lets be real here and step back for a second . armed or disarmed population do you accept that any successful overthrow would require the support of the military on some substantial level ?
Implying humans are mindless ants who wouldnât be detered by hundreds of people around them being shot up.
Iâll name a few later, i have to go to work right now though.
Tienanmen square , was not to overthrow the government neither was it wide spread enough amongst the population it was pretty much only students .
on these your tactic worked yes , the army killed around 300-800 people and the rest gave in . had the 60,000 remained in the square do you honestly believe they would have killed the lot ? no chance
jallianwala wasnt large enough , can be put down with violence plus it was fucking 1919 .
crowds over hundreds of thousands would not be put down with force , im not saying it wont be attempted im saying it wont be successful if the protest holds its nerve .
So youâre saying the government that killed 80 million people would have qualms about killing 60,000? And they would not have to kill that many, a crowd isnât going to hold its nerve against tanks.
Thatâs not what you asked for. You simply said protest. And if it was a large crowd actively trying to remove government officials, then you better believe they would be even more violence than a crackdown on a protest.
Which they would not. You might get a couple hundred zealots who would be willing to die, but the vast majority would tuck tale and run when tanks started blowing people up.
What does that have to do with anything?
Eventually yes. Maybe not direct support, but i think if a government was unable to put down a rebellion, the military would loose moral, and get tired of fighting its own citizens, and many would desert or switch sides, or the leaders would simply give up trying to crack down and resign from office.
In the modern day and age if the U.S populace wanted to remove its leaders from Washington, without a decades long conflict, then yes we would need a substantial amount of military to side with the rebellion.
I love how many Republicans say the Alt Right are big racist bigots for thinking whites shouldnât become a minority in their own countries, but at the same time are die hard supporters of Israel, which is basically a Jewish ethostate.
https://twitter.com/alizeeyeezy/status/923885535877361665
Sad things is you cannot tell if itâs real or fake without reading the bio.
there is a huge difference between killing 80 million as huge and shocking as the figure is behind closed door . compared to just slaughtering 60,000 with machine gun fire and tanks in broad day light in the streets in the view of the world .
even though one is really no worse than the other .
im not debating on someones willingness to stand their ground, thats a matter for the individual whether they have access to firearms or not .
what im saying is such a situation would be a game of bluffs . the miltary would not kill 100,000 people in broad day light in the streets , there would be very few soldiers who would follow that order . even though yes the china example would seem to prove that wrong.
because before the age of the internet governments could get away with alot more than they can now.
lets get this straight what US citizens have access to is not enough to defeat the US military or really any modern western force . you would be forced into guerrilla war tactics which is all well and good when youâre 3,000 miles away on a foreign land fighting an invading task force . But in this case you would be fighting the entire US military with all its kit . While all you have is rifles âŠ
the only way such a rebellion would work is if the US military split in support for either side and weapons become available to the rebelling side , in which case your private weapons would be tossed aside for military spec kit which is the entire point im making here .
anyway on more exciting news SHIT IS GOING DOWN IN SPAIN !!
No it was not behind close doors, communist forces reguarly went into villages and started blowing people away. Feel free to look into the Cambodian killing fields.
Heres an example from Vietnam
Heres another.
Where was the world during any of the massacres of the 20th century? The world will only intervene if the country is virtually incapable of defending its self. Even then we donât always step in, take Rwanda for example.
You donât need many soliders to do it. Majority of the Red army, NVA, Wehrmacht, and PLA troops did not kill civilians, and probably would not. It only took a small portion to carry out the huge acts of violence.
And that is implying the government would let the crowd get that large to begin with before violently cracking down. Protests of any kind were and are illegal in many of these nations.
Also fair to add that in these kinds of regimes the soliders are made up of a group or class of people that despise the people they are oppressing, which is why they arenât unwilling to commit murder.
Internet suppression is a thing you know.
I never said defeat, i said wear down. It would be a game of who gives up first, which is what happened to us in Vietnam. We decimated them in most engagements, but the willingness to bleed was much higher on their part so we gave up eventually because they would not break.
The military would get tired of losing men, and fighting their own people, and many of the military would likely even sympathies with the insurgencies cause.
Sort of similar to the Chinese civil war. A lot of the nationalists forces ended up defecting to the communist side after the conflict was prolonged for several decades.
Youâre not factoring rules of engagement, or the troops hesitating fighting their own people. Rules of engagement are generally always strict when fighting against an insurgency because they obviously do not want to alienate the local populace which would lead to more insurgents.
The rules would be even stricter in the U.S than in Afgan or Nam for instance. You wouldnât see the government mass carpet bombing their own cities, because it would be completely counter productive. They would have to be extremely careful with how they dealt with it, and would essentially have their hands tied behind their backs. The populace already flips shit when cops shoot a violent criminal, images of U.S troops raiding homes for weapons, and collateral damage would be extremely bad pr.
The insurgents how ever would pretty much have free reign to attack government forces, granted they would have qualms about fighting their countrymen, but it would be less jumping through hoops for them than the government.
You think the Spanish government will crack down or let em go?
I donât think theyâll be getting their independence.
you dont seem to factor that in when assuming young soldiers would open fire on women and children in the streets
personally i think they will send in the military to arrest the Catalonian president and then it will be down to how the people react .
Except they have, many times in the past. I donât think this is something the U.S or really any western military would do, but itâs an entirely different world over there.
so you accept then , that in reality the second amendment is pointless in the 21st century western world ?
Absolutely not. Just because the current U.S military would not do that, doesnât mean a future one wouldnât. Iâm quite worried about when whites become a minority since weâre already despised. These people want us dead, and feel that our money and property are these for past grievances, they are open about it, and feel completely justified in wanting it.
Right now the military is primarily composed of right wing patriots, but that could easily change in the future.
Plus 2A guarantees your right to have the means to properly defend your life and property.
why does that need to be a right ? it should be a choice for you too make yes but controls dont have to stop that . its not @snejdarek "right " to own a firearm to defend himself but the options there and the Czech republic seems to have a right balance of control v freedom of choice .
why would you not accept a similar system in the US ?
not from my experience its not ! patriots yes right wing ? its very mixed like anywhere else .
so you believe US soldiers would follow orders to open fire on women and children ?
Vast majority of the U.S military, and veterans are right wing. Red states are the biggest source of recruits.
Next to none currently serving at the moment would no. But i cannot rule that out as a future possibility, you can ask plenty of lefties openly if they think ânazisâ deserve to die, and they will happily answer yes. And to them anyone to the right of Stalin is a nazi.
And they if made up the majority of the military i would be concerned.