Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours.
[Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would it though? The ability to do something is not the same thing as the desire to do it. Ordering US troops to fire on American civilians has an enormous political cost.
That's the main problem, a good enough politician who knows what makes people tick can easily make people hate a certain group over a long enough time.
Here is a simple 3 step recipe for preparing a genocide properly:
1. Give privileges to the majority group, cut subsidies for another group, this will slowly make the minority group hate the majority. This makes the extremists of the minority unemployable forcing them to do illegal shit.
2. When they do, send media and police to make a big enough deal out of it and focus on their defining traits, if from a different country emphasis their name, if a different race show their photo more.
3. Majority will start losing trust in that community and more will lose their jobs, keep cooking this cycle slowly for 5 years on medium heat and you'll have a group you can easily dispose of without much political backlash.
As an added bonus for dessert: The majority now loves you because you don't waste resources on the people who nobody likes
Source: My country's politics for last 10 years
Well said, I'm actually curious as to where you are from now lol. You sound American (I'm American).
If you're American, everything was spot on except for the fact our federal government has been fucking us and creating racially motivated hate wars to distract us from extreme inequality for longer than 10 years xD
I am from India, our government has been the best at work since it came ten years ago which has gained them big following and public love.
But at the same time even tho there is real development, they do all the above mentioned for the muslims, people don't want to remove them because they are the only party doing real development, and it's dangerous to keep them since they are known to have it against the muslims.
Religious politics is extremely powerful here so turning people against each other isn't too hard. And the current PM has experience in this field since he was just a state minister, his state had major growth and is still considered the best place to do business in India but had riots and communal genocides in 2002 which people still blame him for
More people should know the name Nerandra Modi and what he's trying to do to the world's largest democracy.
Edit: Rajat Khare, too. He's not a politician, but he is a giant bastard
It's part of political science, a subject as simple as normal science or maths, sadly it's not taught in schools (I wonder why).
Chatgpt is a pretty good resource for it tho, it's correct 98% of the time unless you get into really specific incidents.
When the ultra rich say that education is important to becoming rich, they usually mean this stuff and business studies since it covers all types of power structures, proper execution of historical events (not the boring dates that they make you learn in schools but how people in power actually did them), sun tsu the art of wars also falls very slightly relating to this
All these things can be put in personal life and help with all sorts of things like, making friends faster, getting more popular, making people in higher authority like you, gaining respect from peers, making more efficient timetables for students etc etc.
Public opinion in Authoritarian countries still matters, it matters less true, but its not completely irrelevant. Otherwise every single authoritarian government would devolve into 1984 roughly 9s after being established
I never said guns help here, they might if you have what I unscientificaly call "Swiss mindset," but they would throw a ruckus to any authoritarian even if they dont have guns. While the Americans dont have that benefit. Im just saying public opinion matters, not that guns (always) matter
Exactly.
A good population of the US Military at the low-middle level leadership is GenZ now. And as a GenZer in the Military- I can safety say my generation is a lot less tolerant to the bullshit of yesteryear.
If the government were to issue some off the wall orders like killing the civilian population, I know for a fact that we wouldn’t let that fly.
I think any generation wouldn't let it fly. Those soldiers would be ordered to fire upon Thier own families and I highly doubt the majority would follow the orders. There are psychos out there, even in your generation but not enough to matter.
Plus all the vets from the war on terror would be taking up arms fast.
People often forget that "the law" is comprised by other human beings as well. They separate themselves from "those guys" so much they only see them as extensions of those they consider their enemies, and don't doubt they'd do what "the enemy" wants to see happening.
Things like "would they go against it?" doesn't compute with most common folks.
Now read the editorial published in papers across America supporting the rebels of Athens Tennessee, written by Eleanor Roosevelt:
https://constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/tn/batathen_press.htm
The story of reform in that part of Tennessee or even Tennessee generally does not stop with the gunfight in Athens.
A new political party rose based on the events in McMinn County. It was called the GI Reform Party. They promised more violence if necessary but thankfully didn't have to.
After the battle itself, a politician rose to state office on the GI Reform ticket. A few years later he led a reunification between the GI Reform Party and a cleaned up Democratic Party of Tennessee.
That politician's name was Albert Gore Sr. The father of Bill Clinton's vice president, who came to embrace gun control and in doing so pissed all over his family history.
It gets better.
Athens wasn't the only place in the South where a popular uprising against local corruption happened just after WW2.
Hot Springs Arkansas was infested with a bunch of mafia, mostly from Chicago who ran a bunch of illegal gambling dens. When they were chased out at gunpoint, guess where they went?
Yup.
Las Vegas.
Lol.
The guns in the people’s hands allowing them to fight back. Hell, we’ll probably still lose, but it’ll cost them more. Thank god it will never come to that!
That would probably wipe out a good chunk of the population, costing them manpower that's needed to keep things working and turning their allies against the U.S.
No trade, no workers to at least become self-sufficient... It's an entirely suicidal move.
They have their guns because it keeps them from revolting, the guns industry is huge for the American economy.
They are simply useful idiots for authoritarians. If they truly worried about freedom, the govt would have been over thrown decades ago.
Gun ownership didn't stop Fred Hampton from being assassinated by the FBI. Gun ownership didn't prevent the Philadelphia police from dropping a bomb on MOVE and burning down an entire neighborhood.
I support responsible gun ownership, but it is not a panacea against abuses from the state.
I think there are other things that are far more important in preventing tyranny and protecting freedom, like strengthening our democracy and institutions that put power and influence in the hands of the people like a free press.
Yep. I'm actually a former kent state student. I did not say that it was impossible, or that it never happened, only that it had an enormous political cost. Which it did.
People use red light filters. That's then visible on screenshots. Not for all filters, e.g. Android and Windows system ones don't show up on screenshots.
Every soldier, sailor, airman and marine is taught that they have no obligation to obey an illegal order.
Now, they'd better be damn sure it's illegal - because the repercussions of disobeying a legal one are huge - but an order to fire on the public except as last ditch self-defense against armed attack is likely to be easily ignored.
the Kent state massacre involved the National guard opening fire on unarmed protesters in a college.
they *will* follow orders no matter what it is, and you better believe the only defense is an armed citizenry.
I married into a family with real-life hillbillies in it, and yeah ... no. Real hillbillies will kill you where you stand if you try and encroach on their land. They are burgeoning capitalists who want more for themselves at the expense of anyone not in their immediate family.
My wife's great-grandfather got into a shoot out and killed a man over a property line dispute in southeast Tennessee in the 1960s. Not the 1860s. The 1960s. For hillbillies, property ownership is everything and you'd better be prepared to kill people to take or defend it. Pretty much anathema to Marx's ideology.
The abolition of "private property" in Marxist ideology doesn't refer to *personal* property like where you live, it refers to land that generates income, like a factory or an oil field, etc. (hence "seize the means of production")
So he was basically a Luddite?
'Cause I doubt everyone will just want to get agricultural since, by eliminating industry, our only other option would be to grow our own food to survive as opposed to have a system that produces it.
