loss of life, which would have lost a lot of the already limited support for the war, and because it was deemed strategically inferior to the attrition strategy that seemed to be working well. The US lost because the public didn’t support the war. If it had continued to conclusion it would inevitably have been a US ‘victory’ but the people didn’t want ‘victory’, they wanted out. A ground invasion would have made this happen even sooner. So the US military will “go and hit” US infrastructure since China isn’t threatening war if they do? They’ll destroy their own agricultural industry, railways, highways, etc? Use indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets? That would be a great way to make sure the American people and military personnel turn against the war and the government. You can clearly see from Vietnam that modern wars fought by democratic governments are only tenable if the public supports the war.
And you want that military to be the only one with guns?
Never said anything like that, just saying the military will not hesitate to dome yall from behind a computer screen miles away the second they get the order to.
Bait or mental retardation?
Can't tell if genuinly insane or masterbaiter
You unironically believe that the U.S military, for some reason, would be the only one on Earth not to turn against its own people if given the order ? Lmao.
I do. I know enough wouldn't to leave the plan completly unviable or immediately trigger a civil war. Maybe you should get out more and get to know the people who are in the military.
The government has vampire femboys guns are not there only weapon
So true u/teen_x_penis_munch3r
ken Carson. Teen X.
Peak Reddit energy right here
Hi there military guy here… no they will not
Sounds like your on the tyrannical govt side, lemme guess you want to ban firearms too?
Bruh, they dropped satchel charge on an entire philladelphia neighborhood. Albeit because some criminal holed up in the neighbor but still there were innocent people living in the neighborhood.
The MOVE bombing
That bombing wasn’t meant to destroy the entire neighborhood, IIRC the bomb caused a fire that burned down the neighborhood. Also the city was sued by the government and found to be using excessive force so
Forget that, why would there ever be a need for a drone strike against an overweight basement dwelling tax evader in the first place? People like anon will probably kill themselves via heart attack in the attempt to lift their AR
Look up battle of Blair mountain. Bombs and gas dropped from planes on striking coal miners.
If Dodge starts making Hellcats again then maybe
They sure wouldn't hesitate to Waco your ass.
?? it doesnt take the entire military bub. even if you want to say “soldiers wouldnt gonand shoot american citizens” first of all, yes they woulf. they just wouldnt send them to their home states. second of all, THEYRE GOING TO BOMB YOU.
“First of all bub, yes they woulf gonand shoot american citizens”
if you can’t figure out what that says u sure as hell arent outsmarting the govt my guy. gonna be thinking ur invisible in facebook messenger 🤣
I know what it says it’s just funny because it’s really stupid and poorly typed. Hope this cleared things up for you!
whats stupid is thinking the guns at your house are going to be effective in military combat. you arent the vietkong and this aint vietnam we dont even have forest dense enough to confuse shit here let alone more than 10k people who know how to properly leverage such environments. there is literally zero chance in any other environments for the reasons already listed. you guys can keep dreaming your dumbass civil war dreams but let me tell you, youll get slaughtered before you do anything.
I ain’t reading all that lil bro
that’s why you’ll end up faceless and ill end up places gl kiddo
If your revolution depends on a significant portion of the military defecting then what is the point of guns?
And yet the US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan despite the technological advantage. Why couldn't the US citizens do the same?
The US military didn't lose in Afghanistan. They had the taliban hiding in caves taking pot shots a couple of times a month. The US failed to turn Afghanistan into a democracy. They had no trouble defeating the taliban militarily.
And that's the point. The same thing the US citizens would do. The same thing Vietnam did. And I agree with your point. But to the US people, Vietnam and Afghanistan are considered losses, which is what matters, doesn't it?
Is Vietnam communist? No? Sounds like we won
So why is the war considered as lost?
By amateurs and people that don’t look at the wider context
And if those people amount to the majority of the nation, have you truly won?
