Owning Assault rifles wont Stop the US Militar-

They can’t into 4GW and think of civil war like it was a video game

protip-

that's what the liberals are saying. any true leftist is gonna be extremely pro-gun, how else are the lazy commies gonna seize the means of production? Bernie just has everyone buying into the care-bear illusion, i'm nervous about what will happen when he is no longer holding that line.

i mean, you're right, but "going all out" in a civil war would destroy the economy that manufactures those missles, tanks and guns. Not to mention the gas, food, medicine, and raw logistics that keep an economy running. it will definitely be a bloodbath, but it'll morph to be much lower tech bloodbath after a few months.

Attached: 32ds.jpg (838x960, 133.25K)

Afghanistan is occupied territory and belongs to the U.S.
We own it, and we're not giving it back.

Deal with it.

Attached: DeadHezzbollah.jpg (600x800, 152.91K)

>The raw logistics of transport aircraft, tanks, missiles and other advanced weaponry is effectively removed in a civil war if the gloves are off.
Till bridges get dropped, till random people post up outside your airports with MANPADs, till electrical substations get sniped, till roads get lined with IEDs, till railroad tracks get torn apart in the middle of know where, till dams and locks get destroyed. The government needs to be able to maintain all that infrastructure while the rebellion doesn't, because chaos benefits the rebels not the entrenched government.

All that said, lets be honest, most military members are republican, most military production occurs in red counties, almost all our WMDs are stored in red counties, our food production is almost entirely in red counties, our blue cities are entirely surrounded by red counties. Republicans have all the geographic advantages here. So most likely it would be the military shelling/carpet bombing cities into submission one by one. The democrats have put themselves into a poor position for any civil war.

It's much lower than it could have been. Playing the VC's or Taliban's rules entire regions would have been depopulated, instead it's just a sniper round here or a mortar there

The majority of the service men would never fire on their own people.

the families of military cant all fit on base

If you don't have night vision like the military does you are basically target practice. You can wage an asymmetric campaign but an insurgency won't win in the long run.

There are over 70million of is citizens with weapons, which outnumber law enforcement/military by about 40 to 1
So yeah, not worried one bit.
For fucks sake, American colonists beat the greatest army in the world (British) back in the late 1700s, so this time around it will be much easier.
“All enemies, foreign and domestic”

Ok, because everything only happens at night...also, fuck off, we can buy almost everything the military has

You're correct, am lefty, loaded to the teeth, will liberate your assets as soon as the boog kicks off.

This is true, I've had this argument with anti-gun folks, they say shit like 'literally hitler' and how guns aren't stopping current government tyranny, I point out that the gun would be in their hands if they feel that way... and then they shut up.

I mean, it's true to some extent that people would totally shoot the shit out of each other over stupid shit *initially* if everyone were armed, but much like this virus, the curve would flatten when everyone realizes no one is bullet proof and all the sudden you'd have people being real polite to strangers again, because you never know when someone might not take kindly to strangers in these parts.

>5D night vision space chess
lol being this dumb, you do know a fuck ton of farmers in Tx use night vision to kill pigs and coyotes right?

Police do it all the time. Dont be so sure champ.

>when the US military has effectively lost TWO Guerrilla wars with issurgencies in Both Vietnam and Afganistan just in the last 60 years alone???

Three actually. Iraq.

Attached: DM-SD-04-08842.jpg (1728x1152, 510.08K)

The U.S. lost against the Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghan insurgencies due to lack of political will. Which is understandable. We didn't have a substantial national interest to preserve in any of those conflicts. Those were just grand money laundering projects for the defense industry. And our enemies were never an imminent threat to the American people.

A civil war within the U.S. is a totally different matter. The U.S. government isn't going to use kid gloves when their own power and territory are at stake. And a good bulk of the public will support them. Once the daily lives of Americans are affected by bombings, assassinations, etc. they are going to want strong action. Especially if the guerrillas want to impose some backward right-wing agenda that's opposed to all of the progress we've made over the last 50 years.

There U.S. government won't worry about Chinese intervention, or losing coalition allies, or critical reviews in the New York Times over their harsh tactics. Insurgents would be isolated, surrounded, and then either taken into custody or destroyed without pity. The mainstream media would justify every raid and bombardment, and would demonize the hell out of anyone who expressed the slightest sympathy for the insurgents.

Just because some goat herders halfway around the world were able to hold out against an apathetic, politically-restricted expeditionary force doesn't mean the full might of We the People wouldn't absolutely CRUSH Hillbilly Jethro and His Weekend Warriors.

