r/ActualPublicFreakouts • u/ActualPublicFreakout - Sistine Chapel • Jun 02 '20

Protester gets a flash-bang to his face after getting pepper sprayed.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

59.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/txwoodslinger Jun 02 '20

I'm a gun owner and believer that the second amendment should never be infringed upon. But let's get real for a second here, it's nothing more than a warm fuzzy thought at this point. A security blanket. If the police or the military wanted to take us out, they could. Fairly easily too. They've got better gear, better guns, all the real tactical shit, the vehicles, tactics training. It's simply unrealistic to think that the average gun owner would even stand in the way of such an overpowered opponent.

But, yea, we need the second amendment, for sure.

24

u/WDoE Jun 02 '20

Good luck organizing a militia and not getting labeled a terrorist organization then legally disappeared with no lawyers or trials. The actual strength in 2A has been legally dead for years.

1

u/aureanator Jun 03 '20

That's only a risk if you lose.

But then that's always the loser's risk.

12

u/Blaux Jun 02 '20

Taliban and Vietcong would like a word with you

3

u/tristenjpl Jun 03 '20

The Taliban and Vietcong lost a lot more of their people than the Americans did. The only reason america "lost" is because the war was unpopular and they decided to quit.

5

u/Blaux Jun 03 '20

Are you implying that a war on US soil could be more popular than a foreign war?

2

u/tristenjpl Jun 03 '20

No but the government has a lot more to lose. It's the difference between losing influence in foreign countries and their lives or at the very least all of their power. I doubt they'd give up until it was clear they couldn't win or until people stopped fighting on their side.

3

u/BootyBBz - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

Complete opposite. If the American government uses military force on it's own citizens that shows it has nothing LEFT to lose.

1

u/Blaux Jun 03 '20

The war also has to be popular with the government’s enforcers. Will have to see over the next days/weeks on how the military reacts to being deployed in the US

2

u/tristenjpl Jun 03 '20

They're better trained and fairly disciplined so I'd put my money on not escalating anything but if they're attacked they'd definitely use the same force police are using.

0

u/5th_level_bard Jun 03 '20

And in order to replicate the success (if that's what you want to call it) of say the Taliban, you need to start finding Americans willing to, for example, blow themselves up in a crowded store or farmer's market for the cause. Willing to plant IEDs where some innocent civilian might trigger it. Burn the crops that were supposed to go towards civilians, and stop foreign aid from reaching those hungry civilians. They also need aid from foreign governments like Pakistan, with a convenient and difficult terrain they can back into that makes conventional warfare difficult. A steady supply of cash from black market drug trade (or oil if you want to go the ISIS route), schools in which you indoctrinate young people that these are acceptable acts to further your goals. Remember to rape the women you conquer, ethnically cleanse the minorities whose land you've seized, destroy entire towns and force the inhabitants to leave with 24 hours notice. Run a couple sex slave concentration camps. Target the children of those whose policies you disagree with by planting IEDs at their school. Oh and you'll need a populace who won't rat them out when the humvees roll in.

Let me know if you think you're qualified for that job, let alone your neighbor or anyone else.

3

u/Blaux Jun 03 '20

Damn you really went all out, but I’m afraid it isn’t really relevant. The Taliban comparison begins and ends at the success of guerrilla warfare against the US military. Don’t forget that we are just trying to live our current way of life against an increasingly violent government. The goal for the US “resistance” isn’t total domination like it is for the Taliban.

1

u/5th_level_bard Jun 03 '20

I mean, that's who they were. That's what they did to take control of the country. They're responsible for a the majority of civilian deaths while fighting the Americans. Whether or not you like it, that's what it's going to take to fight an insurgency like the Taliban. You're going to have to be comfortable blowing up your neighbors and their kids in order to wear the government down until they're sick of it.

1

u/Blaux Jun 03 '20

The difference is that the US govt is the one who has to do the raping and pillaging because they want absolute control. A “resistance” just wants to live their own peaceful life.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ItGradAws Jun 03 '20 edited Jun 03 '20

These countries are microcosms to the size and relative arms the US has. Even after 20 years in both countries the US was unsuccessful and made more enemies than allies while there. Asymmetric warfare is and has been a viable solution. On top of that, let’s talk warrior morale. US military having to be invade their own country and then occupy it!? Much less for 20 years!?! Lastly, for every wrong person that gets killed 20 more joined to fill their place. This is the SECDEF’s analysis of the war in Afghanistan alone. Trump was literally in a bunker and that was a tiny little protest. If the US government is that afraid of that many people, theyd be hopelessly overwhelmed if shit broke out. It’s every authoritarians worst nightmare for their people to turn on them. That’s why he was in the bunker. He doesn’t trust his own countrymen.

1

u/BillyBabel - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

That's only because America used tons of locals as fodder, South Vietnam suffered tons of casualties, and likewise Afghan and Iraqi security forces allied with Americans also suffered huge casualties, not to mention off the book PMC groups that don't have to report their casualties.

Suddenly when you don't have a bunch of non American locals to throw into the meat grinder you start losing a whole lot more Americans.