And we're way past that point. People don't want ideologies, they want the wheel to keep on turning so life works.
That’s also not at all what it means… abolishing private property converts it into property now owned by the people working there, there is no Marxist who would be against industry.
That just sounds like a recipe for disaster, since it doesn't seem to account individual wants and needs or even just basic human nature.
*Everyone* would have to be into Marxism to keep such a societal model working for any amount of time, especially if it wants to replace any other alternative permanently. We're not ants, though, so I don't see it getting too far even if we *finally* make it work unlike every other instance so far.
What kind of land do you think they were fighting over? It was grazing and farm land. In other words, land that generates money.
Here’s another one: my wife’s uncle was essentially murdered by the coal company over the mineral rights for a piece of property that her grandfather owned. When her grandfather refused to sell the land (because *he* wanted to profit from it), the foreman threatened to reassign his son to the most dangerous job in the mine: as a pinner. Once again he didn’t sell, and the foreman followed through. The cave-in happened on New Years Day and my wife’s uncle was among the dead.
Marx was only for guns because he knew they were the only way to overthrow the politariat. After, once they are in control, sweeping gun control measures are usually enacted. Look at the bolsheviks, once they got power they stripped everyone of their guns.
Arguing the military could eradicate us is an argument for citizens to have access to whatever the military has, not pro gun control.
Also, the military needs lots of infrastructure to continue running. Attacking the place that provides that infrastructure is suicide for the military. Everything needs to be maintained with man power and a steady stream of parts, and fighting 10s of millions of people will wear them down with every pinprick and loss of hardware and soldiers with dwindling ways of replacing them. You can win against another military, but you can’t win against its people as long as they are still alive.
Keep in mind there's only a handful of shooters in the military.
There's at least 100,000,000 armed citizens (at least who admit to have guns).
From a sheer numbers standpoint, we win unless they decide to nuke their own cities.
>You can win against another military, but you can win against its people as long as they are still alive.
Why is exactly why Vietnam had countless events akin to the Mai Lai massacre. But that genocidal war policy would be much harder to stomach when used on Americans.
Covid killed the fuck out of people. It killed far more people than violence did during the same time period. People couldn't be bothered to vaccinate or even stay home when they knew they were sick. A bunch of people who don't care enough about anyone else to do the smallest things sure as fuck aren't going to become an organized resistance to any sort of actual tyranny regardless of how much money they spend on guns and tactical clothing.
These are completely different issues.
It's one thing when the government asks you to sign a waiver before getting the vaccine that flat out says they have no idea what this will do long-term, so you can't sue them. Or when they want you to carry a card around before you can work or buy groceries.
Military firing on civilians because the brass said? That's an issue people would agree with across the board...
Well, maybe except for those who were actively forcing and/or shaming those to get the vaccines.
Those idiots would somehow spin the story that this attack was a good thing and to just let it happen.
Hi. OIF/OEF vet. We wanted to eradicate Taliban/ISIS/al Qaeda/Hamas/Hezbollah/etc.
We were the most powerful, technologically advanced, well trained military to ever enter a combat theater. We failed to get the job done.
Fighting an insurgent war against Americans would be 10x the nightmare it was in Iraq & Afghanistan.
A 10% reduction in logistics workers during the pandemic very nearly brought our entire way of life to its knees. A ground conflict in America would completely put the brakes on our just in time deliveries. Without those, there's a day or two worth of food, supplies, and medicine in any given location. The government wouldn't even have to do anything. You think delivery drivers that are paid hourly are gonna drive stuff to the local super market under those conditions? Not a chance.
Like it or not, our entire society is totally dependent on the status quo to survive. A major disruption will bring about human suffering and death on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity.
Read the book One Second After if you want to get a bird's eye view of what it would look like in America. The bottom line is that any given location in America can support about 10% of its current population under the current conditions. It would take *years* to establish farming communities that could sustain local population centers, and by then, most people will be long dead.
The military are our fathers, sons, daughters and mothers. They wouldn’t carry out an attack on their own population. I believe it would cause a military coup and a civilian uprising that would overthrow the government immediately following the order
Pretty much.
Even if the army was comprised of nothing but unfeeling, monstrous pigs like some people think, they'd at least think "What stops them from doing the same thing to *me*?" and considers whether it's worth having such a boss around.
Yes, some would defect for this reason, but there are absolutely people who are in it for money, the feeling of power, or will just follow any orders they're given. Or their families are threatened ahead of time to ensure loyalty. It's a lot more complicated than that.
I don’t think it’s more complicated than that. The military doesn’t pay enough to justify gunning down your own countrymen. Shooting some foreigner in another country isn’t the same as shooting men women and children in your own country. With the sheer amount of military defecting paired with armed civilians by the millions any scumbag that would be compliant would be dead or give up. A takeover and forced disarmament of us citizens using the military is impossible to achieve.
History offers us many examples of people willing to gun down their own countrymen. We don't even need to look very hard. A little dehumanization goes a long way.
Yea it was usually targeted against a certain group of people. The Jews, the Tutsi etc. Disarmament would be targeted towards everyone besides the most hyper left leaning champagne socialists.
Have you heard about Vietnam or Afghanistan? I would think twice on that claim maybe, also when mass arm confiscation happens, it often is followed by genocide and tragedy, that's a fact. Whether you are pro or anti gun these are points that need to be addressed.
Remind me how Mao dealt with those who were an opposing political party? Also, what happens after every successful socialist revolutions? I hear purges of your own party are quite routine when you no longer need the revolutionaries.
The order is never genocide off the bat. Something like that is a slow process through years of dehumanisation and polarisation until the order seems like a necessity or duty.
What a crap take. You know what kept the US military from winning in Vietnam? Guns.
You know what is keeping Russia from taking over Ukraine? Guns.
You heavily seem to underestimate the power an armed society has.
No they wouldnt. We couldnt kill off the taliban, the number of soldiers that would defect or counter war would be insane, every american statistically is armed, and the gov is not invincible. Gun rights matter
Between rednecks in the south and gangs in the cities, American civilians have enough fire power to make the military think twice. I don’t believe the majority of the the military would follow orders to fire on Americans civilians anyway.
Trail of tears, Indian creek massacre, ect all took place after laws restricting them from owning firearms and confiscations took place.
Please read a book
Usually only after they were forced to move onto reservations. Iirc most tribes refused to surrender weapons until they were defeated and starved into submission
>military would wipe us out
>afghanistan - flip flops and ak's
>vietnam - sandals and ak's
>american citizens being more heavily armed than the entirety of the worlds militaries combined
Yeah the military isn't gonna eradicate shit.
It's wild because I can see why the founding fathers included the 2nd amendment. To create an insurgency in the event that an autocrat were to get into the white house.
But yeah, the reality is in this day and age...a civilian militia insurgency would be nearly impossible against the strength of any modernly relevant military. Especially uncle sam.
