Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military? - Irish Girl Reacts
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 11. 2021
- I almost didn’t do this one. but then I remembered one crucial element...
Right now America seems more divided than it has ever seemed to us from afar.
Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military? - Irish Girl Reacts
Be sure to check out the original video in the Infographics Channel at: • Could The US Citizens ...
"Today we are revolting against the government, and the military has come to shut us down. Who would win in this epic face off between the United States citizens versus the United States Military. You may think you know the answer but the results would surprise you. Let's take a look in this animated video about Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?"
Special thanks to my AMAZING Squad. You guys support this channel in more ways than one. If you want to be a lovely weirdo and get MORE BLOOPERS, more personal content & behind the scenes, influence videos and MORE!
/ dianejennings
Get merch!
www.teespring.com/stores/Dian...
Get ED a coffee to stay awake while editing
paypal.me/DianeJennings
Dianodrama-ID
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use. I have licences for ALL songs used. IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN DIANE’S INNER CIRCLE OF LOVELY HUMANS :
▶ Patreon: / dianejennings
▶ Buy Editor Diane a Coffee on PayPal: www.paypal.me/DianeJennings
▶ CZcams Membership: / @dianejennings
▶ Merch: teespring.com/stores/DianeJen...
FOLLOW MY OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS:
▶ Twitch: / dianodrama
▶ Second Channel: / @dianebeforedawn
▶ Instagram: / dianodrama
▶ TikTok: / dianodrama
▶ Twitter: / dianodrama
----------
MY EQUIPMENT & PROPS
▶ My Sony Camera + Lens amzn.to/3Qn0bVt
▶My Elgato Cam link amzn.to/3s8snDv
▶My Mic amzn.to/3QGU4MN
▶My Audio Recorder amzn.to/3FFFYFt
▶My Lapel Mic amzn.to/3FFFYFt
▶My Laptop amzn.to/3QeJLy4
▶My iMac amzn.to/3FIdBq1 (this is a newer model with the same speed and memory)
▶My mobile desk amzn.to/3FIdBq1
▶My “Gaming” Chair amzn.to/46VyOZo
▶ My Gimble amzn.to/49muggg
▶My Wallpaper amzn.to/40q01kO
▶My Mirrored Desk amzn.to/3QolqWF
▶Ikea “Lack” Shelves amzn.to/4622t1U
----------
I usually upload Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays at 10:15pm (CET) - sometimes only 2/3
I always check comments in the First Hour Club, the first hour after I upload below! So let me know what you’d like to see on the channel ↓
FEED THE ALGORITHM MONSTER! It’s FREE to feed him and he likes eating your Subscriptions, Comments and Likes. See surprise uploads by turning on the bell
----------
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
Dianodrama-ID - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Millions would die so let's hope it never happens 🙏🙏🙏
There is a reason why we have those pew pews lol! Just in case another Hitler comes along. Maybe Stalin? Either way we live as a nation or die as one. 1st choice is my answer otherwise.
Amen to that, brother. And if other nations got involved in the process... that death toll would be exponentially higher.
Like Brandon and Xi.
Yes, no one wants war… but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t prepare for war.
Agreed
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
― Thomas Jefferson.
But people that promote this nonsense are just Mad Max wannabees and they are the ones providing tyranny.
@@astrogatorjones We The People, For The People, By The People. Democracy Exists here for a Reason which is the same Reason why we aren't a Monarch. We don't have a Dictator and the Bill Of Rights is and forever more will be Constitutional.
@@SENO199022 Then you were against the attempted overthrow of the government and Consitution by Trump and hangers-on. So am I.
@@astrogatorjones BS that was a setup
@@astrogatorjones lol still afraid of Trump....I pity you.
Army veteran here currently serving as a police officer for my city. The short answer is, yes, the citizens could overrun the military if it came down to it which would involve a total tyrannical rogue government completely superceding the constitution. It would not only be within the citizen's right it would also be our constitutional duty to overthrow such a dictatorship or oligarchy.
It's close to that now, what with them wanting to change or completely do away with the constitution, watch the real news, and not the network bullshit.
Unfortunately, we may not be far from that given how many entities helped Obama steal his 3rd election fronted by Biden. Things could get tough quickly.
Regards
Bunkerbusters. Tanks. Missiles. Well-trained soldiers and sailors against people with no discipline armed with peashooters. It's cute that you think we would ever last against a government that gives their military a budget bigger than the next 14 countries combined.
@@RyanBlackhawke And you think that American soldiers who signed up to PROTECT their fellow American citizens, would just fall in line behind a corrupt tyrannical government, and start murdering the people they swore to keep safe? There would be a civil war amongst our own military before the war against the American citizens could even get started.
And there are WAY more privately owned guns in this country than there are people. And we ain’t running around with “peashooters”. Three people in my family own at least one AR-15, which is easily modifiable to fire on full auto (basically making it an M-16, which is what our soldiers mostly use). Apparently, you don’t know much about guns. Color me unsurprised.
@@bangoskank493 also it's funny vets are the ones on tiktok explaining the two easiest ways to render tanks useless. I knew about fuel. But I had no idea Abrams or Bradley's broke down so much to where if the engineers were gone...
If the government takes away the citizen's right to keep and bear arms, it's the citizens duty to take away the government's right to govern.
~ George Washington
George Washington never conceived of a tank let alone drones or nukes, small arms alone mean precisely dick against even a 3rd rate modern military that has no qualms about taking out its own citizens just ask the Syrian rebels. All an AR-15 does against a tank rolling down a street let the spotter know where to tell the gunner to send the next shell.
All I have to say to that are two more quoutes:
1)The Tree of Liberty must be times be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.
2)The price of peace, is eternal vigilance
Matt Briney, vice president of media and communications for Mount Vernon, confirmed to Reuters via email that Washington was not the author of the quote.
Americans are hilarious. George Washington as the first President of the United States led armed, well regulated state militia to put down an American freedom loving tax rebellion.
George Washington in his letter urging ratification of the Constitution said that every individual entering into a society must give up a measure of freedom to ensure the rest.
The Union itself is paramount and any individual or state who believes differently has always been put in their place.
In a democracy, a large segment of the population is living under tyranny after every single election. Americans are too stupid to realize that every time the people speak in elections, somewhere around 4 our of 10 have to live under rule and law they are opposed to.
American democracy doesn't stand a chance due to the people who make up the society. They don't want to live in the same society.
The second amendment armed the citizenry to fight against one another's tyranny. The forming of the supposed Union led to a horrific civil war in less than 80 years.
You never hear it put that way do you.
Arming the people to fight against tyranny in a democracy is arming them to kill one another.
Which is exactly what the people slobbering all over themselves about being patriots want.
lesser know, and poignant. important
I was in the US Army. I can tell you one thing for sure. If there was national rebellion 1/3rd to 1/2 of the military would load up on gear and go back home to defend (or fight with / for ) their own. I didn't know a single soldier (but I'm sure are there are some) that would actually fire on Americans in the United States even if ordered to do so.
And all of these armchair idiots that say any otherwise need to understand that when we were in uniform the subject would come up in lag times on shift. We swore to defend the Constitution and obey the officers appointed over us but if ...
God bless, brother!
Exactly right.
Thank you. Your response gives me hope and brought me chills.
It's called fighting against one another. But what you are describing is of little consequence. The US military is not dependent on the soldiers you speak of. The conflict would be internal and it would be for control of the major powers within the military. Control of the submarine and aircraft carrier groups along with air support would be the determining factor.
Whoever gained control of the major power would move to secure it's critical air bases and ports.
The rest would be of little consequence. That power would be more concerned with securing it's defense against Chinese and Russian counterparts than American citizenry and soldiers who joined in those meaningless spats. They would simply defend their critical infrastructure and let the divided citizenry and their soldiers do whatever they liked against one another.
That power would retain foreign allies and be able to supply itself overseas.
Americans who believe they will be able to anything about it are delusional. Americans are divided and will simply play into occupying themselves while the power that controls the major military force will take care of itself.
“You cannot invade mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” - Admiral Yamamoto
That quote is apocryphal. It is without a concrete source.
It is also correct.
@@1krani , exactly, there is literally no indication it was ever stated at all.
@@outdoorsman7324
Ah, but question not the source of the idea, but the idea itself. For if the idea is sound, and logical, and well-tested, what matters where it came from?
For example, that time the British invaded America back in 1775.
@@1krani Do the Die Hard 4.0 thing take out their power, water and electrical, gas, etc etc, by hackers I don't if that is real or not but that is what you will need to invade the US.
@@1krani It has a source, it's from the records of General MacArthur's Aid who was cataloging the surrender of japan. The only part that is not confirmed is Yamamoto said it.
I noticed this video doesn't cover one major caveat: that most of the US citizens with pew-pew, are pro military and most of those families and communities are the ones that enlist in the military in the first place. The odds are extremely low that most, if any, military personnel would follow any orders to attack those same American citizens.
However the video did get one thing right: there are other ways the government can control citizens. I'll just leave it there 😉
national guard has attacked protestors when violence broke out for generations.
I had very similar thoughts. In the end, I believe that most Americans feel America is its people and not the actual land.
@@blakesun The national guard and the U.S. military are not the same thing. The Guard is under state control, for state level issues, such as riots. It is against the law for the department of defense to conduct police actions on our own soil.
