Donald Trump wants to arm teachers with guns

[Pat Mustard]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Waves the Constitution in our faces. Shoots through it if their toys are endangered.

[KevinM1]

A document that was written in the era of muskets, when the colonial government and populace were about on par with each other in terms of military might (indeed, without a standing army, the local populace was the military might of the colonies).

One's assault rifle, despite being an incredibly formidable weapon in its own right, does jack shit against an attack helicopter, tank, armed drone, jets, etc.  The notion of armed revolution in the modern era is ridiculous.  Turkey couldn't even manage it when portions of its army sided with the people and attempted to stage a coup.

I say this as a person living in the "Live Free or Die" state.  This isn't the mid-to-late 1700s any more.  Any romantic notions of successful armed revolution are bullshit.  Reality isn't Red Dawn.

Organized crime can still operate, because their fire power is a massive deterrent to government intervention.  It doesn't have to be a revolution.  The populace can be enough of a threat that subduing them isn't feasible.

It's a deterrent due to the way organized crime operates - among the citizenry.  The government doesn't go in guns blazing specifically because of the innocents in the way.  They also work hard to ensure any arrest warrants will have as good a chance as possible to lead to an actual prison sentence.  So, they spend their time carefully obtaining and cataloging evidence and building a case.  Wanton violence is a direct hindrance to such measures.

If the government was actually tyrannical, it wouldn't give a shit about the people in the way.  It would just come in with a few missile strikes, then with tanks and flamethrowers to catch the stragglers.  Don't let the romantic fantasy pushed by conservative pundits blind you to reality.  The government has weaponry that can strike people without them even knowing.  It's been put to great effect in the Middle East in the last ~17 years.  The only reason why ISIS and the Taliban still exist is because we still - to an obvious certain extent - respect the sovereignty of other nations, and find the idea of collateral damage to civilians abhorrent.

My brothers and cousin and their friends own, between them, somewhere around 15-25 AR-15s in different configurations.  And all that firepower is going to do jack shit if a Predator drone is pointed their way.  Or if tanks actually roll down the street.  Or if a few Apache gunships decide to have some fun with them.  Or if an F-22 drops some ordinance on them.  Or any of the other sudden, no-way-to-defend-against-it ways the government has at its disposal to kill people.

Weekend Rambos would have absolutely 0 chance in a revolution against the US if the government was actually tyrannical.  And it's absurd to think that their weaponry, rather than the moral choices of the government, is what's stopping it from happening.

[Amarok]

Organized crime can still operate, because their fire power is a massive deterrent to government intervention.  It doesn't have to be a revolution.  The populace can be enough of a threat that subduing them isn't feasible.

No it doesn't . No they won't subdue they will exterminate .

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Organized crime can still operate, because their fire power is a massive deterrent to government intervention.  It doesn't have to be a revolution.  The populace can be enough of a threat that subduing them isn't feasible.

No it doesn't . No they won't subdue they will exterminate .

The 1%'ers can't do anything on their own.  They rely upon willing thugs to do their dirty work.

[Amarok]

The 1%'ers can't do anything on their own.  They rely upon willing thugs to do their dirty work.

Keep telling yourself that

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The 1%'ers can't do anything on their own.  They rely upon willing thugs to do their dirty work.

Keep telling yourself that

Do you think Bezos or Buffett will personally whack you upside your head?

[KevinM1]

No it doesn't . No they won't subdue they will exterminate .

The 1%'ers can't do anything on their own.  They rely upon willing thugs to do their dirty work.

And the hyper-masculine, "snowflakes and cucks and alphas not betas and blue lives matter and fuck Colin Kaepernick and molon labe and make America great again and libtards and..." culture that's being pushed by the right is ensuring that such thugs will be in ready supply.

[henryp]

Organized crime can still operate, because their fire power is a massive deterrent to government intervention.  It doesn't have to be a revolution.  The populace can be enough of a threat that subduing them isn't feasible.

My brothers and cousin and their friends own, between them, somewhere around 15-25 AR-15s in different configurations.  And all that firepower is going to do jack shit if a Predator drone is pointed their way.  Or if tanks actually roll down the street.  Or if a few Apache gunships decide to have some fun with them.  Or if an F-22 drops some ordinance on them.  Or any of the other sudden, no-way-to-defend-against-it ways the government has at its disposal to kill people.

Weekend Rambos would have absolutely 0 chance in a revolution against the US if the government was actually tyrannical.  And it's absurd to think that their weaponry, rather than the moral choices of the government, is what's stopping it from happening.

Yeah, if it was 1740, and your brother lined up in a field across from the US Army, best team wins situation, it'd be nothing.  Just like we'd have been out of Iraq in a week playing by those rules.  Using Iraq again as an example, there's never any doubt the US could conquer Iraq.  The insurgency wasn't thinking "Maybe we'll kill all of them before they kill all of us!"  It's about the price.  Can you make it so expensive that it's not worth it.  And if the US had a rough expensive go of it in Iraq, imagine trying to deal with the continental United States filled with millions of reasonably well armed civilians.  Where would you even begin? An urban gorilla war in a 3.8 million square mile expanse of land?  Iraq was 170k for comparison.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

My brothers and cousin and their friends own, between them, somewhere around 15-25 AR-15s in different configurations.  And all that firepower is going to do jack shit if a Predator drone is pointed their way.  Or if tanks actually roll down the street.  Or if a few Apache gunships decide to have some fun with them.  Or if an F-22 drops some ordinance on them.  Or any of the other sudden, no-way-to-defend-against-it ways the government has at its disposal to kill people.

Weekend Rambos would have absolutely 0 chance in a revolution against the US if the government was actually tyrannical.  And it's absurd to think that their weaponry, rather than the moral choices of the government, is what's stopping it from happening.

Yeah, if it was 1740, and your brother lined up in a field across from the US Army, best team wins situation, it'd be nothing.  Just like we'd have been out of Iraq in a week playing by those rules.  Using Iraq again as an example, there's never any doubt the US could conquer Iraq.  The insurgency wasn't thinking "Maybe we'll kill all of them before they kill all of us!"  It's about the price.  Can you make it so expensive that it's not worth it.  And if the US had a rough expensive go of it in Iraq, imagine trying to deal with the continental United States filled with millions of reasonably well armed civilians.  Where would you even begin? An urban gorilla war in a 3.8 million square mile expanse of land?  Iraq was 170k for comparison.

The way to win a war against civilians is to poison the water and cutoff the food.  It helps to mount constant attacks 24-7 even if they are low-level.