You mean the insurgency that eventually achieved all of its goals and reclaimed it’s power and control after the most powerful military in the world gave up and went home?
Or did you mean it’s not the 1970s where that insurgency also did it to the second most powerful military…while a different insurgency did it to the one from the first example?
You’re absolutely right that in a straight up fight no individual stands a chance against the US military (and I also tend to agree that the military would be the best friend of the people in that awful scenario) but there’s two or three points that muddy the waters here a bit: it’s not going to be just one, it’s not going to be a straight up fight, and if the population were somehow disarmed, there wouldn’t even be any struggle at all.
I’m not saying I’d fight off a battalion from my front porch wearing my Crocs, but a) anything is preferable to being herded to my fate, and b) it’s not about one armed individual, it’s more about the unappetizing proposition of subduing an armed populace.
No, it’s not the 1970’s, you can’t expect to survive fighting an American infantry platoon with nothing but rifles anymore.
You guys keep bringing up that the Taliban and Vietnamese won but you aren’t actually comparing the situations. In both situations they only won because we left voluntarily.
So tell me, if half of America votes in a Fascist, when are they leaving?
No, I’ve told you. You just make it a thing to not get the point. Looking at your post history this is a pattern with you. You ask for clarification, make fun of the argument and then pretend you never got an answer. I’m not engaging with that anymore.
You’re assuming that people in the military are going to be just fine with bombing cities where their friends live, or where they have family. If you’re going to say that the US military, run by fascists, is just going to steamroll actual patriots, that’s what you’re talking about. But the problem is that those pilots, the drone operators, the guys running artillery batteries, they’re likely going to know people and have friends and family that live in blue cities and states, and once they find out that their own friends have been killed as ‘collateral damage’, they’re likely going to be having second thoughts.
Israel is able to level Gaza because there aren’t Israelis living in Gaza; how eager do you think members of the IDF would be to bomb the shit out of the Palestinians if they knew their own friends and family were getting killed with every bomb, and with every shell?
Here’s the lovely thing: I don’t need to demonstrate a need in order to exercise a right. I don’t need to prove I need to vote in order to have the right to vote. I don’t have to prove I need religion in order to be permitted to be religious.
Oh so now you’re just abandoning any attempt to justify why a well regulated militia should allow you to carry around an AR-15 on the daily with no supervision.
This is a settled question; 2a rights are individual rights, not hinging on whether or not I’m in a militia. They’ve been understood to be both an individual right and responsibility for nearly 250 years, despite attempts by fraudulent scholars to claim otherwise.
No. It’s literally from the Latin for rules. The word has never not meant to have rules and regulation.
The idea of a well regulated watch or other gadget, is actually later.
I know you’ve probably been told this myth your entire life but it’s just not true. And why it took the court 175 years to define the militia as every able bodied person.
The founders were very aware of the dangers of letting people run around with guns and no regulations. That’s why the first sentence is there and why there were laws about guns in town for 300 years before the Bruen decision decided to ignore history while claiming to be historically accurate.
You mean the insurgency that eventually achieved all of its goals and reclaimed it’s power and control after the most powerful military in the world gave up and went home?
Or did you mean it’s not the 1970s where that insurgency also did it to the second most powerful military…while a different insurgency did it to the one from the first example?
You’re absolutely right that in a straight up fight no individual stands a chance against the US military (and I also tend to agree that the military would be the best friend of the people in that awful scenario) but there’s two or three points that muddy the waters here a bit: it’s not going to be just one, it’s not going to be a straight up fight, and if the population were somehow disarmed, there wouldn’t even be any struggle at all.
I’m not saying I’d fight off a battalion from my front porch wearing my Crocs, but a) anything is preferable to being herded to my fate, and b) it’s not about one armed individual, it’s more about the unappetizing proposition of subduing an armed populace.
No, it’s not the 1970’s, you can’t expect to survive fighting an American infantry platoon with nothing but rifles anymore.
You guys keep bringing up that the Taliban and Vietnamese won but you aren’t actually comparing the situations. In both situations they only won because we left voluntarily.
So tell me, if half of America votes in a Fascist, when are they leaving?
We do keep asking you what the plan is if you say there’s no point in fighting back against fascism.
No, I’ve told you. You just make it a thing to not get the point. Looking at your post history this is a pattern with you. You ask for clarification, make fun of the argument and then pretend you never got an answer. I’m not engaging with that anymore.
Cool, then let’s stop talking to each other.
You’re assuming that people in the military are going to be just fine with bombing cities where their friends live, or where they have family. If you’re going to say that the US military, run by fascists, is just going to steamroll actual patriots, that’s what you’re talking about. But the problem is that those pilots, the drone operators, the guys running artillery batteries, they’re likely going to know people and have friends and family that live in blue cities and states, and once they find out that their own friends have been killed as ‘collateral damage’, they’re likely going to be having second thoughts.
Israel is able to level Gaza because there aren’t Israelis living in Gaza; how eager do you think members of the IDF would be to bomb the shit out of the Palestinians if they knew their own friends and family were getting killed with every bomb, and with every shell?
Then you don’t need an AR15 because there’s no tyrannical army to fight.
You can’t have it both ways.
Here’s the lovely thing: I don’t need to demonstrate a need in order to exercise a right. I don’t need to prove I need to vote in order to have the right to vote. I don’t have to prove I need religion in order to be permitted to be religious.
Oh so now you’re just abandoning any attempt to justify why a well regulated militia should allow you to carry around an AR-15 on the daily with no supervision.
“Well regulated” is understood to mean “trained”.
This is a settled question; 2a rights are individual rights, not hinging on whether or not I’m in a militia. They’ve been understood to be both an individual right and responsibility for nearly 250 years, despite attempts by fraudulent scholars to claim otherwise.
No. It’s literally from the Latin for rules. The word has never not meant to have rules and regulation.
The idea of a well regulated watch or other gadget, is actually later.
I know you’ve probably been told this myth your entire life but it’s just not true. And why it took the court 175 years to define the militia as every able bodied person.
The founders were very aware of the dangers of letting people run around with guns and no regulations. That’s why the first sentence is there and why there were laws about guns in town for 300 years before the Bruen decision decided to ignore history while claiming to be historically accurate.