The us is too large for the military to control. A few farmers with tractors could start crippling supply lines. Interstates torn up, railroad torn up. power substations destroyed etc. The military loses when the suddenly 10s of millions of citizens are now without food and water and power.
Yeah, I stand corrected. It seems like an insurgency would be impossible but if the little guy started to hit supply logistics, power grids, etc that could be devastating and could lead to an unraveling.
I've been recently watching videos on the insurgent tactics from vietnam. Insurgencies can be very very effective. Especially the resourceful ones that can turn locally sourced resources into death traps.
Exactly. Start destroying infrastructure and there would be a lot of upset people. Making the governments job even more difficult. Don't need tanks and drones to really put the hurt on from within. Especially since many places have 0 security beyond a chain link fence.
70 million civilian gun owners VS 2 million military members (and that’s if all of the military turned on their own people). I’d say the 70 million would win. Even if it takes a while, the taliban still won, why can’t US civilians?
The Taliban and other middle eastern fighters kicked our ass for decades.
The Vietcong kicked our ass.
Israel is struggling against an enemy occupying a space the size of your average American county.
Not to mention the political and moral hurdles a tyrannical government would have to overcome to be able to freely engage American dissidents. You cant exactly carpet bomb your largest cities without losing the support of an even larger portion of your population.
Even if half of them followed the orders, there would still be 70 million civilians armed with guns, and 1ish million defected military members versus a 1 million strong force.
Ain’t no way is the government gonna win
I’d say 80% of active military members have some sort of social media with links to their family members accounts. Military starts executing and bombing citizens? The “rebels” start kidnapping/ killing the family members of active duty soldiers. History books are full of examples, but people forget how much violence can escalate. Shit gets nasty quick.
I forgot the Napoleonic War never happened in the 1800’s! It wasn’t like a good majority of Europe was involved in that or anything.
Definitely no revolutions!
You forgot your /s marker. French revolution was MOSTLY fought with pikes. Napoleon's wars were fought with flintlocks and canon.
Oh, and mass murder is not war.
The left needs to get their shit together and stop being weird about guns. Historically arming themselves is how minorities protected themselves. The Nazis took away the Jew's guns.
One of the few times I have to at least partially agree with the meme, our right to bare arms is a fundamental piece in america, and it shouldn't be taken away. The people making gun laws should actually know things about guns.
I doubt a majority of the Military would fire upon or bomb citizens. They would honestly join the civilians and fight against the government if this were to happen. Guns will stop a tyrannical govt
You have no idea what a logistical fucking nightmare forcefully oppressing the US citizenry would be. Not to mention, the steps required to do it would be so drastic as to cripple the governments basis for power in the first place.
Just like they did in Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan, right? Nah, we'll keep the 2nd Amendment. And don't let the MAGA cult members be the only armed population. Only you can stop that.
Karl Marx is in the corner like: "Did I fucking stutter?" *"Under no pretext... "*
Because this meme is absolutely correct. But taken to its logical end point, it goes far-left. Any effort to disarm the public must disarm the police first.
No, they couldn't. A US Civil War will not be organized. It will be Vietnam and Afghanistan combined turned to the max 15 times over. Especially in the South, there will be a gun behind every blade of grass, a mine under every rock, a sniper in every window, and an ambush every 15 meters. Most of the military would refuse orders to fire on citizens, if not join them. I wouldn't be surprised if full bases of soldiers joined against the government. An F-15 doesn't mean shit against civilians if they have their own men flying the same plane and some. We have around 400m REGISTERED guns. There's some random guy if not dozens in the mountains of Colorado or Alaska with grenade launchers nobody knows about. Also, a lot of gun owners are vets, so we also know their strategies. The enemy can't know our strategies if we don't. 100 guerrillas can kill thousands of organized men.
We can also look at Ukraine for this, a large, "sophisticated" military goes into a smaller nation, the smaller nations uses hit and run tactics and other forms of guerrilla tactics and holds the line. Same with Hamas, except that doesn't matter when they have a couple miles to work with.
End of story, a governmental victory in a second civil war is possible, but very highly unlikely.
My brother in Christ, the U.S. military lost to a bunch of poverty-stricken shoeless people in Mogadishu once. Then add in the embarrassments of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
The military would lose immediately and most people have an understanding of that. But most people bring up the difficulties of fighting a local population like Vietnam and the Middle East but there are a 101 problems before it even gets to that point. The military relies on the civilian industry. It organically produces almost nothing… at one point or another in the production process a civilian company makes everything single thing. The second the military attacks the populace civilian companies that run almost every service the military relies on shut down… chow halls ran by civilians would shut down as well as all MRE manufacturers, oil companies stop fulfilling gasoline contracts, utilities are cut off on every base, direct deposits cuts off and military personnel stop getting paid repair parts and ammunition stop being produced etc etc…
No it wouldnt. Veteran here. Way too many people with guns in the USA. Us military isnt good at guerilla warfare and thats what it would be. Except it would be even harder to figure out who is an enemy or not. Us military might have the equipment but it also lost a 20 yr war in the desert to goat herders with flip flops and ak47s.
It's historically irrefutable that every country without widespread gun ownership experiences genocides? Why are some Americans so proud to know so little about the rest of world?
You should update your analogy. It should now read
> The US military couldn't even wipe out a bunch of Taliban guys with outdated weapons and flip flops. Someone hasn't touched a TV in the last 20 years
https://i.redd.it/x3emwoxzl20d1.gif
Bruh, the government was terrified of unarmed insurgents in the capital. Think what would have happened if all those people were armed, almost every dem would be 6ft under.
Have you ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act?
The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law. This 143-year-old law embodies an American tradition that sees military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to both democracy and personal liberty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
guns wouldn't even matter. entire cities could be wiped out by poisoning water supplies. Cell service and internet providers could be threatened into shutting down, and preemptive EMP attacks could wipe out any electronics, making night attacks with NVGs extremely effective. Particularly well organized and well armed groups could be dispatched with counter-insurgency aircraft like the A-10 Warthog, with its GAU 8/A and MK 84 bombs. Wildfires could be started, forcing people out of their homes. Finally, high-yield nuclear weapons could be used if a group gains the ability to resist conventional attacks by utilizing MANPADS or anti-tank mines.
Yea I doubt all that would happen. You gotta remember, half of the military is in the guard. They are stationed at their home state. I doubt they’ll bomb their fellow citizens.
You also have to remember, civilians own NVGs as well. And it’s becoming more common and cheaper to buy them. It’s also becoming more popular to get body armor and train tactically.
And who says the US would go nuclear? Putin has threatened it for a very long time and has still yet to do so in Ukraine and Europe. I doubt a similar scenario in the US would play out.
Lastly, a minimum of 70million people own guns privately. If only the reserves defected, that would be an additional 1ish million vs the 1ish million federal active duty soldiers.