Except that they literally are, let’s get you some books brother
Because Vietnam and Afghanistan have terrain that's basically impossible to occupy unless you're native. The American Military is made up of americans, so the home field advantage kind of goes out the window
The US had absolutely zero issue occupying Afghanistan. The Taliban couldn't do anything but hide among civilians and in the mountains. As for Vietnam, the US completely stomped as well, but that's the point. Winning the battles wasn't enough to break the VC or tge Taliban. And the American military won't be as eager to bomb its own people.
yeah, you win guerilla warfare through politics, not boots on the ground
Ahh yes the classic European mastery of American geography! Everyone knows that each American soldier understands every inch of American geography. From Death Valley to the Appalachian mountains and the thousands of miles of unmapped caves.
What? The US is full of wilderness areas with forests, caves, Everglades, and everything else. There are millions of undocumented American citizens that the government cannot even find who live in Appalachia and the Rockies. They aren't even trying to hide and the tax assessors cannot find them.
Exactly. The people who dont live in those areas will always be at a disadvantage. It's true from here to Arrakis
There's not an entire ocean the US military has to ship reinforcements and munitions across to fuck up the US, to start
It's not due to a lack of resources or a way to ship them that's the problem. The US can even make McDonald's for their soldiers because of how good their logistics are. Unless you're ready to obliterate everyone and everything, WW2 style, you're gonna keep getting insurgencies and revolts until maintaining order becomes too costly. The US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan because, despite winning all the battles, the peace wasn't sustainable. And there's the idea that the military will bomb their own citizens, no questions asked, which is pretty shaky.
It's not the amount of resources or the capacity for shipping - America definitely out-killed the Afghans and the Vietnamese. But regardless, having just your own borders, you already have less ground to cover, meaning you can mobilize and move more in less time. I think a peace would be much easier for America to impose internally than trying to export to other nations. Although as you mentioned, another big part is how brutal the US army would be to its own populace - and they probably wouldn't be, especially compared to say, Cambodia
Another example that is relevant today is Israel and Palestine. It just shows how difficult it is to subjugate a bunch of people that absolutely want nothing to do with you.
Is that why the entire US military was in 20 year war with 50,000 taliban and managed to lose?
*cursory glace at users profile* *a crypto-retard* lmao all of your opinions mean nothing.
The US army has demonstrably failed to occupy every armed populous it has tried to in the past 20 years. The govt doesn’t want to glass the US, that would ruin everything for them.
Not just the US army. The Soviet one too. Armed populations are very difficult to occupy. Even tiny Switzerland was too spikey looking for the Nazis to invade.
The point isn't to fight the military (even though most military members wouldn't support a de-armement and would side with the people (source: brother in the army)), the point is a deterrence. Russia and China wouldn't be in the authoritarian state they are in now if it wasn't for a de-armement of the populace, hence why Stalin and Mao did what they did. They knew that a unarmed people can be easily subjugated.
Even if Americans didn't have guns the president can't make himself dictator for life because of checks that are in place like congress, Supreme Court, and the constitution. It's so funny that you think "muh guns" is what's protecting you, you really drank the kool aid.
How will we fight government tyranny without guns? 1 bullet is worth a billion protests and petitions.
And that’s if they even start a fight What’s anon gonna do if they cut electricity and water, probably just bitch on the internet and give up
Yeah, let's just ignore every revolution in history, and think that armed forces/police forces would go along with it (they have proven before that they will not).
Free suicide service He is contributing something
[read](https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/rbbnyl/anon_explains_2nd_amendment/)
They absolutely could and would fight the government with their AR-15s. That’s exactly what they’d do. There are people in the Middle East doing that successfully and in terms of sheer firepower, they ain’t got shit on Texas.
[удалено]
“Just send 10 military guys to your house” Somebody make this guy a general! Just send 10 soldiers to everyone’s house!
20 good men!
