|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 20 2012 06:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Why would Americans be wary or fearful of their government? Well let's see what's happened in the last 12 years:
You had one major political party and faction (Democrats, liberals) raging for eight years that an election was "stolen," that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were running roughshod over the Constitution, they were called crypto-fascists and wannabe dictators, some people implied or outright said that they were going to institute a police state, some people said they deliberately withheld help from Katrina to try to get black people killed, some people said the government was going to bring the draft back and suck people into fighting wars with no choice, lots of people in the media and political circles in Europe were saying this as well, it got repeated ad nauseum for eight years.
And then Barack Obama was elected and the other major political party and faction (Republicans, conservatives) started doing the same thing, he's running roughshod over the Constitution, he's forcing people to do things the government shouldn't be able to force people to do, yadda yadda yadda.
When all that is going on, with no reprieve, for 12 years now, and some (the less crazy ones) of the criticisms from both sides being very much justified, did people think that wouldn't have an effect? That people wouldn't become more fearful of government? You have the parties trashing each other, each one saying the other side hates freedom, and the media happily throwing fuel on to the fire either to grab attention (higher ratings, sell papers, etc.) or out of the conviction of people in the media themselves.
You can't do what has been done in the political discourse of America for the last 12 years without it having an effect. And that effect is, people don't trust government and are afraid of it. They've been told they shouldn't trust government and should be afraid of it, by both sides, for a long time. this is getting insane. so now you guys arent just afraid of eachother (like always) but also are so afraid of your gov that you arm yourself for a potential civil war? am i getting this right? i mean WTF. ever thought about maybe, just maybe trying to change things by protesting,voting, pointing out the lies and propaganda in the media etc? but apparently instead of doing something that makes sense in this educated time and age you rather wait and then slaughter your own countrymen like we europeans did 500 years ago. dont even know what to say at this point. this has to be the most insane reasoning for guns ive seen.
We never said we're afraid of each other. I don't constantly worry about home invasions, or being mugged. I would rather be prepared though, on the off chance that it does happen. It isn't about paranoia, its about emergency preparedness.
Do you have a fire-alarm? Why? Are you paranoid that a fire will start in your house? Even though you know that a fire is extremely unlikely in a properly wired house?
Voting doesn't work when both parties are just as bad. Pointing out lies in the media doesn't work when they're the ones who decide what gets aired and what doesn't.
Look, I would love it if things improved peacefully. Open rebellion should be an absolute last resort. But if it comes down to it, owning guns absolutely could not hurt your cause.
|
On February 20 2012 06:06 nicotn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:57 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 05:42 Focuspants wrote:On February 20 2012 05:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military. Tell it to the large number of successful revolutions and resistances against foes with vastly superior armament around the world over the last 250 years. You're just making shit up that sounds good. The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. No, your argument is the foolish one not backed up by anything but your own preconceived notions. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. That's right, you should just allow someone to enter your home and do whatever the fuck they feel like because if you fight back it's far more likely you or they will get hurt or killed. When did morality get stood on its head, that the initiator of violence shouldn't be challenged because someone might get hurt? It's not a peaceful act to break into someone's home, it's a violent one. Since when did initiating violence = free pass, because resistance might get people hurt? In far more cases guns have prevented violence, they are not just an illusion of safety. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063Maybe in mass murder of other country's residents, but few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people. Plus, your handgun isn't going to defend you against your government's stealth bomber, the point is moot, if your government wants to kill you, all you can do is run away/hide/obey, and fight back from the shadows. You contradict yourself. Why would you fight back from anywhere if you are so overmatched that victory is impossible? Few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people? There are dozens of governments in existence today that have perpetrated mass murder their own citizens within the last 20 years or are doing so right now. Where do you come up with your non-factual facts? It has been shown again and again that this stupid "you can't fight back against a stealth bomber" argument is not true. Uprisings would never work if it was solely decided by who had the bigger guns. I'm sure the US military would be a lot happier if what you're saying turned out to be true in Iraq and Afghanistan. AK-47s and homemade bombs can't compare to autocannons on helicopters and planes and artillery shells or rockets, those wars sure were cakewalks since our weapons were so much better. That's what you're saying should have happened, so why didn't it? Fighting back from the shadows with a gun is more effective than fighting back with a knife. So, what's your point? Don't fight back because you can't, unless you do from the shadows, but don't do it with a gun because your little gun isn't effective, so do it with something less effective? You want to compare a revolution from 250 years ago to revolting against the current US military? You do realize your military could probably take on the rest of the world combined at the moment right? You really think you have a chance of stopping if they wanted to dominate you? (which they dont) I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. You are also presuming, as I previously mentioned, that all of the military will stay on the government's side. If it goes to civil war, you can either leave the army to fight it out, at which point the ones who got the bulk of the army win, or you can start arming the populace. At this point you have either the option of taking green recruits and starting them up from "this end toward the bad guys", or you can have people who are already experienced shooters and at least half-decent shots. For that matter, there would be a lot of people who served in the military among the rebels. You are also presuming, you don't know if the government wants to "mass murder" their people, your presuming it. How do you know that? Have you seen the future? You are discussing a very weird point here. Sure in places like libia / Syria the people get killed, but you are basing all your assumptions on weak OLD information, 250 years ago is a long time, blacks were slaves, women were in the kitchen. Stop basing your assumptions on history. If the human race is good in one thing, its evolving and expanding our vision to other situations, if the mighty America wants to kill its own people, again put down your tinfoil hat. GL HF.
