The government vs. the people

[25centsandwich]

A subset of the gun control is people need guns to prevent a government takeover.

Was having this debate with a co-worker...there is no way that guns even would enter the equation.

I told him the govt has all types of ways to disrupt and bend the civilian population. Blackouts, propaganda, restricting medicines and other essential goods. His argument was that the US couldn't even conquer afghanistan or vietnam.

So what do yall think? Simple rules...everybody who works for the US govt (military, civilians, contactors) stays on that side. Everybody else is against the government.

 

[AZTG]

The US army couldnt control the Afganistan but its not like Afganistant won. 20 years of 0 economic growth, social growth or growth of any kind and we got what? 5k army members dead compared to the hundreds of thousands taliban/al qeada/afgani civilians dead. How would that situation be a win for American citizens? So the citizens fighting back will have the occasional shooting and the occasional killing of a US soldier, but their living standards would be complete garbage.

Plus in Afganistan the Taliban was a real central government with control and a foundation and media and bases and everything else in place. If war against the govt pops off right now, who is leading the US civilians? Where is coordination for the citizens gonna come from? Who is gonna manage the supply lines?

Not to mention the best places to live in afganistan right now are US military bases.

There is no regular Afgani citizens that want to live in these conditions just to fight the opressors.

Thats a terrible comparison if you break it down.

The fact that people romanticize this shit and think we would have a chance against the US govt is crazy.

 

[GNS]

A subset of the gun control is people need guns to prevent a government takeover.

Was having this debate with a co-worker...there is no way that guns even would enter the equation.

I told him the govt has all types of ways to disrupt and bend the civilian population. Blackouts, propaganda, restricting medicines and other essential goods. His argument was that the US couldn't even conquer afghanistan or vietnam.

So what do yall think? Simple rules...everybody who works for the US govt (military, civilians, contactors) stays on that side. Everybody else is against the government.

I'll just say I agree with u. Cacs in the south hard on for owning guns for so called guvment protection is bullshit.
If them government cacs want u u might as well stamp your ticket to cancer, car accident or some other bullshit ways they can get rid of u.

Government is cool with them owning guns because of the money they earn and the false sense of security it provides

 

[GO843]

Well it'd depend on what you consider "losing"...There aren't more govmt officials and employees than there are regular citizens...So let's say the govmt implements strategic attacks and kills most of us...They lose cause now you don't have the manpower to keep the country goin...Let's say they use some forms of mental warfare to make us surrender...That'd work better, but unless they used literal mind control, the distrust of the govmt after surrender would only increase to the point where there would be constant large scale revolting...

So, I think it's in the govmt's best interest to satiate and sedate a large enough percentage of the population that there will be no real revolution...Cause once that happens there's no real winning scenario...Unless they have technology to completely control our minds or create new people from scratch...

 

[808HiLife808]

Hows that work?
The military and all that come from the people...I get the premise, but doesnt having the military come in and take people or infrastructure out ultimately fuck them up too?

They'd prob be doing it until it hit too close to home like that one hunger games movie..