r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 21d ago

Soft Paywall 'Do something, dammit!': Tim Walz says Democrats need to answer Americans' 'primal scream'

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/15/tim-walz-iowa-democrats-donald-trump/82440491007/
52.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

123

u/mattm5 21d ago

Not if we all start buying guns.

222

u/DevilsAdvocate77 21d ago

Civil War II doesn't end with the MAGA's hearts growing two sizes and IQs doubling, and then we all hug and cheer together when Walz/AOC wins 80% of the vote in 2028.

It ends with most of us getting bulldozed into mass graves without ever seeing another election.

70

u/Flipnotics_ Texas 21d ago

Yep, it ends with Jessie Plemons spreading quicklime powder over our decaying flesh.

32

u/Odeeum 21d ago

"Yeah but what KIND of American are you?"

16

u/ImBatman5500 21d ago

I'm so sick of getting closer and closer to that movie

2

u/cheddarbruce 21d ago

Honestly, if it is Jesse Plemons I wouldn't mind

45

u/spacemanspliff-42 21d ago

Well we better go down fighting then, shouldn't we? For fucks sake, why do you think people in countries like Ukraine got on those trains to Siberia? It wasn't out of fear, or thinking they'd be fine if they cooperated, it was because they weren't thinking about their future, they were just making it through the day. Think of the future when it comes down to a fight.

40

u/ABHOR_pod 21d ago

If you can't live in a free country let the fascists live in a destroyed one.

15

u/spacemanspliff-42 21d ago

Exactly, I just saw a veteran getting thrown out of a community meeting for yelling at his senator or whatever. Everyone is just yelling and booing. Like really? That's an entire crowd of people greatly outoutnumbering the police in there. Yelling at a senator just makes them wait for you to shut up or be removed, punching them repeatedly in the face makes it harder for them to speak at all.

13

u/WomenTrucksAndJesus 21d ago

If you don't want to make it harder for them, I suggest you start digging a grave now so when they're ready, they can just push you in.

5

u/realistdreamer69 21d ago

Yep, Naked power struggle is won by whoever controls and will use the military. Hope is enough in the military respect oath more than chain of command. Those that do won't last much longer in these conditions.

4

u/WaifuHunterActual 21d ago

Right which is why it won't happen in America. Too many people can just accept this and keep their Starbucks

1

u/Lurking_nerd California 21d ago

2 AM in Little America becomes more true every passing day.

1

u/To_hell_with_it 21d ago

If that's the price of liberty so be it. 

1

u/Whorq_guii 21d ago

This. Whenever Reddit revolutionaries talk about wanting to buy guns to start gunning down their fellow countrymen, they sound like terrorists. 

The likely result is that trump administration will designate them as such; and treat them as terrorists.

As much as I would love to see reddit revolutionaries get what they ask for, we don’t want to be encouraging this type of political violence. I mean these drone operators are at risk of developing carpel tunnel from blowing Redditors up all day and  wouldn’t want them to deal with that inconvenience.

Your best best is to wait it out. Show up in the midterms and definitely show up in 2028. I mean come on where did those 15 million democrat voters go? Go find them, go get them to vote again in 2028.

9

u/Gullible-Law8483 21d ago

Wait it out? You think Peters, Shaheen, and Smith are going to all get replaced by Democrats?

2

u/ThrowingShaed 21d ago

so i am in no way advocating for any sort of violence

with that said I do wonder if it would be as one sided as even I always thought it would be. and it probably would be

I wonder if the anti environmental stance and the possible gutting of silence alone might tick off a lot of engineers and scientists. despite so many defenses I could not dream of, the matter is I wonderwhat one engineer or something could do. a mathematician on mission years ago caused issues, and as much as part of me thinks drones and such and sort of... thought people over estimated the second amendment.... the matter is might is just part of it. part of the ability of the united states I've been lead to believe is in logistics. what happens if communications and other networks go down because what ever technicians maintain or operate them might not be on a particular side. what about all the old school hawk republicans possibly in the military still. maybe they are on board. maybe we are past the old school ways in the drone era, etc. with that said, without knowing anyone or anything... I do wonder sometimes if there isn't a lot of bittersweet going around for even those benefitting. things turn, and humanity has been in bad places before, albeit this is a bit different. I don't know whats coming, I am in no way excited. I am not and have never been pro gun though I get why some are. I am in no way advocating any kind of violence. I am just wondering if there arent a lot of awfully clever people out there and that no defense is impregnable. I just don't think if things get ugly anyone sits pretty. I have no idea what drones operate on. I just assume there signals of some kind, and disruptions in signals or a chain of command... nothing looks good. I just know as humans, were all kind of in the same realm of flawed fools. while current issues arent helping growing health and environmental concerns... the political problems are still human unless AI can take over. and humans fuck up. humans change their minds.who knows though. history is full of humans pulling through bad situations, but certainly often worse for the wear. then again, human history is full of tragedy too and yes you are right that in no way should we be looking for or encouraging tragedy. then again I get why there isn't optimism for something like just talking it out or making a really good touching song

1

u/Objective_Dog_4637 21d ago

Yeah can we put all this bloodlust into political activism instead? I’m not sure what these guys think is gonna happen, we just unalive half the voting population and run off singing kumbaya into the fucking sunset?

