Arby's apologizes after officer is denied service for being a cop

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 08:02 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: There's no guarantee that ALL of the military would take the side of the citizens. 

Or what if some crazy Hitler type came into power and created his own military like the brown shirts of Nazi Germany?

Not saying that I think these things will happen, but we're playing hypotheticals here.  

I get it. But, still... Wal-Mart guns vs just1/50th of the U.S. military. It's still a 0% chance. That ship sailed a long time ago. Not saying it's good, but it is what it is.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 08:06 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I get it. But, still... Wal-Mart guns vs just1/50th of the U.S. military. It's still a 0% chance. That ship sailed a long time ago. Not saying it's good, but it is what it is.

You'd think that the Afghans wouldn't have a chance against the Soviets or the US either. 

While obviously they'd hold a very large advantage in weaponry and technology, there's a reason why no nation has attempted an invasion on US soil since the early 1800s.  

[Rotobeast]

(09-08-2015, 08:06 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I get it. But, still... Wal-Mart guns vs just1/50th of the U.S. military. It's still a 0% chance. That ship sailed a long time ago. Not saying it's good, but it is what it is.

In a head-on confrontation, you are completely right.
It is likely such a thing would largely contain guerilla tactics, espionage, and sabotage by an insurgency.

[Belsnickel]

(09-08-2015, 08:06 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I get it. But, still... Wal-Mart guns vs just1/50th of the U.S. military. It's still a 0% chance. That ship sailed a long time ago. Not saying it's good, but it is what it is.

One of the reasons our founding fathers weren't fans of a standing army. They saw it as an affront to liberty.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 11:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: One of the reasons our founding fathers weren't fans of a standing army. They saw it as an affront to liberty.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-08-2015, 08:08 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You'd think that the Afghans wouldn't have a chance against the Soviets or the US either. 

While obviously they'd hold a very large advantage in weaponry and technology, there's a reason why no nation has attempted an invasion on US soil since the early 1800s.  

Our Navy....The Ocean...Their lack of practical delivery of soldiers to our soil....Threat of a Nuclear Option...Our Air Force


Nope

Our hunting rifles... 

[Benton]

(09-09-2015, 11:17 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Our Navy....The Ocean...Their lack of practical delivery of soldiers to our soil....Threat of a Nuclear Option...Our Air Force


Nope

Our hunting rifles... 

Well we did have those when we tried to annex Canada. That worked out, eh?

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-09-2015, 11:26 AM)Benton Wrote: Well we did have those when we tried to annex Canada. That worked out, eh?

We quickly realized that they make a better hat.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-09-2015, 11:17 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Our Navy....The Ocean...Their lack of practical delivery of soldiers to our soil....Threat of a Nuclear Option...Our Air Force


Nope

Our hunting rifles... 

Aside from the ocean, none of those were much of an issue really until the last 70 years.  Even less in some respects. 

That said, I laugh at people that worry about China and Russia.  They'd get jail-sexed if either ever had the stones to try a mainland invasion.

As for the talk of a hypothetical war between military and citizens, our military has a little more than 2 million people between active and reserves.  They don't have the numbers to keep control of an area the size of the US on their own.  They would be spread out and would get their azzes kicked for that reason alone.

[GMDino]

(09-09-2015, 11:45 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Aside from the ocean, none of those were much of an issue really until the last 70 years.  Even less in some respects. 

That said, I laugh at people that worry about China and Russia.  They'd get jail-sexed if either ever had the stones to try a mainland invasion.

As for the talk of a hypothetical war between military and citizens, our military has a little more than 2 million people between active and reserves.  They don't have the numbers to keep control of an area the size of the US on their own.  They would be spread out and would get their azzes kicked for that reason alone.

Do you take into account the number of citizens who would SIDE with the military?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-09-2015, 11:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Do you take into account the number of citizens who would SIDE with the military?

I would be very confident that most that would think it's okay to kill American citizens probably don't own as many guns or are as well-trained in weaponry as those that were opposed to it. 

There's a reason the left hates the NRA, right?  

[GMDino]

(09-09-2015, 11:55 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I would be very confident that most that would think it's okay to kill American citizens probably don't own as many guns or are as well-trained in weaponry as those that were opposed to it. 