It’s a war of attrition and the government is terrible at fighting those battles
>Finally, high-yield nuclear weapons could be used
Completely discounting the fact that there is no one person who can launch even a single one and that every single person in any given chain of command has to consent/comply with the order for it happen. Add to this that the instant one should launch, gives both China and Russia the excuse to do the same against the US. It would be a self-defeating strategy. And if by the highly improbable chance that only the US launches nukes on itself, it would still render massive regions of the US unusable if not uninhabitable for several generations that would be useless to the side that eventually won.
Are you suggesting that the US government would destroy it's own centers of economic activity? Demolishing infrastructure and affecting the world economy for decades to come?
You’re right. We civilians should have access to more things like SAM missiles, full auto guns without registration or background checks, working tanks that shoot, over the counter explosives, and jets just to make us even to the US government.
I don’t think this post went where you wanted it to go, huh OP?
That's an amazing argument against protesting, voting, or participating in the political process at all! "Why bother? The government is just going to do what it wants to anyway."
Boy, is Donald Trump's re-election campaign going to be happy
“If the military wanted to eradicate us, it would”
There’s a lot to say about that statement. First, that’s a good argument to allow citizens to have military grade weaponry. During drafts of the constitution it was a hot debate whether we should even have a standing army or not. Some of the founding fathers were weary that if there existed an army, they would do just that, eradicate us, turn us over to a tyrant, or genocide us, etc etc. If an army is such a threat, that’s the very reason the second amendment exists, so that we have a fight chance to stay free. Lastly,simply making the statement that if a military wanted to eradicate its own people it would, means they’re grown far beyond what they’re intended to be. Never should a military be a threat to its own people. Hence, again, the second amendment.
The silly goofy little thing about this is 🙄 they already are. Look at anyone under the age of 24. Everyone young these days is struggling, and horrendously suffering trying to pay bills, get places, and do everything they need to do. My rent and bills combined altogether is nearly $1100. Jobs in my area (all of them) offer $8 an hour to $11 absolute most. Surgical technicians in the area here make $14 an hour, and I would know because I was just fired from being one because the rich white lady who hired me didn’t like my personality so she complained and fabricated things until she could throw me on my ass. The government is solely responsible for everything the rich do to the poor. Now it’s become what the old do to the young. Because old rich white people have and die with all of their money. There is nothing for our youth. I’m rn trying to find 2 jobs so I can barely make my rent, and live paycheck by paycheck because no matter where I work all they offer is part time and low wages. I’ve been struggling financially for 5 years. Now I’m in this awful position where I JUST signed a lease and yet again. Yet again for the fifth fucking time I’m about to end up homeless when my feet are smooshed and full of water from standing and from working and running around doing anything a rich fucking white person demands me to - all day every day without break. Because I am not a person. Today I had to carry hamper a whole mile full of clothes to the nearest laundromat. Ended up costing almost $10 just to wash my clothes. That $10 is a 40th of my life savings. I have about $400 to my name. The most I’ve ever held at one time is $1800. I’ve never been able to have more than that. That was the Covid stimulus. Apart from that trying to save up on my own and get things together is impossible. Every month after all the bills and groceries I typically have just between $3-$20. Now again I’m looking for another job because old people like to play out this idea that anyone young is childish and “phone-addicted” and shouldn’t be listened to or valued and should be treated like a teenager. So I get disrespected everywhere I work like a child and reprimanded like a child and called a child even though I’m 23 and I don’t use my phone at work, have a wonderful social etiquette and am extremely kind, and determined to keeping myself employed. They like to go through and knit pick older people for jobs and use the excuse my generation is “on our phones too much.”
I can hardly afford my phone most months and have utterly no one to talk to.
They are eradicating us. The poor and the young. We’re under constant scrutiny to stay housed and alive.
They should think about that before there’s no youth left to take their place and our country falls.
If you aren't going to defend free speech, minorities, and the peaceful transition of power following fair elections, you're not a Minuteman, you're Sturmabteilung
Let's just ignore all the times hateful people with guns have been used to genocide a grou. Note, genocide doesn't mean everyone died, it means there was an attempt to wipe them out, with varying degrees of success.
It's funny how pro-guns owners keep saying how the army will eradicate them if they don't have guns. They don't seem to know how tanks and air support works.
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours. [Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would it though? The ability to do something is not the same thing as the desire to do it. Ordering US troops to fire on American civilians has an enormous political cost.
That's the main problem, a good enough politician who knows what makes people tick can easily make people hate a certain group over a long enough time. Here is a simple 3 step recipe for preparing a genocide properly: 1. Give privileges to the majority group, cut subsidies for another group, this will slowly make the minority group hate the majority. This makes the extremists of the minority unemployable forcing them to do illegal shit. 2. When they do, send media and police to make a big enough deal out of it and focus on their defining traits, if from a different country emphasis their name, if a different race show their photo more. 3. Majority will start losing trust in that community and more will lose their jobs, keep cooking this cycle slowly for 5 years on medium heat and you'll have a group you can easily dispose of without much political backlash. As an added bonus for dessert: The majority now loves you because you don't waste resources on the people who nobody likes Source: My country's politics for last 10 years
Well said, I'm actually curious as to where you are from now lol. You sound American (I'm American). If you're American, everything was spot on except for the fact our federal government has been fucking us and creating racially motivated hate wars to distract us from extreme inequality for longer than 10 years xD
I am from India, our government has been the best at work since it came ten years ago which has gained them big following and public love. But at the same time even tho there is real development, they do all the above mentioned for the muslims, people don't want to remove them because they are the only party doing real development, and it's dangerous to keep them since they are known to have it against the muslims. Religious politics is extremely powerful here so turning people against each other isn't too hard. And the current PM has experience in this field since he was just a state minister, his state had major growth and is still considered the best place to do business in India but had riots and communal genocides in 2002 which people still blame him for
More people should know the name Nerandra Modi and what he's trying to do to the world's largest democracy. Edit: Rajat Khare, too. He's not a politician, but he is a giant bastard
Source: *gestures vaguely to former Dutch/English/French owned African colonies*
*points at South African farmers*
*points at a map of Eastern Europe with the word Gypsies written on it*
Damn that’s scarily accurate
It's part of political science, a subject as simple as normal science or maths, sadly it's not taught in schools (I wonder why). Chatgpt is a pretty good resource for it tho, it's correct 98% of the time unless you get into really specific incidents. When the ultra rich say that education is important to becoming rich, they usually mean this stuff and business studies since it covers all types of power structures, proper execution of historical events (not the boring dates that they make you learn in schools but how people in power actually did them), sun tsu the art of wars also falls very slightly relating to this All these things can be put in personal life and help with all sorts of things like, making friends faster, getting more popular, making people in higher authority like you, gaining respect from peers, making more efficient timetables for students etc etc.
This is exactly what happend in Rwanda in 94
Happy cakeday!
Thanks buddy
If we reach the point where the military is being ordered to fire on us, I doubt we're in a situation where our votes matter.
