Talking about systems versus goals, dual loyalty tropes,https://www.pscp.tv/w/cC1GXzExODgwMjU5fDFZcEprdmtFWXBvR2pduoHNg6XZZFqGVsUVaDsD542MMERJHV_KcQBxWGAUPg== …
Is that not based on the obsolete belief an armed populace can match a standing army? The assumption is obsolete, but you keep the thinking anyway?
-
-
Recently, we saw a man with an AR hold police to a 4 hour standoff in Philly. 1 man. It’s not about beating an army it’s about resisting. An “insurgency” of millions of Americans matters. Instead of detaining people they would now have to shoot them. Not good optics for any gov.
-
If the military turned on citizens, citizens would round up the family members of the military and the government and start shooting them one at a time until the military surrendered. You don't need every kind of weapon to do that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s not that a militia could MATCH an army, just that an armed populace would make it economically unviable for a power to exert control against the wishes of that populace.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why this obsession with guns? It's not a big problem by the numbers, overblown by the media. The big junk of death by (all) guns are suicides. 2nd is gang violence (mostly illegal guns). Legal gun owners contribute very little to gun deaths, yet they get targeted, irrationally
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
2nd amendment is more important than 100 mass shooting death per year. See Hong Kong. Also soldiers of a standing army have families, as you rightly pointed out.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.