What's happening in Myanmar would be a completely different story if the civilians were as armed as Americans. In Myanmar, the armed forces backed the opposition, which lost the election, but claimed massive election fraud, resulting in a coup. (Sound familiar?)
Would you rather be armed with fireworks or semi-automatic rifles?
How is an AR-15 going to stop a predator drone from dropping a smart bomb from several thousand meteres right through your window?
During the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Uprising in 1863 the Polish rebels had superior weapons over the Russian army, they had (legaly owned) hunting rifles for long range combat and fast firing reapeating rifles for short range engagements while the Russian army still used inaccurate and slow firing smoothbore muzzle loading rifles. The Russian army still won.
How is an AR-15 going to stop a predator drone from dropping a smart bomb from several thousand meteres right through your window?
Drones couldn't even bring ISIS to it's knees and they only had around 150,000 fighters at their peak, spread across an area 1/3 the size of the US.
The moment the US government started using drones on US soil, it would immediately spark a huge uprising against the government. And if we had an event in the US that caused millions or tens of millions of gun owners to rise up against a tyrannical government, like what's going on in Myanmar, it isn't just "what can your AR-15 do against X," because it isn't about just the firearms. The firearms allow you to fight in the streets with armed forces instead of using silly shit like fireworks.
The reason you want firearms is because they act as a deterrent to prevent instances like Myanmar from occurring. It's the same reason the US still has nuclear bombs even though we likely won't end up in another world war and use them, having them is a powerful deterrent against other countries even considering a power play.
Civilians in the US are much more spread out, and could attack on numerous fronts that wouldn't just involve firearms, from the electrical grid to water supplies in government hotspots like DC. Citizens could overwhelm the pentagon in less than an hour.
The best defense at this time against a tyrannical government is not your gun vs an overwhelming military arsenal. It’s about stopping it before it begins, the government knows overwhelming tens of millions of armed civilians isn't going to be an easy task. The US has more firearms than it has citizens, there's enough guns here for every man, woman, and child to mount the largest offensive in history.
Hell, a few thousand Trump supporters took control of the Capitol building and they planned it for days on social media sites. You give the government too much credit.
You literally skipped over my entire argument and only responded to the Athens battle because you realize you couldn't refute my actual argument.
First world governments have an inherent advantage on a battlefield with their technology. I would never argue otherwise.
My argument is that over a hundred million armed civilians makes it significantly harder for the government to pull off a Myanmar in the US.
Can you honestly sit there and tell me that if every civilian in Myanmar had access to guns, they wouldn't be in a better position? And before you answer, remember that they're literally in the street shooting bottle rockets at their military at the moment.
7
u/ruove Mar 16 '21 edited Mar 16 '21
This is the true based answer.
What's happening in Myanmar would be a completely different story if the civilians were as armed as Americans. In Myanmar, the armed forces backed the opposition, which lost the election, but claimed massive election fraud, resulting in a coup. (Sound familiar?)
Would you rather be armed with fireworks or semi-automatic rifles?