0

u/notrueprogressive 21d ago

And Democrats in Blue states keep making it easier for the mass graves to happen by (still) pushing gun control.

-5

u/King_Slappa 21d ago

What do you mean by maga? You should be more concerned about the non maga people who voted against Dems last election. Dems lost them. I know why but I suspect you don't. If you think average everyday hardly political people are maga, prepare to lose more elections buddy.

80

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

I'm seeing a lot of people saying similar sentiments, and I'm guilty of it myself. But the real answer is far more frightening- it's going to depend on what a lot of individuals- commissioned and enlisted too- in the US military decide to do.

If it comes to the point where an armed populace is the only one fighting for America's values and freedom, we're cooked. Even if we get together a hundred million individuals (very very unlikely) with civilian firearms, pitting that versus the full might of a US Military that has fully bought into Trump's rhetoric and considers those armed civilians to be hostile traitors who deserve the full brunt of their capabilities to be brought to bear?

Those civilians lose without even seeing their opponent. The US military is bar none the most terrifying opponent that has ever existed. Their artillery can hit you before you know they're aware of you and LONG before you got into a position where your firearm would come into play. It's not like it was in the 1940s where a sufficiently motivated populace with a selection of cheap grease guns can move the needle. If the military decides it's ok with this all, we're done for. NOW, if elements within the military or perhaps the entire military itself decide otherwise, then things get a lot less bleak.

But I feel like this "If we all get guns we're golden" stuff is coming more from a place of "I am very depressed at the effective death of my nation and looking for an outlet, and this makes me feel like I still have some measure of power over the situation" rather than an "I have a realistic plan of making an insurrection possible and even potentially a military victory plausible".

37

u/theivoryserf6 21d ago edited 21d ago

I don't know if that's the right way of thinking about it - you don't need to defeat the US military necessarily, but you may need to win an extra-judicial political victory. If there were millions shutting down DC a la Serbia, how many soldiers would have the stomach to gun down thousands of American citizens, and how would Trump regime do that without losing at least some crucial supporters? It does involve significant risk of violence, sadly.

12

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

Well that's the thing. If the military folks receiving the orders either don't believe in them or decide not to follow them, that changes the whole paradigm. But I don't think the civilians being better armed is going to significantly influence that- if anything, it might make a military officer ordered to take them out because they're "armed rebels" feel more justified in doing so. Even relatively immoral people would probably hesitate at mowing down unarmed civilians of the nation you swore to serve. But if they're all armed and your president has painted them as traitorous armed insurrectionists that murder and eat babies (but only after forcing said babies to transition their gender or whatever the hell), you're probably a lot more likely to take the shot.

10

u/theivoryserf6 21d ago

OK, we actually agree on this then. I think you can shut a governmental system down without trying to go Taliban against the US army on home turf.

7

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

Yeah, I suspect most of us largely agree on this- and that we have options. And I want to be clear that I'm NOT saying we should toss our guns or even discouraging someone from becoming a gun owner and training themselves.

What I'm pushing back on is this idea that "If we all get armed we're golden", which I think is just... very far off the mark. It feels to me a bit like a power fantasy of reasserting ourselves in an environment in which we're very beaten down and more than a little depressed at how screwed our nation feels. It doesn't feel very constructive, and in the right context it can even be very DEstructive. And I also want to stress to the folks who say we should be arming up that if it truly came down to "It's us folks who have our semi-auto rifles, we're gonna save democracy, all we have to do is take on the US military" and hoping for a David v Goliath situation, it's a bit more like David showing up as usual and Goliath showing up with a tank and air support.

2

u/realistdreamer69 21d ago

I think if 70% of the constituents of Republicans want Trump to pull back, I think it could cause Congress to do it's job as a co-equal branch. Things will have to get much worse before that's viable.

Frankly, if private sector employees went on mass strike that would be enough. They'd declare Marshall law, markets crater and all legitimacy is lost. Not sure whether that would lead to anything better though.

1

u/belloch 21d ago

There is something everyone can do, peacefully.

There's a subreddit r/ 61612 but apply -1 on all the numbers. I think posts with the actual number get automatically deleted on some subreddits.

1

u/Odeeum 21d ago

You just need to label the protesters as the "other" in some way...like they did pretty easily during OWS. It's how it's done around the world...if you need to move soldiers around the country so you don't have guys from NY lighting up protesters in NY that's what you do...ala Tieneman Sq. People can be convinced they're the hero defending their homeland pretty easily.

73

u/Jaded-Lawfulness-835 21d ago

The US military spent 20 years losing a war against a broke civilian population pretty recently

30

u/IronBatman Texas 21d ago

Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? You need to be more specific

30

u/Anthropoideia 21d ago

In a foreign land, against long-time residents, living on extremely hostile territory, embedded in the local culture they didn't understand.

But valid.

47

u/TheInevitableLuigi 21d ago

That works both ways.

The US military did not have to defend its stateside training centers, supply lines, manufacturing capabilities, and energy generating facilities from an armed and educated population that looks and speaks just like them.