Could armed rebel group seize US land kicking out police & government,
put up *Border Barrier with signs "USA ENDS HERE"*
Kill people in that Secession Area
...and be called *CHAZ in Seattle* ?
Many of the January 6 mob were ex-military and most were, I would surmise, pro-military. But, these are also people who called the police "traitor " at the Capitol.
I don't think the government as a whole would put up a guerrilla war. Rebels could make a good dent , because a lot of Americans are armed.
It's honestly adorable when these experts predict how many guns there are in the US lol
How easy it is to make one of your own without ever getting it registered... hahaha
@@masonlane3183 well seeing the you can get the files for AR-15s for a 3d printer I would say pretty ez
@@esreveRGaming Not reliable. They break worse than zip guns/pipe pounders.
I was thinking of thousands of unregistered family heirlooms
@@meesegomoo1836 right on the money, I have a derringer 22. Short passed down by my grandfather
Right?! I mean it’s nearly impossible to know how many citizens actually have, ya know cause of the weird uprise in “Boating accidents” 😂
The thing that seems to always be overlooked on this topic is that most of those "armed civilians" are also military veterans who have the exact same training and experience the "military" has. It would a very ugly situation that we all hope never comes to be.
FLOWING...ITS GOING TO HAPPEN ,THE US MILITARY PLANS TO KILL EVERYONE IN AMERICA,even their own families,their completely brainwashed..AND THE LORD HIMSELF SAYS THEY WILL TRY...
This country has so many veterans...most of them being wartime service veterans. We are the wrench to be thrown into a self conflict. We understand the military, how they function, and how to disable the equipment being used. I can walk up to an Abrams tank, and disable it and it's crew in less than 5 seconds. At the end of the day, the current servicemen/women, will break off back into the population. We win hands down...because there would be no fight. The greatest thing held so close to the heart for our military, is the constitution...and the service to it...against all enemies both foreign and domestic...so help me God.
You made me tear up a little. I agree with you. Most of our military would refuse to attack American citizens.
From a former grunt ,your spot on brother, against all enemies foreign or domestic .
Exactly!
@@christineschutten248 most!
Amen. That is literally the reason our country was formed in this way. if we need to, we can topple our government and make a new one. literally stated that way in the Constitution
Yeah, the moment this guy called American citizens “insurgents” I knew his opinion meant nothing
Agreed.
He probably thinks people walking through the capital building with selfie sticks is an insurrection?
Let's go, Branden.
Beware the propaganda mongers. They use specific words to confuse issues.
I almost felt compelled to downvote this video because of the blatantly obvious propaganda and bias from the narrator. Part of the video was factual but a lot of it was disingenuous speculation and propaganda. It reminded me a lot of the Army's failed lame ass woke recruiting videos that was a total flop with the American people recently.
The U.S. military is only able to sustain operations by depending on a supply and logistics system that relies heavily on the civilian population back home.
If involved in conflict with it's own supply system, the ability to operate effectively will quickly dissipate.
Ever hear the phrase "don't bite the hand that feeds you"?
Kindly remember one thing.
The Military and Feds make absolutely nothing.
All items,equipment,food,parts,fuel,medical supplies,uniforms are made by civilian companies. Biden squeals we would need F15s to fight the Goverment. Clearly he hasn't the foggiest idea on how much effort,time, parts,fuel,ordance for it to fly for one hour.
Excellent point.
As an American I can say my family and I would fight tooth and nail for our freedom be from abroad or at our door. "We The People" . this video is epic great job.
Fun fact: The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from the government (i.e., military) trying to subjugate them like the Brits did back in the day. Those Framers of the Constitution were smart.
Fun fact: You're dead wrong. The purpose of the militia (per the 2nd Amendment) is to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I Sec. 8) In Federalist 29, Hamilton wrote the following regarding citizens fearing the armed forces (militia), "There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?"
@@racinnut77 Yet by the same token: Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
And to be specific, the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right to bear arms to the militia - it grants it to the people. This is the legal precedent set in the SCOTUS DC vs Heller decision, but also in plain sight if you read the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The reference to the militia is to specify that it is necessary to the security of a free state. The second part grants a right (to bear arms) to THE PEOPLE, in order to FORM the militia, whose necessity was established immediately prior.
@@racinnut77 I checked my copy of the Constitution. I won't repeat the 2nd Amendment here, but it doesn't contain an Article 1 or a Section 8. The only Article 1 Section 8 I found referred to powers granted to Congress to establish laws pertaining to intellectual property such as copyright and patent laws.
Edit: What I've alluded to is actually Clause 8 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, nevertheless, contains no Article 1 Section 8. Article 1 of the Constitution refers to powers granted to Congress. Among such powers is some authority over militias, if such are called into service. Practically, militias called up are state National Guards called up to support the national military.
@@neilis2405 Jefferson was not a Federalist and had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. He was in France acting as the Secretary of State when the Constitution was being written. If you want to know what the Framers intended, you have to read the Federalist Papers and Hamilton thought it was absolutely ludicrous to think that the militia nee: the armed forces of the State would turn against its own people. Hamilton makes it clear that the Militia are in fact the armed forces that exist to serve the State. He writes, "THE power of regulating the militia, and of *commanding its services in times of insurrection* and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy." You also can't ignore that the Constitution aslo specifically states that the purpose of the Militia is to enforce the laws of the State and to put down insurrections, not be the source of them. No Federalist wrote a word about the right to bear arms existing so people can go to war against the government. That's an insurrection and one of the expressed purposes is to put down insurrections.
@@midlander8186 The Constitution clearly states in Article I Sec. 8 that Congress has the responsibility "for organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia as "may be *employed in the Service of the United States*", not fight against it.
They have missed one major issue. Others have mentioned troop defections, but missed a couple key things. Insurgents wouldn't target the military directly. They'd target the government. And a huge difference is that that government isn't protected by 10,000 miles and an ocean.
And the government relies on supplies coming from the people. When the working people walk off the job or simply refuses to work for the government, then how are those government people going to get food, power, and water to their homes? The people wouldn't have to take up arms, just go on strike for a few weeks.
No liberals aloud comrade
@@ThubanDraconis if the people went on strike, the people would lose their food supply and electricity too. Not many people in this country could survive for very long without grocery stores and McDonald’s to feed them. They’d have no way to organize either (not that they could anyway) with no way to charge their smart phones. The government can also call on their foreign allies and other militaries to resupply them. The people can’t.
@@craigcampbell1843 You underestimate the people that would be doing this. The vast majority of bluecollars (let's be honest that's who we're talking about here) know how to take care of themselves. Farmers aren't going to side with a government that's been messing with them for generations. Cartels care about money and there's more than enough ammo that they would gladly supply to enemies of the government. Other countries would be hesitant to throw their chips in and they have their own supply issues already. Then yes there will be defectors but you forget the vets as well. Organizing can happen in a few weeks without cell phones (honestly using tech like phones and internet would be counter productive for civilians. Then there's gangs that would either cause mayhem that the government couldn't ignore or outright fight along side regular citizens. The pampered won't be getting their daily dose of propaganda ( on both sides to be fair) and will have to go off of what they see. What they'll be seeing is military lockdowns door to do searches and violent arrests/detainments. Either side of political divide won't take kindly to that. Just look at how people in the US have been reacting to the situation in Australia. The situation isn't as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.
@@ryuknightofflame U R Right, Friend!! Read this comment!!
Don't forget everyone in the military is a citizen. Which means everyone is part of a community somewhere so finding enough people to go against their own people would be an extremely hard task.
The initial fight would not be fought against the military but against the government itself. The "insurgents " would be mostly military trained. And most of us have been in an middle east campaign and know how the military thinks. Taking out certain political persons would go a long way to sway the government as there are several anti American congress people who don't have the U.S. Best interests at heart.
This would outright become a civil war..It wouldn't be the citizens vs the government, it would inevitably be the government and citizens vs other citizens. You would without a doubt have citizens from both side combating each other, as those political reps you see as against America, other citizens will see them as the exact opposite.
It would boil down to ideological identity, at the end of the day all conflict is fought for or against an ideology..The American right wing would almost assuredly win this conflict, people often think of the US military as a fighting force this is largely untrue. I spent over a decade with my Naval EOD team in Afghanistan, and the VAST majority of the US military are support personnel, most of whom touch a rifle once a year during weapons qualifications. The combat arms part of the military is rather small, and the truth is most are recruited from states you would think of as being conservative and most identify as right wing. Certainly not all of these individuals think this way but the majority do.
Most vets also identity as right wing, and most gun ownership is also within these conservative states as well..
So this conflict would be rather one sided if it's an Ideological conflict between left and right..
Anti American Congress people you mean those traitors who claim that attacking the capitol during constitutionally mandated business, screaming "HANG MIKE PENCE" were just ordinary folk who were engaged in "normal political discourse".?
Amen. Never underestimate the will of the American patriots. We would rather die fighting on our feet, not coweringg on our knees
First thing that was missed, a large number of the military would refuse to attack their fellow American. Second, civilians and the military use very similar weapons and the insurgents could easily resupply from captured weapons and ammo.
Another problem is that the families of the military would be subject to retaliation... meaning that the military would all have to try and protect their families. This would further stretch their resources.
I hope this never occurs, but the military would have a much harder time here than in Afghanistan.
