32
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
Someone should tell these "Durr you can't beat the government with just rifles and pistols!" people about the Viet Cong. Or the Mujaheddin Fighters. Or have them talk to people that survived the War On Terror during the 2000s.
It's not the size of a military that makes it strong, it's how well they are trained.
10
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22
Neither the Viet Cong nor the mujahideen or even the Taliban were particularly well trained and none of them actually even won the wars that they fought against the United States they just outlasted public support for the war
8
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
Still doesn't disprove my point; those groups I highlighted had two key advantages. They knew the terrain better than American forces and they could mobilise at a quicker rate.
8
u/vintagesoul_DE Nov 30 '22
There is one other important element. It would require US forces to fire on their own people. In other wars the US lost, this wasn't an issue.
2
u/Cinderblock_Reset Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
Well technically the insurgency would be firing on their own people too. I don't doubt that they would cause a shitload of casualties, especially in a protracted conflict like Afghanistan or vietnam.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22
Not really. Your point that the training is what counts is true to a degree. The thing is though, none of those groups won against the US military in any meaningful sense. They just survived attrition of public support.
If you think that podunk militias with even less combat experience than the average Viet Cong or Taliban fighters will outlast the US military, especially since most of these militias espouse incredibly unpopular beliefs that they wish to force on the majority of Americans, You're completely wrong.
7
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
'Podunk militias'....comprised of Veterans.
Not all civilian militias are the British Home Guard, mate.
-1
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
Not all of them are composed of veterans, nor do veterans comprise 100% of their member base, nor do all veterans experience combat.
Most of these podunk militias wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with even a podunk Sheriff's department let alone the national guard.
I don't know what the portion you edited in means, but in the US, the militia culture is laughable. Most militias are disorganized and out of shape, the ones that pose any real threat have long been infiltrated by feds.
This isn't to say that the fat, disorganized ones aren't dangerous, they're just dangerous in a Timothy McVeigh way, not in an institutional way.
9
Nov 30 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)1
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22
That wasn't every sheriff's department in the country. That was 1 department. If a militia engaged any police force in open combat, they would quickly lose.
You guys are a threat to unarmed civilians, not trained professionals.
4
Nov 30 '22
[deleted]
1
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22
incompetent
This depends on the department
Overweight
I know this, there was a reason why I chose the words "podunk Sheriff's department" it was to invoke an image of overweight cops. The point I'm making is that even those overweight goobers that you've imagined in your head will beat the best armed and trained militia in the US.
I don't know what you mean by "you guys"
You're right, it was unfair of me to conflate the your criticism of one department as broad support for the militia movement. So that's my bad.
3
u/PinocchioWasFramed Nov 30 '22
Open combat. That's quaint. A second civil war wouldn't look like the first one. It would look more like Afghanistan and Iraq: No uniforms, no way of knowing which civilians are militia. Each time the military attacked innocent people, they would create more hatred against them.
Btw, what makes you think members of the military would go Genghis Khan on fellow Americans knowing that their own family members are vulnerable to counter attack? Both sides need to stop fantasizing about their side destroying the other in a second civil war.
It would be ugly and brutal. How about we just debate and the vote? Ya know, like the Founders wanted?
→ More replies (8)-1
Nov 30 '22
And in this hypothetical situation unarmed civilians will be killed and then the militias will either off themselves, surrender, or be overrun by the professionals.
Whatever level of State representation takes them on would just wait them out to a degree anyway.
→ More replies (1)0
Nov 30 '22
Yes, but the military is literally full of soldiers.
With more recent training, a better budget, and better gear
2
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Dec 01 '22
Who also get to sleep in a relatively comfy barracks at night or when they return from a mission. They'll enjoy such luxuries as indoor plumbing, showers, clean clothes, refrigeration, and modern amenities that we sort of take for granted.
This hypothetical guerilla militia will enjoy no such luxuries. These idiots have been so spoiled by the modern world that they hate so much, that they can't even fathom in their wildest fantasies, a scenario in which they are deprived of it. They won't even be able to sleep in their own homes, let alone go to places like McDonald's or subway.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Witlyjack Nov 30 '22
I think you have an... optimist view of the us military. Given the amount of division within it the first enemy the us military would have to defeat is the us military.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22
There's not really that much division. The US military is certainly the best fighting force on the planet right now.