14

u/rahvin2015 21d ago

And their own family members. An artillery strike could kill your own family. It's a shame that Americans still dont understand what "collateral damage" means, and how horrific the use of modern weapons, even the well-targeted ones, is for the civilian population. It's been easy for Americans to ignore the effects of war, because it's never on our doorstep. 9/11 made us lose our minds...but 9/11 is nothing compared to the very first day of an actual war, let alone a civil war.

An armed populace is more about resisting the brownshirts - non-military goons who use violence outside of legal jurisdiction on behalf of but not "officially" controlled by the tyrants-in-waiting. I cant resist the US Army with a rifle. I can resist the fucking Proud Boys and KKK.

If we get to the real civil war part with the US military picking sides, we're going to have a really, really, really bad time. There literally are not enough soldiers in the entire military to successfully occupy the US, let alone with the population as armed as it is...and bombs and artillery mean that the "victor" gets to rule over a great pile of ash. But it will all be blood, and pain, and sorrow.

We've done it to other countries. It would be karma for us to do it to ourselves. But it would be better if we could lean a lesson without doing it the hard way for fucking once.

10

u/Flipnotics_ Texas 21d ago

The Civil War, a film by Ken Burns is still a very powerful watch to see how ugly a civil war is for everyone. Everyone will be touched by it, no matter how "entrenched" and "separated" they think they are.

All the things we take for granted like electricity and clean water and food will be very limited if not gone. Not to mention gas, medicine, and a plethora of other things.

9

u/BannedForSayingLuigi 21d ago

an armed and educated population that looks and speaks just like them.

Like our man Lu1gi

4

u/Anthropoideia 21d ago

I feel that, but there's another dimension to this which is almost as concerning to me as the idea of the military attacking citizens outright: we don't/didn't have the capacity to essentially locate any opposition forces, anywhere, any time along with a trove of digital information about them from their financials to their character and politics. That's the piece that scares me, because the power of surveillance seems to be something this oligarchy wants very badly.

NOT to encourage ANYBODY to stop resisting, at all, whatsoever. I'm doing stuff and you should too.

2

u/SquarePegRoundWorld 21d ago

And their hands were tied (for good reason if you ask me). They could have gone all Israel on Gaza level of destruction and accomplished more "winning".

9

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

The US military won that "war" in a matter of a few weeks, check out the early engagements that occurred. It was the half-baked "Peacekeeping" mission afterwards in which the military utterly failed- and that was because it was being tasked with performing a function that a militaries are typically not good at. Could a sufficiently motivated populace do the same here in the US and force them into an asymmetric war? Maybe- but the situation is FAR different in the US, the infrastructure here is far more built up, the information gathering far more easy... all of these things are colossal advantages for the military in question. It's hard to overstate how differently things would go here vs there.

If aforementioned military is hopped up on Trumpian rhetoric enough to consider a bunch of armed citizens organizing together as a "military target", and as a result is ok with bringing all of their toys to bear against it, you'll see just how little an AR-15 would do against an M1 Abrams or, even more likely, against a HIMARS stationed 150+ miles away.

1

u/GrouchySmurf 21d ago

You think the US would use artillery against its own people? It's such a masturbatory scenario.

3

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

"You think the US president would threaten NATO allies and declare that he'll be seizing their territory? It's such a masturbatory scenario" would've been the line ten years ago. Look how quickly THAT situation changed.

Look, what I'm pushing back on is this idea that if we all arm up things are gonna be just fine. As you are hinting at and as I directly stated in my very first comment, I find it unlikely that the whole US military would go "gloves off" mode against the populace. I think it's far more likely that the bulk of them would refuse to do so.

But in that scenario, what does it matter whether said populace is armed or not? If the military does decide to go full gloves off mode, an AR15 is about as useful as a slingshot versus the might of the military. And if they don't, then your gun won't see any use. If anything, everyone being armed is far more likely to make the military consider the average civilian a target.

I'm NOT saying don't get guns. What I'm pushing back on is this repeatedly reappearing sentiment that "Oh if we all buy guns they'll be scared of us and won't push us, or else if they do we'll be able to more easily form an insurrection". THAT is the actual masturbatory scenario.

3

u/GrouchySmurf 21d ago

The guns protect you against other "armed citizens" you know, undercover military, fascist organisations etc. realistic things that the goverment would covertly employ to keep control and a facade of democracy its obviously useless against tanks, warships and jets...

3

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

So, the undercover military duo shows up at your door, and you use your AR15 and your elite skills to take both of these trained armed agents out. Then....? You go on the run, or?

Again, not saying guns are useless and I'm a proponent of everyone knowing how to use firearms, at least basic knowledge, and I'm not opposed to gun ownership in the slightest. But a single civilian with a gun stacking up favorably against these fascist agents and undercover military agents... well, you did mention masturbatory scenarios.

1

u/Cyted 21d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing

Only time America was bombed was from itself, So yeah.

2

u/GrouchySmurf 21d ago

distressing

0

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco 21d ago

If you consider killing tens of thousands of them losing, sure.

5

u/plippityploppitypoop 21d ago

Yes, failing to achieve your objective is losing, even if you line the streets with corpses while trying.

1

u/Count_Backwards 21d ago

Especially when those corpses are now terrorist incubators

1

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco 21d ago

You misunderstand. My point is that the cost for resistance will be immense. We really want to stop it from reaching that point, because if it does hundreds of thousands are going to die.

