pull down to refresh
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb \ parent \ on: ABORTION and GUNS poll culture
I don't think the next revolution in the US will be fought with guns. However, in the years leading up to some kind of revolution, the guns are needed to prevent innocent people from becoming the prey of violent criminals, which the government is unwilling to, or unable to prosecute. Governments are encouraging anti-social and violent acts against innocent people, if it serves their agenda, and purposely not punishing violent criminals.
Only a fool would argue to go up against a modern military with only rifles. A modern civilian uprising would need to be asymmetric.
One way it could happen is the people and their state governments vs the federal government. Then there would be a much bigger cost to the federal government to put down the uprising. Large, wealthy states like Texas could conceivably, go on a Bitcoin standard, and be free of the only leverage the federal government has, which is the money printer. The only option left to the federal government would be kinetic.
In this case I think it would be important for individual states, or a coalition, were capable of deploying nuclear weapons if needed. Because, I agree with you on how brutal the US government could get -- nukes are going to be the only deterrent to an increasingly desperate government.
I truly hope I don't see the usage of nukes in my lifetime. If we're there... We are beyond F'd.
It's very difficult to imagine the separation of govt and state when it came to military. One way or another that militia is going up against the US Army. There is no Texas Army or California Corps there is only the US military and they swore oaths to enact the will of the US govt as directed by the US govt.
Though I hope factions may splinter off and help the people Vs the govt. I'm not convinced they really would. Not if the well funded govt convinces them that quelling an uprising was in the national interest over and above the local interest.
Like you mentioned civil unrest is being encouraged in places the capitol riots for one. Whatever side you take, that's an uprising caused by the instruction of one political figure. That political figure can say all they like. The footage doesn't lie they said if the election did not go their way then their supporters would march on capitol hill. That's not hyperbole that was an instruction that many acted upon.
My issue with claiming that guns keep people safe from violent criminals is that... If you need military grade weaponry to handle some thugs... You're in over your head and need to be getting out. If a single shot from a 9mm pistol doesn't give you escape time, then it's too late for assault rifles. Having access to that type of equipment for civilians in my view is counter intuitive... Because those same violent criminals have access to them too and they're probably far more willing to use them than innocent people. I wouldn't say that access to that tier of weaponry protects anyone, all it does is increase the likelihood of those weapons being used for bad things. Increasing the death toll dramatically in the event of an incident. They're not protecting people's lives they're being used to take them.
As I mentioned further down in my responses "Military grade weaponry isn't a deterrent that's intent. That weapon is designed for one thing only, you own that weapon and have intent to use it then you absolutely 100% have premeditated intent to kill. A pistol isn't designed to kill. Infact 9mm is designed to stop not kill. 5.56 rounds are designed to fragment and cause maximum damage, they're designed to maim and to kill. That's not reasonable or proportional force when it comes to deterring looters." Those weapons don't protect innocents they escalate situations.
reply