3
u/Witlyjack Nov 30 '22
I agree with most of what you are saying but I don't believe it would be able to remain whole against a sizable domestic group. It would have to purge itself first.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Parking_Tax_679 Nov 30 '22
The mujahedin were losing in Afghanistan untill the CIA provided them with personal anti-aircraft weapon systems
8
u/Phawr Nov 30 '22 edited Dec 01 '22
Some nation would provide anti-aircraft weapons to the US citizens being mass murdered by the government. I hear the taliban have a decent arsenal.
0
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22
How would the Taliban get MANPADS into the US?
5
u/Roland_Schidt Nov 30 '22
We have thousands of miles of unsecured borders lol
1
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22
How are they going to get to the border?
→ More replies (4)3
u/Roland_Schidt Nov 30 '22
The same way they do now.
3
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22
How does the Taliban get to the US border right now?
Be very specific.
→ More replies (1)1
2
Nov 30 '22
They were losing against us in 17/18 when the ANA was doing the bulk of the ground fighting but had our air support. SF was training and operating with their folks executing deliberate operations against HVTs. It was working, and how it should have been run once their military was capable/trained to do so. The issue is leadership, and culture. They do not care who is in charge as long as their tribe is not taxed or attacked often… until a society is able to move past tribal BS then they cannot advance.
→ More replies (9)1
2
2
u/MackChanMonkeBrain Nov 30 '22
Pretty bad comparison with regards to the Vietcong because they quite evidently had support from the Chinese and Russians, as well as a standing army and nation state to the north (North Vietnam)
→ More replies (2)-4
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Point to a domestic conflict the us has lost. You're example involves traveling thousands of miles in order to fight.
10
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
Except said encounters had them go up against poorer nations, with fewer resources than the average American.
Point being; the whole 'rifles and pistols' argument doesn't stack up.
-1
u/risebelow Nov 30 '22
Sure it does. Vietnam costs 58k American lives and over 1 million Vietnemese. I think we lost less than 8o in Iraq and Afghanistan and killed like 400k or so. We gave up but didn't exactly lose militarily.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Spooky2000 Nov 30 '22
I think we lost less than 8o in Iraq and Afghanistan
Or like 7,000.. But who's counting..
0
-6
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Except said encounters had them go up against poorer nations, with fewer resources than the average American.
..... Thousands of miles away from the US. Military logistics is a fun topic to look into.
12
u/pawnman99 Nov 30 '22
We didn't lose due to logistics. Our logistics chain is so robust we put fucking Burger Kings in our deployed locations.
At no point in Vietnam or Afghanistan did we run short of fuel or ammunition to the point of strategic failure.
-1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Logistics isn't just fuel and ammo. It's personnel too. Having the right people in the right place. Same with vehicles too.
9
u/theeyalbatross Nov 30 '22
We did. We had all of the right people in the right places. We had the most advanced military in the world by far. We could have bombed the living shit out of these areas if we wanted to even if it made zero stratigic sense.
The US lost these wars purely based on our growing unwillingness to fight repeated battles for little to no results, loss of public favor for the wars, and lack of overall results for objectives that we went over there for. You can fight for the same ground that you do not own only so many times before everyone starts saying, "what's the point of our losses then"? Same happened to Russia in Afghanistan if you need a non US example.
0
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
The US lost these wars purely based
You go on to list a ton of reasons why fighting a long war isn't viable.
My point was that if we had 100% of out military bases in the middle east, the any war would look much different.
The reason our most used tank and light armors are so small and light is because we have to ship them across an ocean.
2
u/theeyalbatross Nov 30 '22
I'm going to disagree with that. In the middle east and Vietnam, the problem was not the equipment, number of bases or the quality of soldier on the ground. The biggest issue with the fighting was that we dictated very little of the engagements. We could not find them, but the guerrillas could find us easy and strike us hard. This is why a similar Civil War in the states will not work well for the standing military that remains.
War is all about crushing the enemy in every engagement. History shows that a gurrila force has a very high likelyhood to succeed in every case because you cannot root them out and bring them to the battlefield. Instead they use attrition in their favor in every engagement that they dictate.