Attached: treadonthem.jpg (600x400, 27.26K)

You forgot Iraq and their WMDs..

> The government needs to be able to maintain all that infrastructure while the rebellion doesn't, because chaos benefits the rebels not the entrenched government.

If that were the case, then why did it take huge American and Soviet armies to drive the Germans out of France and Eastern Europe? Why didn't the partisans just knock them out?

>all that wrong

I'll let someone else post one of the numerous discussion screenshots that debunk the fuck out of your masturbatory boot licking fantasy. I'm just here to point and laugh.

Because insurgencies take time to attain victory. The Vietnamese needed 15 years, Afghani's needed almost 20 years, etc. etc. The allies were unwilling to wait decades for the partisans to throw out the whermacht. That said, it is clear how much effect partisans had. The whole reason Moscow didn't fall, was the partisans behind the lines blowing up bridges and destroying rail lines which resulted in a little over two weeks worth of delays for the Whermacht, and they sputtered to a halt just a few miles from the city. These partisans further disrupted the Whermachts retreat both from Moscow and the Caucuses thus resulting far greater loses than would otherwise have happened. Did you seriously pay no attention to the history of WWII? If you are curious look up the Red army dropping paratroopers with no parachutes before and after the battle of Moscow.

>I can't rebut any of your points and I'm still shaking from getting BTFO so I'll laugh about an imaginary opponent who may or may not put you in your place

Because Viets/Afghans are real men when it comes to guerilla

Muricans are obeses with cowardice flowing in their blood

/thread

>Because insurgencies take time to attain victory.

So we have to keep letting tens of thousands of people get killed by firearms every year so that we can MAYBE throw off an oppressive government after 20 years of brutally destructive civil war?

Not the strongest argument for your side.

law enforcement, national guard, and army/navy/AF/marines are quite different beasts altogether. most especially national guard is over-rated in terms of willingness to open up on citizenry.

the Boys in Blue are absolutely far and beyond more willing to open fire on a citizen for any reason than active military, and waaaay more willing than national fucking guard.

The military will not be on the governments side. see You and your lefty friends are not in control of the military. Further any attempt to use the military as you describe is a clear violation of the constitution and it is the the duty of every single service member to fight against YOU not Jethro. A right vs left civil war will go very badly for the left.

>The U.S. government isn't going to use kid gloves when their own power and territory are at stake.
True
>And a good bulk of the public will support them.
True if the enemy is foreign; however, false, if the enemy is domestic. Even though the news media will absolutely try to vilify the right wing fighters, the public will not see the murder of americans positively. You'll be lucky to get 25% of the people and far less of the military behind your brutal actions.

fully refuted commie. Your delusions of grandeur will not help you overcome the vast differential in military, food, and geographic positions of the democrats and the republicans.

>Vietnam and Afganistan

How does a basedlet like you even know about those two? The Nigger Riding Grandparents of The Hippy Years or The Boomer Parents who can't even keep their marriage intact?

Actually it's the exact opposite. It becomes even harder for the occupying government. Much easier for rebels to directly hit supply lines, government has to be much more careful about killing its own people and destroying its own infrastructure so as not to disrupt production. If it goes too crazy with killings then it ends up turning more of its own population against itself, they might start sabotaging military equipment, etc. This is all assuming everyone in the military is willy nilly okay with killing what are basically American citizens

Lets do some basic math: thrity thousand die every year plus 5 million die to overthrow the tyrannical republic, to prevent a communist level die off of the population, 15-25% which is 53-88 million. How many years must we suffer those deaths to make it a net loss to have gun rights? 1600-2775 years. So if we prevent only a single communist level tyrannical government even 1.6 millennia, the gun rights were worth it. That's a pretty damn strong argument. But math and logic are anathma to you lefty retards.

Im a Yas Forumsock not a fucking normie dude.

>government has to be much more careful about killing its own people and destroying its own infrastructure so as not to disrupt production.

So steal it from the Rebels who's gonna support them? "The People" The people are the problem in the first place. Erase the 1st amendment and really watch them lose their shit. I WANT SOME BODIES GOD DAMMIT

Still didn't answer the question lefty/pol/.

Attached: 1431115040132.png (1319x342, 89.61K)

i would invite everyone interested in the prospect or phenomenon of large-scale domestic conflict to read Thomas Chittum's Civil War 2: The Coming Breakup of America.