There's a reason the left hates the NRA, right?  

A lot of gun owners hate the NRA.

A lot of people on the "left" own guns too.

I'm just asking because in case of Civil War or uprising there is always some that will side with the powers that be.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-09-2015, 11:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: A lot of gun owners hate the NRA.

I'm one of them.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-09-2015, 11:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: A lot of gun owners hate the NRA.

A lot of people on the "left" own guns too.

I'm just asking because in case of Civil War or uprising there is always some that will side with the powers that be.

Sure there are gun owners who hate the NRA.  I'm a gun owner and don't belong.  I don't "hate" the NRA though. 

And of course some would side with an oppressive government turning on their citizens. 

Still think that there are more good people than bad, and that a government turning guns on their citizens would definitely be bad, whatever the reason. 

I would think most LEOs would side with the citizens, which would give the good guys another advantage. 

As I said, it would take a very large number of bad people to occupy this country and impose their will.  Adding a couple of million people to the military wouldn't change the outcome.  Now if you're talking about 50 million additional, that might change it. 

If we have 50 million people that think it's okay for the government to kill Americans, we probably deserve to fail as a country.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-09-2015, 11:45 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Aside from the ocean, none of those were much of an issue really until the last 70 years.  Even less in some respects. 

That said, I laugh at people that worry about China and Russia.  They'd get jail-sexed if either ever had the stones to try a mainland invasion.

As for the talk of a hypothetical war between military and citizens, our military has a little more than 2 million people between active and reserves.  They don't have the numbers to keep control of an area the size of the US on their own.  They would be spread out and would get their azzes kicked for that reason alone.

I think the greater deterrent that holds the military in check here in the US is our culture and that I believe it would be incredibly difficult for a leader to convince the entire military to attack it citizens.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-09-2015, 12:12 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I think the greater deterrent that holds the military in check here in the US is our culture and that I believe it would be incredibly difficult for a leader to convince the entire military to attack it citizens.

It would be difficult. 

I think at some point ideology will be our next civil war.  Not something I want or look forward to, but I don't see how we continue on with the two sides being so opposed on so many different levels. 

[Rotobeast]

Let me say first that I don't have a link, as it is first hand Info from a Sergeant friend of mine.
They do studies regarding troop reactions to civil disturbances quite often.
In a scenario where the Government were battling citizens unjustly,  over 60% of the military would side with civilians. I feel pretty good about that,  given a lot would be worried about superiors viewing their responses.

[GMDino]

(09-09-2015, 12:06 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Sure there are gun owners who hate the NRA.  I'm a gun owner and don't belong.  I don't "hate" the NRA though. 

And of course some would side with an oppressive government turning on their citizens. 

Still think that there are more good people than bad, and that a government turning guns on their citizens would definitely be bad, whatever the reason. 

I would think most LEOs would side with the citizens, which would give the good guys another advantage. 

As I said, it would take a very large number of bad people to occupy this country and impose their will.  Adding a couple of million people to the military wouldn't change the outcome.  Now if you're talking about 50 million additional, that might change it. 

If we have 50 million people that think it's okay for the government to kill Americans, we probably deserve to fail as a country.

Oj, I missed the highlighted part.  I thought it was a general uprising that caused a military response. Like the Civil War.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-09-2015, 12:23 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: It would be difficult. 

I think at some point ideology will be our next civil war.  Not something I want or look forward to, but I don't see how we continue on with the two sides being so opposed on so many different levels. 

I think you will have a larger potion of citizens backing the military if there is a civil war.  Much like the last one, given that usually these things begin with a military action engaged by a group opposed to the current government.  Think of how different the Civil War would have been viewed by the contemporaries of the day had the US military began bombardment of Charleston and or any other city in the south prior to the Confederacy firing on Fort Sumter.

A military defending it's government from overthrow is much different from a military being used by a government of oppress a population.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-09-2015, 12:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oj, I missed the highlighted part.  I thought it was a general uprising that caused a military response. Like the Civil War.

Yeah...He discusses them as if they are interchangable...Which they are not.