Winning at the price it will cost will be bitter indeed.

8

u/Ahugel71 21d ago

i hear you, but just saying "we're fucked" isn't a very effective strategy, and will just allow more people to roll over and this scenario more likely to occur.

1

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

Definitely not my intent- my intent is more of to caution people not to put their eggs in this basket and assume the basket is infallible. I want to challenge the notion that if we all just buy guns the federal government and military would say "Woah, that guy's too tough, better calm down and back off". The military may disobey orders to attack citizens on our home soil, but I sincerely doubt it would be because they're too scared or because we're well armed enough to ward them off. Far, FAR more likely is that the decent people in the military (who in my eyes form the BULK of the military) would not want to kill their own countrymen, especially if they're unarmed... and that won't really be helped by us all getting guns.

The option isn't between buying guns and saying we're completely fucked. We have a lot of paths to resist. Getting a bunch of guns and instigating against the literal strongest force in the world seems like one of the worse ones.

1

u/uncleoperator 21d ago

I get what you're saying and throughout most of your responses think you're offering a very reasonable sounding take. Sympathy, framing, public perception are all crucial to any successful resistance, and mob violence doesn't garner any of that. However, I don't think anybody is expressing "arm yourself" in order to mount a rifle-line defense or to bully the feds. They're saying to arm yourself before it's too late so that you can protect yourself and yours. Fascists don't let their opponents stay armed. It's not a huge leap to think this administration, who seems keen to label any pro-palestine protestor as a domestic terrorist, might make moves to limit the ability of those they disagree with to mount any opposition. This is usually one of the first moves a government sliding into fascism makes. People are saying arm yourself now, because by the time you wish you had it will be too late.

But much more to the point, again I don't think people are wanting to jump straight to violent opposition at all. Regardless, you aren't the only one that knows the value of public perception, and the enlisted aren't gathering intel for themselves. What is to stop them from saying there are armed protestors whether that is true or not? When have the police ever cared about the truth before shouting "he has a gun"? When has there been a forum in the army where impartial evidence from both sides is presented to the troops before deciding to deploy them? It's a fairy tale to think the truth will matter in the face of this material reality.

Whether or not protestors are actually armed or violent has nothing to do with the narrative they will sell the public, and will certainly sell the enlisted. Just look at how Russia and Israel justify genocide. Being unarmed would not save their victims, and as well-intentioned as you may be, i don't think you realize it's a completely rigged game. What you are saying only serves to spread defeatism and to encourage everyone to roll over, even if your intention is simply to moderate people's baser instincts (which you don't really need to do; the base instincts are being displayed by the party in power, not the limited opposition which hasn't even gotten off their ass yet, let alone armed).

It just echoes Schumer completely rolling over these past few days, because to even lightly resist "would be worse". This kind of toothless liberalism is as much a part of how we got here as anything else.

18

u/necrotoxic 21d ago

Why would we be cooked if a hundred million individuals with civilian firearms were put up against the US military? The US military lost to farmers in Vietnam, and I wouldn't call Afghanistan a win for the US. Not to mention we live in our cities, you can't exactly drive a tank through your own city and expect it to be spared in a civil resistance scenario. If you have some militants hiding away in some towers, one wrong turn and that tank gets destroyed from above before it even knew what hit it. Drones are largely useless except in reconnaissance, do we want to destroy our own cities? We're not nuking ourselves, and we're not going to be firing missiles into like Chicago. Just imagine a scenario where we did bomb the shit out of New Jersey, some percentage of the military is from New Jersey, and they wouldn't just be okay with bombing their hometown.

Idk, I think a lot of these takes that the US military wins without really trying is conjecture. Not to say that what I'm saying isn't.. Plus we have a lot of retired military and military families. Think those enlisted might think twice about firing into a crowd of civilians of they knew there was a chance they had family in that crowd. I do think there's going to be a sizable chunk of the military who would defect if they were given such orders. Sorry for the rant

11

u/joshdoereddit 21d ago

You've probably just given the best take. Why would you bomb your own city? Your brother or sister could be marching in the crowd that gets gunned down. What if the town you're tasked to engage is that of your buddy you met in basic training?

I'm sure some percentage of the military won't give a shit. But I bet a larger percentage has someone they care about and would be unwilling to pull the trigger. Not to mention the whole oath to the Constitution and not the president. I didn't serve, but I don't suspect that oath was just words to many who enlisted.

1

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

Well, that's pretty much the crux of my point though. It'll all come down to whether the military goes along with it or not. I'm firmly of the belief that the vast majority of people in the military are decent people, who would refuse orders to take out civilians especially if they're unarmed. But in that context, the portion of those civilians who went out and bought AR15s is pretty much insignificant- if anything it could make the military feel MORE justified in attempting to take out what Trump would doubtless dub "traitorous armed insurrectionists".