The military has been and is continuing to be purged of Chritians and conservatives. So much so, that just last month an atheist became the head of Navy Chaplins.
@Sure sure I completely agree, they’ve been brainwashing the cops and military for years now and they’re absolutely programmed to just follow orders. All an officer would have to do is tell his troops that a group of people are a domestic terrorist threat and they’ll fire on them as soon as they’re given the order. Cops and the military both have an us versus them attitude towards the citizens of the country. They view themselves as an authority over the people instead of fellow citizens. The cops and military are not on the same side as the people, they’re on their own side. They just do whatever their democrat masters tell them to do.
@Sure sure the police MIGHT, if they know that their families would be protected. Everyone in the neighborhood knows where the police officers live. Do you think no one would do a drive by if the police started going door to door rounding up guns?
And the military are mostly made up of people from the very states that would be in open rebellion... You'd be asking military members to kill their own families... That would also be a hard sell.
It's one thing to guard a facility from attack, another to drop bombs on neighborhoods where you grew up.
@@Platlin look at the make up of combat arms units, they have a totally different composition than the other units.
The current administration is actively trying to politicize the military with their "woke" agenda, very intently filling it with people sympathetic to their views and feeding them propaganda that political dissidents (anyone not leftwing) are existential threats to the state (constantly trying to depict all Republicans & conservatives as racists and extremists). They're also trying to radicalize future enlistees (conscripts?) through increasing state control of public education with things like CRT, and simultaneously restricting parent/taxpayer input by framing those against the hyper-politicization of K-12 curriculums as racists and threats to local government.
And retaliation might not be that big of a concern if there are regions that largely support the national government (i.e. major metropolitan areas, New England, Pacific NW, etc.), which would in large part coincide with the homes of the compliant troops.
This is all with the idea that NO service men and women would leave the military to join “the people”. Also the US Military contracts a lot of this equipment and technology to private companies that could easily “defect”.
We also lost a war to rice farmers so 🤷♂️
Good point
There's a number of serious, hardcore preppers who have written books about what they believe might happen some variety of large-scale military campaign were to happen here in the US. One thing some of them predict is entire battalions of troops 'jumping ship and joining the Alliance' (to use a 'Star Wars' reference); a battalion has anywhere from 300 to 1000 soldiers in it, depending on what the unit does (infantry, logistics, maintenance, etc.)
It's not unheard of; Robert E. Lee, the general who commanded the Confederate Army in the Civil War, was a Major in the Union Army (he also was a West Point graduate prior to the war). He joined the Confederacy out of loyalty to his home state, Virginia
@@aero00745 We had already pulled out of that war when the south failed.
@@aero00745 Your reply demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of what happened during the Vietnam War. I suspect further popular myths are forthcoming.
The military doesn’t make its own ammo. It buys it from private sector. Likely half of the factories would support the military, and half would support insurgency. Both sides would be equally well supplied. Also, the military might find that it can’t buy as many advanced weapons for the same reason, and the insurgency would eventually catch up in terms of those.
No all would support the military, arms manufacturers will support the military, because that's where the money is.
same with food. no mres for the military
@@LostButBroken What would stop them from playing both sides?
@@LostButBroken uh no. The large manufactures would support the military smaller ones would support the people most likely.
@@LostButBroken How do you figure that's where the money is? You do realize we outnumber our military 300:1, right?
There’s a huge difference in fighting a foreign enemy and an insurgency at home & that is we have millions & millions of veterans who were trained by the same government
America is definitely more divided right now than ever before, by intent and design of certain ruling elite (and not being elites from the US, many are foreign). They've been working on this for 60+ years. But it's hard to erase the foundation of America.
Deceive. Distract. Divide.
It is also not helped by Social Media. But it is interesting to see that Gen Z has a strong consensus that aligns almost exactly with the space the old Rockefeller Republicans or by the German CDU/CSU alliance: a decent welfare state and environmental regulations combined with fiscal conservativism and prioritization of defense spending.
Sad; In reality they have been working on destroying Ameirca since 1776
@ That is absolutely not true. The left and right no longer share any common ground. The left is completely under the control of the Marxists who have been running our public school system for over 40 years, teaching that our founding fathers were racist terrorists and that the Constitution needs to be done away with because it is outdated and no longer relevant. Since the creation of the Patriot act after 911, Bible believing, Constitution supporting citizens are considered potential terrorist. The Democrat base actually believe they are Patriots when in fact they are supporting a communist and corporate takeover of the United States. All the 3 letter agencies have been weoponized against conservatives and the democrats see this as a good thing. Anybody who doesn't agree with the Government/media narrative are now censored and considered enemies of the state. That's not freedom, that's tyranny. There is no common ground. If the left prevails it will end in mass re-education centers and death camps.
That is only the words of someone who lives their life online and reads false information. The rest of the country have jobs and they leave the basement and enjoy sunshine. The internet blows up a topic more then it actually is. Fact is for example cancel culture. The internet makes it seems as if Millions of people are calling for the end of something, someone. When really it's a single person and or a tiny small group that didn't like a tweet someone posted. It's ridiculous.
A lot of folks in the military would take the side of the civilians, and they'd take their military know how with them. Secondly, guns aren't everything. It takes about 7 people to put a single soldier on the battlefield. Our modern military relies heavily on civilian contractors, meaning that 3 or 4 of those 7 people are civilians. The military would still need food, transportation, tech support, etc. Without civilian assistance, the US military would grind to a halt.
Such as the Confederates did during the Civil War. Majority of the Confederate Generals defected from the Union Army to protect their families in the South.
Not to mention the retired veterans, as well
No they wouldn't, the vast majority would honor their oath to the constitution to protect the USA from terrorists, foreign or domestic.
@@jerrysantos6484 You realize the traitors started the war by attacking Fort Sumter right? There was no "defecting", only treason.
@@Jangocat that 'domestic' part is exactly why many military personnel would oppose an oppressive government. The government would have to sell it to the soldiers, and many wouldn't buy it.
I noticed that one aspect that was over looked is the amount of veterans who have been trained and battle tested that would be in the civilian population.
As I am sure a few people have already said....most likely majority of the current active duty military men and women would leave the military and fight on the side of the citizens. As this is what a few active military people have told me as the subject has come up on base. I was told by these people that about 90% of the current active duty members would NOT fight on the side of the government.
The same was said about the war of independence from England. Don't underestimate the resolve of people whose culture resolves around liberty.
Additionally, this whole video presumes that the entire military would side with our corrupt government
We are not as united as we used to be. Additionally, half or more of the military would not participate in a campaign against it’s own citizens. This would cripple the entire system.
disagree, the military, the national guard, the police forces have stepped in many times in U.S. history to violently crush rebellion among the citizens.
Likely more than half, since the part of the population the deep state is against make up a lot of the military. Soldiers, marines, and sailors are more often of rural or small town background than big city. eg. The rate of people joining the U.S. Army from Northeastern cities is nearly 40% below the national average.
ill say around 90% of the military wod not engage in warfare against its own ppl. not only because they are americans but some would support the ideas of the other side as well.
@@capo328 we've had police forces from the same neighborhoods are protestors unleash violence on them... you are dreaming.
@@blakesun but the most probable cause is political and the vaste majority of marines if nothing else are republicans (faction most likely to cause revolution) so most republicans wont shoot republicans
I’m a veteran of both wars and studied and learned from my enemy. Solders fight by Rules Of Engagement, we won’t.
Smart man. We would win in any of those scenarios. I pray our military is never stupid enough to actually try and fight the people.
Keep in mind that such a travesty would involve guerilla warfare, and the government would be in unfamiliar territory, while the citizens know the hidden entrance to the neighbors basement. Hunters regularly hide in the trees waiting to kill something with one shot. The civilians are a force to be afraid of, and there are people wearing shiny shoes who are afraid.
2 things to consider.
1: A lot of military personnel would actually resign from the military and go fight beside their families who are being attacked.
2: A huge number of civilian gun owners were actually military trained, so they do have a tactical advantage.
To add onto your #1, many of those defectors would bring military equipment with them. Probably not full on tanks or armored vehicles, but small arms and mobile weapons would most definitely wind up in the hands of guerilla units.
Well that is two very bad assumptions in a row.
1. The service member swears an oath to defend the Constitution. To think that the military would just quit only shows how little you know about our dedication to duty, honor and country.
2. It is worthless to steal military equipment you can't sustain or arm.
3. Those prior service military would be more likely to join thier brothers and sisters in defense of the Constitutional rights.
4. Shagent Smity who retired 4-5 years ago would not have first clue in facing an organized military force.
@@patriot4854 The military's purpose is to protect the citizens against an invading force, and that's the only constitutional purpose for the government as well. If you read the Constitution you understand it's a list of rights for the people, not the government. It guarantees rights to the citizens. Even the Preamble to the Constitution stars as "We the PEOPLE".
So of course the military, when faced with a decision to fight for a tyrannical government or the citizens, constitutionally would be fighting for the citizens.
Incidentally, I also swore an oath to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION, and that above all else is what we swear to. President's come and presidents go, but the Constitution is forever as long as there is a United States.
@@dannyo6699 Read the Contitution and the Oath of enlistment. You missed a few pages.