Imagine some sand niggers in a 9 man cell planting an IED to hit US forces just outside mosul, so close to the gate that the afghan police and military see this and do nothing. Now imagine an Apache gunship deleting this 9 man cell, only killed 9, next week same thing, over and over again rinse and repeat. Now imagine not having your hands tied behind your back and literally killing every single thing that has a heartbeat within the same area. Once there’s nothing left of the indigenous population and only then can you really win a war....everything else is a war fought for the dollar.

The military will not be on the governments side. see You and your lefty friends are not in control of the military.

That remains to be seen. Just keep in mind that today's military is a lot more diverse than it was in decades past. Your average soldier is no longer the white mom-and-apple-pie farm boy of yesteryear. Today's soldier probably wouldn't indiscriminately kill civilians or operate death camps, but if you think they'll get squeamish about collateral damage when they've seen comrades shot at a checkpoint or had their own family members threatened, you have another think coming.

>Further any attempt to use the military as you describe is a clear violation of the constitution

Lol if you think anyone beyond a tiny fringe gives a shit about the Constitution anymore. Especially when bullets are flying. It's just a piece of paper after all. It wasn't a shield during the last Civil War and there's less reason to think it would be now.

>Even though the news media will absolutely try to vilify the right wing fighters, the public will not see the murder of americans positively. You'll be lucky to get 25% of the people and far less of the military behind your brutal actions.

The public was largely apathetic about Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Anwar al-Awlaki. And none of those incidents affected their daily life.

>Your delusions of grandeur will not help you overcome the vast differential in military,

Military addressed above.

>food,

Red areas have a lot of farmland, yes. But those areas are also sparsely populated and difficult to defend. Not to mention that most blue cities are on the coasts and can import food to address temporary shortages. Or are the rebels going to knock out Navy vessels with AR-15's somehow?

>and geographic positions of the democrats and the republicans.

If rural areas are so great, why do armies always focus on conquering and controlling cities?

Ok and how likely is that tyrannical communist government? And if the government is that bad, what is to prevent them from just mass bombing any area that resists?

you don't go after the military.
you go after the ones giving the orders to the military.

This.

Also, homefield advantage helps ten fold. Fighting against a group of people that know the land, resources, water supplies, black markets, etc. Dramtically helps the people that grew up there. Imagine someonwbfrom California trying to operate in Maine. Citizens of Maine would have an overwhelming advantage.

>Fighting against a group of people that know the land, resources, water supplies, black markets, etc.

Are you talking about Americans? Please.

Most people can't find their own ass without Siri giving them step by step directions. They stay indoors 99% of the time and have no clue about what natural resources are in their area. The only ones who know about the black market are drug addicts and ghetto criminals, and those guys are not likely to be patriotic rebels.

Unless the enemy is literally walking into their own suburban neighborhood the "locals" aren't going to have any advantage in knowing the local terrain.

>If rural areas are so great, why do armies always focus on conquering and controlling cities?
Because they are retarded. The side that wins control of rural areas has always won the war, because control of the countryside gives you freedom to operate and move troops and material around. For a recent example see the syrian war, and how by controlling the country side, the outstretched SAA was able to isolate the numerically superior FSA and defeat them in detail. Further, US doctrine is to go around cities first taking the countryside, then going after cities. Urban combat is a bitch and takes a fuck load of time, but you don't know that because you a lefty who is ignorant as hell.

>But those areas are also sparsely populated and difficult to defend.
97% of the US land is rural. Best of luck trying to take all of that. PLus as a defender I don't have to defend all of that area, I merely need to cut off the cities from each other. That means I can have a brigade of troops anywhere in the 400 mile stretch between LA and SF and cut off those cities from each other.

>Not to mention that most blue cities are on the coasts and can import food to address temporary shortages. Or are the rebels going to knock out Navy vessels with AR-15's somehow?
Anti ship missiles area thing, and are produced and stored in red counties. Further, I only need to get the launcher within 100 miles of the port to completely shut down shipping to and from. Finally, it takes 3 weeks for international shipping to reach the US on the west coast. They would have to go without food, water, medical supplies, gas for a minimum of 3 weeks. That assumes the repubs don't manage to interdict the shipment.
Part 1

>That remains to be seen. Just keep in mind that today's military is a lot more diverse than it was in decades past.
lol, you think diversity will save you. No shit you are a truly delusional lefty. Your own polls state the VAST majority of the military is republican: pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/26/u-s-veterans-are-generally-supportive-of-trump/

>Today's soldier probably wouldn't indiscriminately kill civilians or operate death camps, but if you think they'll get squeamish about collateral damage when they've seen comrades shot at a checkpoint or had their own family members threatened, you have another think coming.
Perfectly stated on why the military will disobey any tyrannical government. In order to surpress a popular uprising, the governmen would as you stated take the gloves off. They would massacre citizens, they would run death camps. And as you stated the soldiers wont do that. Hence they will resist and your tyrannical regime will fall.

