Is the US the only country in the world where "civilians should have the right to bear arms so they can overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical" is an argument often heard in mainstream political discourse?
Pic related is literally the official seal of my state
We don't have the same fear of government here.
When's the last time the British government became "tyrannical"? I don't think it has ever happened. You have to go before the UK was formed, before the Glorious Revolution
If the US government "goes nuts", what are you guns going to do against the US military?
And if the US military isn't going to turn on the public, what's the point of having guns to protect you from the government?
The whole thing doesn't make sense when you have a fuckhuge standing army with the technological edge to fuck you up really badly
>And if the US military isn't going to turn on the public, what's the point of having guns to protect you from the government?
It's almost like you think every single person in the military would decide the same thing.
Unfortunately I am retarded enough to always bing it to discussions, and making everyone debate based on their feelings, then telling this fact to them, then 'muh feelings, so that I feel some accomplishment. I am a terrible man at parties.
Are you talking about the IRA or something?
>It's almost like you think every single person in the military would decide the same thing.
What difference do your guns make if some of the US military doesn't fight? Do you not understand the technological disparity?
Militias are worthless unless they're supported by some foreign professional military. History should have taught you that obvious lesson.
What, like the government decides tomorrow to put up an incredibly repressive fascist tyranny and no one saw it coming?
No, you guys discuss a lot of weird shit.
Like how often your politicians discuss God and their religion. That's the one that really boggles my mind.
Or how much your politician's private lives and personality enter the discussion.
Your country's political discourse if fucked man.
>What difference do your guns make if some of the US military doesn't fight? Do you not understand the technological disparity?
>Militias are worthless unless they're supported by some foreign professional military.
Holy shit you're dumb
>History should have taught you that obvious lesson.
Oh the ironing..
If its a Democrat-nuts thing then the army will mutiny because its overwhelmingly republican, or it would just incure the wrath of most conservatives which happens to be the main demographic that owns guns. Either way at least 50,000,000 revolting (aka a lot, the army is only 2,000,000 and all over the world)
If its a Republican-type nuts then it will probably be something retarded like Facism which would just cause a general revolt, again at least 50,000,000 because while it would have less gun nuts revolting, a shitton of democrats would also revolt.
If its just a vanilla military junta/dictatorship then there would just be a general revolt. similar numbers to the rest.
The tech disparity is pretty irrelevant considering the numbers we are dealing with. There is some autistic post some guy who claims to have been a part of the government team who thought about this that showed how improbable it is for the US government to survive a large-scale revolt due to the absurd amount of people and arms. While he was probably lying about being on that gov team, everything he listed makes perfect sense if you were to think about the situation. I'll try to find it as its probably somewhere on /k/, It will explain it better than I could.
tl;dr The number and manpower disparity is too great for the US to overcome without doing something very very stupid.
I don't really understand how you can assume all the USAF's pilots will give up their careers as fighter pilots for the opportunity of becoming unemployed and living in an unstable country without the State they're accustomed to. This is pretty specific fantasy you've got going.
>Bombs win wars
This is just a meme, it doesn't work
again the military will be outnumbered at least 5 to 1 at worst, 25 to 1 in my wet dreams. You could have a ton of fat guys with sticks revolt in this scenario and they would still win just based off numbers
I don't understand why you think a highly educated person like a pilot would need a pissant government paycheck so badly they would willingly bomb the very people they signed up to protect.
How many examples can you think of where a revolt against the State was successful without help from external forces?
Of the top of my heard, there's the Haitian revolution. That's about it. Any others?
But according to the state propaganda, it's you lot who are attacking the people they signed up to protect. You're the bad guys. The USA has had a civil war already. You know how this goes. Are you just playing stupid?
But the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq were supported by external forces, and the remnants of the professional internal armed forces (in the case of Iraq)
Sorry, try again. Where is this irony?
>How many examples can you think of where a revolt against the State was successful without help from external forces?
Chinese Communist Revolution
Didn't the Soviets do it on their own? I can't honestly remember if they got any help, I would assume not considering who they were.
Its a similar situation to Haiti and Russia where too large a portion of the population would revolt. Also wasn't there indication from Russia that they would aid a large-scale rebellion in America? You can't seriously think that many countries wouldn't want us to fall flat on our asses, outside interfearence is almost assured for both sides but considering that there is likely to be far more people on the rebellion side I would firmly place my bets on the rebels.
Terrible example. The revolution failed, it became a tyrannical dictatorship and then things got so bad they brought the Monarch back.
External forces did that. Foreign armies crushed the Russian military, and then the Germans sent Lenin into Russia. Remember: Russia imported all that shit from Germany.
