this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5425 readers
3829 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The cops justify needing that because you have an ar15.

[–] pc_admin@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it's really not that complicated!

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If everyone gets rid of their ar-15's, do the cops sell this vehicle?

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, once every person in the USA voluntarily hands in every semi-auto rifle...the cops will decommission the tanks.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure they will, because most police forces have used them in situations that require an armored vehicle and aren't just doing it to cosplay being the gestapo.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

sorry. I thought once every person in the USA voluntarily hands in every semi-auto rifle. made it obvious I was not talking about reality.

[–] Knusper@feddit.de -2 points 1 year ago

They might not sell it, but they probably wouldn't get funding for buying another one.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can ask both. I can even ask if maybe one of the reasons cops have that is that people are more heavily armed?

[–] uis@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What the point if everything is lethal?

[–] apazzy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The police aren't a part of the community they serve, it's explicitly trained into them to treat every situation as "us" vs "them". If "they" have rifles then "we" need armored vehicles.

Edit: to be very clear, I am not in support of police militarization.

[–] regalia@literature.cafe 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Zero civilians need AR15s unless they're planning a mass shooting.

[–] Shapillon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Or a revolution ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(agreed we're not there but that's another use of civilians owning warfare weapons)

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's exactly the argument that conservatives always give for gun ownership. But like, how would they possibly overrun the largest military in the world with their personal arsenals?

Maybe they could take a city but I can't see it being a long lasting victory.

[–] Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If anything, the US's engagements in Vietnam and, more recently, the Middle East have shown that eradicating an insurgent force is incredibly difficult, to the point of being almost impossible. On top of that, there are weapons used during the GWOT that wouldn't (shouldn't(?)) Be used against American citizens, unless their goal is to be rulers of the ashes. On top of that, there are plenty of American Servicemembers that would straight up refuse to attack American citizens, and would potentially aid the insurgency with things like vehicles and ammo.

Add on top of that the extensive gun culture and sheer number of veterans in the general US population and I'd say they have a fighting chance.

I say this all as a former military intelligence analyst myself.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You were slackin at your job if you don't understand that the majority of people would oppose these insurgents, by definition, since that is how democracy works.

There is no situation in which domestic insurgents would not be crushed utterly. They'd be heavily restricted in movement, denied resupply, theyd lose contact with their families, friends, etc as well as all cellular communication. They would not have air superiority. They wouldn't even be able to contest air superiority. The most advanced counter-terrorism force in human history would be tracking them. When caught, they will absolutely land in Gitmo, at best, and will absolutely give up everything because these are not hardened fighters, these are your neighbors.

The US is a fucking fortress. This is a complete non-starter. We haven't even touched on actual military engagement yet. I'm not convinced it would even ever get to a point where it was necessary.

If it ever was, the US would have to show the world that a challenge to its supremacy on its territory by (now non-)citizens in open rebellion absolutely will not be allowed to happen.

The affected areas will completely locked down. The insurgents will lose all access to travel, because the entire area will. Then it's just counter-terrorist procedure practiced over 20 years thousands of miles away.

[–] Texas_Hangover@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Ask Vietnam, or Afghanistan.

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Because you're allowed to have an AR15"

[–] SpicaNucifera@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Correct. This is one part of the price of our shit gun control.