If it DID come down to a situation where the Military didn't care and chose to follow orders over the constitution (something that the oath of commissioned officers, but interestingly NOT the oath of enlistedmen, specifically advises officers NOT to do), AR15s aren't going to do very much. Do I think they'd nuke NYC? No, I really doubt it. But if it DOES come down to a situation in which we need a bunch of dudes with civilian rifles, the US military would brush them aside like they weren't there. Unlike situations like the Middle East, where there was relatively little by way of infrastructure or domestic intelligence collection apparati, in which the populace was almost universally against our being there and spoke another language, and in which outside forces are helping to fund and arm the rebels... in the US it's domestic vs domestic, and the infrastructure and access to intelligence is FAR, FAR in favor of the military. To say nothing of the sheer access to destructive power.

3

u/Flipnotics_ Texas 21d ago

Man, just a take on this thread. It 100% sucks we now live in a world where we even are having discussions like this. Listen to how bad it's gotten this is even being talked and thought about.

We could have had it all, but we forgot the sacrifices of our forebears and now a dictator is in office. And 1/3 of the country applauded and cheered it while 1/3 shook with rage and the other 1/3 simply shrugged and went back to watching netflix.

2

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

No need to apologize, it's good conversation. Well, let me state it this way- if the US military is actually committed to taking out the individuals who take up arms and join in an organized resistance, I don't really see a case in which said resistance wins unless at least SOME portions of the military defect and refuse to follow orders. The cold hard truth is that, as I mentioned in another comment, if you and a hundred of your buddies team up with AR15s and intend to storm a military installation or something similar, AND assuming said installation doesn't care that you survive, you will die before you know you are in combat. Systems that the US military has available to it can rain down hellfire from almost 200 miles away with pinpoint accuracy.

Now, as you mentioned, there's a lot more to it- it's not as though the rebels would all clump up in a grassy field with their rifles and a big sign that says "We are the rebels". Likely much of any potential conflict would be urban warfare, asymmetric warfare, etc- and as you rightly pointed out, on top of militaries historically struggling with this type of combat, we actually have seen the US military in particular struggle at this.

But it's important to also note the differences in Vietnam and Afghanistan (and Iraq as well though you didn't mention that one). Vietnam is a bit too old to be a direct comparison- the amount to which the military's ability to detect and neutralize opposition has increased so far in the 50 years since that it's hard to compare one to one. But even in Vietnam, a situation in which on average the populace was at best tolerating US involvement, in which there was very little to no infrastructure in much of the combat environs, and in which the disparity between the two sides was far less (the VC and North Vietnam were getting supplied by the USSR and by China, so they weren't ONLY using civilian weaponry- they had plenty of toys; coupled with that the fact that the US military was far less advanced than it is now, and you have a situation where the two sides were a LOT closer in power than the level of disparity we'd have between an average American with a semi-auto 5.56 and a modern US military contingent), it's still worth noting the final numbers... estimates vary but between all of the allied nations, the US lost around 58k servicemembers and the South Vietnamese lost 250k, with several other allied nations losing anywhere from several thousand to several hundred. Place that up against the VC losing 1.1 million fighters and over two million civilians being killed, on top of the NVA deaths.... you can see how lopsided that kill ratio is EVEN WITH all of the mitigating factors I mentioned earlier.

Anyway, my point is not to say that it'd be literally useless to arm ourselves. Indeed I'm quite well armed myself and think most people should know how to operate firearms and potentially own at least one.

What I'm pushing back on is this idea that if a bunch of us buy guns we're golden and won't be able to get pushed around. If we ever made any significant movement against the government and the military DIDN'T disobey orders and/or defect, prospects are VERY VERY GRIM for any kind of military resistance/pushback to be all that much of a death blow for the current government.

1

u/korben2600 Arizona 21d ago

Agreed, America's recent conflicts highlight exactly how powerful asymmetric guerilla warfare can be against a global superpower. Plus, it wouldn't just be civilians with guns fighting the US military. Should he invoke the Insurrection Act and instruct the US military to kill civilians, every blue state would begin secession plans and each blue state has its own national guard. That means Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, F-35 fighter jets, on our side. It's civil war at that point.

1

u/opinionsareus 21d ago

Once the first few days of an armed revolution resulted in 50,000 deaths and the destruction of entire towns/cities, you would see the "revolutionaries" backing off real quick.

It's irresponsible and unrealistic to think that any civilian uprising would "win" anything. In fact, it would actively help give a dictator even MORE power to clamp down and destroy civil rights.

"Armed Revolution" in America is a fool's errand.

1

u/TheRedHand7 21d ago

I think a lot of people just got very comfortable lazily saying "military wins" to shut down any real discussion so they didn't have to get into the very uncomfortable truths about exactly how painful this process can be. Conservatives have been fantasizing about this scenario for years now. Liberals need to wake up and acknowledge that reality looks very different now and they need to be ready to actually defend their ideals. I wish it were different but this admin seems pretty dead set on destroying America as we have known it.

1

u/notrueprogressive 21d ago

These are the same people that trash talk about how the US military has never won a war since WW2 (Gulf War doesn’t count to them apparently), but claim it’ll immediately steamroll any sort of insurgency within its borders (the track record with winning against insurgencies isn’t that great).

