Current Events > I legit wanna hear from people who think guns will protect them from the army

(+) Yeah! (+)

itachi15243 posted...

Why do people assume all the soldiers will rebel and save us? Sure, a lot of them will, but what good is that? Soldiers don't come magically armed with a battalion of tanks, heavy duty explosives and a dozen fighter jets

They would take them. The same way the Confederates took supplies when they left, the same way the Continentals took when they left.
---

babyeatermax posted...

Excuse me, I thought we were discussing how effective guns would be at protecting us from our own government

I'm really going to need you to explain this fucking history you're talking about, then.
---

inb4 he lists conflicts where the populace didn't have arms.

Well what would happen when a meteor heads towards earth and bruce willis is too old to save us
---

Forget nukes. Dropping nukes ruins infrastructure.

A tyrannical government can drop sarin gas in the top 5 biggest metropolitan areas in the country and its game over.

1. New York City Metro Area
2. Los Angeles Metro Area
3. Chicago Metro Area
4. Dallas Metro Area
5. Houston Metro Area

There are people who would gladly drop sarin gas in those areas because right wing propaganda tells them those metro areas are liberal havens. Thats all it takes.

America is that vulnerable and guns are useless in chemical warfare.
---

Dark_Spiret posted...

1. the military isnt going to do shit. the civilian population IS the military. you will see a coup before you see drone strikes on american soil on the military's own family's.

Again, history says the exact opposite. Firstly, look up any situation where martial law was enacted. Second, it is easy to justify with simple excuses, ("If we don't take control, lawlessness will kill even more", "The rebels are anti-American/violent insurgents/etc", "Once we establish order, everyone will calm down and we'll fix everything", etc). It's even more unlikely that military families would remain in areas populated by an armed uprising. Not only would they already be targets, but they'd likely be the first people evacuated to military bases.

Dark_Spiret posted...

2. theres a lot of ways to fight a war against a superior force and especially when that superior force doesnt take a scorched earth approach.

Yes, but not in this situation. Firstly, the government controls the infrastructure. Most urban areas are entirely reliant on imported food and medicine, which could all easily be blocked the government. The government also controls all vital services; water, electricity, etc. Secondly, they have near perfect recon. There is nowhere to hide when the government literally has access to the plans of every single building built in any given city at any given time. Thirdly, in this case, the 'superior force' literally has one of the world's most advanced and largest militaries, and they are literally parked next to any potential insurgency, already defending strategically important points. What chance do you think you would have if someone handed you an AR-15 and told you to try and take on a jet fighter or a tank?

Dark_Spiret posted...

3. firearms are not here to just protect you from a tyrannical govt, but from any threat be it foreign or domestic. our military, our government, a foreign army or crazy bob down the street.

That's not the issue we are talking about right now, but giving everyone a license to kill anyone they 'think' is a threat is a recipe for disaster.

Dark_Spiret posted...

4. firearms act as a deterrent to what the govt. can actually get away with. once guns are severely limited or gone you WILL start to see more police state and authoritarian laws start to pop up. and it wont come like youd expect. your jailers will have smiles and plain cloths telling you its for the greater good.

Except that we have countries with much more severe gun control who are not in any way near what you described.

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Flintgrandad posted...

Master_Bass posted...

Vita_Aeterna posted...

Drop a nuke in California, New York and Texas and break the morale of the people--GAMER OVER. It only takes a few men, loyal to the bureaucracy to accomplish this too.

That's a good way to get other countries to intervine, though. No one wants fallout to come to their country not to mention watch while we slaughter civilians.

They would happen with or without the civilian having guns.

Yeah obviously countries and organizations would intervene before it all goes to shit, but I was picturing a "it's all gone to hell scenario."

Exactly. People thinking having civilians with access to firearms can defeat a government takeover are nuts.
---