you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 1 year ago (48 children)

I have never understood how some think that people with guns can withstand the largest armed forces on the planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Time to check out a history book or two. With that attitude, US would still be a colony of Britain. Or the US would've won in Vietnam instead of getting kicked out by the locals. Granted, it is a bit different without an ocean in between, but it could still happen. Or we could break up like what happened to the USSR.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    We'd be better off if we were still a colony. Independence was rally just a larger version of January 6 with equally suspicious symbols.

    The real question is how many people you are willing to sacrifice for this. How many cities are you willing to burn down?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Then leave and go suck some monarch dick?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I mean Canada still has the British royalty if that's their kink. Not sure how it would help but I ain't gonna kink shame.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Maybe so there is really no way to tell.

    The real question is how many people you are willing to sacrifice for this. How many cities are you willing to burn down?

    Nah that's not the right question. Talking like that makes you sound like a federal agent trying to entrap people. A better question might be who and what stands in the way of helping the people and how can we address those problems? But that is far less attention grabbing and harder to answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Yeah, that's why there's no more Taliban. Or ISIS. Or Hamas. Or ...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    ISIS and Hamas haven't actually accomplished anything. Not exactly worth emulating.

    If we want to emulate the Taliban, we'd have to go hide out in Mexico until the Trump administration gives up and gifts us our country back. Somehow I don't think that would work out for us quite so well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Fucking duh, that's his fucking point

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    The Taliban has Guns and Mountains though, so only the Rockies and the Appalachians stand a chance. The Midwest would get rolled so hard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • The Taliban did operate in a lot of open desert areas as well and had marginal success, I would assume that American people would be better armed than the Taliban and you'd probably see US military or National guard guys stealing and supplying the militia groups if it got serious. Look at Ukraine as well a lot of flat farmlands and Russia even with all of their equipment has a hard time pushing forward, and they just zerg.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You’re apparently offended quite easily by simple rhetoric.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's not good rhetoric if it alienates people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What a strange response. You're essentially telling me that if I don't follow the line then I'm alienating others as if there were only one valid position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • The purpose of an armed resistance isn't a direct confrontation with an armed force. It's the death of a thousand logistical cuts. It's bleeding the country's economy dry by disrupting the commerce required to keep daily life running smoothly and crippling the regime's forces by making people afraid to sign up - one way or another. Whether that's neighborhoods chasing ICE out or people finding out where cops and soldiers live and "paying them a visit" in the dead of night. An armed resistance's goal is to simply be too big of a thorn to ignore but too entrenched and evasive to be worth the amount of money and effort it would take to catch them. Even just their existence in the media is a form of warfare. By simply being in the news they show a population that the regime can be resisted, even by just a bunch of people with guns.

    Look at Napoleon's war in Russia in 1812 and his massive losses due to poor supply lines, disease, and the Russians scorched earth policy ahead of the fierce Russian winter. Or to the American Revolution, where a bunch of farmers with guns and the financial backing of France became such a thorn in the side of the British Empire that they became one of the most powerful and obnoxious countries of the past two centuries and are the subject that started this whole conversation.

    You can turn your guns on the entire country's population, but then what? You're going to have a hard time keeping troops loyal when it's their friends and family on the other side of the gun, and terrorizing the population like that will make it impossible to keep the propaganda machine going. You'd be forced to rule through direct oppression, which would breed more resentment and more people willing to pick up a gun and fight back. Your only hope is to convince the discontent population that opposition is pointless and the true believers that you are right.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    You would not be the only causality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    One hopes.

    How many innocents will they take from us if we do nothing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about defense against fascists. Were you against that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    How many innocents will they take from us if we do nothing?

    Who are "they"? Who are you fighting against exactly? You're not happy with a small historical bump and are crying about fighting against tyranny. So, who are you going to oppose here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So you can't figure out who I'm talking about despite that I'm openly stating it? And you'd rather beat that dead horse than any point I make. Cool. No point in talking to you then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    If you can't say directly, then you don't have a position. If you feel the need to attack someone rather than engage, then you are not acting in good faith. "If you don't know then you're dumb" is a fairly narcissistic take.

    And you’d rather beat that dead horse than any point I make.

    This is you being unwilling to engage. "It's obvious and the problem is you for not knowing it already".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You don't seem to understand the concept of defense. I've already stated "fascists." If that isn't good enough for you, frankly I don't give a damn. Do you expect me to have a list of names of people to attack? I don't have one because that isn't defense. Do you think the people being kidnapped off America's streets everyday know the names and faces of the masked fascists shitting on their humanity? Do you think the victims of the Nazis knew the names of the men lining them up for extermination? It doesn't matter who they are, only their violent intentions. All I know is that I'm willing to defend myself and others if I have the chance. And I'll almost certainly die, and probably nobody will care. I'm ok with that.

    Your question is stupid, pointless, and assumes that I think I'm some kind of badass so why aren't I killing all the bad people? I'm not an assassin. The position you advocate is that of a quisling. I don't owe you anything. Why should anyone engage with your useless, impotent, give-up-and-do-nothing rhetoric?

    So what's you plan, huh? Cmon, post it on a public forum because an online stranger said so.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Long line of US vets in my family and I’ve heard over and over never underestimate gorilla warfare

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What you are suggesting is really shared terrorism where both sides keep committing war crimes. Oh, actually, that sounds like any war the US has been involved with so I guess that works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    The fact is it is possible to fight back against a stronger foe and win if it comes to that. Again I am responding to your original comment. I think most sane people stuck in the US right now are aware that we’re living in a tinderbox. To be clear I didn’t suggest anything I just simply stated through anecdotal evidence that it is possible to stand up to a larger force and win. Like everyone else I don’t want harm to come to the people I love but that’s not always something we can choose.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Same way people with guns stood against us for like 20 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    And died in the process. By the tens of millions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Better die fighting fascism than live under it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You are separated from reality and have never lived under harsh conditions. It all sounds like fun and games until your children starve in front of you and you can't do anything about it since all systems have broken down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why don't you ask those guys in Vietnam about that? Or Afghanistan, for that matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    It wasn't just guns though. In Vietnam, it was traps, tunnels, jungle terrain, etc. And in Iraq/Afghanistan, they used IEDs and suicide bombers...

    Insurgency is possible, but it's very costly. And you'd need more than just firearms.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The largest armed forces had hospitals been very bad with dealing with insurgency. It can crush a national military in days. An armed populace is just a quagmire it has little ability to deal with

  • source
  • parent