>Chinese Communist Revolution
Fuckloads of external influence, on both sides!
>Didn't the Soviets do it on their own?
No, see above
>outside interfearence is almost assured for both sides
Erm, no. No one is going to be fighting the US military to interfere in American domestic issues, unless you're talking about some distant future where the US military has declined severely
>What, like the government decides tomorrow to put up an incredibly repressive fascist tyranny and no one saw it coming?
How is that at all outlandish? How do you think tyrants come to power, campaigning on a tyrant platform?
There was no foreign intervention supporting the Revolutionaries in either war.
>Terrible example. The revolution failed, it became a tyrannical dictatorship and then things got so bad they brought the Monarch back.
The French Revolutionaries did successfully overthrow the state, which means that the revolution was a success, whatever happened after is irrelevant.
by intervene i mean supply with arms
thats all they really need to do, the US military is only 2,000,000 fighters all over the world and the people that would revolt would likely be far more than that. The Russian Civil war (in which the winners did have little to no outside support, I just checked) had 3,000,000 v 2,400,000, with the former winning. Imagine 10,000,000 v 2,000,000 in a smaller country.
It can be gradual, I mean just look at the American Revoltuion ;^)
Something that europeans might not really get is the sheer size of america. We have vast sparsely populated countryside where its very easy to hide.
Despite its superior firepower, our millitary hasn't been able to subdue guerillas in vietnam or afghanistan, and it wouldn't be able to here either.
A determined populace cannot be subdued with brute military force. That's where "winning hearts and minds" comes in.
How can you say the revolutionaries didn't have help? This is basic history.
The Russian Revolution happened because the Russian Army was hammered in WW1. This is what started the whole thing off, leading to the civil war and the Soviets. Defeat by foreign armies led to mutinies and the Army couldn't function properly.
Similarly, in the Chinese one, the KMT was repeatedly smashed by the Japanese until it was worn down and too weak to stop Mao
If you're using these as your examples, then please tell me, in your little fantasy scenarios, how does the US military get weakened enough for the people to act?
The US army is all around the world, the rebels wouldn't be fighting the main bulk for a while. The army is going to be very outnumbered, and the army will also be primarily fighting people they probably know, as most of the army comes from the south and most people with guns to revolt come from the south.
Also if the government bombs its own people, a shitton of people who wouldn't revolt would go out into revolt.
Please stop referring to this in such a high and mighty way, it just makes you look like a cunt
This isn't mythology its just basic logic to realize that there is a shitton of people with guns (1/3, ~104,000,000) and if only 1/20th of them revolted the army would still be outnumbered more than 2 to 1. They would be fighting these millions of people, who are fighting like guerillas which the US has shown to be poor at fighting. It would be like vietnam part 2.
Sorry if this is hard to understand, I am a very bad writer.
I'll admit I forgot about the Japanese in WWII and the fact that the Russian military was shit during WWI, and that I was only looking at the civil wars individually without any care to what was going on in other wars at the time, but that still doesn't change the fact that the French Revolution was still a success.
>how does the US military get weakened enough for the people to act?
Who said that it has to get weakened? The US military loses wars just like they did in Vietnam and in the Middle East, so it's logical that they would lose to the people if they decided to Revolt.
You're actually an idiot.
1. Why would the government start bombing its own people for no reason? It would have to be provoked, or engineer a provocation, which means your rebels become terrorists
2. The "main bulk" of the US Army, and the USAF, is in the USA.
The USA isn't Vietnam or the Middle East. It's home turf and the stakes are MUCH higher. I can't believe you're trying to use those analogies.
The Army is still outnumbered heavily, and I mentioned the bombs because thats a big advantage the Army has over the rebels.
even if there was a provokation they are still bombing themselves, it will have a similar effect.
The Vietnam and Middle east analogies work because:
1. Similar to vietnam you don't know who is good and who is bad, which is a large psycological thing
2. Higher stakes =/= higher chance of winning. If they cannot win they cannot win. The US could have won Vietnam by literally exterminating every vietnamese person, but they can't do that in this situation because they would be exterminating their own people.
Again you could have only 1/20th of the people who own guns revolt and they would still win just based off numbers.
the fact that its home turf also means the government won't be as willing to go all out. They need something left to rule at the end, otherwise its better to just make a deal.
Plus soliders are going to be more hesitant about fighting their own people, and many are likely to desert to the rebels, which was not reallya possibility in vietnam for example
>Plus soliders are going to be more hesitant about fighting their own people
Sure, but won't rebels also be more hesitant about shooting soldiers who probably went to school with them rather than for example North Koreans in some sort of Red Dawn scenario?