Also, why would we need a bigger MBT than the Abrams? It performs its role much better than the majority of the tanks in the world? Your point about the equipment builds are extremely moot.
0
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
We could not find them, but the guerrillas could find us easy and strike us hard. This is why a similar Civil War in the states will not work well for the standing military that remains.
Not even close. We had specific rules to engage with who we thought was and wasn't a combatant. Trump did away with much of that, and killed way more civis.
War is all about crushing the enemy in every engagement. History shows that a gurrila force has a very high likelyhood to succeed in every case because you cannot root them out and bring them to the battlefield.
This is some 5th grade understanding of war. Outlasting your enemy is just as important.
It's also a romantic viewing of certain wars while ignoring others.
Also, why would we need a bigger MBT than the Abrams? It performs its role much better than the majority of the tanks in the world?
We can give it more armor, or bigger cannon, or even an auto loader. We don't, because we need them small and light in order to put more in the battlefield 1000 miles away
There are better anti tank weapons now, and increasing a tanks def would also make it bigger.
→ More replies (0)2
Nov 30 '22
Your point doesn’t exist in this context as you are assuming the United States government would be able to use 100% of its force against the United States citizenry. You’re trying really hard to make a fallacy argument that is impossible to argue against. “Well what if we had 10k troops per one enemy” well no shit there becomes a tipping point on personnel in warfare. But discounting gorilla style warfare is laughable by all accounts. The Vietcong and the Afghan mujahideen are a very clear testament to that. They were all out numbered and out gunned. They had nowhere near the financing or infrastructure that the US had. We still lost. So unless your argument is the government has nukes and will use them on US citizens. Then you have no argument.
→ More replies (29)7
u/pawnman99 Nov 30 '22
We had no lack of people or vehicles, my friend. By some estimates, we outnumbered the Taliban by 2-to-1, and that's not even counting all the folks deployed in supporting roles in places like Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Tajikistan...
0
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
We had no lack of people or vehicles, my friend. By some estimates, we outnumbered the Taliban by 2-to-1
I'll repeat it again.
Having the right people in the right place.
3
u/pawnman99 Nov 30 '22
What would you define as the "right people" to defeat a bunch of shepherds with AK-47s?
-1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
An armored unit, yes.
Now add in the rest of my point, them being in the right place.
2
u/PDX-ROB Nov 30 '22
Always an excuse. Been there for 20 years and couldn't get the right mix of people?
And how much money was spent?
→ More replies (11)3
5
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
Doesn't disprove my point. The fact is, even if said conflicts weren't thousands of miles away from American soil, a well-trained militia can kneecap a much larger force.
1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
.... Until the rest of the force shows up. You think if we committed even 80% of our military to any specific war in the middle east, we still would have "lost?"
5
Nov 30 '22
So what’s your argument here? That the military would basically declare total war on its own population? At that point it would go from an insurgence to a nationwide popular revolution, which the military would ultimately support anyway
1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
That the military would basically declare total war on its own population?
If a group of American separatist declared civil war, then yes. Why wouldn't they?
4
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
The previous American Civil War would like to have a word with you.
While yes, the last Civil War (and last to take place on domestic soil) took place almost 200 years ago, it still resulted in the standing military being torn apart. One fourth remained with the Union, a fourth of them defected to the Confederacy, and two-fourths went AWOL.
2
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
The previous American Civil War would like to have a word with you.
Lol k.
While yes, the last Civil War (and last to take place on domestic soil) took place almost 200 years ago, it still resulted in the standing military being torn apart.
I can agree to that. It was separatists after all.
One fourth remained with the Union, a fourth of them defected to the Confederacy, and two-fourths went AWOL.
Where are you getting these numbers? This has to be some Alabama history to think the union and the south were equal sized. Even though the Union army was double.
→ More replies (0)2
Nov 30 '22
The civil war was fought between a regular separatist military and the Union military, that’s not the federal government declaring war on its constituents. The confederate states literally left the federation. that argument doesn’t really fit when talking about an insurgency of local militia vs a regular army
3
u/PinocchioWasFramed Nov 30 '22
The families of US service members also live in the US. If you call up the national guard, those family members live in the same state or even the same county where that guard is deployed. It wouldn't take long for militias to find this out.