@@patriot4854 The main body of the Constitution establishes the branches of the government and their responsibilities, and the amendments enumerate the rights of the citizens. I missed the part though where the government can usurp those rights. Maybe you can show me where I missed that part.
The oath of office starts with an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It's first because it's the first responsibility of the military. Meaning the military's first responsibility is to protect the citizens.
Just a point to consider... Our active military consists of about one million members, ranging in experience from less than 1to up to 30 years of experience. The retired military population in the United States is roughly 19 million. The average retiree, unless medically retired, has at least 20 years of military experience... I am by no means advocating conflict of this type. This is just a fact that I believe was overlooked. Please keep the really interesting videos coming!
Thanks 😊
Not just the fully retired , but Former Service who only served a hitch or two before returning to civilian life .
Even the 'Medically Retired' Veterans will assist in overthrowing a Tyrannical Government, whether by acquiring Ammunition, making Improvised Explosive Devices, providing Hiding places and giving Information to the Insurgents.
@@DianeJennings This video you reviewed is a globalist propaganda piece. The U.S. Millitary just got booted out of Afghanistan by 75,000 Tabilan. Do they really stand a chance against 75,000,000+ well armed Patriots?? Hardly
Lets discuss actual power structure involved in an uprising.
The Patriots are the ones with the 'Home Field Advantage' here. The U.S. Millitary takes its orders from American Politicians who take their orders from rich donors. All the Patriots have to do is kill the rich donors arrayed against them and the orders to continue the war will cease. Those donors in favor of the American population versus Globalist policies will use the constant deaths of their counterparts to their advantage to easily and rapidly wrest control of the government from the Globalists. Most donors simply 'go with the flow' anyway and will quickly be brought to heel as their more 'global centric' compadres get their heads blown off and their families slaughtered one by one.
Then you have supply chain issues to contend with. According to the Berry Act of 1941, all U.S. Millitary mission critical supplies must originate 100% from American suppliers. These suppliers are predominantly owned and operated by the very Patriots the Millitary will be attacking. This will lead to severe mission critical supply shortages before the troops even get brought home.
I don't even need to discuss the Globalist Vax mandates and how ~40% of the U.S. Troops are standing against these mandates, while ~90% are morally against the mandates or even the concept of mandates, which are Unconstitutional. These Vax mandates were ruled Unconstitutional in 1905 by the Supreme Court. That power rests entirely with the States, not the Federal Government and is currently a very pivotal issue.
As far as listening to the Officers and actually attacking Americans? Look up 'Fragging' during the Vietnam War. This has been a part of the American Millitary culture for over a half a century now. The American Millitary is made up of volunteers, not conscripts, most of which are Patriots themselves. Finally we have to discuss numerical advantage. In my State we put over 1 Million hunters into the woods on opening day of deer season. That is only 1 State, among 50 plus territories. The level of actually wielded armament in this country is mind-bending, to put it mildly.
Be safe.
@@jomamma1750 while i agree with 99% of that post......
i can assume where youre from from the "over 1 million hunters" comment. if it were "almost 1 million" we would be neighbors. so coming from the state with the 2nd most amount of hunters in the woods, i can tell you that a very high percentage of those fudds would probably be on the govt side.
also, not commenting on your post, but adding to it, i would bet that there are a LOT of countries that would not mind helping to supply an insurgency against the us govt if it came to it.
Of course we have guns. I have 8 myself. Mainly different ones for hunting different sizes of game. Plus a handgun for the car and one for personal carry. And of course a few surprises for home defense. 🙂
I have watched that video and its wrong when it says only %3 of Americans own firearms. Divide 340,000,000 firearms by %3. That's around 113 guns per firearm owners. That would make only 10,200,000 people owners of them. That's anti gun propaganda.
I am in my 50s, and prior to 2019 I would have never believed that we could end up in armed conflict with our fellow countrymen.
Since 2019 however it is looking more and more like that could very well become a reality. Half of this country has lost it's mind.
You need to quit believing the bullshit you hear in the news and social media... This country isnt tearing itself apart, that's just the propaganda that is being blasted out at people thru social media and news networks.. If they can make you believe it, then it will be true.. Fear mongering and infighting, get them views and more clicks which equals= more money.. If they do this enough and cause enough stress, it makes it easier for the politicians to pass laws and amendments that without the fear and stress, people wouldnt allow or accept.. Keep your chin up, put your phone down for a few hours everyday, and filter the content you watch... ✌♥️🇺🇸
It's a very small and noisy portion of our country that has lost its mind. I do believe that some of the people of some states would greatly benefit from being "reorganized".
And that half thinks the other is Evil. Playing devils advocate with this.
"[The other] half of the country has lost its mind!" - person who could be from either half of the country.
@@jefflace4949 - That's true, but only one side has radically changed it's stances on major issues over the last few decades. It's hard to argue that the side that now thinks that judging people based on race is how you end racism, is the sane side.
One thing that these videos don't take into account, those of us who have combat tours under our belt. We have been in some form of conflict since 2001 and many of us still hold to the oath we took. We have been trained by some of the best insurgents out there just by surviving what they threw at us. It would be ugly and I hope it never comes to that. Not only for America but for the rest of the world.
Preach
that is 25 million very pissed-off veterans, and on top of that our sons are the warfighters in the military today. Every last blue bubble and DC will be snuffed out in less than two weeks without food water or electricity. They couldn't even make it 3 days without toilet paper in 2020. Just wait til they have their food and energy cut off.
A good portion of the active military would be forced to fight against their own family as it is common for military service to be a tradition in many families. I think a lot of them would refuse those orders and leave to fight along with their family members.🤔
The American Citizens, despite the snobbish disdain shown them by so many in the European countries, have a large percentage of the public with military training. Having been in myself, I am aware of the training limitations of an Army. One of the currently most popular target rifles in civilian hands will shoot almost twice as far with better accuracy as compared to the pipsqueak poodle shooter M16 or the darn near adequate rabbit hunting rifle M4. Most hunters have telescopic sights which are better than all but the tiny number of those which snipers use. One shot, and one dead radio operator would leave the Army platoon unable to fight effectively. Then, using their own night vision devices, the citizenry could sneak close enough to the Army unit at night to suddenly blind them with flashlights putting out 2,000 lumens or more held by each citizen. The surprised and blinded soldiers would be then stripped of gear and ammunition. The bodies would be probably left where they fell. Michael Collins was effective because he knew how the English Army thought. We know our Army even better than that. With the things found in an average household in America, I can improvise something to destroy any tank if I get behind it. The US Army would need to resort to a Pyrrhic Victory for the win.
It's not a large percentage in a country with over 330 million people in it, in fact military participation in the USA is very low and has been for at least 50 years. Vets are 7% max depending on who's statistics you believe, and many of them are old people incapable of fighting or disabled so you can probably cut that number in half.
Happy Friday Diane! I'm not sure if our government would ever attack its own people, but if it did, it would meet a lot of resistance , especially from rural areas, where church folks would go from sitting in pews, to going Pew Pew.
😂
@@DianeJennings I'm black...my mom marched at Selma so........Hell ya!!!
That's why Editor Diane should take over...
And I still offer up myself as a concubine
The current administration is already attacking the citizenry through allowing leftists to murder, riot, loot, and burn with impunity.
The government bombed the city I was born in, in the mid 80s
@@barryfletcher7136 what impunity, tons of people were arrested during the riots. Also btw, riots and protests are not something the left invented 🤣
The "Red Team Planner" post cemented it for me, the moment it starts, the government loses.
A major point that was missed is that the service members would be potentially have to fight against their own family and would more likely support the citizens over the government. Plus all military members take an oath to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, if the government tries to take away the rights of the people, than the government becomes the enemy.
My brother is a combat veteran. I like his take on the subject. You see our military is us. Our fathers, brothers, sisters, etc. Yes the command will go down, but you’ll find soldiers with a pistol to each others head before they’ll strike their own people.
As a veteran of the U.S. military they can fight them but I don't see the military taking up arms against its own citizens. They would most likely stand down and refuse. Thats the beauty of the UCMJ you only have to follow lawful orders. And attacting it's own citizens is not a lawful order no matter what anybody says. I'm most likely not going to respond to anybody trying to troll me or argue. Have a great day everyone and be safe.
As a veteran myself I will agree with you.
Granted you will have a certain % of military folks that would take arms up against their own citizens, but I would say the largest percentage would not.
There is no history to support your opinion. Sorry, but no cigar.
And there is none to support yours either so agree to disagree. That's the beauty of this everyone is entitled to there opinions. Take it easy
@@bradhodge7962: Your reply is not only false, but thoughtless. We have history of soldiers doing exactly what they are told to do--we have books full of it! What about that?
And we have some history of a very few individuals of conscience refusing illegal and immoral orders, very few, and while there are many many examples of illegal orders being given, we have zero history of troops in large numbers refusing those orders. Let me repeat that: "Zero!"
Let's start with the Washington administration and the routing by the Army of those protesting in the so-called Whiskey Rebellion. Then there's the burning of the encampment of and routing of the Bonus Soldiers by the U.S. Calvary where only 3 or 4 refused to draw their sabers against men who had fought in the First World War! Then there's Kent State. And don't forget Jackson State!
