Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
if you don't trust the government, why would you want their hands to be the only ones with them? Also, why would you want to place 'bombing campaigns only' restrictions on us? wouldn't it be more advantageous to have us equally armed in the first place?
|
It's not a restriction, it's the only viable option.
Again, the US is the fucking tits when it comes to conventional warfare. If the US military and us populace were equally armed, the military would wipe the fucking floor with us without breaking a sweat... even if every man woman and child were taught how to properly operate a gun. We (the angry populace) would be decimated, and THEN the bombing campaigns would begin against military targets by us. Why not skip the part where tens of thousands to millions die? It's madly cheap and easy to build bombs. I'd say it's easier to make bombs than it is to take a course on how to shoot, seeing as how one can build a bomb without any classes easily.
It's not about being advantageous, but rather pragmatic. In this highly hypothetical situation, the goals would be:
1) Disrupt the aggressors' ability to wage war.
2) Keep civilian deaths to an absolute minimum by not giving the aggressors civilian targets.
3) "Hearts and minds" with those who were apathetic.
etc.
The idea of directly challenging any well trained and organized military force won't work.