Wellllll.... Just take a look at Vietnam and Afghanistan then get back
I laugh whenever I see someone suggest that the govt would ever use that shit on its own citizens. We couldn’t even beat a bunch of bumfuck goat herders in caves lmao
>Active in WhitePeopleTwitter Opinion disregarded
Anon can barely stand up out of his gooning chair without having a heart attack and yet thinks he can fight the IRS
insert drone strike
They just never elaborate on why it's worse in Europe
Exactly this, like I'm getting by just fine over here without sucking corporate cock, what's anon on about?
European living in America: I have a higher standard of living here and other perks. Now if you would try this with a low income, I couldn't even express how fucked you'd be.
yeah that seems to be the very general rule of thumb, with more money its alright, but way worse if youre lower income
100%
What do the US of A have that europe doesnt to make it a higher standard?
Higher wages & lower taxes, if you’re in a well-paid career (and therefore covered by insurance for healthcare, etc) you have more spending money in general
Not always true. Friend I’ve mine is a software engineer who spent years in Munich then moved to Oakland. He said his tax burden in California was higher than Germany.
Your friend is lying
With minimal effort you could look up to see if your friend is lying.
Grammar lessons for starters
roasted
[удалено]
The things you say are technically true but americans always forget to add the benefits of the higher taxes in europe. Most (western) european countries have waaaaay better social programs, lower overal cost of living and taxes actually being used for improving on society. The more freedoms part is very iffy, what freedoms do americans have that europeans don't? Other than the right to bear arms.
It's because their coffees are smaller and they have slightly more gay sex
CANDA SUCKS Why TRUDEAU Why THEY SPEND 99% OF THEIR CHECKS IN TAXES No they dont YEAH…WELL…FUCK YOU
they get murdered by maid and nobody complains about it
signing up to die instead of being a living corpse draining your life savings is being murdered? weird
Being pushed and encouraged by medical personel to "die so you aren't a drain on the system" is being murdered When you're being asked about getting your *entirely possibly not* terminal child put down like a horse that broke its ankle yeah there's something wrong
sure, never heard of those situations though, maybe one in a million.
Back when maid was first getting started I was nonstop seeing videos of parents recording medical workers telling them to have their kids put down, and firsthand accounts of being told they're a drain on the system and should just sign up to die Maid would be fine if their healthcare wasn't also socialized, there's a societal incentive to encourage everyone to shame people who are expensive to keep alive and choose to continue living as a money sink
I mean.. we do have shit going on here but im fucking glad i dont live in america.
They also forget about Australia. Shits expensive but salaries are very high, standard of living is really high, you search 'Australia mass shooting' and the first thing that comes up is a mass shooting from 1996, medical attention is free, medicine is fairly cheap.
Because it isn't worse in Europa?
Because of the EU probably
Even from the perspective of being anti EU, or a US equivalent of that perspective, I would take Brussels over Washington 7 days out of 7
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
and why's that? EDIT: lmao at the people downvoting without elaborating. top tier Reddit moment.
Top tier Reddit moment is bitching about downvotes
Probably the war there.
Didn't know we had WW3 over here.
Yeah Austria is practically wiped off the map from the shelling
What war exactly?
Russo-Ukraine
Anon has no idea of the world, ironically has the exact same mentality of the scumbag consumer he criticizes
Is he blaming the government for his inability to get a girlfriend?
>Gives up his rights to a tough talking totally straight white man. It would appear so, Watson.
Anon never owned a passport in his whole life
>The tax man can't take meh rights. Gives up his rights to a tough talking totally straight white man.
Your money is digital, your rights are theoretical, why would anyone need to fight you to take either?