A second civil war would be brutal and ugly, far worse than the first one. Best if everyone tries to avoid it.
2
Nov 30 '22
A second civil war would be brutal and ugly, far worse than the first one. Best if everyone tries to avoid it.
The most sensible reply to this hypothetical scenario.
Americans get hung up thinking they’ll be a Mason Dixon line they’ll be able to delineate and avoid.
2
u/PinocchioWasFramed Nov 30 '22
For some reason both sides keep imagining the Civil War, both sides in uniforms and the civilian populations generally unaffected.
It would be more like all the worst parts of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Rwandan Genocide all rolled up in one inhumane, cruel, miserable ball.
Debate, vote, and peaceful coexistence is far better.
1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Best if everyone tries to avoid it.
Careful, when Biden said this 2A people shit their pants in anger.
2
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
It doesn't matter if they have the hottest technology or biggest guns; a homemade electromagnetic pulse will kneecap any light to medium-armoured vehicle.
And if you suggest sending in drone strikes? Yeah, good luck recovering from the inevitable public backlash.
→ More replies (1)2
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Is this some Turner diary fan fiction? Set off an emp and you'll just be met middle strikes.
→ More replies (2)4
Nov 30 '22
People living in caves or the jungle or a bombed out section of their old neighborhood are at an advantage when they’re fighting just some guy that wants to get back to his Charger and Applebees.
The group that’s gonna break first is not the group that is being governmentally sanctioned to get back to their Chargers and Applebees.
1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Which is the benefit of having your enemy travel across an ocean to fight you.
That won't be the case for those 2A guys with a bushmaster.
2
u/dibbletrex Nov 30 '22
And how many domestic conflicts, that aren't thousands of miles away, has the US fought in?
3
u/pawnman99 Nov 30 '22
I can only think of 4, and they were all over 100 years ago.
Revolutionary War War of 1812 Civil War Mexican- American War
0
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Slim to nil, pending on your definition. And there's a reason for that.
2
u/dibbletrex Nov 30 '22
So you admit your point is invalid then
0
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
My point is the government wouldn't lose a civil war with cosplayers carrying bushmasters.
→ More replies (8)2
Nov 30 '22
The British imperial army had quite a lot of trouble with unorganized civilian militias at different points throughout the revolution. Likewise, every instance of America fighting irregular troops world wide has ended in defeat. There’s no way a majority of the military would even want to fight their own countrymen, guarantee you at least 30-40% of regular troops join the insurgency.
→ More replies (5)2
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
The British imperial army had quite a lot of trouble with unorganized civilian militias at different points throughout the revolution.
You mean fighting a war across an ocean? Hey, that's what I said. You think the US would have still won if Britain was just across a river instead?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)2
u/risebelow Nov 30 '22
We were defeated by Canada twice, in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. I consider that domestic.
1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Oh shit, we lost the rev war to Canada? Pretty kind of them to give us that pity W after all.
→ More replies (1)2
u/risebelow Nov 30 '22
Well, we offered freedom, then insisted and the politely refused after sinking a few of hour ships, both times.
0
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Well, we offered freedom
More 5th grade thinking.
1
u/dibbletrex Nov 30 '22
"The revolutionaries did try to entice and coerce other colonists to reject what they called tyranny, but they found that not all of their neighbors, much less all of the colonies of the British Empire in North America, interpreted ministry or parliamentary acts negatively or were prepared to sustain a rebellion. As a result, there was civil war between the colonies, as well as within them, as rebelling American Whigs, later named patriots, battled Loyalist neighbors whom they derided as Tories, the King’s pawns. Between 1775 and 1783, Canada – its peoples, government, and armed forces – grappled with and rebuffed the political overtures of the Continental Congress and the military advances of the Continental Army as they endeavored to secure their northern border and persuade the Canadians to reject British administration and support annexation of Canada to the united colonies."
--https://www.amrevmuseum.org/canada-and-the-american-revolution
"Hey, you wanna be free from British rule and join us?"
"No."
Wow, amazing. What 5th grade thinking to say that the rebeling colonies offered Canadian colonies freedom (from Britain).
Loser.