The most ironic thing is how little Americans care about these things which the founding fathers were like "you faggots better not stray far from this otherwise you're going to have a really really bad time" and then the absolute (subhuman) madmen lards did it anyway. Gun talk is just one side of the case. To be quompletely honest I hope Trump wins and just makes real life into an even bigger meme than it already is. Let him build his huge comical wall, kick out all the mexicans, and then crown himself king or emperor or whatever he wants.
Yeah, but its probably harder for a rebel to defect to the government than the other way around. I am not the guy you quoted, but I don't like to use what he said as a point for the reason you gave.
>Americans don't complain about government
Good news then because he will win.
The political zeitgeist surrounding Trump now in 2016, feels a lot like the one around Obama in 2008....different crowds of course but then enthusiasm, obsession even if palpable.
I know why this is happening but I wish it was different. I wish people cared about 'boring' political details but that shit doesn't make headlines.
I'm not going to say what I think about Obama, but regardless I think he probably won for the wrong reasons, same as future president Trump will.
Those are just the memes that reach the outside world. In reality the party that isn't in power vehemetly complains about politics until they get in power, at which point they complain that the president isn't doing enough.
They complain about the government in vague terms equivalent to shaking your fist at the sky going "arh darn you!". Remember back when the whole NSA thing got blown wide open? Nobody cared after a week. That shit should have sent people on the streets, but it didn't because people don't care. I think the reason guns get a rise out of people is because it's the older generation who hold that dear, whereas the young don't care about privacy, not so much because they "don't have anything to hide", maybe they feel that a bit, but it's mainly because it's a hassle. Why bother when you could snap Stacie and go to a party?
>I'm not going to say what I think about Obama, but regardless I think he probably won for the wrong reasons, same as future president Trump will.
Why won't you say?
He won because he was black. If Hillary wasn't so completely retarded she would have stood a chance against Trump because then it wouldn't have been >omg so progressive black presdant it would have been >omg so progressive womyn presdant.
>"at which point they complain that the president isn't doing enough."
>meanwhile the senate, owned by lobbyists, owned by corporations, is the one actually deciding shit
Come on now. In the US there's shit(medicine if I remember correctly from the documentary) sold that China has banned in China, but they still make it to export to the US because the companies in the US just pay some people to say "oh yeah in small doses this doesn't actually do anything :D now buy it's safe!"
>the satori generation
The implication being that the new generation is somehow "enlightened"
How is lack of sincerity a good thing? Living in a state of constant irony and seeing how can care the least, becoming apathetic about politics and anything serious in general, these are not healthy and not good ways to live.
Anti-depressant usage has skyrocketed, people are lost, not enlightened.
Australia has the Governor-General, which is a representative of the Queen. He or she has the power to dismiss ministers, dissolve parliament and a bunch of other cool powers. The position seems pretty ceremonial, the Governor-General has only dismissed government once in our nation's history.
Not that it's "enlightened" in that they're better, but that they don't have an unrealistic view of life, i.e. don't chase dreams but simply aim to be as content as possible.
>How is lack of sincerity a good thing? Living in a state of constant irony and seeing how can care the least, becoming apathetic about politics and anything serious in general, these are not healthy and not good ways to live.
Because that's what things have come to? It's a development of Western society and culture. If anything it's the most sincere it's been, maybe ever, because they aren't trying to fool themselves that maybe one day, some day, things will be better. They know things will never be truly good as they would want it to be, so they mess around and take nothing seriously, because what's the point of taking anything seriously? You already got all that you want, you're content, might as well take the piss out of people who genuinely care about getting a fast car, big house, important company job, etc.
>Anti-depressant usage has skyrocketed, people are lost, not enlightened.
They're dealing with life by doing drugs to feel good, sure you could spin that and call them "lost", but aren't people who have a midlife crisis also lost? People who never grow out of their teen/young adult mentality? People who simply slave away at their dead-end job just 'cause?
You pussies think you're as hard as sheep-shaggers in Afghanistan who've been fighting an eternal insurgency war against various superpowers for generations?
They're hard as fucking nails. You little bitch boys wouldn't last 5 minutes
Most will probably give up pretty quickly but thankfully there is a shitton of people who need to give up before it starts mattering, and at base there is far more than enough ballsy hicks to carry a rebellion in their place while sensible people lead it.
>The baby boomer generation is pretty leftist
Bullshit, baby boomers are more conservative. Conservatives in general are the ones that usually push surveillance