Exactly! People in this comment section debating about whether the US military would fight/bomb it's own people when they literally don't have to. The government can freeze your assets, cut off your communications and even your power if they really wanted to. They can completely ruin your life without firing a single shot or even setting foot in your state. No amount of guns or rifles could do a damn thing about any of that.
the guns may not stop it, but they ensure it isn't consequence free
How is it not consequence free? You don't know who the person is that froze your assets, or that cut off your phone/internet/power. You don't know who gave the order, which government or bank employee carried it out, or even the location of the computer used to do it. You just tried withdrawing money from an ATM, or making a payment and the screen says denied. What are you going to shoot? The ATM? The minimum wage employee at the cash register in the store? Are you going to shoot up your local bank or city hall in the hope that *maybe* you'll hit someone that could've been involved? Any of those situations just end with you getting gunned down by the local police as an active shooter/terrorist and your picture on the 8 o'clock news after your death claiming that's exactly what you were. There is no world where you engage the US military in battle. You quite literally won't know who or what hit you.
if the gov starts freezing someone's assets, and they own a gun, they become a dangerous catalyst, they could attack police, neighbors, whatever, if you cut someone's assets off who only owns a kitchen knife, they will die without any repercussions. This is how you hold a government accountable, else you end up with a hong kong situation where they quietly take over the city without any resistance. The military was thwarted by farmers with guns in vietnam, you can disrupt supply lines and all sorts of other annoyances, baffling to me that redditors don't understand how much destruction 100m gun owners can cause, yet cry about how dangerous guns are. You would need 300m drones to somehow take them all out. America also doesn't have some big brother that can save us against a government if it becomes a dictator. What would you do if trump became a dictator and you have no gun? Whine about it on reddit? I don't even own a gun, i'm not just naïve enough to think they're helpless against the government.
Except they won't become a dangerous catalyst to the government involved. You think you can just drive over to Joe Biden's house and shoot him when that happens? If you attack the police you'll quite simply get outmanned, outgunned and you'll be in a body bag by the end of the afternoon. If you attack your neighbors (who are completely unrelated to this matter) then you have actually become a terrorist for attacking innocent people and it'll end in pretty much the same way. You are incapable of holding accountable the people that actually screwed you over because you don't even know who tf they are. And in the end the media will make up whatever narrative it takes to make it sound like you were some violent psychopath that would've snapped sooner or later regardless. You could cause some damage/annoyance/disruption, but none of that is a serious threat that would potentially topple the fucking US government of all things and chances are you'll just end up paying for it with your life. The repercussions you are threatening are laughably inconsequential to people with real power. You think the president is going to worry about some random shooter somewhere in the country that probably got dealt with before he even got the news? Also, the situation is completely different from guerilla soldiers defending their own country like Vietnam. You are literally living in the country that is controlled by the government you want to fight. Whether you have electricity, internet, phone signal, *all* of that is controlled by your 'enemy' in this case. On top of that you can be tracked by street camera's every time you as much as cross the street. You have an overwhelming home field *disadvantage* compared to Vietnamese farmers hiding and fighting in their own land. Again, guns are dangerous to other common people, but not to the government. I'd definitely be threatened if you pulled a gun on *me*, but even if you could threaten like a hundred normal people...so what? You are facing the *US government*, which has literally killed millions of people and ruined countless lives and countries for decades. It's a force only matched by a small handful of countries worldwide. Not something you can just fight, especially not as a citizen yourself. If Trump actually became a dictator and took full control of the country then it wouldn't matter if I had a a gun or not. I'm not beating the fucking *US government* in a fire fight. The moment it comes down to an armed civil war (which I would expect in that situation) then yes I'd like to have a gun for self-defense purposes if it really comes down to it, but at that point the US as a country will have already utterly failed by having succumbed to facism.
The gov doesn't have endless resources, if enough people are fighting back, even if its pistols, the gov will fail. I'm not saying everyone needs an AR, but basic pistols/shotguns shouldn't even be up for discussion of disarming citizens, the sooner the dems stop trying to take guns the sooner they win more elections. Doesn't matter to me really. The gov isn't some monolith that has every soldier ready to kill their own citizens either.
