Abraxas
Golden Member
- Oct 26, 2004
- 1,056
- 0
- 0
Except that's not true. The military, even if part, or most was with the people they can't be everywhere, and citizens would still need to be able to defend themselves.
Yes, but they would be best equipped to do it from government armories. No weapon you are going to have on your person will defend you from an Abrams or an Apache Longbow or a Reaper or an A-10. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan for good examples of urban centers with a heavily armed populace trying to fend off the US military. Even with broader access to military hardware than is readily available to the US civilian population their insurgencies were largely ineffective, what success they had was largely not from small arms at all but instead improvised weaponry, and even that was before the widespread use of drones which make things even more lopsided.
I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it but there was a scene is Les Miserables that really brought home this debate and fits very neatly to this overall point.
I really have no idea. They seem to take exception to the idea of firing on American soldiers when I present the idea but they aren't really giving an alternate target for the focal point of their imagined revolt. The one world government perhaps? Free masons? UN peacekeepers? Who knows? You said it yourself, "the US military is made up of civilian volunteers that aren't going to decimate their own country just because the government tells them to" and so the identity of these faceless oppressors we must protect ourselves from will remain mysterious.(which if they were, who would they be fighting against?)