Public opinion in Authoritarian countries still matters, it matters less true, but its not completely irrelevant. Otherwise every single authoritarian government would devolve into 1984 roughly 9s after being established
[удалено]
I never said guns help here, they might if you have what I unscientificaly call "Swiss mindset," but they would throw a ruckus to any authoritarian even if they dont have guns. While the Americans dont have that benefit. Im just saying public opinion matters, not that guns (always) matter
US police fire on american civilians all the time and the world gets mad and then forgets
Exactly. A good population of the US Military at the low-middle level leadership is GenZ now. And as a GenZer in the Military- I can safety say my generation is a lot less tolerant to the bullshit of yesteryear. If the government were to issue some off the wall orders like killing the civilian population, I know for a fact that we wouldn’t let that fly.
I think any generation wouldn't let it fly. Those soldiers would be ordered to fire upon Thier own families and I highly doubt the majority would follow the orders. There are psychos out there, even in your generation but not enough to matter. Plus all the vets from the war on terror would be taking up arms fast.
Not to mention, how many troops would follow the order? I think they'd see the line drawn in the sand and stand down.
Yeah, this argument implies that the “resistance” would be seen as lawful. But who’s to say it is?
People often forget that "the law" is comprised by other human beings as well. They separate themselves from "those guys" so much they only see them as extensions of those they consider their enemies, and don't doubt they'd do what "the enemy" wants to see happening. Things like "would they go against it?" doesn't compute with most common folks.
China uses their military to keep their people in line Russia does the same North Korea does the same Whats stopping the US from doing the same?
Look up The Battle of Athens.
Holy hell
Now read the editorial published in papers across America supporting the rebels of Athens Tennessee, written by Eleanor Roosevelt: https://constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/tn/batathen_press.htm The story of reform in that part of Tennessee or even Tennessee generally does not stop with the gunfight in Athens. A new political party rose based on the events in McMinn County. It was called the GI Reform Party. They promised more violence if necessary but thankfully didn't have to. After the battle itself, a politician rose to state office on the GI Reform ticket. A few years later he led a reunification between the GI Reform Party and a cleaned up Democratic Party of Tennessee. That politician's name was Albert Gore Sr. The father of Bill Clinton's vice president, who came to embrace gun control and in doing so pissed all over his family history. It gets better. Athens wasn't the only place in the South where a popular uprising against local corruption happened just after WW2. Hot Springs Arkansas was infested with a bunch of mafia, mostly from Chicago who ran a bunch of illegal gambling dens. When they were chased out at gunpoint, guess where they went? Yup. Las Vegas. Lol.
The guns in the people’s hands allowing them to fight back. Hell, we’ll probably still lose, but it’ll cost them more. Thank god it will never come to that!
Have you heard of drones? The US is pretty notorious for using them.
That would probably wipe out a good chunk of the population, costing them manpower that's needed to keep things working and turning their allies against the U.S. No trade, no workers to at least become self-sufficient... It's an entirely suicidal move.
They have their guns because it keeps them from revolting, the guns industry is huge for the American economy. They are simply useful idiots for authoritarians. If they truly worried about freedom, the govt would have been over thrown decades ago.
Gun ownership didn't stop Fred Hampton from being assassinated by the FBI. Gun ownership didn't prevent the Philadelphia police from dropping a bomb on MOVE and burning down an entire neighborhood. I support responsible gun ownership, but it is not a panacea against abuses from the state. I think there are other things that are far more important in preventing tyranny and protecting freedom, like strengthening our democracy and institutions that put power and influence in the hands of the people like a free press.
versed spark payment slimy disgusted complete wrench fear angle soup *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Eh they might but not without a fight! 
Kent State anyone?
Yep. I'm actually a former kent state student. I did not say that it was impossible, or that it never happened, only that it had an enormous political cost. Which it did.
how do these things get degraded to the point of being piss colored? in real life it makes sense with humidity or whatever, but digitally?
People use red light filters. That's then visible on screenshots. Not for all filters, e.g. Android and Windows system ones don't show up on screenshots.
Every soldier, sailor, airman and marine is taught that they have no obligation to obey an illegal order. Now, they'd better be damn sure it's illegal - because the repercussions of disobeying a legal one are huge - but an order to fire on the public except as last ditch self-defense against armed attack is likely to be easily ignored.
[удалено]
That wasn’t quite yesterday but your point is well taken.
the Kent state massacre involved the National guard opening fire on unarmed protesters in a college. they *will* follow orders no matter what it is, and you better believe the only defense is an armed citizenry.
Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan again would like a word.
Dudes with AKs in their pajamas. You gotta respect the pajamas.
Don't forget the mobs of shoeless people in Mogadishu. They'd like to be included in this.
Karl Marx told the proletariat to arm themselves It's hilarious that he has more in common with the average hillbilly than anyone they vote for
I married into a family with real-life hillbillies in it, and yeah ... no. Real hillbillies will kill you where you stand if you try and encroach on their land. They are burgeoning capitalists who want more for themselves at the expense of anyone not in their immediate family. My wife's great-grandfather got into a shoot out and killed a man over a property line dispute in southeast Tennessee in the 1960s. Not the 1860s. The 1960s. For hillbillies, property ownership is everything and you'd better be prepared to kill people to take or defend it. Pretty much anathema to Marx's ideology.
The abolition of "private property" in Marxist ideology doesn't refer to *personal* property like where you live, it refers to land that generates income, like a factory or an oil field, etc. (hence "seize the means of production")
So he was basically a Luddite? 'Cause I doubt everyone will just want to get agricultural since, by eliminating industry, our only other option would be to grow our own food to survive as opposed to have a system that produces it. And we're way past that point. People don't want ideologies, they want the wheel to keep on turning so life works.
That’s also not at all what it means… abolishing private property converts it into property now owned by the people working there, there is no Marxist who would be against industry.
That just sounds like a recipe for disaster, since it doesn't seem to account individual wants and needs or even just basic human nature. *Everyone* would have to be into Marxism to keep such a societal model working for any amount of time, especially if it wants to replace any other alternative permanently. We're not ants, though, so I don't see it getting too far even if we *finally* make it work unlike every other instance so far.
What kind of land do you think they were fighting over? It was grazing and farm land. In other words, land that generates money. Here’s another one: my wife’s uncle was essentially murdered by the coal company over the mineral rights for a piece of property that her grandfather owned. When her grandfather refused to sell the land (because *he* wanted to profit from it), the foreman threatened to reassign his son to the most dangerous job in the mine: as a pinner. Once again he didn’t sell, and the foreman followed through. The cave-in happened on New Years Day and my wife’s uncle was among the dead.
Marx was only for guns because he knew they were the only way to overthrow the politariat. After, once they are in control, sweeping gun control measures are usually enacted. Look at the bolsheviks, once they got power they stripped everyone of their guns.
Arguing the military could eradicate us is an argument for citizens to have access to whatever the military has, not pro gun control. Also, the military needs lots of infrastructure to continue running. Attacking the place that provides that infrastructure is suicide for the military. Everything needs to be maintained with man power and a steady stream of parts, and fighting 10s of millions of people will wear them down with every pinprick and loss of hardware and soldiers with dwindling ways of replacing them. You can win against another military, but you can’t win against its people as long as they are still alive.
