|
|
|
|
|
by justasitsounds
1490 days ago
|
|
> It is difficult for governments to commit large scale atrocities without the consent of the governed unless those so governed are first disarmed. Not when the government has tanks, attack helicopters and assorted hardware that IS prohibited for the public to own > A more modern example was the prohibition of the free movement of the Australian population during covid. Australians were held prisoner by the state and were not permitted to leave. Not true. You could leave and you could also enter - but would have to stay in mandatory quarantine. |
|
We've demonstrated time and time again what a determined populace in their home region is capable of doing to a technologically and numerically superior opponent.
Such as in Vietnam which isn't incredibly dissimilar from the deep South, or Afghanistan which is very similar to the environment you would find in Idaho and Wyoming.
I mean the wider discussion can still be had but if the federal government decided to start a fight over this it would be very similar to an Afghanistan or Vietnam situation but about 2-3x worse as the area to cover would be much larger and would likely have to deal with internal problems in the military as they tend to be very well represented in the pro-gun crowd.
Unless your suggesting the US military would start carrying out strategic bombing operations against its own citizens on its own soil.