←back to thread

628 points nodea2345 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
nvahalik ◴[] No.21125093[source]
> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator

This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

replies(26): >>21125127 #>>21125139 #>>21125892 #>>21126027 #>>21126073 #>>21126084 #>>21126204 #>>21126397 #>>21126398 #>>21126638 #>>21126890 #>>21126892 #>>21127286 #>>21127513 #>>21127874 #>>21127880 #>>21128227 #>>21128793 #>>21129412 #>>21129418 #>>21129526 #>>21129658 #>>21130063 #>>21130220 #>>21131181 #>>21131653 #
swarnie_[dead post] ◴[] No.21125127[source]
Non-American here, i never really understood your second amendment or how you cling to it in the modern age.

What are a couple of rednecks with assault rifles (which arguably they shouldn't be able to purchase anyway) going to do against semi-autonomy kill droids being flown from a bunker in the desert?

sudhirj ◴[] No.21125160[source]
Same thing the original Americans did when protesting the massively better trained and armed British Army. Keep their wits about them and keep fighting.

If anything the war in Afghanistan has proven that technology is no match for resilience and grit.

replies(4): >>21125607 #>>21125666 #>>21125926 #>>21125974 #
1. moate ◴[] No.21125974[source]
You're completely overlooking the fact that fighting a foreign war =/= fighting a domestic threat. The Afghanis greatest asset is their ability to use their land/people to hide and strike. I don't think you get that advantage in a US civil war, because who would know the US better than US citizens.

Even the previous US civil war isn't a great example because that was a regional war before modern technology. You could have guerilla forces hiding out in southern backwaters that the Union wasn't familiar with. It would be much harder to do that in a country as massively surveilled as the modern US.

These wars would not be the same, and this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of the conflict.