zlacker

Yes, because pop-guns do anything against trillions of dollars in armor plating and advanced weaponry. Of course we never talk about what happens if the armed population goes along with the tyrannical government against the repressed as we're seeing now.

This is such a mentally lazy platitude. All arming the population has done is incentivize them to use their arms against their fellow countrymen.

>>beepbo+(OP)
> Yes, because pop-guns do anything against trillions of dollars in armor plating and advanced weaponry.

of course it does. bombs or tanks dont help you hold a city - it is singly people with firearms to kill the other people with firearms.

its a different story if youre talking total war, but theres basically no scenario where american military would decimate american cities.

> This is such a mentally lazy platitude

interesting opinion considering all you have to do is look at the last two decades of failed intervention in the middle east.

EDIT: additionally, many places in the middle east were occupied against their will by the terrorist forces we were there to fight. thats not the same as a citizen militia resisting occupation

>>beepbo+(OP)
Right, the superior technology and advanced weaponry was what led the US to so quickly and decisively crush insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq using dusty old AK-47s and cheap improvised explosive devices.

>>rm_-rf+O9
Now compare the casualties between the US and Afghanistan or Iraq.

>>kcb+9e
In a civil-war scenario, that level of destruction would be suicide for a government's economic and international survival and cause mass military desertion/defection. That counts as deterrence.

>>kcb+9e
The US does not count mercenary deaths as casualties IIRC

>>8note+qY
Wikipedia does.