3

u/Successful_Car4262 21d ago

That is so unbelievably not true it's staggering. This view of the US army as an omnipotent godlike force of destruction has got to stop. There aren't enough drones, missiles, and troops in the US arsenal to kill an uprising of even a fraction of a percent of the US population. Literally, our arsenal is not big enough. If 1/3 of 1% of Americans were angry enough to pick up a gun, it would be the largest fighting force on the planet, and that would be an absurd overkill for what would be needed to cripple the military on home turf. How the fuck are you going to make a secure operating area when anyone could be an insurgent? It's impossible.

I'm not advocating for it, but stop thinking you're helpless. The only people who speak about the military like gods are people not in the military. Every active or former member I know agrees that it would be an unmanageable disaster that they could never win.

1

u/notrueprogressive 21d ago

It’s Reddit. They don’t understand insurgency warfare.

2

u/Successful_Car4262 21d ago

Tbf, neither do I lol. I just talk to people who do. One of the biggest "own guns to fight the government if it becomes tyrannical" guys I've ever know was active military, and he specifically cited all the ways they didn't have a prayer of containing that kind of threat.

1

u/notrueprogressive 21d ago

Well here’s an example:

Pick up a gun and take 2-3 potshots at a passing military convoy in the city, immediately drop the gun and run off into the crowd Assassin’s Creed style. Of course since you’re wearing gloves, a mask, and definitely weren’t armed you’re definitely not the shooter no sir. If you’re lucky you’ll hit one or two of them.

Rinse and repeat with 0-10 of your buddies.

If you’re feeling extra spicy you can make some IEDs.

2

u/GGAllinsMicroPenis 21d ago

I think you don’t understand how many a hundred million is.

1

u/Rhannmah 21d ago

And even then, it's a lot more complex than that. The logistics of keeping 100 million people fed while they fight the US army who also need to eat 3 meals a day while all the materials to do so are sourced internally is just unfeasible. It's such a scale that it just doesn't work.

2

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

Quite true, as ever we are a slave to logistics more than anything else. And no matter how that situation shook out, the true winners wouldn't be ANYONE domestic.... it'd be our foes abroad, making use of the chaos to cement and enhance their own positions.

1

u/tayjay_tesla 21d ago

I mean if such a hypothetical situation resulted in the ousting of fascists them I reckon domestic American minorities, trans, gays, etc would be winners. You know because of the not dying.

1

u/BannedForSayingLuigi 21d ago

it's going to depend on what a lot of individuals- commissioned and enlisted too- in the US military decide to do.

Everyone, enlisted and officer, needs to be reading up on what is and is not a legal order to receive from a commanding officer.

versus the full might of a US Military

For the reason I am describing, I can't describe the full might unilaterally taking illegal orders. I know these are unprecedented times and I could be wrong.

But I feel like this "If we all get guns we're golden" stuff is coming more from a place of "I am very depressed at the effective death of my nation and looking for an outlet, and this makes me feel like I still have some measure of power over the situation"

I'm glad that people like Bernie Sanders are assuming leadership as far as preaching the pragmatic solutions, but I also gotta say here and now that this war has to be fought from all angles. The gun ownership isn't about being able to defeat heavy artillery, it's about the elite understanding that any one of us can become Lu1gi. In fact, that's what people should be doing instead of considering suic1de. That's why I will upvote "get your guns" every time.

1

u/Ferelar New Jersey 21d ago

Interestingly enough, at present the oath for a commissioned officer vs enlistedman is different. An Officer swears first and foremost to uphold the constitution, and only second to follow orders from senior officers. Curiously, enlistedmen take an oath to follow orders from the officers/leadership, not the constitution. I don't really know why there is a disparity there, but I have a feeling in a true extreme situation it may come up.

Regarding whether the fully military would side with Trump if he truly walks the rest of the way down this path he's currently striding along at breakneck pace? I agree actually, I don't see the full military and maybe not even the majority of the military going along with it. But I see a lot of people talking about the military hesitating when ordered to kill civilians... I don't see too many people asking how many armed civilians would be able to actually pull the trigger and kill an 18 year old from West Virginia in uniform, even if they actually did get the opportunity. Without revealing too much about myself I can say that I have undergone training and I think I would find it tough despite that. Someone who hasn't undergone any training or conditioning... I'm not so sure how that would go down.

As for your last point... I understand where you're coming from and agree with most of what you said. In fact, I am pro firearm ownership and think most people should at least learn how to operate and properly handle them. But I think in general people do vastly overestimate the power of them and a few of their buddies getting guns. If we frame it as green mario empowerment, then yeah, I'm right there with you. But I think a lot of people DON'T frame it that way, and this idea that we can all just arm up and then the US military wouldn't be able to win against us is anywhere from pointless power fantasy to irrelevant to maybe even potentially destructive. I like to point this out when people mention it, because it's something very important to note- combat is no game, and the person on BOTH ends of that rifle is a human being... and chances are high that it's not the human being you actually have beef with (when's the last time the rich actually fought their own battles?). Things can and probably will get very, VERY messy... and we need to be smart about how we approach them.

1

u/SethGrey 21d ago

In this day and age, an armed revolution would be fought with cheap drones strapped with explosives.

1

u/God_Damnit_Donut 21d ago

Yet, there's Afghanistan.

1

u/notrueprogressive 21d ago

It’s a shame the lived combat experiences of the US soldiers that fought against an insurgency is disregarded by most people in this thread that think the Taliban just stood in an open field and let themselves get bombed.

