←back to thread

628 points nodea2345 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
Fezzik ◴[] No.21126073[source]
I always find this sentiment a little silly - if the US President went in to full dictator mode and had the support of the military, do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces? And if s/he did not have the support of the Armed Forces, it would not be a very effective dictatorship and you would not even need guns for a rebellion. I truly do not get it.
replies(45): >>21126088 #>>21126117 #>>21126119 #>>21126144 #>>21126159 #>>21126160 #>>21126165 #>>21126171 #>>21126173 #>>21126175 #>>21126182 #>>21126186 #>>21126219 #>>21126220 #>>21126294 #>>21126330 #>>21126331 #>>21126370 #>>21126377 #>>21126378 #>>21126426 #>>21126440 #>>21126450 #>>21126487 #>>21126517 #>>21126799 #>>21126947 #>>21127039 #>>21127190 #>>21127208 #>>21127264 #>>21127378 #>>21127491 #>>21127495 #>>21127510 #>>21127657 #>>21127816 #>>21128112 #>>21128474 #>>21129036 #>>21129097 #>>21129146 #>>21129149 #>>21129991 #>>21131323 #
rgbrenner ◴[] No.21126517[source]
We can't defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan... and that's just the size of Texas. The rocky mountains cover more area than AF; our borders are more porous (the Canadian border is the longest in the world); and our citizens have the most firearms in the world - total or per person (far more than AF or IQ). The US military cant stop insurgents from moving across the border with Pakistan, but they would be able to stop them on a border 4x longer? They can't stop drugs from south america (at the mexican border, or through the gulf of mexico), but they would if it were money or weapons?

I've posted this here before: The US military has an urban warfare document that states the number of troops required to secure N population. It's based on their experience and the experience of others in past wars in holding urban terrain. If you add up all of the military, police, national guard, fbi, etc... you aren't even close to the number the US military says are required to secure the US. Even if they hired millions of people to do so, they would still leave large swaths of the US unsecured (like the rocky mountains) where insurgents could operate.

I don't know why when this is brought up people imagine citizens would stand face to face with the US military. Like they would be so dumb as to stick their face in front of a gun and ask they be shot.

The US military says they can't secure the US from an insurgency. If you think otherwise, I would seriously like to hear what you base that on.

replies(3): >>21126768 #>>21127415 #>>21127873 #
1. dragonwriter ◴[] No.21127873[source]
> We can't defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan

With supply lines halfway across the globe, and a military most of whose personnel don't speak the language, don't know the country, don't know the culture, etc. And, in most of time we've notionally been trying, only a fairly small deployment compared to our total military force.

replies(1): >>21128267 #
2. Mirioron ◴[] No.21128267[source]
But in the case of a civil war the supply lines themselves are under threat at all times. It's even worse than that, because military action itself will likely harm their own supply lines, because it's the populace that creates those supplies. If you're fighting against the populace, then you're not getting supplies from them.