And we have hundreds of examples from the behavior of our troops abroad! What about My Lai in Vietnam where one man stopped a massacre on one side of the Village, and another man, Lt. Calley, ordered a massacre on the other side of the village but where no one challenged him and all of those villagers on that side of the village died! Let's do the numbers: Number who refused to allow the murder of innocent villagers, 1. Number who followed orders and fired on those villagers, everybody else!
Any questions? So, your claim is simply false. And it is operating, apparently, from the silly american mythology you learned in school and not from any independent thought over the true facts of history!
Well, I agree that you might, and probably will, say that those people are not Americans--and don't count. But I would remind you, as your school teachers did not, that the very first American Principle/"self evident truth," is that "all men are created equal." What about that! Does that fit in with your conception of the breadth and depth of genuine American Law? JWC
@@jayclark2077 you are really worked up about this. Thanks for the history lesson that I already knew about. My opinion and that is what it is MY opinion is that in today's military not the military from the past is that the majority will not follow through with that order. Also just FYI Kent state was national gaurd not the U.S. Military. I say again have a nice day to you and please calm down a little bit. I said from the start its my opinion so that means I could care less about yours but it is yours to have. This is what I didn't want to get into. I have work to do and I will not respond anymore because I have more important things to do. Take care
The military would also be facing off to the millions of veterans usually larger by far than the actual active duty.
And to that most active military wouldn't take up arms against us...they would join us.
You're dealing with conventional, face to face or rather in person warfare. Military technology has advanced so far that people don't have to be in the same geographic location to kill now. The military can destroy any uprising they wish if they truly wanted to.
@@dandotvid Not likely.
Smart weapons are useful up until you have friends mixed in with enemies.
@@ripperwrestling6587 Yep, every single active duty and veteran I have talked to has said that if they are ordered to fire upon US citizens, they wouldn't. They are swarn to uphold the constitution and protect the people's liberties, not to mention the people themselves. They will join with the people and help overthrow the tyranny. Once an order comes out from our government to neutralize the people, they are tyrants.
@@christianvanskike2347 That was true long before the current situation. When I was a (relatively) young O-4 in a Joint civil support command more than a decade ago, we had whispered conversations about how to convince the general to refuse to support anti-citizen operations, should he be so ordered.
Well another thing they are not considering is the number of people that reload ammo or the long range competition shooters. Or long range hunters.
You never fail to make me laugh. Thanks, love.
I loved Editor Diane's comment, "This is going to be a shit show". It made me laugh.
I like the Editor Diane cuts as well.
When we go out for the firearm deer hunting season in the US (starting this week) it is often said that we actually field the largest army in the world during that 2-3 week timeframe :)
i have alot of friends in the military and they have told me if they were ordered to attack there own country would fight for the people not the government
The most valuable asset not mentioned in this video, 20 years of pissed off disgruntled veterans.
Majority of the US Military come from freedom loving American families. The US Military will have to think twice before fighting against it's own people. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is a fundemental right to keep and bear arms as a free people to defend ourselves. Speaking for myself as a Veteran of the US Army and a citizen of the US.
Na, the majority since the 1980's are poor uneducated people with no other opportunities, and the majority are minorities who don't give a damn about right wing politics. How arrogant to presume you care about freedom more then other Americans lol, it's childish.
@@Jangocat well, you won't find very many "freedom loving Americans" that would burn the American flag, or carry a Communist flag.
@@Jangocat total horseshit.
Yes because the US Military are Citizens too. Their oath is to protect against all dangers foreign and Domestic. The constitution says we bear arms to fight against our Government if it gets the way it is now. 2nd amendment
And if the 2nd amendment enthusiasts are the dangers domestic? That's the real worry here. I've got to say, when I see gun related flags and bumper stickers, I see people who are waiting for the order from some demagogue to kill their neighbors.
@@melissamybubbles6139 yeah that's a good way to go about life... dehumanize people who are exercising a constitutional right. Seems more like a problem with you than them.
@@melissamybubbles6139 Wow. So sorry to hear you think that way. A big majority of us are former military. When we left the armed services, we did not take an oath against the original oath to serve and protect. Remember what James Madison wrote and was backed by all the signers of our Constitution. The right of the people to bear arms, Shall not be infringed.
It is a God given right in our Constitution. If you chose not to practice it, fine. Do not. Not one person in this country faults you for it. It is your choice not to.
Rest assured, there are people out there that will give up their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to protect you either way. It could be a Police officer or an armed Citizen doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Either way, I love you. Your life is precious to me and to all around you. Please, do not ever forget that. 👍😎🙏❤️
While protection from government tyranny was indeed one of the many reasons the second amendment was added to the constitution, no where does the constitution state that the right to bear arms is to fight against our government. As a strong supporter of the constitution, I think it is important to be accurate in describing it's contents.
@@willrodgers7974 In the court of law the intent has been interpreted as such and thus takes legal precedent. there were many other intentions that were never put into the actual constitution word for word for instance the founding fathers intended for states to be able to leave the union at will. This was implied in the 10th amendment. there is a term that applies here called the spirit of the law.
Hi, Diane. I'm an American with a lot of Irish and British ancestry. I love your videos. I'm glad I ran across your channel.
350milion americans. Estimated 500-600million civilian owned guns. This why neither germany nor japan would even consider invading US during WW2
Keep in mind, most of the people who would actually fight in a second revolutionary war would be already trained. US veterans would make up the majority of a US insurgency. Also the US military when faced with fighting against its own citizenry, will have a moral decision to make. A significant amount of which may defect or refuse to fight. You will also need to consider that each state has it's own military force. The national guard of each individual state has it's own army and air force. There commander in chief is technically the governor of their respective states. According to the Posse Comitatus Act, federal troops cannot be used against the US population. Should this happen, the individual states will align according to the root cause of the conflict. Rural states such as South Dakota may support the insurgency while more populated states may break according to regional conflicts. US citizens are also very well stocked and very well educated and resourceful. We know how to make our own bullets. You must also keep in mind that there would be other countries that would be willing to support the insurgency just so that the US would destroy themselves. Also keep in mind that in any civil war, the insurgency s primary targets will be to resupply. Government supply points will be insurgency objectives and third column or "government traitors" will be willing to aid the resistance. The US second amendment was created so that the citizens of the US were armed in the event of federal government happens overreach. A government created by the people can only be possible if the government fears it's people. If government no longer fears or respects it's people then they can pass any law they wish or act anyway they wish without consequences.
A moral decision requires consciousness, which the military doesn’t have.
Follow this same logic throughout!
@@jayclark2077 I disagree and provide the idea of precision munitions as proof. I agree with the idea that no moral consciousness would add in the idea of winning an absolute war. Part of the reason why WW II ended the way it did as opposed to leaving an absolute victory in question was because the countries that were left behind had no civilian infrastructure and entire cities were left in shambles. Since then the military has focused on bombs which are able to ,for example, destroy a tank hidden underneath a bridge while leaving the bridge intact and completely usable. No other country has spent that much money and research to be able to destroy military targets while leaving the country's civilian infrastructure largely untouched. It takes a moral military to be able to care that much. Keep in mind that the US has a simple solution had it not cared. MOABs could just as easily been used and is a much cheaper offensive solution.
@@johncollins5591: The idea of a "moral military" is itself very strange. And that's before we look at the fact that we don't even have a moral citizenry, but products of the amerikan skool sistem which hands out every sort of propaganda but with no training on how to think one's way through all the sentimental mythology, American Egalitarianism, American Altruism, etc. The American citizenry is completely divided--and in from 12 to 20 years of "education" have not had even one class on how to have a unified nation and what that might require in terms of the willingness to sacrifice one's own untutored OPINIONS! Nor do they teach the genuine American Principles that those opinions would need to be traded in for! Those Principles are there in our Foundational Documents, but we don't read, nor discuss, and we certainly don't KNOW those Principles! And how can we have a moral military if we don't have a moral citizenry?
And where did you get the bizarre idea that the Three Parts of Government (no longer separate) care about anything other than their own personal advancement and growing wealthy? Jesus. Kennedy was killed in part because he was going to pull our troops out of Vietnam--and Johnson didn't get off the plane from Dallas before he rescinded that Presidential Order! Jesus! That assassination was a carefully laid out plan by the Military Industrial Congressional Complex and is still being covered up to this day! First Trump, and now Biden is holding back the promised Kennedy documents! That ought to be an earth shaking fact for any citizen who is minimally awake.
Where have you been, and how could you possible imagine that war after war after war, ad nauseum, was and remains the product of good ethical people in a good government the "duty" of which is to "secure the (natural and unalienable) Rights of the People" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?" Where in either the Declaration or the Constitution does it say that it is the business of government to send off our young men and women to slaughter and be slaughtered in endless wars the origins of which are not only bull shite but stupid bull shite that only the stupid products of American Factory Schools could fall for it? Jesus!
And you placidly "disagree" because the American military has developed new weapons! How about developing real teachers, and new schools, schools that actually teach the meaning of human life and the meaning and implications of living in a free and democratic republic? And you "disagree" as if we are having a chat over tea or coffee and can go home having satisfied our duty as sovereign citizens who allow the psychopathic monsters in Washington to commit atrocities IN OUR NAME!
