Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Clubber 1458 days ago
>Never mind that gun owners in America don't have the organization, training, resources, or equipment to effectively combat a police department, much less the US army quelling an armed insurrection, even if their rights ever were legitimately threatened.

This is a common argument, but completely ignores what the Taliban/Iraqis/ISIS did to the best and most well funded military for 20 years. What the Vietnamese did 40 years before that; completely ignoring 60 years of actual events.
1 comments
hackyhacky 1458 days ago
The Taliban were repelling an invading army. The Viet Cong were strictly trained.

Do you think ordinary Americans have the skill or appetite to take up arms against other Americans? Especially better trained and equipped Americans?

How far do you think the Jan 6 insurrectionists would have gotten had the capitol police taken the threat at all seriously?

The argument that "America's armed forces have lost wars" does not support your conclusion that "ordinary Americans are capable of defeating America's armed forces."

And you also conveniently ignore the rest of argument, pointing out that a democratic government doesn't need armed insurrections.

link
throwaway0a5e 1458 days ago
>Do you think ordinary Americans have the skill or appetite to take up arms against other Americans? Especially better trained and equipped Americans?

IDK. Ask the Irish.

The Taliban, VC, etc, had basically ZERO ability to mess with the invading army's supply lines or the political process keeping those supply lines open. Furthermore, the martial law steps taken in places like Iraq to stem the violence would be much more politically costly domestically. I can crap out plenty of non-US examples of this kind of thing if that helps.

This shit is all basic stuff covered in Armchair General 101. Educate yourself.

link
hackyhacky 1458 days ago
> This shit is all basic stuff covered in Armchair General 101. Educate yourself.

Based on the snide tone of condescension, this response sounds like it was written by precisely the kind of delusional macho wannabe who fetishizes firearms and dreams of one day murdering someone.

link
throwaway0a5e 1458 days ago
>this response sounds like it was written by precisely the kind of delusional macho wannabe who fetishizes firearms and dreams of one day murdering someone.

Or maybe I've read just a little bit of history and think you're the delusional one.

Civil wars don't go down like foreign occupations. If this nation breaks down into widespread violence (I don't personally think it would, I think it would balkanize before we ever got to that point) I hope that you live long enough to be subject to is so that you may learn an important lesson and that some future generation may be spared the task of mopping up the mess.

link
hackyhacky 1458 days ago
> maybe I've read just a little bit of history and think you're the delusional one.

That's exactly the problem: you've read some history and now you think you're an expert in civil war.

link
throwaway0a5e 1458 days ago
The point wasn't how much I've read. The point was that "just a little bit" is the threshold amount of knowledge above which people stop spouting the kinds of things you're spouting. Nobody from armchair generals all the way up to real professionals says the hand-wavy things about foreign war tactics being portable to domestic wars without losing substantial efficacy like you're saying.
link
Clubber 1458 days ago
>you think you're an expert in civil war.

Are you? What are you basing your opinion on?

link