Just what were you arguing against here? In Libya, part of the army sided with the rebellion. The same in Syria.
Also, where did I claim that the United States government would want to mass murder their own people?
|
On February 20 2012 06:13 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:09 setzer wrote:
Even if gun ownership was made completely illegal those who wanted to posses and do criminal actions would still find a way to acquire them. It is a measure of security, even if very small, to know that I would be able to defend myself/possessions if pressed. Ever hear of the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"? It would be much easier for criminals to exact their desires if the general populace had no way to defend themselves. Law enforcement can only go so far unless people are completely comfortable with making lives run by martial law.
With that said there has to be some regulation. It is completely unnecessary for automatic weapons/military grade weapons to be made available to the public. Furthermore, laws should do more to prevent persons found to not have the mental responsibility needed to carry firearms. Remember Virginia Tech? That is a clear example where if the proper measures were taken beforehand many lives could have been saved.
This opinion is coming from one who does not own a gun and currently has no plans to own one. You think crazy students would have guns if they were restricted in the US? There's A LOT of crazy people in my country's schools, but there hasn't been a single student murder by gunfire in my country, ever. That's probably because there's no guns.
It is entirely possible he would have still acquired a gun through illegal channels, but that isn't the point. Right now I don't think regulation is stringent and allows people who do not show responsibility to still easily obtain firearms. Prohibition of all firearms to all general people is, however, going too far. Violence will always be a part of human nature and personally I would rather have a gun with the ability to adequately protect myself if it came to that situation.
|
Is this an open debate or just for the US?
Cause in latin america's rural areas its just impossible to defend your land if you don't own guns. Morever, crop fields require at least 1-2 security armed guards to protect from theft, even if 99% of the time they fire to the air to scare the thieve. I can tell you for sure if they didn't have guns, the owners would go bankrupt because everything was stolen.
And this is in Chile. I can imagine it is way worse in argentina, not to mention countries where you need private security to protect cities, like Nicaragua.
Does someone honestly believe this would change if guns were outlawd? lol
Yes, you should be allowed to carry guns to protect yourself. That things got a bit safer doesn't mean you lose that right.
|
On February 20 2012 06:21 pylonsalad wrote:
While the rest of the world has moved on, Americans still glorify the cowboy with the white hat.
and where's your horse?
oh right. cowboy took it.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On February 20 2012 06:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
this is getting insane. so now you guys arent just afraid of eachother (like always) but also are so afraid of your gov that you arm yourself for a potential civil war? am i getting this right? i mean WTF.
While I am generally leaning more on the con side when it comes to gun ownership, I find this one of the most compelling reasons against gun control. An armed and aware populace is certainly an ideal I would like to see. For most of the world, it will remain an ideal. It requires a background of history and tradition that few countries have though to make it work.
|
On February 20 2012 06:27 GoTuNk! wrote:
Is this an open debate or just for the US?