>Lol if you think anyone beyond a tiny fringe gives a shit about the Constitution anymore. Especially when bullets are flying. It's just a piece of paper after all. It wasn't a shield during the last Civil War and there's less reason to think it would be now.
It was most definately a shield during the previous civil war and will be again. Will the government exceed it? Yes. Will it cause further resistance? Yep. That piece of paper will be a rallying cry for the rebels, that cannot be suppressed by the government, because it is literally a part of the government, and their soldiers are duty bound to defend it. Seriously, you are clearly a lefty with no knowledge of the military. Soldiers are sworn, not to defend the government, not the president, not congress, but to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. It is not a US soldiers' option, or right to disobey an unconstitutional order, but their DUTY to disobey that order.

Given every communist regime has been in that range (except Pol pot and his amazing 34% death score) and you lefties want to institute a communist government, I'd say it is very likely if we weren't armed to the teeth.

An armed society is a polite society.

I'm saying any war which is fought with guerrilla aspects to it. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, the fighting in South America against the drug cartels.

I don't disagree with you that a majority of Americans would be fucked hard, but that is the city folk. Out in the country Americans are generally more self reliant. Military Forces have an extremely hard time fighting guerrillas warfare,doesn't matter where it is. It's literally why we have SOF forces, and Army Operators, 18x positions, are literally tasked with infiltrating and training these networks because you can't win guerrilla warfare.

If we ever have a civil war in America, the cities will be occupies and they will use them as HQ to go out into the more rural areas. That's where there will be issues. Essentially it will be Afghanistan in the States with drones, and SoF infiltrating the guerrilla fighters. It will be an endless war, and one we can't "quit" because it's in our homeland.

Jews ran those wars. If the military were allowed to do their job they would've been over in weeks. The purpose wasn't to win but to keep the US military in the region for decades. I have a feeling if the military were used to wipe out ebil white supreemists, they wouldn't have any compunction regarding suspending muh rules of engagement.

>If we ever have a civil war in America, the cities will be occupies and they will use them as HQ to go out into the more rural areas.
You have it backwards. Those SOF you talk about are primarily from rural areas themselves. Why would they be willing to fight and kill their friends and families for bureaucrats in the cities? Why would they be willing to fight and die against those who share their beliefs? Simply put, they wouldn't, and if the civil war happens, the rural areas are going to be occupying the cities, not the other way around.

Oh, I forgot, if the gloves do come off, remember that the republicans have all the nukes and will in return glass every single blue city in the US.

I NEVER said that they would fight their own people. I was responding to the same person you were and explaining that the U.S. armed forces had to create a MOS specifically for guerrilla warfare because guerrilla warfare is unwinnable.

We def didn't lose in Afghanistan lmao

Hmm, so you were saying how the lefties would try to fight the insurgency? Or assuming the military decided to say fuckit we're communists now, how they'd try to fight the insurrection? If so I misunderstood you, and apologize.

I was responding to the "liberal" who was saying that American citizens with guns could not stop the U.S. military. I was informing him that a guerrilla war is unwinnable, and if we had a civil war in the states it would be IMPOSSIBLE to win and the fighting would go on indefinitely.

The only threat to "right" leaning people is the government and indoctrination via media/public education system.

The U.S. military would become an authoritarian dictatorship quicker than a communist police force. I'd say 70% are about protecting the constitution, and the only way we would have "communism" enforced by three military would be temporarily whole overthrowing a government that overstepped its rules outlined in the constitution (obviously if they extremely overstepped, i.e. a president trying to stay in office after they lost an election that wasn't hijacked and had questionable results)

I've been doing this type of warfare for over a decade and guest lecture at colleges on homeland security, international politics, etc.

Overall, you're correct, the only thing I disagree with you on is rural people taking cities. That would be stupid and a death wish. The U.S. Army is very adept at holding cities and would quickly take cities and use them as HQ and base of operations to go into the country. As a guerrilla fighter, you stay away from those areas and operate where you know. The only easy you go into the cities is to carry out attacks.