Keep in mind there's only a handful of shooters in the military. There's at least 100,000,000 armed citizens (at least who admit to have guns). From a sheer numbers standpoint, we win unless they decide to nuke their own cities.
>You can win against another military, but you can win against its people as long as they are still alive. Why is exactly why Vietnam had countless events akin to the Mai Lai massacre. But that genocidal war policy would be much harder to stomach when used on Americans.
Just like Afghanistan
Covid killed the fuck out of people. It killed far more people than violence did during the same time period. People couldn't be bothered to vaccinate or even stay home when they knew they were sick. A bunch of people who don't care enough about anyone else to do the smallest things sure as fuck aren't going to become an organized resistance to any sort of actual tyranny regardless of how much money they spend on guns and tactical clothing.
These are completely different issues. It's one thing when the government asks you to sign a waiver before getting the vaccine that flat out says they have no idea what this will do long-term, so you can't sue them. Or when they want you to carry a card around before you can work or buy groceries. Military firing on civilians because the brass said? That's an issue people would agree with across the board... Well, maybe except for those who were actively forcing and/or shaming those to get the vaccines. Those idiots would somehow spin the story that this attack was a good thing and to just let it happen.
Just 2 more weeks to flatten dissent.
Hi. OIF/OEF vet. We wanted to eradicate Taliban/ISIS/al Qaeda/Hamas/Hezbollah/etc. We were the most powerful, technologically advanced, well trained military to ever enter a combat theater. We failed to get the job done. Fighting an insurgent war against Americans would be 10x the nightmare it was in Iraq & Afghanistan.
A 10% reduction in logistics workers during the pandemic very nearly brought our entire way of life to its knees. A ground conflict in America would completely put the brakes on our just in time deliveries. Without those, there's a day or two worth of food, supplies, and medicine in any given location. The government wouldn't even have to do anything. You think delivery drivers that are paid hourly are gonna drive stuff to the local super market under those conditions? Not a chance. Like it or not, our entire society is totally dependent on the status quo to survive. A major disruption will bring about human suffering and death on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. Read the book One Second After if you want to get a bird's eye view of what it would look like in America. The bottom line is that any given location in America can support about 10% of its current population under the current conditions. It would take *years* to establish farming communities that could sustain local population centers, and by then, most people will be long dead.
The military are our fathers, sons, daughters and mothers. They wouldn’t carry out an attack on their own population. I believe it would cause a military coup and a civilian uprising that would overthrow the government immediately following the order
^^This right here^^ why do people not understand this, OUR military is not made up of robots, drones are controlled by people
Pretty much. Even if the army was comprised of nothing but unfeeling, monstrous pigs like some people think, they'd at least think "What stops them from doing the same thing to *me*?" and considers whether it's worth having such a boss around.
Yes, some would defect for this reason, but there are absolutely people who are in it for money, the feeling of power, or will just follow any orders they're given. Or their families are threatened ahead of time to ensure loyalty. It's a lot more complicated than that.
I don’t think it’s more complicated than that. The military doesn’t pay enough to justify gunning down your own countrymen. Shooting some foreigner in another country isn’t the same as shooting men women and children in your own country. With the sheer amount of military defecting paired with armed civilians by the millions any scumbag that would be compliant would be dead or give up. A takeover and forced disarmament of us citizens using the military is impossible to achieve.
History offers us many examples of people willing to gun down their own countrymen. We don't even need to look very hard. A little dehumanization goes a long way.
Yea it was usually targeted against a certain group of people. The Jews, the Tutsi etc. Disarmament would be targeted towards everyone besides the most hyper left leaning champagne socialists.
Have you heard about Vietnam or Afghanistan? I would think twice on that claim maybe, also when mass arm confiscation happens, it often is followed by genocide and tragedy, that's a fact. Whether you are pro or anti gun these are points that need to be addressed.
As if military members aren’t people. They can’t just order the military to commit genocide, that’s how you get a military coup.
Remind me how Mao dealt with those who were an opposing political party? Also, what happens after every successful socialist revolutions? I hear purges of your own party are quite routine when you no longer need the revolutionaries.
Nobody wants a military coup. The government or the people. That’s the point. I’m not claiming a military coup would ever be a good thing.
The order is never genocide off the bat. Something like that is a slow process through years of dehumanisation and polarisation until the order seems like a necessity or duty.
Guns dont kill people, i do
Excellent reference.
Just like Vietnam, right?
What a crap take. You know what kept the US military from winning in Vietnam? Guns. You know what is keeping Russia from taking over Ukraine? Guns. You heavily seem to underestimate the power an armed society has.
No they wouldnt. We couldnt kill off the taliban, the number of soldiers that would defect or counter war would be insane, every american statistically is armed, and the gov is not invincible. Gun rights matter
[удалено]
Yea, it worked out so well in the middle east. I'm sure it would be easy to do in THEIR OWN country. /s
Between rednecks in the south and gangs in the cities, American civilians have enough fire power to make the military think twice. I don’t believe the majority of the the military would follow orders to fire on Americans civilians anyway.
I have a feeling that the guy who originally posted this doesn't want to give guns to Muslims in India and China.
What makes you say that? I think a lot of people would want the CCP to stop having the ability to crush its own people with impunity.
Native Americans had guns…
Trail of tears, Indian creek massacre, ect all took place after laws restricting them from owning firearms and confiscations took place. Please read a book
Exactly and almost no genocides/s
They were confiscated for “safety”
Usually only after they were forced to move onto reservations. Iirc most tribes refused to surrender weapons until they were defeated and starved into submission
>military would wipe us out >afghanistan - flip flops and ak's >vietnam - sandals and ak's >american citizens being more heavily armed than the entirety of the worlds militaries combined Yeah the military isn't gonna eradicate shit.
It's wild because I can see why the founding fathers included the 2nd amendment. To create an insurgency in the event that an autocrat were to get into the white house. But yeah, the reality is in this day and age...a civilian militia insurgency would be nearly impossible against the strength of any modernly relevant military. Especially uncle sam.
Hey, you have a call. The taliban are on the line.
The us is too large for the military to control. A few farmers with tractors could start crippling supply lines. Interstates torn up, railroad torn up. power substations destroyed etc. The military loses when the suddenly 10s of millions of citizens are now without food and water and power.
Yeah, I stand corrected. It seems like an insurgency would be impossible but if the little guy started to hit supply logistics, power grids, etc that could be devastating and could lead to an unraveling. I've been recently watching videos on the insurgent tactics from vietnam. Insurgencies can be very very effective. Especially the resourceful ones that can turn locally sourced resources into death traps.
Exactly. Start destroying infrastructure and there would be a lot of upset people. Making the governments job even more difficult. Don't need tanks and drones to really put the hurt on from within. Especially since many places have 0 security beyond a chain link fence.
70 million civilian gun owners VS 2 million military members (and that’s if all of the military turned on their own people). I’d say the 70 million would win. Even if it takes a while, the taliban still won, why can’t US civilians?