Well, I'm Finnish and referenced the Finnish situation in the original post, so it is pretty much an open debate.
|
On February 20 2012 06:27 TheDraken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:21 pylonsalad wrote:
While the rest of the world has moved on, Americans still glorify the cowboy with the white hat. and where's your horse? oh right. cowboy took it.
no argument here,just some prejudiced rant.
edit:i probably need to cool down before posting next time i read something i believe is outrageous.my football team loosing isnt helping i guess ;o
|
On February 20 2012 06:29 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:27 GoTuNk! wrote:
Is this an open debate or just for the US? Well, I'm Finnish and referenced the Finnish situation in the original post, so it is pretty much an open debate.
If you are anti right to carry guns (or anyone), could you argue under what I presented, against that it is needed on many countries to carry guns to protect yourself or your property? And that in the US because it is not as necesarry, it should be outlawed?
|
On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again.
tanks
helicopters
jets
bombs
a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no.
On February 20 2012 06:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +this is getting insane. so now you guys arent just afraid of eachother (like always) but also are so afraid of your gov that you arm yourself for a potential civil war? am i getting this right? i mean WTF. Lots of people keep heaping on scorn on the idea of being wary of your government, I was just explaining what has happened in America to show why some Americans might be. We've been told, by people in positions of authority and trust, that we should be, and those people told us that to get us to vote for them, not necessarily because it was true. Show nested quote +ever thought about maybe, just maybe trying to change things by protesting,voting, pointing out the lies and propaganda in the media etc? but apparently instead of doing something that makes sense in this educated time and age you rather wait and then slaughter your own countrymen like we europeans did 500 years ago. This is what we are doing, ever thought about living in reality and not in some fantasy world where Americans haven't protested, voted, pointed out lies, etc.? Apparently instead of doing something that makes sense, like realizing that we had an election not even two years ago, that we have elections and voting and protesting and debating all the time here in America, you invent some fantasy America that doesn't exist in order to say something really, really stupid. We might live in an educated time and age, but you certainly aren't acting as if you took part in any of that education. Like you did 60 years ago, not 500, you mean. Show nested quote +dont even know what to say at this point. this has to be the most insane reasoning for guns ive seen. It wasn't reasoning for guns, it was reasoning for why Americans would be wary of their government, and how about you don't say anything, you've made yourself look ignorant and hysterical enough. Show nested quote +While the rest of the world has moved on, Americans still glorify the cowboy with the white hat. rofl Do you realize how insular and ignorant you make yourself look when you say things like that? America is a lot more like Canada and Western Europe (and Japan and Australia and South Korea and other developed countries) than the rest of the world is like any of us.
chill dude. i read your post but in context to this thread and previous posts you gotta understand that it sounded alot like " yeah, shits goin wrong and we gonna arm up for when it hits the fan".
i agree with lot of what you say. and there might be stuff going on i dont know about. but what i can gather from watching all the big news channels and occasionally reading us online newspapers i jsut dont see the big change in mindset.
On February 20 2012 06:27 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
this is getting insane. so now you guys arent just afraid of eachother (like always) but also are so afraid of your gov that you arm yourself for a potential civil war? am i getting this right? i mean WTF.
While I am generally leaning more on the con side when it comes to gun ownership, I find this one of the most compelling reasons against gun control. An armed and aware populace is certainly an ideal I would like to see. For most of the world, it will remain an ideal. It requires a background of history and tradition that few countries have though to make it work.
i understand it in a general point of view. but coming from a country like the us/european countries etc i just cant let it count. a allout situation like that wont happen there. and if it happens then the world as we know it is gonna end anyways.
im always talking from the view of a 1st world citizen living in a safe country. if we look at whats going on in the middle east ofcourse thats a totally different story.
|
Nah, i don't support use of firearms. Among civilians they are only good to murder each other with high effectiveness, and if the government army has the intention to murder the poplace, they have pretty much all they need with exception of the conscience they got drilled out.
Single elements not following orders will be treated as deserters, and you can't fight military equipment like tanks with handguns or rifles.
NO to guns.
|
btw im always amazed at how different eu and us really are convictions/values wise.
|
On February 20 2012 06:35 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:29 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 06:27 GoTuNk! wrote:
Is this an open debate or just for the US? Well, I'm Finnish and referenced the Finnish situation in the original post, so it is pretty much an open debate. If you are anti right to carry guns (or anyone), could you argue under what I presented, against that it is needed on many countries to carry guns to protect yourself or your property? And that in the US because it is not as necesarry, it should be outlawed?
