"I'm sorry, but what power does your cabinet full of shotguns and assault rifles give you against the largest military in the world?" (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
78 ups - 37 downs = 41 votes
87 comments submitted at 19:46:19 on May 23, 2014 by 75000_Tokkul
I've never understood the rationale that the military is a distinct entity that is completely separate from the citizenry of the United States, and that all of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen would be willing to kill citizens of the United States on US soil.
People keep saying that, but they seem to think the citizens are gonna be on board with the idea of killing people in the military? They're Americans too, no?
Why do you guys think something could get regular citizens, with no combat training, so riled up they'd be capable of killing another american, but the actual soldiers are gonna pussy out.
Nevermind that once citizens start gunning down soldiers those soldiers are going to feel like they wont be safe on the side of the citizens, so they'll stay with the military for protection.
People will kill someone who is trying to kill them. You'd kill your mom if she started coming at you. The only thing that makes soldiers different is that they're usually better at killing.
I don't see it happening so much in the way of face-to-face, the soldier not stopping the person about to stab him, but more along the lines of back at the base camp the soldier considering their orders for tomorrow, and wondering why exactly they are about to run operations against the general populace.
> People keep saying that, but they seem to think the citizens are gonna be on board with the idea of killing people in the military? They're Americans too, no?
Military. No. Armed revolt against a future(as in relative to today) government. Possible.
To be honest, I don't see the second amendment ever being used for this purpose in your/my lifetime. 100+ years from now, all things considered, i can.
What the fuck are you talking about? What do you mean by saying you don't see the Second Amendment being used in your lifetime? Yeah, the aristocratic founders felt the need to put a loophole into the Constitution so that the rabble could overthrow the government they had fought to establish. Jesus Christ.
So widespread private firearms aren't necessarily going to matter much either way.
And yet things like Kent State happens.
Do you honestly think being purposefully antagonistic towards a bunch of armed guardsmen is ever a good idea? As is known to be said at those protests , 'pigs off campus'.
> Do you honestly think being purposefully antagonistic towards a bunch of armed guardsmen is ever a good idea?
Isnt this exactly what people are talking about doing when they say they own firearms so they can fight a potentially tyrannical government?
When it comes to protest with police, there are two options. Consider the grizzly bear situation.
Do you run up to it with a 2x4, smack it in the back of the head and scream "WORLD STAR"
Or do you back up slowly and not make any noise or act violent, hoping the bear does not make you its basic bitch.
Guess which one the average redditor chooses.
The redditor chooses to scream "AM I BEING DETAINED?" until the officer arrests the redditor for a crime and for being an annoying fuck.
Posts about on reddit after the officer's supervisor tells them to let him go.
Also uploads a video of a calm but slightly frustrated officer trying to talk with the redditor while the redditor screams "AM I FREE TO GO?" with the Youtube title being "Jackboot thug oppressing US citizen."
Wait, are you saying being insulted is a good reason to return fire?
TIL getting rocks thrown at you = being insulted.
I can only think a child can look at a violent situation and place the blame squarely on one side simply because that side was the one with the guns. Except the other side knew what could possibly happen if they remained and continued to antagonize in a clearly violent manner the other side. The only thing sure about this incident is that everyone knew of the risks of violence and were fearful, yet none of them had the intelligence to realize escalating a situation to violence will only be met with violence.
Do you think creating a situation so out of control, where the national guard needs to be called in, is a good idea?
Do you think shooting people dead for being jerks is a good idea?
Loaded question much?
Do you think not stopping rape is ok? Do you think letting people shove babies in their assholes is ok? Do you think letting someone shove their dick up every vagina in town is ok because you're too much of a pussy to use a gun?
Do you understand why loaded questions like yours are no fun no matter who is using them? Do you think you can try and have an honest discussion?
Do you see the contradiction in your 2 statements?
....the protest was purposefully anti-military in nature. Didn't matter if the guardsman were sympathetic or not. They burned down the ROTC building for fucks sake.
Right, but you couldn't understand the rationale of the military killing it's own citizens since they are Americans too. Well, Kent State happened. How do you think the military would respond to an armed insurrection?
>Well, Kent State happened.
And no one fully knows why it happened. Or why there was not a courts martial for those involved other than they decided to not dig into it.
>How do you think the military would respond to an armed insurrection?
No one knows. No one hopefully ever will.
> No one knows. No one hopefully ever will.
No one can say for certain how the current military would react, no, but the question has come up multiple times in US history, and the military has consistently responded the same way each time.
See, for a couple famous examples, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Civil War.
Property can be replaced. Lives cannot. Comparing the life of someone to a burned down building isn't even a comparison.
The comparison is on your end, not mine. The purpose of that statement was to make aware the intention of the protests.
You implied they deserved being shot for arson.
Don't you think that an armed revolution against the government would be "purposefully anti-military in nature"?
trick question. depends on the context of why such 'revolution' happened in the first place.
Please, do elaborate. I'm having a hard time picturing this