Jesus John, where have you been? Don't you see the complacency of your coffee-table arguments. Or, the fact that your argument from "precision munitions" has a hole in it as big as a tank--which they are still making? Please have another and more earnest thought about this. JWC
PS Your "arguments" only weaken instead of strengthening the resolve of those citizens who know that if things keep up as they are we will be forced into the streets by our own government, they WILL use the military, and we will be forced thereby to a decision! Nor is there history in your argument. People don't fight revolutions because they are guaranteed victory! They fight because they are fed up. And historically that spirit doesn't give a damn how many superior weapons they have! Or do you think that the human spirit has no place in this argument?
@@jayclark2077 a moral military is not just a US phenomenon. Look up how the UK handled the India issue and the Jewish partition in Palestine. It is easy to kill. Moral counties with moral armies will avoid collateral damage to civilian populations. In Vietnam they sought to win their hearts and minds. Destroying civilians would make the job easier. The soviets used to put bombs in toys to target children. In US history, small pox was inserted into blankets and then given to natives. The evolution towards a moral military is like childbirth... Slow and painful. China failed during Tiananmrn Square Massacre. Just look at the news for current Chinese violations. The issue you might be confused on is the idea of moral vs right. The moral thing to do is more often than not... NOT the right thing to do. Think the Deadpool Hitler dilemma. Would you kill Hitler as a baby? You also live in a world that seems to thrive on moral relativism. There are no longer absolutes in morality. This the actual meaning of an existential threat. Personally, I think that an individual can act morally. In groups, the crowd is bat shet crazy. Consider what you consider your morals are and what code you follow, can you say beyond a shadow of a doubt that your values supercedes any other person's. That doesn't mean that there isn't a correct answer... It just means that you will have to defend your logic and thinking process.
@@johncollins5591: 1) your 3rd and 4th lines are a contradiction. Please rewrite. 2) Your distinction between what is moral and what is right is just sophistry and has no intellectual merit. 3) Similarly your use of one example the British army in India to support what our military will do, is without intellectual merit on the surface. And in any case what the British did in that one case was what they felt forced to do and not what they wanted to do at all! Lastly your argument from natural evolution and its' time taking (gradualist) presumptions is specious. Man as man is conscious and as such his evolution, if it exists at all, is in his hands and is neither automatic or gradual, and there is absolutely nothing in human history to suggests that we are making any true, good, and beautiful choices that might take us to a higher existence! None! Instead the whole thing is vomitous! Genuine American Principles are carefully listed in our Foundational Documents, political scriptures really, and there is nothing in either our domestic or foreign policies that demonstrates that our so-called representatives give the least for any of those "self evident truths." Instead we have the very opposite! They make more and more laws controlling the people whose "liberties they were instituted to secure," and do nothing whatsoever to hook their own behavior to Higher Laws! They are ignorant calculating sycophants looking out for themselves! No, there is nothing higher at all in their behavior! Hell, when looking at the facts there is more evidence to suggest de-volution of our species than evolution.
Sure I could be wrong, but my view is based upon the real concrete evidence of history in this nation and is not pie-in-the-sky fantasies about what someone wearing rose colored glasses hopes might happen.
My advice would be in the direction of self reliance, and when you see the American military coming it would be wise to "watch out for one in the ear!" JWC
Not just because I'm part Irish. But your beauty- I wanted to sub! 😍🥰😘
The thing missing in this video is, depending on who the insurgents come from, the US military would experience mild to heavy fracturing, with soldiers not wanting to engage their families and neighbors.
As to the point made about supply for the insurgents, during the civil war, the rebels seized federal assets to supply themselves.
It’s an interesting concept
A overlooked assumption the video made was that the Military members would remain 100% loyal to the federal government. That didn't happen at the start of the Civil War and wouldn't happen in this mental
exercise. Otherwise, interesting video. Thanks Diane BOOP
military commanders will make sure soldiers are not sent to quell the 'violence' in their own states, but rather send them to fight against 'strangers' in far off states. Plus, troops will only be needed in some places, the rest will be air power, thousands of drones.
That’s a really good point Al!
@@blakesun Soldiers wouldn't necessarily wait to be told where to go. A lot would return home if home is on a different side. EG, during the Civil War Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army, however he basically stated that he would be fighting on whatever side Virginia was on (which ended up being the Confederates). I think you'll find that a lot of US citizens feel a stronger loyalty to their state than to the country as a whole. EG, I like the USA, but my loyalty to South Carolina is stronger.
@@DianeJennings There is also the fact that there are far more guns, in the hands of American civilians, than there are in the *combined* military and police arsenals of every nation on Earth!
@@blakesun The problem with your scenarion is that a full 50% of the US Army's fighting force are National Guardsmen. Many would refuse a call up to be sent to fight in another state knowing that Gaurdsmen from that state would be sent to fight in theirs. Secondly, many governors would refuse to allow their Guardsmen to be called to active duty either because they refuse to support the federal government or they want to keep their own troops close to home during an insurgency.
As a Veteran (also in the National Guard), I need to point out a few things;
We swear (or affirm) an oath to "... support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States & the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." 'So Help Me God' is the only part that's considered to be optional, for (obvious) religious reasons. I haven't heard of a single legal precedent or any kind of case law that relinquishes whoever swears, or affirms, that oath. I also haven't heard of any kind of 'sunset clause' that stipulates or implies when that oath expires.
There are plenty of veterans still alive who take the oath they swore seriously. Although not all of us did 'the cool stuff', like the hardcore warrior fighting things, we don't exactly get our minds wiped when our time is done. We remember things like basic marksmanship, first aid, land navigation, and the focus required to get something done (another way of saying 'we know how to objectify ourselves and push our discomfort away'). That doesn't mean that we just go right to the 'default setting' all the time (there are some who fight that). In fact, we're the ones who have more of a clue as to what might happen IF we were to have a war on our soil especially against our own government.
I understand your point however my current president is Trump its has never been proven he lost the election. So I would rise up against the communists.
@@FastEDismo I agree however not a military vet myself but yet a military brat as they would call us I have grown up in the military background and bases being my day was in the united states army for 20 plus years i have learn a thing or two and agree i would rise up against the current communist if need being trump is my president
I took the same oath, and the part about GOD was NOT optional. God , country, people........NOT government!
Less tinfoil- ly : The Oath taken by US Military and Law Enforcement is to Protect & Defend the Constitution , not a particular leader or political administration .
Of course a number of them will just follow orders or seek personal benefit , but a meaningful % take their Oath seriously .
@@filianablanxart8305 And those are the ones being purged. We live in a post-Constitutional nation ATM. It's why we're pissed, and why they want us gone.
About half the people own guns in America. Just about every one of my immediate family members have guns. My dad, my sister, her six kids, not to mention extended family members. If every family member from all sides of the family each had a gun that would be over 100 guns in 4 generations who are still living, a few of us are veterans. I am 60 yrs old of Viking descent and a two time vet. I served during the Cold War, and re-enlisted in '05 to join in the fight against terror in Iraq. Not only do I retain the skills that I learned in the '80s, but I now know the new skills of the military.
Huge spectrum of shotgun "shells" or bullets. 2 main variables: amount of gunpowder and the projectile. More gunpowder = speed of projectile. Projectiles range from one solid chunk of the size like 2 large marbles, to 12 smaller marbles to tons of tiny ones. The smaller and more numerous projectiles ("buckshot") separate or spray apart the further they travel. So tough to miss any target, but if not really close target hit with very little damage. But hitting a person with the one slug (we deer hunt w is like being shot with a fucking missle.
One thing he didn't bring up is that many servicemembers would be loathe to follow orders to take up arms against Americans, especially at home. Many would refuse such orders. Not all, but many would.
this goes back to the clinton BS, if there is an uprising Canada would get the reigns for our forces. A poll of the troops was done back then 75% wouldn't take arms again the population
They would have to bring the EU and that wouldn't work good luck getting guns in Alabama or George in the swamps
About 70% would refuse
The military doesn't supply ammo to the people, independent manufacturers do. They could sell to the people or military, it's up to them. You should do a video about the overreaching of the Australian Government right now.
Thats a good suggestion.
Yeah. The Aussies have it much worse than of the rest of us. I'm a Texan. All restrictions have been lifted...AND I can carry a gun on my hip, without so much as a license.
God Bless OZ! They remind me of Texans, with an old English accent.
Selling arms to domestic insurgents would be treason (even by the very limited definition in the Constitution). Resupply from manufacturers would be cut off immediately. The existing supply is another matter.
18 USC 2381
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason"
@@MrGregorSF It's a catch 22. We have the right to revolt, yet they have the right to put down an insurgency. We should only revolt in defense of the Constitution, and the governments should uphold the Constitution, so that revolution isn't necesarry. That is what we pay them for.
@@stevenhoskins7850 where does the Constitution define a right to revolt?
Cool video!🙂
The military that sided with the government would face an insurgency much larger, more heavily armed, and better trained than Iraq or Afghanistan, with effectively no safe zones, and the only available resupply of food, fuel, or ammunition being provided by civilians.
The "1/2 of all guns are owned by only 3% of gun owners" is bunk. It's simply not true. Estimates are that 35% to 47% of Americans own at least one firearm. That's between 127.5 million and 171.5 million citizens who own at least one firearm. Last year alone saw approximately 8 million people purchase a gun for the first time. It's estimated that there are between 350 million and 400 million firearms in civilian hands in America. You can do the math.