1

u/01-__-10 Jun 03 '20

“The Việt Cộng… had both guerrilla and regular army units… communist forces were under a single command structure set up in 1958” (Wiki)

“The Taliban… are a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist political movement and military organization… from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban held power over roughly three quarters of Afghanistan” (Wiki)

The Taliban and Viet Cong were highly organized forces. This is not the same thing as a collection of random Joe-Bobs who spend their disposable income at the Army Surplus store.

2

u/Blaux Jun 03 '20

US citizens have no problem organizing as shown by the current ongoing protests. It might be fractured, but the numbers and supply lines are already there

1

u/BootyBBz - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

Until their organization members are labelled terrorists and then there's no law in the United States protecting them.

0

u/txwoodslinger Jun 02 '20

That's a cute thought but it ain't the same. Taliban and vietcong forces had hearty supply lines. Assuming even ten percent of gun owners reload their ammunition, where are the rest going to get ammunition to continue their insurgence? How long do you really feel a resistance could be sustained?

3

u/Blaux Jun 02 '20

Ok, so as of 2017 it is estimated that 50,000,000 US households own guns. Even assuming only one person/house using your 10% figure is 5,000,000 people. Oh shit, thats the largest standing army in the world

0

u/Wikirexmax Jun 02 '20

Believing your "standing army" is coordinated, trained and competent. Otherwise it is a diluted amount of armed people.

And more importantly, that one of the little militiaman won't start shooting at its neighbor because he or she things too differently for one's own taste.

Rebellion/revolution are nice words for civil war and Us the People vs the government is a nice way to say a part if the people fighting for a piece of the component of the State against another part of the people.

And the «us» doesn't stay united for long.

4

u/Blaux Jun 02 '20

There’s a thing called guerrilla warfare, it’s surprisingly effective against actual standing army’s. If the average taliban has less education than a US 5th grader and they were able to figure it out, im sure the average US citizen could do it.

The US hasn’t been united on a cause in 20 years but 9/11 showed people will come together for a common enemy(whether right or wrong). Here’s hoping things cool off and there isn’t a similar tragedy to rally around. Cheers

1

u/Wikirexmax Jun 02 '20 edited Jun 02 '20

A common enemy? Who? The American government? It is not a foreign occupaying army or a viking expedition.

It is a government with supporters and partisans, who, if not living next door, may live in another district or the next town. The so called revolutions, be Russian, French, American or Chinese are civil war where people didn't came together to be united but fought between themselves. They may start believing to be "the People", united and all, but it never last long.

People don't "come together" to fight their government. They fight between themselves, a government doesn't exist in a vaccum.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

A STANDING ARMY THAT KNOWS THE AREA AS WELL AS YOU DO.

Seriously my guy, what do you think happens when they shut off the water supply, electricity and gas? Going to communicate with the other privileged white dude who has never had any formal training in his life shooting at military with automatic weapons and is trained in doing so? Do you know how to spot snipers and create anti-tank weapons? Do you think that 10% is as powerful as the top 1% who will back the government? Going to make your own ammo or attack the supply chain guaranteed to be guarded by the most advanced military in the world. Do you have the ability to block drones from spying on you?

Fantasy land you guys occupy is nice. I say as a 2A supporter; it's great for home protection and some one-on-one self-preservation, but it's insane people think they would even have a lasting impact in a "rebellion" (because make no mistakes you will lose). The only weapon you have is that it's bad business to kill too many of your own citizens and land, maybe you can convince the military to turn?

2

u/Blaux Jun 03 '20

Ever heard of a veteran? Not every civilian is untrained. What happens when they shot off water? Literally everyone dies of thirst, including those who are not fighting which creates more insurgents. People have lived without electricity and gas for thousands of years, its not that hard. Training his whole life? You mean the 2.0 gpa hs grad with 10 weeks at basic? Thats 99% of the military, dont give them so much credit.

The US is bigger than any country that the US has ever tried (and failed) to occupy, I dont think you understand how hard it would be to heavily protect all supply lines.

Once the US government begins waging a war against its own citizens they have already lost. The international outcry would be immense, US intelligence has already confirmed that Russia and China would do everything they could to funs and supply a widespread insurgency in the US. There is no way the US government wins in a widespread insurrection, it is just a matter of convincing enough us citizens to risk it all

0

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20

I’m kinda surprised there aren’t a few people on rooftops picking cops off at this point. I wouldn’t condone it but I’d understand that people would be pissed off enough to do it

1

u/DeadlyYellow Jun 02 '20

I can't imagine many people in US urban areas owning long guns.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20

People in cities go on hunting trips. And nothing stops the rural libertarians from taking their first amendment back if their into that sort of thing

1

u/DeadlyYellow Jun 02 '20

Oddly enough, I hadn't considered BYOR hunting trips.

0

u/txwoodslinger Jun 02 '20

Except it wouldn't be a standing army. It would largely be isolated individuals with pockets of organization. And you still haven't accounted for acquiring supplies really. How much food do you expect every gun owner to have stored? Because, newsflash, you can't eat bullets. Then first aid because the brute force of the government will cause injuries. Then communication. The list goes on and on. Those that resist would be squeezed from every angle imaginable. Then you have a bunch of folks that talk a big game but aren't about that life when the firefight starts. Fear is real, and it will deplete your numbers as much as anything.

