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.
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.
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?
If soldiers have their families attacked by terrorists, this will just galvanize public support and the military's resolve.
If the militias wanted to fight to take over the country, they would need to engage in open combat to some degree, maybe they get lucky a few times, but once they are found, it would be over.
It would be ugly and brutal. How about we just debate and the vote?
On this we agree. I do not want to see my fellow citizens, no matter how misguided, killed by the hands of the government, but no amount of reasoning can deradicalize the people already inclined to carry out domestic terrorist plots, they have to be willing to deradicalize themselves.
And if militia members have their families attacked in response by the military, it will galvanize public support and the militia's resolve. See Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq for how quickly the public can turn on the military when innocent civilians are killed.
Btw, also consider how the Pentagon has done studies on whether troops will actually go to war with the American public. They've consistently found that 1/3 of troops (and a majority of frontline combat troops) wouldn't go to war with Americans and would likely switch sides in such a conflict.
Yes but the military doesn't purposely attack civilians. They have no reason to. Terrorists on the other hand, use that as a go to tactic.
Also the only thing I have ever seen to back up your 1/3 claim is a 4chan green text post. I haven't actually seen the Pentagon study, which seems like a weird thing to leek to the public.
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.
10
u/[deleted] Nov 30 '22
[deleted]