1

u/notrueprogressive 21d ago

Oh yes the US military will artillery strike downtown NYC or wherever just to root out some insurgents. The point of an insurgency is to blend in with the population and take potshots / set off IEDs against military targets and then suddenly blend back in with the civilian population. No insurgent with half a brain is going to face off with the US military in an open field and let them bomb them into atoms.

1

u/Arek_PL 21d ago

even in 1940's the uprisings didnt really end well without foreign military support

but despite all the tech and militaries being better in counter insurgency operations than before, some things didnt change, infrastructure is still quite bomb-able, railways, highways, power substations, all critical parts of infrastructure that barely gets defended

1

u/CrispyDonkee 21d ago

Listen to the podcast “it could happen here” first season… it’s entirely possible.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/it-could-happen-here/id1449762156

1

u/40days40nights 21d ago

Our military gets its ass kicked routinely

-1

u/schwindick 21d ago

The US military hasn't won a war in 80 years. And without the Soviets we would have lost that one.

27

u/StronglyHeldOpinions 21d ago

The only true winner in all of this are the gun and ammo manufacturers.

Especially if things are bad enough now that us libs are considering them.

34

u/-rikia 21d ago

"go left far enough and you get your guns back!"

-1

u/AffectionateMusic306 21d ago

Only until the revolution is over. Then you gotta hand them back in, comrade, lest you start a new revolution!

4

u/Patanned 21d ago

that's what happened after our own revolution:

...the Constitution’s Framers in 1787 and the authors of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress in 1789 never intended the Second Amendment to be construed as the right for individuals to take up arms against the Republic. In fact, their intent was the opposite.

The actual goal of the Second Amendment was to promote state militias for the maintenance of order in a time of political uprisings, potential slave revolts and simmering hostilities with both European powers and Native Americans on the frontiers. Indeed, its defined purpose was to achieve “security” against disruptions to the country’s republican form of government.

...the false theme[...]peddled by some...that the Framers...and members of the First Congress want[ed] an armed population to overthrow the government if the people weren’t happy with something is completely opposite of what was intended.

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Patanned 20d ago

disagree with your interpretation of history. this offers a different one:

One of the first uses of the new state militias formed under the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts, which required able-bodied men to report for duty with their own muskets, was for President Washington to lead a federalized force of militiamen against the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt in western Pennsylvania in 1794.

In the South, one of the principal reasons for a militia was to rally armed whites to put down slave uprisings...the Second Amendment was meant to maintain public order even an unjust order rather than to empower the oppressed to take up arms against the government. That latter idea was a modern reinterpretation or distortion of the history.

The Constitution’s Framers were not some early version of Leon Trotsky favoring permanent revolution.

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Patanned 20d ago

reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit, is it.

the Second Amendment was meant to maintain public order even an unjust order

your argument is based on a false premise fallacy: the implementation of federalized militiamen to put down the whiskey rebellion was a coercive threat to pay taxes - which it was not.

according to the text i provided (especially the part i bolded) the action taken to put down the rebellion was to maintain public order even if it was perceived as unjust - which is how you obviously see it.

1

u/AffectionateMusic306 21d ago

I assume you're agreeing with me with this post. Anyone (left or right) who thinks 2A will be used against the Feds or quotes that tired "tree watering" meme will eventually get a reality check. That reality check is usually in the form of fedbois blowing down their door at 4am, shooting their dog, flashbanging their child, and arresting them on terrorism charges.

1

u/Patanned 20d ago

oh yeah, definitely agree that the fringy rw-ers' knee-jerk reaction to anything that threatens their imaginary world always involves guns and violence, and they're usually the same ones feigning "concern" when those who refuse to live in a rw insane asylum are forced to resort to strategies other than reason.

26

u/Traditional-Mix2702 21d ago

The winner is us too. Honestly, without armed resistance, we're fucked.

This is how we can make actual demands, like everyone in congress gets a fixed salary and has to concede all stocks and crypto or quit.

9

u/DrFlutterChii 21d ago

Make a list of stable and prosperous (for the average citizen) countries, by whatever metric you like. Rank them.

Make another list of countries with a recent history of armed conflict between civilian and domestic military. Rank them according to frequency and intent.

See how far down the list of 'with armed resistance' you have to look until you find any overlap with 'prosperous citizens'.

I'm not saying we aren't fucked. I'm saying calling it a 'winning' outcome is kind of stretch. There's no historical precedent for any path leading from this point ending with a net-positive outcome.

1

u/Traditional-Mix2702 21d ago

Oh shoot, I tried to respond, but I did it in the wrong spot. I think I just changed from millenial to boomer

1

u/Successful_Car4262 21d ago

That's sort of the point. Elected officials should, hopefully, consider the fact that any power they had will be gone if they let it get to that point. It's mutually assured destruction. Sure our lives will be hell, but we'll also be dragging politicians out of their home, which I'm assuming is something they don't want.

It's not OUR job to quietly accept any amount of oppression imaginable, it's THEIR job to not oppress us to the point where it feels worth it to burn everything down.

0

u/KungFuSnafu 21d ago

Idk how much small arms are going to do against a surveillance state and drones.

