889
Trump floats sending military after US citizens on election day
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
889 points (97.2% liked)
News
23626 readers
2827 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Military weapons? Yeah. They should be.
Pistols? Shotguns? Not really. And yes, you can point to more extreme cases of 'liberals' who do want to amend the constitution, which is about the same thing as calling anyone even slightly conservative on one issue a fascist.
OMG! The former president is threatening mass violence and possible oppression by using the US Military on the citizens! Oh btw you shouldn’t have a weapon that looks like the one the military uses or shoots faster than those made 100 years ago.
The AR-15 is not a military weapon, purely civilian. In any case you should be able to own military firearms, the government is not to be trusted.
An AK is a better fit, lol.
But (just going with this for a second) I dont see a scenario where even having like an M240 is going to make much of a difference going up against the US military. What do you picture happening, a good honest firefight? At that point homemade bombs and such are your only resort where a pistol wouldn't work.
Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam have left the chat. Why is this talking point always used to counter gun rights? It’s objectively not true ans has been proven time and time again. It’s guerilla / asymmetrical warfare, thr gov has to come to you.
The AKs available to the US consumer are also not weapons of war, they are strictly semi automatic.
An M240 would be a major upgrade in such a scenario. It would be more effective than a pistol, ideally you would have people with M240s and people making IEDs.
Yes. Gravy Team 6 has spent generations fighting an asymmetrical war against Russia then the US and I'm sure they train every day at Taliban compounds or are remnants of the Republican Guard
Be real: they sit in their garage drinking shitty beer and jerking off their unsatisfying-to-anyone cocks to guns, trucks, and Trump
I mean, they did a great job Jan 6, when Babbitt did not comply, of fighting back and showing big ol tyrannical gov! /s
Jk, they ran like little girls as soon as the reality set in
Lemme see any of these fucks hump full battle rattle 15 miles before we talk about them staging an insurgent war against the US
Christ, I bet all but a handful can't do a single pull-up
Yes, there are people in that culture that are capable of small-arms engagement, using fire and maneuver to close with engage and destroy the enemy, but the VAST majority of them are fatbody chodes who fantasize about living in right-wing Divergence or some other young adult fantasy novel series
In a most likely scenario, this ends up being a quick decapitation strike at those attempting to hold the Republic together, or ends up being a low engagement years long drawn out war. The military would be reluctant on both sides, leading to mostly an arms race of local and state police battling disgruntled / rioting citizens with some groups of more organized cells. The Troubles and not GWOT.
a semi-auto AK and an AR are functionally identical for most practical purposes.
As for the scenario proposed: any direct long engangement would be suicide, but other tactics would be viable. The most likely scenario in the US would look something like The Troubles in Ireland.
But it's possible a significant portion the military could defect, which could make things look a little more like the Spanish Civil War.
Also, I would point to the existence of Rojava, which for years has been able to hold out against Turkey despite Turkey having access to significantly more sophisticated hardware.
The US military failed to fight insurgents in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What makes you think they'd be any better against an insurgency in the US, especially when it'd involve a good portion of people in their own ranks?
You guys are living a fantasy if you think a large chunk of the US population will turn into the Taliban, Viet Cong, Mujahideen or whatever over which party is in the govt and whatever antics you think Trump or Harris get up to.
We live in a rich, militarized surveillance state. A rifle is not how you fight that.
For now. But if you can't imagine any scenario where an M240 would be useful, you're very shortsighted. If (and this is a big if) we devolve into civil war, then an armed insurgency is very much on the table. All the tech stuff relies on infrastructure, and stable infrastructure is one of the first things to go.