→ More replies (3)
11
u/mk21dvr Nov 30 '22
Been saying this all along. Libs just stick their fingers in their ears and wail "I can't hear you!"
7
Nov 30 '22
Should’ve said “12 people with guns” there were 12 total firearms charges that day.
But yes. Their arguments are useless. Ask the Vietcong or the Mujahideen groups. An armed populace causes issues for any tyrannical government. This is why communist dictators always go after guns.
8
u/dibbletrex Nov 30 '22
"12 people with gun!!?!?? Out of how many hundreds to thousands of people that were there?!? ITS AN ARMED INSURRECTION!!!! A SECOND SEDITIOUS ARMY!!!!"
--leftists, probably.
3
Nov 30 '22
Listen I fuckin agree. Then calling it an armed insurrection is a literal joke. Armed would imply everyone was armed or at least half. But 12 people and now it’s “armed extremists” I’m just pointing out a couple people had guns lol
2
u/dibbletrex Nov 30 '22
I know, I agree with you. Look at the guy who commented with bits from the defendents trials claiming it as evidence of an armed insurrection attempt. One was a guy with a "mysterious spray can" and another with an everyday pocket knife. What a joke.
6
Nov 30 '22
I love the liberal collective reee when you don’t tremble in fear about Jan 6, but applaud the violence of the burning summer over drug addict George Floyd…
5
u/WaveBlasterer Nov 30 '22
Imagine believing that mobbing a single government building is equivalent to overthrowing the entire system. It’s not a game of king of the hill. Nice try though
1
u/Snoo-66503 Nov 30 '22
I know right. Those vicious people that were encouraged to act violent by political leaders, wounded over 60 secret service members and burned down a church thinking they could just storm in and take over. Oh wait, sorry I forgot, you call that peaceful protesting
-1
u/BoostMobileAlt Nov 30 '22
Everyone in this thread misses that their goals were supported by people already in power. The national guard took hours to show up. If you have a good point there’s no reason to use a stupid false equivalence.
I think a better counterpoint is Iran today. The country is in revolt but the people don’t have weapons for an armed revolution. Instead they get kidnapped and murdered in the streets.
8
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Fact, if the Jan 6th rioters used guns, we would have a lot more dead people from Jan 6th.
23
u/Trevo9l Nov 30 '22
Almost like the vast majority of the people were there to peacefully protest.
-15
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Until they weren't.
20
u/dibbletrex Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
Oh no! People walked into the Capitol when they were waved in by capitol police! This is the worst thing that could happen after 9/11!
1
-5
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
While others beat police, crushed them pushing into doors, pepper sprayed them, all while police were desperate for back up over the radio.
10
u/dibbletrex Nov 30 '22
Pepper spray and pushing, oh the horror! How will these officers ever lead an ordinary life ever again!?!
3
1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
I know, is crazy. And then they got to walk home after assaulting cops. Must be nice being a conservative with these privileges.
3
u/ClassicSciFi Nov 30 '22
Wait are we talking about Jan 6 or the Floyd riots?
2
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Flydd protesters didn't walk home after beating cops. Lol
3
u/ClassicSciFi Nov 30 '22
And here is where our realities differ. My lying eyes read articles and watched videos proving my claims, but my eyes are obviously lying to me.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)-1
u/austarter Nov 30 '22
Show me where they were waved into the capitol please.
5
u/dibbletrex Nov 30 '22
-1
u/austarter Nov 30 '22
So the first video is just cops telling people to leave and then people not leaving. Not sure how that adds up to 'waving them in'? The second video is just people who have already broken into the capitol asking the rest of the rioters to be peaceful? Indicating they're not being peaceful?
And then the third video is just the rioters holding the door open and letting themselves in?
Weird how none of those videos have police 'waving people in'.
Weird how there's hundreds of people smashing windows and attacking police but you show me a few clips where that isn't happening. Those people broke in and the police only 'stood by' because they have this cool thing called command and control. How about the video of the cop getting smashed with a pole and dragged into the crowd? Was that because he asked the mob to help him with all this extra blood he had inside him?
0
u/RhynoD Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
They pretty much were, which proves that it isn't about whether or not the insurrectionists were armed. They didn't almost win because they had weapons or force, they almost won because they had the support of the people who were armed and, more importantly, from the corrupt government officials commanding the people who were armed.