At best it's guerilla for years. I'm not even sure the IRA could function like they used to in today's world.

1

u/Traditional-Mix2702 21d ago edited 21d ago

If I had to hope for something, I'd hope for the glorious revolution of 1688.

Ironically, I suspect something I'm saying might be somewhat off just because the only time I get upvotes is when I have shit ass takes.

But this is what I believe. The democrats do beans and the republicans actively dismantle it times like 10 and we just flip flop that. Ultimately, the reason behind it is corruption.

If we can start with the basis of a non-partisan list of demands we're actually willing to fight for to target the heart of corruption in government, there might be a chance for our kids.

Conservatives, even maga (excepting extreme cases), are surprisingly in alignment on this too.

This is the list in my head:

  1. Politicians need good fixed salaries, and are disallowed from stocks and crypto. Any existing politicians who refuse are given three months to retire. Any caught taking bribes (could be a car or a vacation, etc) are charged with treason and summarily executed or jailed for extremely long times. All gifts have to go into their tax summation at the end of the year. Anything that gets missed is looked at __very closely__.
  2. The FBI needs to have a department that just tries to bribe politicians, to root it out. And if they hit the portion they hit last time, great job. Everyone in the FBI gets a bonus and a lot of politicians go to jail for life.
  3. Lobbying is considered bribery. Anyone caught trying to bribe politicians is similarly punished. Lobbyists have to use the same communication channels as everybody else.
  4. Ad spend on elections has to be abolished or heavily capped.
  5. Superdelegates have to go. Whomever wins in primary, wins in primary. Even if its Trump, even if its Bernie. People's vote goes.
  6. 70% tax on people with over 100m.

I think thats the list to fix things, and I think if we could organize under that list, it'd be done and done.

EDIT: There are probably a lot of things that I'm missing that constitute bribery, like taking a huge payout after term, or having a sister that just "happens to be a stock genius". That stuff is nuanced, but a non-partisan short list just focused on corruption as a basis is what I think.

2

u/KungFuSnafu 21d ago

We're going to have to find common ground with them or else we're all fucked.

I think you have a good list going.

1

u/got_knee_gas_enit 21d ago

Will they at least give us money for food and ammo?

1

u/Traditional-Mix2702 21d ago

Unfortunately, I think resistance tends to be more of a grassroots type of operation.

3

u/notrueprogressive 21d ago

Too bad the Blue states keep trying to ban more guns.

1

u/StronglyHeldOpinions 21d ago

Which states have banned guns?

Name them. Cite your sources.

2

u/notrueprogressive 21d ago

Assault weapons ban: WA, CA, IL, NY, MA, NJ, CT, MD, DE. And with more states on the way.

https://www.everytown.org/solutions/assault-weapons/

Now who will win in a firefight? A liberal with only a pistol, shotgun, or bolt action against a conservative brown shirt with an assault rifle?

Liberals absolutely need firepower on par with the people that will kill us for our politics.

2

u/StronglyHeldOpinions 21d ago

That is probably the best argument for assault weapons I've ever heard, to be honest.

2

u/Flipnotics_ Texas 21d ago

Libs have always also had them. They just weren't insecure to feel the need to flex to everyone under the sun they had them.

12

u/Seven19td 21d ago

Liberal here who bought my first gun last weekend. Going shooting all weekend. I never wanted one but this is unprecedented times we live in. We see where the wind is blowing. Gotta protect myself and my family at ALL costs

3

u/blah_blah_bitch 21d ago

I've been shooting all my life, you should start now if you have not already. Go to your local gun club and tell them to teach you and they will. Go load up and practice every weekend

2

u/AffectionateMusic306 21d ago

And what are you going to do with them? I'll tell you what: the same thing that every conservative who's ever said this phrase will. i.e.: nothing.

2

u/[deleted] 21d ago

Start?

1

u/Yvanko 21d ago

people are not willing to vote Trump out, no way they will die to remove him.

1

u/Defiant_Pomelo333 21d ago

Ah, true American. Guns and more guns!

1

u/Zarda_Shelton 21d ago

So naive.

1

u/opinions360 21d ago

best answer/response heard all week. I said this before but there are not any or enough of these kinds of stores for women and/or democrats.

1

u/UUtch 21d ago

Governments have drones. Republicans worried about their guns aren't wrong because they're Republicans, they're wrong because they're wrong

1

u/Alakozam 21d ago

There are more guns in Amerikkka than there are people. The fuck is MORE going to do?

1

u/Devil-Revelator 21d ago

For what? To shoot fellow Americans (human beings) at the behest of billionaires? Sorry to say, that's exactly what they want. Peace is the only thing in this world worth having, and we all know it on some level. Peace through annihilation is just wrong and unnecessary. We can all be better than this, and if we aren't, we'll deserve what we get.

2

u/Anthropoideia 21d ago

Yeah, I'm not getting a gun. I'll get some more defensive non-lethals though, because of how amped up people are.

I wonder as well how much calls to arms are being co-opted or spurred by people without our best interests at heart, if you follow.

0

u/HeimLauf 21d ago

Some of us can’t.

1

u/DeltaVZerda 21d ago

Make friends with someone who can who has more than 1 gun.