The video doesn't take into account that somewhere between 75% to 80% of the military would likely refuse an order to fire on American citizens. In fact, those in the Special Operations community would most likely side with the citizens. And let's not forget that the logistics chain is fed and transported by US citizens working for various companies. The military could quickly run out of the fuel, food, ammunition, medical supplies, and other things needed for a sustained campaign. So that logistics chain has to be protected by the military which would reduce the numbers who could actually fight the insurgency.
Yeah when I heard that percentage I said yeah right and went to look it up.
Yeah we can do the math alright.
3% of individuals own 150 million firearms, or 15 firearms per person, and the other 97% own at least one gun. This averaged out, obviously there's more than one gun in more than 3% of the hands of Americans, but the 35% of American households owning a gun would include households of 4-5 individuals and only one or two guns. If you did the same statistics for car ownership, Jay Leno would throw off the average with his 100 cars but the vast majority of households have only 2 cars. All of the wealthy individuals who buy cars as a hobby would be represented in a disproportionate percentage of the total of car owners, just like there's individuals who own more than 20 firearms that offset those who have 1 or 2 in their household with a family of 4 or 5.
@@Sean__F Okay. Let's look at it another way. The Harvard/Northwestern survey is bunk. It was "leaked" to the Guardian and the Trace. It's never been peer reviewed, is still unpublished to this day, and relied on the honesty of respondents. In today's political climate I don't know too many people who would tell perfect strangers that they own guns and how many they owned.
Those numbers also ignore the totally untraceable homebuilt stuff.
@@DH-xw6jp aaaaaannnnnnd? Untraceable guns, because they are home built, are not the vast majority of firearms which are manufactured and sold the conventional way. How many households that have at least one firearm exclusively have firearms not manufactured by gun companies?
I think this whole exercise boils down to one question; would a US Marine, Sailor, Army Soldier, Air Force member fire on an American citizen in the continental US? Some would, yes. Others, possibly many others, would not and right there, that reluctance to fire on a brother/sister American citizen would doom the military's effort to quell any rebellion..
Remember the civil war? It has happen
Hmmm, maybe this is why they are allowing more non citizens to join the military. It was happening in the early 80's, they were allowed to serve and after their service they received citizenship. Not sure if it is still going on but if it is I imagine there may be plenty of them that would go against the citizens. They are also trying to divide the military by labelling many white supremacist and then drumming them out of service.
It appears that forcing the vax on healthy soldiers and giving dishonorable discharges to those that refuse will get rid of soldiers that use their own free will while also prohibiting them from owning firearms once they get out. If you get a dishonorable you cannot purchase a firearm.
@@js2727 The difference is that in the civil war who was on what side was clear. The north were on one side and wore blue uniforms, the south were on the other side and wore gray uniforms. That isn't how a modern civil war would look. The people rebelling would be wearing regular civilian clothing and they'd be operating in guerrilla cells in every state of the country. How many US military personnel are going to be willing to shoot a citizen wearing jeans and a t-shirt without knowing for sure if that person is a rebel or not? It wouldn't be like the first civil war where both sides line up on a battlefield and you shoot the people on the other side of it.
When I joined the United States army I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of United States of America against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Most military veterans side with that oath.
An interesting fact I recently read stated that more firearms were purchased by American citizens in one month in 2021 (can't remember which specific month), then are maintained in the entire US Military.
There are 14 Million out of 21 Million U.S. Veterans who could walk into combat today. Veterans like myself (I was a Scout and Infantry for 15 years) know how to deal with everything from Infantry patrols to killing tanks. In my home state there are over 7 million guns owned by a total population of about 1.5 million people. Roughly 6 guns for every person. I also grew up knowing how to hunt, fish, farm etc....
I just looked up the total number of military, federal and civilian law enforcement in the US, comes to roughly 3.5-4 million. I also looked up the most current total amount of private citizen gun ownership, total is 393 million. Now mind you, they can only count the ones that are registered. Some states like Arizona dont register their firearms.
Then there's always that nagging little oath that all persons took when they enlisted in the military. To protect and defend the Constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes governments that go against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would be messy, but yes, I do believe the citizens of this nation would be able to defeat the US military.
That's why the democrats have waged war on the second amendment.
That number is based on sales, not registration. Most places don't require registration, especially not for long guns.
If you think only the Democrats are waging war on the second amendment, your an idiot. Both parties nibble around the edges of the second amendment.
There are also so many weapons that have been handed down through the generation's There is no way of getting a good number how many are actually in private citizens hands
@@jerrymoomey4390 I would expect my sons to come home to our state with their military weapons especially Anti Tank and machine guns. 80% of the sons in the military today would kill their commie generals on the spot.
The one thing that the video didn't cover is that there are over 2 million combat veterans who are not active duty. These veterans have actual experience in waging asymmetrical warfare and are, statistically speaking, 85-88% ideologically aligned with the active duty military.
They also, generally speaking, have intimate working knowledge of the proper use of American military equipment as well as the knowledge of where to locate this equipment.
This means, in effect, that if the insurgency is ideologically aligned with those veterans and the active military, they would likely enjoy the material support of the armed forces regardless of the government's position.
..As an inactive Marine from the '80s, here are a few things to consider:
1. Former military citizens far outnumber active duty military
2. A massive number of the military are afloat or stationed at over 800 foreign bases
3. The great (Hopefully) number of active duty that will resist, refuse or flat out desert the unconstitutional attack on citizens
4. In the Revolutionary War, only about 3% of the small population of America defeated the greatest military in the world at the time to win independence.
5. For this war to happen, the Federal government will have to have overstepped it's bound thus angering a majority of the citizens so the hearts and minds thing would work against the minority of military that is willing to support a tyrannical, rogue government.
6. The "resupply" issue would be negated by the Patriots capturing supplies and facilities...which are almost all civilian-owned. The food supply is mostly created by rural Patriots.
Ive spent almost as many years of my life in the US military as I have as a civilian.... Yes. Yes the Citizens could in fact overthrow the government. Without writing a novel I'll explain why.
1. The US Military has a lot of rules and conventions they MUST abide by. The citizenry do not... This is why fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, among other places was such a pain in the ass.
2. Posse Comitatus. As recent years have shown us, the US Government wouldn't suspend Posse Comitatus in favor of the Insurrection Act in a manner timely enough to matter.
3. Also as recent history tells us, many citizens are quick to destroy infrastructure. The US government is not.
4. As sneaky litmus tests have shown, the majority of US military personnel would not be willing to fight a war against their own citizens they swore to protect.
5. Whoever made the original video was ignorant of how insurgencies work... There would not be a shortage of weapons, ammunition, equipment, etc for the insurgents.
6. Plenty of firepower in the hands of the citizenry. To especially include the AR15, which is an M16 minus the full auto capabilities... Both firearms utilize the same ammo, magazines, manual of arms, etc. When you realize that actual warfighters are trained to primarily fire in semi automatic for the presentation of ammo, accuracy, and the longevity of the rifle....well that full auto really doesn't matter. Its also worth pointing out that many citizens possess AR15's supperior to the militarys M4 in terms of accuracy, parts, etc.
7. Its somehow often overlooked, but the active duty military makes up less than 5% of the nations population... Of the other 95+% a large portion are veterans of recent wars whom love their country, but are upset with the government... They'd side with the insurgents, especially if the government engaged in a war against the people. Add that in with the other portions of disenfranchised people, well the government has a real problem. Those veterans know how to use that fancy military hardware too.
8. As is well known and previously stated, the US population is armed, and at a much higher rate than the video suggested. Many Americans even take courses on Survival as well as courses involving firearms training, and tactical application... Not to mention spend $1,000 of dollars on military grade equipment. AND many of those individuals share their knowledge.
9. I spent the first 15 years of my life in Lisburn, NI, not far from Belfast before moving to rural West Virginia in the states. In both places, I learned that citizens know how to manufacture and deploy explosives, as well as use firearms.
So, god forbid it would ever come to it (I doubt that it would) but I think that if it were to happen, the citizenry would prevail.
Since the NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS are all run by a bunch of turncoats, trying to decide whether to embrace marxism or fascism, my bet is that the algorithms have already got us all pegged since we've all been running our mouths on social media for the past year and a half and they'd just dress up Chinese and Russian troops as federal swat teams and start serving bogus no knock warrants in the middle of the night and get the drop on most of us as we sleep.
Couldn't have said it better myself! Why do people forget about ex-military? Also, don't forget the police that swear to protect.
Citizens also know how to get things supplied from...er...backdoor measures. The video maker is naive to think that our supplies don't outweigh the military nor that not one country out there would find a way to help us if we were in need. We might even be backed up, if you catch my drift.
Anyway, thanks for setting the record straight. God Bless
Seeing as some goat farmers in Afghanistan did it with half century old AKs, US citizens with their billion guns and 10 trillion rounds of ammo won't have much problem.
Well said
Couldn't have said it any better
"The Union itself, which it cements and secures, destroys every pretext for a military establishment which could be dangerous. America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited with a hundred-thousand veterns ready for combat." -- Madison, fed.paper no.41
What about domestic ambition for freedom?
@@midlander8186 Freedom? It won't be freedom. It will economic disaster. Disaster that crashes the world economy. This whole thing is being promoted by people who can't seem to think things through. Mad Max wannabees. There is no freedom to be had in that. Just chaos. Its not going to happen anyway.
@@astrogatorjones You aren't paying very much attention to the world and internal conditions in the US, now are you?