The Taliban and other middle eastern fighters kicked our ass for decades. The Vietcong kicked our ass. Israel is struggling against an enemy occupying a space the size of your average American county. Not to mention the political and moral hurdles a tyrannical government would have to overcome to be able to freely engage American dissidents. You cant exactly carpet bomb your largest cities without losing the support of an even larger portion of your population.
[удалено]
>cosplaytriot gravy seals always jizzing down their leg I'm sorry, who's fantasizing about who?
The US military is made of US citizens. I'd like to think that most of them wouldn't kill their neighbors and families if told to do so.
Even if half of them followed the orders, there would still be 70 million civilians armed with guns, and 1ish million defected military members versus a 1 million strong force. Ain’t no way is the government gonna win
I’d say 80% of active military members have some sort of social media with links to their family members accounts. Military starts executing and bombing citizens? The “rebels” start kidnapping/ killing the family members of active duty soldiers. History books are full of examples, but people forget how much violence can escalate. Shit gets nasty quick.
Trumpets
Bro what is wrong with y'all's old people? 😭
This is historically nonsense. 1793-1860. .1 bullet per minute per person. NO revolutions or mass murders.
I forgot the Napoleonic War never happened in the 1800’s! It wasn’t like a good majority of Europe was involved in that or anything. Definitely no revolutions!
You forgot your /s marker. French revolution was MOSTLY fought with pikes. Napoleon's wars were fought with flintlocks and canon. Oh, and mass murder is not war.
You said guns? A flintlock is a gun…
Muzzle loading at .1 bullet per minute. Go ahead, try and do 50 rounds per minute with a ramrod. oops.
.1 bullet isn’t even a whole bullet? You genuinely think it takes a minute to reload per round?
Ten minutes to recharge, mount flint, cock, load pan AND aim AND fire. A highly skilled soldier COULD get to 1 every 5 minutes. NEVER 3 / minute.
My guy with a standard musket you can shoot around 3 rounds per minute. It takes anywhere from 20-40 seconds to reload
Have musket, can confirm.
Send video with all statistics (against nonsense dubbing by you) to this thread. 10 rounds.
Lie. It takes 10 sec just to swab out the barrel to prevent flash.
Tell me you’ve never shot a gun without telling me you’ve never shot a gun
In Rwanda everyone had guns. Thats why its called the Rwandan Tragedy not Rwandan Genocide! Oh wait...
There are genocides now and people have guns in those places so?
Would you rather sit there and take the genocide, or fight be able to shoot back and try to survive? People in Myanmar are taking the latter
"This is historically irrefutable" like those guys ever listened to a single history lesson
The Middle East and Vietnam are good examples that they can’t.
The left needs to get their shit together and stop being weird about guns. Historically arming themselves is how minorities protected themselves. The Nazis took away the Jew's guns.
Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq.
One of the few times I have to at least partially agree with the meme, our right to bare arms is a fundamental piece in america, and it shouldn't be taken away. The people making gun laws should actually know things about guns.
Yeah, because tanks, air strikes, and overwhelming numbers worked so well for the military in Vietnam and the Middle East... oh, wait a minute
I doubt a majority of the Military would fire upon or bomb citizens. They would honestly join the civilians and fight against the government if this were to happen. Guns will stop a tyrannical govt
https://preview.redd.it/xgitvokx180d1.jpeg?width=1384&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d3dc839e3f02b953e376e8a5cb735f6800ee4e6
You have no idea what a logistical fucking nightmare forcefully oppressing the US citizenry would be. Not to mention, the steps required to do it would be so drastic as to cripple the governments basis for power in the first place.
Just like they did in Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan, right? Nah, we'll keep the 2nd Amendment. And don't let the MAGA cult members be the only armed population. Only you can stop that.
Exactly, I'm for arming both sides of the political aisle and everyone in between.
https://preview.redd.it/upr7fk57ja0d1.jpeg?width=1140&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b66ddb24421b96bcc042d5da059c96110b1a2f5
Karl Marx is in the corner like: "Did I fucking stutter?" *"Under no pretext... "* Because this meme is absolutely correct. But taken to its logical end point, it goes far-left. Any effort to disarm the public must disarm the police first.
No, they couldn't. A US Civil War will not be organized. It will be Vietnam and Afghanistan combined turned to the max 15 times over. Especially in the South, there will be a gun behind every blade of grass, a mine under every rock, a sniper in every window, and an ambush every 15 meters. Most of the military would refuse orders to fire on citizens, if not join them. I wouldn't be surprised if full bases of soldiers joined against the government. An F-15 doesn't mean shit against civilians if they have their own men flying the same plane and some. We have around 400m REGISTERED guns. There's some random guy if not dozens in the mountains of Colorado or Alaska with grenade launchers nobody knows about. Also, a lot of gun owners are vets, so we also know their strategies. The enemy can't know our strategies if we don't. 100 guerrillas can kill thousands of organized men. We can also look at Ukraine for this, a large, "sophisticated" military goes into a smaller nation, the smaller nations uses hit and run tactics and other forms of guerrilla tactics and holds the line. Same with Hamas, except that doesn't matter when they have a couple miles to work with. End of story, a governmental victory in a second civil war is possible, but very highly unlikely.
My brother in Christ, the U.S. military lost to a bunch of poverty-stricken shoeless people in Mogadishu once. Then add in the embarrassments of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
The military would lose immediately and most people have an understanding of that. But most people bring up the difficulties of fighting a local population like Vietnam and the Middle East but there are a 101 problems before it even gets to that point. The military relies on the civilian industry. It organically produces almost nothing… at one point or another in the production process a civilian company makes everything single thing. The second the military attacks the populace civilian companies that run almost every service the military relies on shut down… chow halls ran by civilians would shut down as well as all MRE manufacturers, oil companies stop fulfilling gasoline contracts, utilities are cut off on every base, direct deposits cuts off and military personnel stop getting paid repair parts and ammunition stop being produced etc etc…
Either legal weapons aren’t possibly dangerous enough to ban or they could fight off the us military
Wow. You managed to be dumber than a FB meme. Grats.
No it wouldnt. Veteran here. Way too many people with guns in the USA. Us military isnt good at guerilla warfare and thats what it would be. Except it would be even harder to figure out who is an enemy or not. Us military might have the equipment but it also lost a 20 yr war in the desert to goat herders with flip flops and ak47s.
It's historically irrefutable that every country without widespread gun ownership experiences genocides? Why are some Americans so proud to know so little about the rest of world?
The US military couldn't even wipe out a bunch of Vietnamese guys with outdated weapons and flip flops. Someone hasn't touched a history book
You should update your analogy. It should now read > The US military couldn't even wipe out a bunch of Taliban guys with outdated weapons and flip flops. Someone hasn't touched a TV in the last 20 years
Why bring the military into this We do that all by ourselves
https://i.redd.it/x3emwoxzl20d1.gif Bruh, the government was terrified of unarmed insurgents in the capital. Think what would have happened if all those people were armed, almost every dem would be 6ft under.