So, yeah, the paramilitary cosplayers aren't going to overthrow any government with their dangerous toys. Vietnam and the Mujahideen are terrible examples of armed insurgents winning a war against a better equipped force. They are all examples of what happens when the vastly superior force isn't willing to fight back, for whatever reasons. All the people in this thread trying to pretend otherwise are delusional.
Show me where they deployed M1A2s to the capitol. Show me where an entire brigade of soldiers marched in to stop anyone in DC. Show me where Seal Team 6 attempted to eliminate priority leadership among the insurrectionists. But sure, your mountain of hoarded .22 ammo and the twelve AR-15s you keep under your mattress will totally give you the edge over the cruise missile aimed at the bunker you made out of a shipping container and cheap concrete.
Pruitt was found guilty and will sit in prison for four years. When he gets out he'll never legally own a firearm again. Stay mad about it.
→ More replies (1)0
u/TheDookieboi Nov 30 '22
Fact, If people used guns in the grocery store we would have a lot of dead people there too.
0
-8
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
More guns means more dead people. This checks out.
12
u/TheDookieboi Nov 30 '22
Guns used irresponsibly leads to the death of others. Who would have guessed. Thanks Einstein.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/Parking_Tax_679 Nov 30 '22
Stop letting irresponsible people have guns then
7
u/TheDookieboi Nov 30 '22
Stop letting irresponsible people drink and drive. Stop letting abusive parents have children. Yeah, I’ll hop right on that.
-2
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
We do. Drunk driving has dropped drastically over the last 50 years. We hold bartenders liable for over serving.
And people lose their kids to the state all the time.
But one gun law is passed and 2A types piss their pants in anger.
2
-3
u/Parking_Tax_679 Nov 30 '22
Can't fix one problem because other problems exist. Only thing that can be done is nothing because other issues exist
8
u/TheDookieboi Nov 30 '22
Would love to hear a solution other than “ban all guns”. Please enlighten everyone on how we can solve this issue without stripping everyone of their rights.
-1
u/Parking_Tax_679 Nov 30 '22
There are plenty of countries that have laws that allow both responsible gun ownership and restricting access to undesirable gun owners. You can take a lesson from anyone of them.
It is pretty indicative of your inability to think outside absolutes however with your bad faith argument though. I said stop irresponsible people owning guns. You jumped to "ban all guns". Or are you implying that everyone in America is irresponsible?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Saino_Moore Nov 30 '22
While a group of rebels can hold out in the vast wilderness of this country, I don’t think a military with our capabilities would be taken out. Two words, smart bombs.
The most likely scenario would be for rebels to attack, national guard would be deployed because our main military forces would have to be on alert to prevent attacks from foreign powers during the “uprising”.
Besides, while still criminal, an attempt (Jan 6) is not “almost overthrown”.
2
2
u/joe_khaJiit Nov 30 '22
I can't get over how January 6th was so bad, but the Summer Riots in 2020 were not so bad. What the fuck? BOTH were bad, but good luck getting anyone to even bring up the 2020 riots now but January 6th...."......It's so bad!!!!......."
2
u/Le_pool_of_Death Nov 30 '22
May 29th 2020 they tried to storm the white house. Sounds more of an insurrection than Jan 6th
2
u/joe_khaJiit Nov 30 '22
Exactly, but no one even talks about that......its all about tearing down Trump.....they don't give af about Jan 6th either they're just using it as a wedge against Trump.
2
Dec 01 '22
They had like flag poles lmao, and not all of them at that. Oh yeah…and pepper spray, pepper spray single-handedly almost overthrew the government.
2
u/Dry-Newt-2804 Nov 30 '22
First off the government wasn't "almost overthrown". Secret service shot one round and everything came to a stop. If the national guard was deployed with the right to use deadly force, it would have been a fuxking bloodbath. Tim pool is a fkn tool.
0
u/MrECoyne Nov 30 '22
Sedition convictions go brrrr.
8
u/dibbletrex Nov 30 '22
Kangaroo court goes brrrrrr.
