Could someone please post that screencap where the guy argues that the US citizens could take on the US military if the state ever went full authoritarian.
I really need it, but I'm at work so I can't go on /r/.
>>30275774
>civilians (most without tactical training) vs military
Sure thing bud.
>>30275774
>the military wouldn't join the citizens in killing politicians if it came down to it.
>>30275798
Oh, shit. Forgot about that.
>>30275825
>>30275855
A portion would defect.
And the tools for freedom are everywhere.
>>30275774
Id say five 14 year olds who airshit every weekend could probably defeat any random 20 adults. So idc what was in this post you're looking for. It's bull shit lol.
>>30275956
Use underestimate how fucking stupid airshit kiddies are.
>>30275968
60% of our adult population are obese and get less than 30 minutes of physical activity a week. I'm taking the little kids.
This one?
>>30275956
>>30275968
Airshitters
>pretend tactics, unrealistic situations
>cant flank for shit
>not used to heavy mg fire ripping thru trees
>not used to firing real guns full auto
>>30275986
Thank you so much. You are my hero.
>>30275996
Yeah, but what the fuck training does a random 20 person group of adults have???
>>30276016
Exactly. Most of them probably have little or no experience with firearms. They wouldn't know how to change magazines, load bullets, properly aim, nothing. Not to mention they would have no fucking clue about tactics and would probably panic hard at the first few bullets flying and people dying, and would instead hunker down and wait or surrender.
>>30275774
That's not the idea. Pervasive guns means that bureaucrats and low level functionaries would be assassinated. The military can't be everywhere, and trying to make them be everywhere would result in them defecting.
>>30275986
That was fcking retarded.
>>30275774
don't forget all the nations who want the US destabilized.
>"hey fellow patriot, guess what our mysterious benefactor sent us?"
>"what?"
>>30276108
Seriously this.
If there was a civil war on U.S. soil you think the funs we have now are cool? Wait until we get real slavshit coming in on ships guarded by defecting navy vessels.
>>30276076
Neither do most airshits. 20 v 5, both sides with probably only 20% having used a firearm before. The adults would cut down the airshits.
>>30276137
Or even just the extra weapons from the defectors.
Still suck tho, I don't want a civil war or that shit happening in America. I doubt it will happen, but it's no reason to ban weapons.
>>30275774
Civil uprising and civil war are two different things. The first is in the realm of possibility, the second is not for a miriad of reasons, the foremost being that there is not an actual split in the military between two potentially warring factions.
The important part to grasp is that it would not be open warfare like many imagine but essentially domestic terrorism/guerrilla warfare.
A civil uprising against a state government or the local federal government in a state is entirely possible although improbable. That would involve local police, the Feds and maybe the national guard but it wouldn't be soldiers fighting soldiers.
A rebel group could possibly make a certain area inaccessible to federal jurisdiction by making it far too costly in manpower losses and money to actually enforce anything there. Think less of flying the stars and bars and more like a town where Feds just get shot whenever they show up.
This is all pretty moot because the Bundy situations recently have proven that militia groups are all smoke and no fire that have no actual will to fight over the significant but ultimately non life threatening problems they have with the government. Men become rebels because they truly fear the loss of their way of life or of the ones they love, not because the BLM are bureaucratic dickheads.
>>30275825
Only 0.4% of the US are military personnel. And that's not including the fact that large number of combat troops not even stationed state side. Plus, there's the fact that the US citizens are the revenue base of the US government.
>>30276413
I think a more likely point of contention would be a state government wishing to withdraw itself from under the Federal umbrella. You know, like Texas keeps impotently bitching about.
As the feds push homogeneous laws and edicts over the entirety of the country, eventually, this will mean that regional politics and preferences lose out to the central government's one-size-fits-all policy, and it would "cramp the style" of that region, which could lead to enough people backing a movement to leave. Possible candidates for firsties on this are the cowboy states(Montana and Wyoming), or the Pacific NW(OR, WA, ID).
Not that states attempting to leave the Union
a) is likely.
or
b) has never caused a civil war before, heh.
>Men become rebels because they truly fear the loss of their way of life or of the ones they love, not because the BLM are bureaucratic dickheads.
Ain't that the truth. People seldom take to arms unless they're starving, or their kids are starving.
We ain't even close, in first-world 'Merica.
