riqster (7,079 posts)
The government is not, repeat NOT scared of your guns. Here’s proof.
Autumn (14,711 posts)
2. Look at the weapons the US military has. Do they think their 50 or 100 assorted guns
are worth a **** against the military's weakest firepower? A mouse facing off against a hawk.
badtoworse (4,344 posts)
10. If it ever came to that, I doubt it would be just a few militias.
It might start that way, but I think it would quickly spiral into something much bigger with a large portion of the population siding with the militias and helping them. That is how civil wars start. A scenario like that would be extremely difficult to contain.
jeff47 (10,691 posts)
15. Doubtful.
The US still cares somewhat about our reputation in Afghanistan, so we aren't being as brutal as we could be.
If the battle was for the US government's survival, as in your proposed civil war, they would unleash far more upon the rebels.
We'd be back to carpet-bombing cities and other massive destruction to break the rebellion. I'm not completely sure nukes would be off the table - they could get used as part of a last-ditch effort. Because it really doesn't matter if your government behaved relatively nicely when it no longer exists. Survival first, then deal with the backlash.
At which point the massively superior weaponry means your militia gets blown to smithereens, leaving an unorganized, low-grade insurrection. And that can be contained well enough to keep the government in power.
badtoworse (4,344 posts)
32. So the government would carpet bomb our own cities?
If that happened, I think anyone who was on the fence would quickly make up their mind.
jeff47 (10,691 posts)
35. Oh no, those are evil 'rebel' cities.
So they deserved to be carpet bombed.
We're talking about a situation like Syria, not Afghanistan. Assad has bombed his own people. Including his supporters. And he's used chemical weapons. He's still got about half the country behind him. His government is fighting for survival, so they're willing to do ANYTHING to win.
In your theoretical new US civil war, if the government thinks it will lose it will do ANYTHING to win.
Travis_0004 (1,370 posts)
103. I doubt it
First off, you are assuming that the US military would be willing to bomb US cities.
If that order was given, you would likely see a large portion of the military defect, and a lot would take their fancy equipment with them.
Also, in a civil war similar to the 1850's it be pretty safe to go in and bomb weapons factories, etc. But in a civil war like today, you might have one person who supports the revolution, living right next to a person against it. Are you going to bomb both of them?
loli phabay (5,510 posts)
58. there seems to be a belief that the military etc would happily follow orders to shoot their neighbou
like all civil wars there would be mass disobedience and desertions from whatever stripe of government ordered them to carpet bomb US cities. as to this fantasy that all the rebels would be middle aged fat guys running around there are shit loads of combat hardened disaffected people ou there and other competent nutters to make a fight of it. we would see car bombs, infrastructure attacks and the whole nine yards if it ever came to it. also this glee that the US military woukd happily kill all the militia members, remember if they can kill all right wingers at the drop of a hat whats to stop a radically different government ordering them to kill all with a left political slant. it is scarey to see people wish for a civil war, and the fact that they would sit safely in their basement wishing death on their neighbours makes them no more different from the people tjey want destroyed.
CANDO (1,542 posts)
41. What the gunhumpers fail to understand in such a scenario....
I and many millions of gun owning liberals would be shooting your asses for trying to overthrow our government. We'd be helping the military. Bet you never considered that angle.
PatrynXX (3,134 posts)
22. Which is how
when Republicans have a chance they actually do take those guns away...
Imagine this. To Norway and a friend of my dads said America has the most liberal <----- rules in the world on guns. Conservatives would take this away.. Have no idea why I have Zombies who think otherwise. Although it's really not funny walking into a gun show and having almost every table say if I'm a democrat I will not be served. So who's banning guns??
Lizzie Poppet (3,678 posts)
73. I can't agree.
As I said, "a certain non-insignificant percentage" does indeed abandon civilized behavior in disaster situations. To argue otherwise is to deny that looting (etc.) takes place under these conditions. That's absurd.
Are the majority disinclined to do this? Of course. I already stated that.