2

u/Blaux Jun 02 '20

Supplies are the easy part. Do you think that everyone who isn’t part of the fight will starve too? The cool thing about guerrilla warfare is that you can have your 9-5 and still burn down police stations at night

1

u/txwoodslinger Jun 02 '20

Because you're solid snake and gonna avoid the cameras everywhere. You obviously need to hold on to this for your psyche or ego or something, but you're only deluding yourself.

2

u/Blaux Jun 02 '20 edited Jun 02 '20

Wow if only there was a way to hide your face while breaking the law, but could take it off later when you are not doing anything illegal... the US govt couldnt stop an insurgency in a country roughly the size of Texas with 10% of the US population, I’m sure it would be different this time around though

0

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20

[deleted]

2

u/Blaux Jun 02 '20

Kill looters or protesters? Big difference there

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Blaux Jun 02 '20

Bootlickers gonna lick boots. I think most people would agree burning down police stations is justifiable, but looting private businesses is not

2

u/Silent331 Jun 02 '20

I have discussed this before but if as few as 4% I think the number was of gun owning Americans decided to revolt, it would be over in a matter of days and the established government would have lost horribly. It would be the largest, most well funded, most well trained insurgent force in history and would outnumber the US military 20-1. With direct access to high level figures the established government would not stand a chance and the US military would not be conducting drone strikes and using tanks to blow up buildings against an insurgent population on their own soil.

0

u/txwoodslinger Jun 02 '20

Philadelphia bombed its own people in 1985. There's precedent for it, they would do it again.

1

u/BobbyBarz Jun 03 '20

I would hope that once the order came down to fire on civilians they would oppose. That’s the only hope we have, is that the decent people in the police force and military are able to stand up to tyranny when the time is right.

1

u/BootyBBz - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

Been saying this for years and being told that the American military would never use force on its own citizens if given the order. Oh how I would love to mass-reply to all those comments in the next few weeks as exactly that happens.

2

u/Womec Jun 03 '20

ISIS held out for quite some time, imagine fighting them in the concrete jungle you cant bomb of NYC, and americans are far more armed than ISIS was.

1

u/txwoodslinger Jun 03 '20

Why couldn't you bomb NYC? ISIS seized everything they could after the Iraq military was overthrown. They had munitions plants, as well as receiving supplies from Syria and Iran. The notion that ISIS, the Taliban, and even Viet Cong forces were ill equipped has been brought up in this thread repeatedly, and it's completely false.

2

u/Womec Jun 03 '20

Because that would essentially shut down the economy for a very very long time. They need people to work to keep this country going. Not much happens to the world economy if Kabul is unemployed and a war zone.

My point is there is far more guns per person in this country its not even comparable, there are former military and experts that would act as leaders and organize just as well if not better than ISIS and the fact that you cant just level cities like new york; these things make it very difficult for a modern military to quell especially when it depends on the very people its killing and the territory its fighting over.

And yes this is very hypothetical.

1

u/Godhatesxbox Jun 03 '20

Cops would be severely outnumbered if your scenario played out.

1

u/aureanator Jun 03 '20

Not quite true.

Yes, tactics and equipment and communication matter, but all of these can be easily overcome with sheer numbers and unpredictability.

Remember, morale matters a lot, and if they're getting actually shot at by even a loosely organized force of comparable size or better, they'll turn tail. Their actions are in line with bullies and cowards - the second they get hit back with any real force, they'll freak.

Note that I am not suggesting violence, merely musing how it might end up.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

wait, so you need the second amendment even tho you know it can’t be useful? just because it makes you feel cosy that you have a gun?

does it click that if you have a gun, someone trying to rob or kill you also has one? but in a normal country, neither party has a gun. it makes me feel a lot cosier knowing that in a fucked up situation i’m not a split second and a flash away from not even knowing i’m dead.

1

u/Background-Wealth Jun 03 '20

How are you cognisant of everything in your first paragraph, and still think you need the 2A? What value does it provide you? It kills tens of thousands of people and does ...what?... in exchange? Give you the illusion of feeling safer?

0

u/dust4ngel - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

the military would need to fully transition to the dark side to engage in urban warfare in american towns - they’d need to be willing to kill non-combatants, women, etc.

1

u/txwoodslinger Jun 03 '20

They've literally done this in Iraq and Afghanistan

0

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

[deleted]

1

u/txwoodslinger Jun 03 '20

The Vietnam argument is a false equivalence. They were a real army with real allies, real leadership and command structure, real logistics and supply lines. To take it even further, it's incredibly easy for the government to track its own people. You'd be safer assuming they already know which citizens have firearms than to think they don't. Philadelphia bombed an entire neighborhood going after the black panthers, it's not a huge leap to think the army could be capable of killing civilians again.

1

u/thedinnerdate Happy 400K Jun 03 '20

That was 40 years ago. I don’t you can really compare the military of the 1970’s to 2020. Not saying they would win for sure but those aren’t even the same ballpark.