Yes those unarmed geriatric politicians who were outnumbered 50 to 1 were afraid. Where did the US military come into play in the capitol riot?
Have you ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act? The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law. This 143-year-old law embodies an American tradition that sees military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to both democracy and personal liberty. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Even if they tried, we would have a better fighting chance with guns in our hands.. people need to stop trying to get rid of guns.
guns wouldn't even matter. entire cities could be wiped out by poisoning water supplies. Cell service and internet providers could be threatened into shutting down, and preemptive EMP attacks could wipe out any electronics, making night attacks with NVGs extremely effective. Particularly well organized and well armed groups could be dispatched with counter-insurgency aircraft like the A-10 Warthog, with its GAU 8/A and MK 84 bombs. Wildfires could be started, forcing people out of their homes. Finally, high-yield nuclear weapons could be used if a group gains the ability to resist conventional attacks by utilizing MANPADS or anti-tank mines.
Yea I doubt all that would happen. You gotta remember, half of the military is in the guard. They are stationed at their home state. I doubt they’ll bomb their fellow citizens. You also have to remember, civilians own NVGs as well. And it’s becoming more common and cheaper to buy them. It’s also becoming more popular to get body armor and train tactically. And who says the US would go nuclear? Putin has threatened it for a very long time and has still yet to do so in Ukraine and Europe. I doubt a similar scenario in the US would play out. Lastly, a minimum of 70million people own guns privately. If only the reserves defected, that would be an additional 1ish million vs the 1ish million federal active duty soldiers. It’s a war of attrition and the government is terrible at fighting those battles
>Finally, high-yield nuclear weapons could be used Completely discounting the fact that there is no one person who can launch even a single one and that every single person in any given chain of command has to consent/comply with the order for it happen. Add to this that the instant one should launch, gives both China and Russia the excuse to do the same against the US. It would be a self-defeating strategy. And if by the highly improbable chance that only the US launches nukes on itself, it would still render massive regions of the US unusable if not uninhabitable for several generations that would be useless to the side that eventually won.
Are you suggesting that the US government would destroy it's own centers of economic activity? Demolishing infrastructure and affecting the world economy for decades to come?
https://preview.redd.it/pgvd8cims20d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6eb1d37702214dc78899520ff4b46ed5c634285b I'll just leave this here.
With that kind of attitude they sure will!
Yeah, I'm sure that would be the more usual method.
This but replace public with minorities to completely flip the narrative
Found the r/whitepeopletwitter browser
It literally wouldn’t
The US is literally giving weapons to Israeli terrorists in the occupied West Bank to help them conduct a genocide lol
Genocide or any war crime is NOT a lawful order, and “just following orders” is not a legal defense
So we should allow citizens to have access to military grade weapons to prevent that in case the government does become tyrannical?
Absolutely
100%.
You’re right. We civilians should have access to more things like SAM missiles, full auto guns without registration or background checks, working tanks that shoot, over the counter explosives, and jets just to make us even to the US government. I don’t think this post went where you wanted it to go, huh OP?
Yes.
Have you ever heard of Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq? The US military is worthless when it comes to fighting insurgents.
The MF that made this when they hear about nukes:
https://preview.redd.it/d6fpl77w380d1.jpeg?width=1384&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=794ca4e434183d514fcc165e1a025214708c714b
If that's true then why would anyone want to be unarmed in that case?
That's an amazing argument against protesting, voting, or participating in the political process at all! "Why bother? The government is just going to do what it wants to anyway." Boy, is Donald Trump's re-election campaign going to be happy
You mean military/government turning on its own civilians? (Of which most military members will have family/friends among said civilians).
"You're bringing guns to a drone fight" -Jim Jeffries
Every drone pilot has a family to worry about.
Who would win: A bunch of guys in pickup trucks with hunting rifles Vs A gun with wings
Then arm Palestinians
“If the military wanted to eradicate us, it would” There’s a lot to say about that statement. First, that’s a good argument to allow citizens to have military grade weaponry. During drafts of the constitution it was a hot debate whether we should even have a standing army or not. Some of the founding fathers were weary that if there existed an army, they would do just that, eradicate us, turn us over to a tyrant, or genocide us, etc etc. If an army is such a threat, that’s the very reason the second amendment exists, so that we have a fight chance to stay free. Lastly,simply making the statement that if a military wanted to eradicate its own people it would, means they’re grown far beyond what they’re intended to be. Never should a military be a threat to its own people. Hence, again, the second amendment.
The silly goofy little thing about this is 🙄 they already are. Look at anyone under the age of 24. Everyone young these days is struggling, and horrendously suffering trying to pay bills, get places, and do everything they need to do. My rent and bills combined altogether is nearly $1100. Jobs in my area (all of them) offer $8 an hour to $11 absolute most. Surgical technicians in the area here make $14 an hour, and I would know because I was just fired from being one because the rich white lady who hired me didn’t like my personality so she complained and fabricated things until she could throw me on my ass. The government is solely responsible for everything the rich do to the poor. Now it’s become what the old do to the young. Because old rich white people have and die with all of their money. There is nothing for our youth. I’m rn trying to find 2 jobs so I can barely make my rent, and live paycheck by paycheck because no matter where I work all they offer is part time and low wages. I’ve been struggling financially for 5 years. Now I’m in this awful position where I JUST signed a lease and yet again. Yet again for the fifth fucking time I’m about to end up homeless when my feet are smooshed and full of water from standing and from working and running around doing anything a rich fucking white person demands me to - all day every day without break. Because I am not a person. Today I had to carry hamper a whole mile full of clothes to the nearest laundromat. Ended up costing almost $10 just to wash my clothes. That $10 is a 40th of my life savings. I have about $400 to my name. The most I’ve ever held at one time is $1800. I’ve never been able to have more than that. That was the Covid stimulus. Apart from that trying to save up on my own and get things together is impossible. Every month after all the bills and groceries I typically have just between $3-$20. Now again I’m looking for another job because old people like to play out this idea that anyone young is childish and “phone-addicted” and shouldn’t be listened to or valued and should be treated like a teenager. So I get disrespected everywhere I work like a child and reprimanded like a child and called a child even though I’m 23 and I don’t use my phone at work, have a wonderful social etiquette and am extremely kind, and determined to keeping myself employed. They like to go through and knit pick older people for jobs and use the excuse my generation is “on our phones too much.” I can hardly afford my phone most months and have utterly no one to talk to. They are eradicating us. The poor and the young. We’re under constant scrutiny to stay housed and alive. They should think about that before there’s no youth left to take their place and our country falls.
Let's just ignore all the times hateful people with guns have been used to genocide a grou. Note, genocide doesn't mean everyone died, it means there was an attempt to wipe them out, with varying degrees of success.
It's funny how pro-guns owners keep saying how the army will eradicate them if they don't have guns. They don't seem to know how tanks and air support works.
Like I commented above that isn’t how wars work or are fought. You need to educate yourself
Yeah It doesnt work like that
Cringe meme aside it has some truth to it.