Wouldn't be needed if local armed policemen were effective enough at taking out vandals, which is probably what you mean.
|
On February 20 2012 06:32 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:27 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 06:21 pylonsalad wrote:
While the rest of the world has moved on, Americans still glorify the cowboy with the white hat. and where's your horse? oh right. cowboy took it. nope,cowboy was too busy cleaning up cow shit in his ranch. anyway us is based on trying to be badass by being buffed/rich/carrying. thats not trying to be mean,thats how we see you over here,and we happen to think thats pretty childish.i got past the playing with fake guns phase when i was...10? no argument here,just some prejudiced rant. edit:i probably need to cool down before posting next time i read something i believe is outrageous
Maybe that's why you guys always lose?
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
gg no re.
|
On February 20 2012 06:32 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:27 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 06:21 pylonsalad wrote:
While the rest of the world has moved on, Americans still glorify the cowboy with the white hat. and where's your horse? oh right. cowboy took it. nope,cowboy was too busy cleaning up cow shit in his ranch. anyway us is based on trying to be badass by being buffed/rich/carrying. thats not trying to be mean,thats how we see you over here,and we happen to think thats pretty childish.i got past the playing with fake guns phase when i was...10? no argument here,just some prejudiced rant. edit:i probably need to cool down before posting next time i read something i believe is outrageous
It's quite obvious there is an ideological divide between European countries and America regarding gun control but leave the country bashing out of this argument. I don't even care much for my own country but you don't contribute anything to this discussion by simply being prejudice. And if you really want to roll that way there are A LOT of things that can be said about France, but that has no place here.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no.
Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is.
|
On February 20 2012 06:05 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
wow. thats a insane argument.
1. you get armed for the case of fighting your gov in case of a civil war? seriously how paranoid are you?
2. its pointless. there is one thing that keeps the military from crushing all kinds of revolts : morals and the rest of the world. do you really think a few rifles will change ANYTHING against a military that can make your whole city a flat surface within 30 minutes?
um, since the running theme for our country for the past 300 years has been throwing up a middle finger to the big man? culturally america touts personal independence, and that includes independence from some government bureaucrat telling you what to do. plus, there's something that feels very american about owning a rifle. like a good old M1 might as well have a decal of an eagle with AMERICA FUCK YEAH seared into its chest. it's a culture thing.
and i don't get why people keep saying we only have a "few" rifles. we own TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY MILLION firearms. that's 270,000,000 guns as of 2010. the american military owns 4 million. sure they have shit like tanks and stuff, but i almost guarantee we have rednecks stocked with RPGs and grenades.
|
On February 20 2012 06:43 TheDraken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:05 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
wow. thats a insane argument.
1. you get armed for the case of fighting your gov in case of a civil war? seriously how paranoid are you?
2. its pointless. there is one thing that keeps the military from crushing all kinds of revolts : morals and the rest of the world. do you really think a few rifles will change ANYTHING against a military that can make your whole city a flat surface within 30 minutes?
um, since the running theme for our country for the past 300 years has been throwing up a middle finger to the big man? culturally america touts personal independence, and that includes independence from some government bureaucrat telling you what to do. plus, there's something that feels very american about owning a rifle. like a good old M1 might as well have a decal of an eagle with AMERICA FUCK YEAH seared into its chest. it's a culture thing. and i don't get why people keep saying we only have a "few" rifles. we own TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY MILLION firearms. that's 270,000,000 guns as of 2010. the american military owns 4 million. sure they have shit like tanks and stuff, but i almost guarantee we have rednecks stocked with RPGs and grenades.
Not to mention that the entire US military force would refuse to execute any order that knowingly involved killing innocent civilians, partiuclarly inside the US. Our military, from general down to private, is volunteer. And they don't volunteer to protect the government, they volunteer to protect the constitution.
|
On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is.
Both Afghanistan for America and the Revolutionary War from the British perspective have everything to do with what "winning" means. The American military could absolutely level all of Afghanistan and its inhabitants. But that's not their goal. Similarly, the British could have 100% wiped the floor with America had they committed more resources and that was their end game... but it, similarly, was not.
In true modern war, if the government wanted to actively turn on its citizens in America, it would be up to the Military to defy the orders, not the populace to win in some civil war.
|
On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is.
ok every country who has ever attempted to occupy afghanistan has failed... i don't really think it's a good benchmark for military prowess.. that said, no one wants revolution in the US, luckily for the world it will never happen
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