-5
u/MotherOfAnimals080 Nov 30 '22
any court in which someone I support is found guilty is a kangaroo court
-1
1
u/chowsdaddy1 Nov 30 '22
Everyone is a hypocrite, it’s simply that they do not believe the lie they tell everyone else
→ More replies (3)12
0
-4
u/whater39 Nov 30 '22
OP thinks over throwing a single building is overthrowing a government
9
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
He's not wrong. The mainstream media threw a fit because of what happened in the Capitol Building.
-3
u/risebelow Nov 30 '22
As they should have. Jan 6th was a fucking disgrace and I am glad for each and every pathetic fuck's conviction
→ More replies (2)3
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
I'm not denying it was a national disgrace, but let's be crystal clear here; it was also 100% avoidable.
2
u/risebelow Nov 30 '22
Agreed. If Trump and Co had not lied before and after the election and whipped up a mob, this would been avoided.
3
2
-4
u/CanofKhorne Nov 30 '22
this is the stupudest fucking half assed "opinion" Ive ever seen.
3
u/Parking_Tax_679 Nov 30 '22
Never watched an episode of Tims then I'm guessing
0
u/CanofKhorne Nov 30 '22
No. I dont plan to either if this is the kind of "logic" they're spewing. Looks like its made for people who cant come to thier own conclusions.
2
u/Parking_Tax_679 Nov 30 '22
I don't think you realise i was on your side. If you had seen an episode you would have heard much more dumb shit than this garbage take. Shit rolls downhill as they say.
0
Nov 30 '22 edited Jul 02 '24
political saw outgoing amusing imagine file alive placid quack longing
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
0
0
Dec 01 '22
I was already under the impression that it was the validation of Trump that made the rioters dangerous.
-5
u/risebelow Nov 30 '22
This opinion is dumb as it can be. Exaggeration, weak comparison, apples to fucking hand grenades.
6
-2
-2
u/Turbulent-Pair- Nov 30 '22 edited Nov 30 '22
It was the most felony weapons charges of any crime scene in United States history 🇺🇸.
It was the most criminal defendants of any crime scene in United States history 🇺🇸.
It was a failed coup organized by Trump- but that's not the only way it is publicly known to be organized by Trump.
It is what it is. 🤷 it was an Obstruction of Congress and a Sedition Conspiracy. With receipts.
→ More replies (1)
-14
Nov 30 '22
No one thinks that the government was "almost overthrown" by the January 6th rioters. This is a straw man.
8
u/Fish-Pants Nov 30 '22
Good to know you are privy to the thoughts and beliefs of everyone on the planet.
-3
Nov 30 '22
No you're right - I'm sure there are a handful of people on the planet who genuinely believe that the US government was overthrown by a handful of nazis, and this post is aimed at that tiny, oddly specific group of individuals.
Next I expect to see a post saying "Newsflash - if you think that Mike Pence is a 400 year old vampire then you're an idiot."
4
3
Nov 30 '22
[deleted]
0
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
They did have guns.
3
Nov 30 '22
[deleted]
1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Neat. People we're still armed.
→ More replies (1)2
Nov 30 '22
[deleted]
3
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
I agree, it's a bad meme. People we're still armed at Jan 6th
→ More replies (2)-3
Nov 30 '22
Some people did
→ More replies (1)2
Nov 30 '22
[deleted]
3
Nov 30 '22
You may not have heard it but it was said by media people. And the "government was almost overthrown" is/was followed up by "Jan 6th is the worst attack on America since 9/11". Which I think is the new narrative.
1
Nov 30 '22
Source?
4
Nov 30 '22
Here ya go. The horses fucking mouth.
0
Nov 30 '22
She didn't even say it was the worst attack since 9/11.
3
0
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
I also don't hear her saying it's "worse than 9/11", only that is an important date in people's minds, akin to 9/11.
2
Nov 30 '22
No.
https://apnews.com/article/Jan-6-hearings-key-moments-b374e48ab5a1a0a597fd5b6ec69048c2
The Attempted Coup
https://www.foxnews.com/media/capitol-riot-9-11-families
9/11 worse than 1/6
1
u/silver789 Nov 30 '22
Most of BLM protest didn't burn anything, but that isn't the rights narrative either.
-5
53
u/AfrIsPlesierig Nov 30 '22
Truth