@@astrogatorjones There is both support of and opposition to secession from both the political left and right. I think secession offers considerable hope for satisfying the political desires of many people, including what freedom might be for them.
@@remo27 Of course I am... a bunch of incompetents are trying to BS their way into power and toss out the Constitution.
You rock love the show
They say the citizens would run out of ammo but honestly we wouldn't. "The Army estimates that it consumes about 5.5 million rounds of ammunition in Iraq and Afghanistan each month. About 72 million rounds have been used in Iraq."
And "Law-abiding gun owners have over 600 million guns… and 25 trillion rounds of ammo."
On the topic of home-front cultural battles: I think there are plenty of cultural misunderstandings right now, unfortunately. There's an enormous cultural misunderstanding between the armed services and ... `certain` portions of the American public with `certain` political views. The media is very happy to exacerbate and feed on these, and has done so for at least 22 years.
Though alluded to at the beginning, asymmetrical warfare would be the main method to fight the military. The military would have to consider every American the enemy. Not a good way to win the hearts and minds of the populous.
What the video glass and fails to take in is the fact that we the civilians will have just as much access to same systems as the military does and we take over their bases
The resupply is not an issue. Reason is many private weapens use same ammo as military. Plus there are more combat vets than active military.
The narrator also failed to mention the sheer number of veterans who may join an insurgency who have skills equal to present day active duty military. Also, less than 10% of military members are combat personnel with the vast majority being support personnel.
I believe that a real insurgency in the US would entail troops switching from the US military to the insurgents. The only way an real insurgency could occur, involving large areas in the US, would mean that the government had become a tyranny. For such a situation, many in the military will defect to the citizens. Many citizens are also ex-military and many others also have a pioneer spirit, making a revolutionary movement quite potent. I do not think the government could survive. Interesting fact. US civilians have 7 times the number of firearms of all police and military combined. Let's go, Brandon!
Soldiers may feel a loyalty to their home town and state each soldier is from somewhere
You also have to take into account the military troops who side with the American Patriots. Also all of the retired military spread out through the country.
"people shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of it's people" v for vendetta
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears it's people, there is freedom."
Thomas Jefferson.
Never forget, less than 2% of the population of the clonies defeated Britain.....the most powerful military on the planet at the time. Farmers, merchants, the poor and uneducated defeated the best professional army on the planet. Less than 2% of the American colonists.....
Let that sink in
PS: The registert deer hunters in Wisconsin and Minnesota alone would be the 7 largest army in the world
Another thing to consider is that many members of the military would be unwilling to fight against their own countrymen.
Diane, the United States is not a superpower.... America is a Hyperpower. As an American, I hear superpower all the time and just wonder if people even heard of hyperpower. If you look at the definition, you'll see it's a better fit. Love the show.
Except no one has any idea what side the military would take in such a scenario. The one example we have to go on, the American Civil War, saw many of the most seasoned military officers resign their commissions and support the rebels. It's a toss up.
The American Civil War isn't really comparable because back then the vast majority of the population felt more loyalty towards their State than the Nation. While I'm sure there's still people with a greater loyalty for their State (Texas is a good example of that), realistically most Americans are proud to be American first. As for what the military would do, well, if they have proper leadership then they would defend the Constitution from any enemy, foreign or domestic.
@@ericlanglois9194 That's rather my point: they had the same oath in 1860. A lot of the professional soldier class felt that the federal government was behaving as a domestic enemy as defined by the Constitution they swore an oath to honor. Others felt precisely the opposite for precisely the same reason. America can be complicated ☺ (but we love it here!).
Agree. It is a gigantic leap and assumption to assume "the military" would fall 100% behind the federal government if a real insurgency ever happened. Honestly, I think it would favor the insurgency by a good percentage if it really came down to it, and I'm talking like a real Civil War II kind of situation.
This, I believe, is the single most important factor except maybe international interference. The number of insurgents inside the military, and their level of knowledge & access will make the difference. It would most likely become U.S. Military vs. U.S Military.
The Confederates almost won because of it.
I literally cannot see a scenario where the US military and the mass of the US population would be in a major conflict, as in an uprising. There are occasional "uprisings" in the form of riots where the military (National Guard, the Army, etc,) can be called out to support relief efforts, but we have a Posse Comitatus law that does not allow the military to be deployed here. But I'd honestly trust our military to refuse to follow unlawful orders. They've demonstrated that they are protecting us, not fighting us. And for most of us, they are our sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. In short, American civilians are not going to "rise up" and the military is not going to fight the bulk of the American populace. That said, of course I am an American, and I have a LOT of firearms! Fortunately I have never had to aim one or fire in anger at another human being, and pray that this will remain true until I shed this mortal coil.
There was a civil war once upon a time. That didn’t just begin as 2 big militaries opposing each other. Things have to be formed and it wouldn’t be difficult
@@daxherring630 So, do you want the North against the South, or East against West? Maybe 72 million voter's are upset, but how many are going to risk not only their life, but their Parent's or children's lives possibly? Do you actually think the F.B.I. wouldn't see someone forming a huge militia? Oh, I'm an Independent and I have LOTS AND LOTS of gun's too, and I have fired in anger. How easy would it be to "form" now?
@@christopherbaldwin2005 Easy...I never said I wanted any of it
@@christopherbaldwin2005 and much easier than you think.
@@christopherbaldwin2005 a new civil war here won't be like the last one. It will be more like the Troubles in Northern Ireland. As far as "72 million voters" go, the issue has far more to do with than just a single sham election.
the one factor you don't consider is that once the military issues weapons and ammunition to the troops only then will they find out what side the soldiers support.
One important thing to remember about gun owners. My Father, for example... Ownes about 6-8 guns. At least 5 of those havent been fired or even touched in decades. They are old hinting rifles that sit in a case and would require some serious maintenance in order to be made safe to use. So when you think of the total number of guns. Just know... A lot of them are unusable.
That said... There are still WAY more usable ones in the US than anywhere else.
If this were to ever happen, different regions of the country would unite and we would split into several smaller countries.
Trying out a new recording location? The lighting here gave you an angelic appearance.
Thanks! There are builders on the balcony out front so it was quieter in my room
I agree. The video makes it seem like it will be a united government against a handful of individuals, when the reality will be closer to the first civil war, with entire states seceding to form blocs.
Because she is angelic. If I wasn’t married and 20 years younger.......:)
@@chadm6981 let me help you finish your sentence.......she still wouldnt give you the time of day!!1 hahahahahaha
Ms. Jennings,
I appreciate the open minded way you approach this.
I would suggest as a 3rd generation U.S. military veteran, that this video in no way discusses how large the Veteran community is in comparison to the Active Duty personnel or where the majority burden of combat experienced people is in contrast.
Those who defended previously and moved into civilian life haven't all given up their oathes to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC.
Make sure you keep a sharp eye out for the ones who may try to Epstein you bro. Aquila Natus.
@@thomaswelks2988 Carpe diem e semper fidelis.
Additionally, I would like to remind naysayer's that you are only afforded that option by the Will of those who stepped up and signed their name on a check to defend YOU, up to the cost of their life.
Oath's like that, never expire.
About 100 million people actually own guns-not just pistols, but rifles. On top of that camouflage clothes, a large number of night vision goggles, etc. Many of us also served in the military, take tactic classes, and have also served in the special forces. Gun makers are also private, they DON’T have to sell weapons to the military!
Not only that but much of our military would not back tyranny!
Ms. Jennings, the last time I looked, there were 2m+ veterans in the US. A large majority of whom have had at least some weapons training. A large majority of those veterans own weapons. Big Bro owns seven, Baby Bro and I own five each. Seventeen weapons between the three of us.
Now, consider that we know Arizona like the backs of our hands. The deserts, the mountain ranges, the forest in northern and eastern parts of the state. Throw in our familiarity with the urban areas and guess who has the advantage?
Then consider my family alone could field two squads of infantry Marines along with a few soldiers and a couple of airmen. I would put our chances as pretty good.
Don't forget the DRONES and helicopters.
Gentlemen, the toys and maps "show" you area they don't let you "know" the area. They won't tell you how the terrain is different from last year. You put three infantry veteran's together, that know the area, and all that other stuff is useless.
@@andrewft31 so you are just gonna send a satellite to every area where unrest is happening? Not enough satellites or drones bud.
@@andrewft31 we weren't watching every part of Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. Maybe you do not know how satellites work lol.
Off the grid tech huh lol. You have no idea what you are talking about.
It seems like it would depend on how large the insurgency is and what the reasons are behind that insurgency. The military is a 100% volunteer force. Would there be a strong enough pull by the insurgency to recruit military people to fight with it?
The military can draft people. The insurgency is already happening. Not much is being done to prevent it from taking over.
I'm not an American but I think if the military try and draft people to fight their own people,family and friends they could have many cases of bone spurs.just my opinion.lol
@@melissamybubbles6139 , like a draft would even remotely work in a situation like that.😂
" hey who are you . "
" I'm lieutenant Frank Drebbin and don't ever let me catch you guys in
America yaaaaaaaaaah !!!!!!!!!!!"
Stewy : " and don't ever let me catch you guys in Cohag . "
Speaking as a former combat Infantryman You must realize the military would fracture down party lines and many we would refuse to take part against their own friends and family