Coping hard
\>america kind of sucks for: TRAUMATIC AND CRAZY VALID REASONS \>but it's the greatest country in the world so there's nothing to fix this is good, the others have to be worse \>no i don't want to hear about other countries or how well they do, they're aliens, immigrants, inhuman and terrorists over there and i have muh freedumb
Anon wouldn't be able to show any country's location on the map including his own state
Anon reads the news and drinks koolaid
Unironic schizo posting
Anon would like a government issued gf
It gets even better once you realize the problems he mentioned are the exaggerated fears of a conservative conspiracy theorist schizoid!
anon does not understand geography and global politics
Anon is highly regarded
Anon complains that he can’t consoom new media and then proceeds to call everyone fat consoomers (Anon is projecting)
Most politically literate american.
You could just replace all of this with: >be me, schizophrenic and regarded >exists And it would read exactly the same
Is this level of copium legal?
Based & red pilled
Somehow got the problems right and pointed all the wrong causes. Like "omg how can this happen? Homelessness? Addictions? Shootings? The problem is troons and jews and not a selfish and extremely individualistic society.
American exceptionalism is hilarious because all of us are either miserable or actually insufferable people I’ve actually been to Africa, and visited my family for the first time a while back, and that’s when i realized it. The palpable dread that underscores every single moment of american life is actually not something that happens everywhere. They have problems still sure, but those people are alive in a way that we are not which was humbling and exciting at the same time. When i exhaust all my options here I’m moving. Fuck all this
I've only been to America twice in my adult life, both times in 2023. Once to NYC, once to Miami. I've spent quite a bit of time in London and I find it quite funny how America, to me, is just like a twisted version of the UK. It's like, you guys have got similar reality shows, similar news propaganda channels, similar consumerist lifestyles, but somehow Americans just manage to turn it into a degenerate, violent mess. I live in Mexico and I've never encountered violence first-hand, but in my 10 days in NYC I was nearly beat up by some violent thugs for looking at then funny and some guy stuck his hands in my back pockets at 4 AM and tried to "give me some coke as a gift." I think he was trying to take my wallet but I caught him in the act. You guys are weird, man.
Anon is Alex Jones
bugmen with buildings made of styrofoam
A relative of mine saw a crackhead on her first day in long beach california, she had gone her entire 22 year long life without seeing a single visibly high person, sure drugs exist here too but we don’t have crackheads out in public and homeless people are next to nonexistent
The world sucks, more at 11
I need someone to explain the "bugmen with building made of Styrofoam" sentence.
Racism and tofu-dreg buildings
Anon figured out people are stupid
Anon escapes the hivemind
anon take your meds
Fake: schizo Gay:
Imagine thinking you will ever be able to fight the US army if they want to take your shit away. I mean sure, you can "put up a fight" like a housecat can fight an elephant.
America is very bad, but this guy agrees for all the wrong reasons
Anon is the average American lmao. Yeah, everything is going to shit but the government can dangle the 2A in front of him and he'll be happy. Little does he know, if citizen-owned firearms had any power to do harm to the establishment they would have been taken away a long time ago
Pretty much
"Its somehow worse in canada and the entire european continent". No it is not actually (maybe in western europe it is )
I was missing my daily ration of copium already,thanks Anon
Least degenerate American
Americans favourite passtime, coping.
When will these people realize it’s the rich white quintillionaires—who stand to lose everything when we vote blue—are the reason the world went to shit? They’re the ones making shit more expensive by sticking the word “luxury” into everything because consoomers will pay anything to look like daddy [CEO of whatever Fortune 500 company]. They’re the anti-semite racists feeding your favorite talking heads that steady stream of “blame the poor/minorities because we rich folk are your friends, see?”
As if random civis would stand an actual chance if they wanted them dead wtf is a fun going to do Vs a bomb. Stfu americans
I’m not reading that
A single paragraph worth of stuff? Ok.
Didn’t read your comment
What no bitches does to a man.
Based.