You seem more interested in making this a racial discussion, though. While that's certainly a legitimate area of discussion (and one in which I suspect we'd have little disagreement), it's not the focus of my point, nor is it a conversation I'm particularly interested in having.
So I guess we're done. Best wishes!
Spitfire of ATJ (13,481 posts)
74. Define "looting".
Spitfire of ATJ (13,481 posts)
72. "A certain, not-insignificant percentage of the population goes feral."
But it DOESN'T.
People are very patient after a disaster to get the comforts of civilization BACK.
There is this myth popular amongst white people that they INVENTED civilization and the other races are little more than trained primitives. It's the mindset of the "Great White Hunter" and the Apartheid Government in South Africa. We had people like Cheney claiming is was nonsense to think black people could govern themselves. On the contrary, according to the mindset, those types should be under constant guard to prevent an uprising.
Face it. A LOT of this "civilization falling" is just CODE for a race war that bigots WANT because they dream of the day when white people will take to the streets and execute all non-whites on sight.
Such a thing has happened before in this country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
Then there's this gem of history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_River_Massacre (Read the section: Massacre and actions of U.S. soldiers)
As far as the whole "reverting to savages" it seems white people are the ones to do it and all this talk of "freedom" is the freedom to run amok.
CANDO (1,542 posts)
41. What the gunhumpers fail to understand in such a scenario....
I and many millions of gun owning liberals would be shooting your asses for trying to overthrow our government. We'd be helping the military. Bet you never considered that angle.
We'd be back to carpet-bombing cities
The government is not, repeat NOT scared of your guns. Here’s proof.
I and many millions of gun owning liberals
That was almost too funny right there.
He means 'hoodrats,' Sparky.
The leftists just assume the military will be on 'their' side.
Go for it, Billy Mitchell Junior. They're your centers of gravity, not ours.
CANDO (1,542 posts)
41. What the gunhumpers fail to understand in such a scenario....
I and many millions of gun owning liberals would be shooting your asses for trying to overthrow our government. We'd be helping the military. Bet you never considered that angle.
Travis_0004 (1,370 posts)Think you are about a decade off there.
103. I doubt it
First off, you are assuming that the US military would be willing to bomb US cities.
If that order was given, you would likely see a large portion of the military defect, and a lot would take their fancy equipment with them.
Also, in a civil war similar to the 1850's it be pretty safe to go in and bomb weapons factories, etc. But in a civil war like today, you might have one person who supports the revolution, living right next to a person against it. Are you going to bomb both of them?
Also, in a civil war similar to the 1850's
Think you are about a decade off there.
What the primitives don't think about is that those who may not be current gun owners that would be willing to pick up a gun to defend their homes. Most of those who fought in the civil war in the 1860's for the CSA were not slave owners, but those that were defending their homes against a hostile invading force.
I'm not completely sure nukes would be off the table - they could get used as part of a last-ditch effort.
Now, now......these are our edJukayshuny bettors. It must be true. :whatever:What do you expect from a bunch who gained their military experience from a playstation?
:cheersmate:
Oh my.....the little fascists sure do love their escalation. Nukes..... :rotf: :rotf:
Oh my.....the little fascists sure do love their escalation. Nukes..... :rotf: :rotf:
If the govt wasn't afraid of our guns, then there would be no push to take them away.
If the govt wasn't afraid of our guns, then there would be no push to take them away.
Thus we learn the truth. The govt is scared to death of privately held guns.
If the govt wasn't afraid of our guns, then there would be no push to take them away.
Thus we learn the truth. The govt is scared to death of privately held guns.
I could care less if the government was "scared" of my guns.They are....that's why they want to disarm you.
I prefer the government be scared of me.
riqster (7,079 posts)
The government is not, repeat NOT scared of your guns. Here’s proof.
CANDO (1,542 posts)
41. What the gunhumpers fail to understand in such a scenario....
I and many millions of gun owning liberals would be shooting your asses for trying to overthrow our government. We'd be helping the military. Bet you never considered that angle.