1084
That sure is a lot of guns you got there. lolol (i.imgur.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
394 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

You mean the military that's consistently failed to win those kind of conflicts?

The US military was driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan and that's with pretty much 100% troop loyalty. You start ordering the military to shoot Americans on American soil they won't even have that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    In the US Civil War, this exact scenario played out. All it took was first blood, and even family members on opposite sides fought each other.

    US soldiers will definitely kill our own. We saw this during the 70's with National Guard units shooting Kent State students. We see it today with our police forces. If the opposition can be cast as the villain, soldiers will fight.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Sure, but the American army can (with the almost assured ok from Mexico) literally surround Texas and just starve them out. What exactly is going to get through the US Navy, Army, and Air Force into Texas if they don't want it to? It'll be a guerrilla army against the American Military that literally can fly any operation they want 30 seconds to and from target. The US has one of the most insanely good logistical abilities in history, around the world, imagine inside their own borders. What exactly are Texas Militias going to do? Approach the borders and take pot shots? The second they try to get through a drone army flying 24/7 will either take them out themselves or constantly send locations to artillery, tanks, etc. All the AR-15/M16/M416/etc in the world won't help you against what the American Military has on offer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think you’re missing the point that it wouldn’t be a war, it would be a police action. The local national guards would shut that shit down quickly.

    If you think your small arms could stand against the US military on its own turf, you’re hilariously mistaken. I get that you want to believe that’s what gives you your freedoms, but come on. Nobody who actually understands how that would play out takes those dreams seriously.

    You have guns because they fulfill your fantasies, not because that’s in any way realistic.

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

    Objectively then, clearly 2A is deficient. The people need more arms to keep oppressive governments in check.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    No, the 2A wasn’t meant for individual people to keep arms for that reason. It was written before the US had any sort of army (and several of the founders were actually against a national standing army), with the point being each state would keep enough arms and accoutrements and train the people to be ready to be called up to defend their state.

    It was meant to create something like what became the National Guard.

    The Supreme Court changed that definition in 2002 with the Heller decision, so now it’s even further removed from its original meaning. I suppose that makes it deficient if you’re reading in an original meaning it never had in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent