ITT: most useless amendments

ITT: most useless amendments

Other urls found in this thread:

armyreal.com/resources/item/2150
nypost.com/2013/07/26/zero-for-hero-judge-snubs-man-hurt-stopping-butcher-of-brighton-beach/
m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0
wearechange.org/private-prisoners-new-slaves-usa/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Being this autistic.

On the count of this retard, I'd say the first.

is it wrong?

What makes you think ALL people who work in government would fight for government?
There can be a rebelation within power too

yeah highly unlikely if you really know what goes on and if you know they wouldn't have already thought of that possibility.

Fun fact. Less than 100,000 farmers in an area the size of Indiana stopped the might of the US military in its tracks for the better part of a decade.

In an insurgency it is estimated that less than 1% of the population ever fights.

That would mean roughly 3 million Americans would take up arms. In traditional military planning, you want a 3 to 1 advantage. That means to put down an American Insurrection, even a small one, it would take the combined militaries of China, India, the US, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, South Korea, Iran, and Egypt

Let that sink in for a bit. It would take the entire military strength of the to 10 militaries on the planet to even have a hope of stopping an American insurrection

The army would be pretty useless without all the rednecks and patriots. You'd need to import a shitload of freedom hating JF's to make that work, and there's basically no one advocating for that is there?

i wouldn't say its wrong but the real weapon the people have is themselves. the guns help. but it doesn't matter anyway. The u.s is not like russia that can band together in a crisis, quite the opposite. they're all divided and tearing the country apart. and their media obviously fuels the fire.

naive.

Then why couldn't they beat Vietnam in that exact same scenario dumbshit?

>OP talks about warfare like hes a professional on the subject without even knowing what asymmetric warfare is

"On the count of".... i think you mean "on account of"... They really need an age lock on this entire site, fuck me.

The DoD has estimated that roughly 30-40% of US troops in ConUS would abandon their posts if there was an order to mobilize against American citizens.

Yes they have thought of that, they have numbers worked up in that event, and those numbers arent pretty

wouldn't be as hard as you think

Yeah, because they're totally going to engage in an infantry war and not just use bomb/nuke/missile/drone/tank

To be fair, it's hard to "beat" an insurgency. Plus, the real defeat came from our politicians unwillingness to continue the war out of political pressure, not from any militaristic failing.

>amerifat can't relate to being bi-, tri- or quadrilingual

>Implying you patrol streets and neighborhoods with a drone
>Implying the military would start bombing their own infrastructure willy-nilly

You are a special kind of retarded

>implying a government would kill its citizens on a wide scale
no government build up like the us could survive any major military attack on its citizens

And you can't type english correctly. Learn one language well, then move on to other ones.

I love that the people who say "we need guns in case the government attacks us!" Are also the same people who say "America is always number 1! All soldiers and police are heros!."

Bombs, missiles, and tanks dont really work against IEDs in garbage cans, behind guard rails, and under highway overpasses. No one is going to engage in an infantry war.

Look to Iraq at how things would go. You are going to need MILLIONS of troops just to keep cities and highways secured

300m guns in the US, so do we have enough tanks and planes for all that? Sure would make it easier on them if everyone would get rid of their guns...

3rd amendment. Go google if you've been out of school for a while.

Can't be as retarded as someone who thinks their guns are going to protect them in a war against the government, or even think a war against the government is going to happen.

...

>Everyone in america is one person

any of yall niggas know where i can find this vid

I've learned two languages correctly before moving on to english, which means that your BMI divided by the number of languages you know is at least six times higher than mine.

...

If martial law is declared, you're either under it or enforcing it. i think they'd rather be enforcing it like we've seen in the past. Especially considering the other penalties that might come to them for going awol.

So you just choose not to type them correctly then.

>cut out air defense (would be too much destruction to non combatants)
>cut out navy (no sea battle)
All you're left with is infantry. And guess what, most of them are felons and rednecks that wouldn't attack rebels.

Daily reminder that the 2nd ammedmant, your right to bare arms, is in refrence to a well regulated militia. If you are not a member of a regulated militia you have no right to bare arms.

Felons can't join the military

yep, quantity, not quality, (also, like they are going to launch missiles at my house and kill my neighbors, or fly an f-16 to my place when hundreds of millions of people have guns...)

Your a fucking idiot. North korea alone has 9 million troops in active and reserve. South korea has like 8 million

That just isnt what they have found or prepared for.

Soldiers arent going to be all that worried about consequences for themselves when other soldiers are shooting at their family back at home

I really hope English isn't your first language

"You cant fight tanks and jets with rifles!'

You dont. You bomb and ambush the fuel trucks. A tank without gas is a very large doorstop.

>700 billion dollar a year funded war machine
>Defeated by surprise attacks from simpletons with pebbles
It may have worked 300 years ago before modern militaries were able to reduce cities to ash, but that's not the case anymore. Japan didn't beat the US with their surprises, neither did any mudslime shithole.

You keep forgetting that the military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. That means its Amendments as well. They don't swear to follow every order, and actually go to jail for following illegal orders.
This wouldn't be the military rolling over citizenry. This would be the military fighting each other.

They can too. Army and marines, the judge can order them to. Lookitup

What is vietnam for 100 alex.

Wow, just how retarded are you? In case yo u didnt know your fallacy is "does not follow"

omg my eyes, it's rebellion not rebelation retard

rebellion within the ranks. And no rebellion within ranks is not unlikely at all

The military as flying robots that can kill you hundreds of meters away. What do rednecks have to do with that?

14th and 27th are way more useless and dangerous than the 2nd.

North Korea - 1.19 million active military
South Korea - 630k active military
China (largest in world) - 2.183 million active

/thread
Despite grammar it's still the best post on this thread

That isn't even counting the fact that for every man figthing there must be 10 people working in providing resources. So unless the military is willing to shoot those unarmed civilians the rebelion would be difficult to stop.

this is so stupid. are you actually implying the navy would only operate in the ocean? Ever heard of marines? And Air force would also be able to help out. Army would still be going. All your left with is the whole military, every department of the U.S and unparalleled resources and manpower. Good luck nigger.

So tell me oh wise one, what happens to that heavily funded war machine when it starts reducing its own cities and infrastructure to ash like you said?

>Bruh it's totally true look it up

I would suffice for a simple "Not an argument" but as someone who has actually gone through the enlistment process I know for an absolute fact you're wrong

Honestly thats not a good comparison. The differences between what the british goverment had for technology versus the commoners and the american governments current tech versus the common folks armament is vastly different. Were talking about cruise missiles, 10 super aircraft carriers, apache attack helicopters, F-22's, M1 Abrams. Fuck, you cant be this retarded

Right... so you assume the US will go full on Syria and start bombing its own civilians in large cities? So you are saying B2 bombers are going to dropping MOABs in downtown New York and Chicago, kills tens of millions of people?

That isnt a military strategy, that is a genocide and a war crime. Think before you type

well if u consider that when the bill of rights was written there where no thanks and long distance rockets that this was a good thing cause when what now called defcon 1 would be decleared u could protect your country. nowdays well yeah its pretty useless

how the fuck are just regular gun nuts well regulated?

>U.S.: 58,220 dead 140,000 wounded
>North Vietnam: 65,000 civilian dead, 849,000 military dead, 600,000+ wounded
Some victory.

They wave that shit bro lookit:
armyreal.com/resources/item/2150

>They don't swear to follow every order

im pretty sure its well known they do.

>the military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution

America has been in a post constitutional society for over half a century. The government does not follow the constitution. The 2nd amendment was for the people to be able to protest and stop a corrupt government. The fact that we now have martial law if we protest too much shows just how wrong things are. And we've seen in the past national guard and military practice martial law and "prepare" for it. Its already been manipulated into being something acceptable. Just goes to show. so what you say there holds no wight even if supposed to be true im afraid.

The us was less than 1/3rd of the fighting force, and politicians were unwilling to fund France's war in a foreign land they had little stake in (all the US money was in China and the middle east by this point). US involvement was a pointless formality that ceased once it started getting expensive. Nothing more.

I said reserve also. Can you read.

#1 would only have to win the public opinion battle.

Check‘d

Americans have a duty and obligation to rely on themselves for protection from criminals.
- Judge Margaret Chan
Boring publication:
nypost.com/2013/07/26/zero-for-hero-judge-snubs-man-hurt-stopping-butcher-of-brighton-beach/
Fun video:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0
The sole purpose of the police is to capture employees to build us cheap cellphones and laptops in private prison factories.
It is not their duty or obligation to protect anybody.
wearechange.org/private-prisoners-new-slaves-usa/

Ya its really hilarious how people think that a rebellion couldnt win because of their massive stockpiles of nukes and tanks. Because obciously the best way to end a rebellion where people are pissed off at you is to blow a bunch of them up and piss them off even more. Even your most diehard ot liberal faggot slurping down starbucks would get really shitty if the government blew up their pug to kill a couple rebels next door. I mean how many people cry and knash their teeth when surgical strikes blew up a building next door to a targer in iraq? God help us all if they blow up some poor black man who was only assaulting someone at the time. We wouldnt want another ferguson BLM march.

And yet, they would be breaking their oath. You also forget how many of the military own their own personal weapons. Few, if any, would turn against the citizenry on the whole.

>the real weapon the people have is themselves

And you have the audacity to call other people autistic

>and actually go to jail for following illegal orders

pretty sure its the other way round to like the other things. From every case i've seen it has been atleast.

Who withdrew from vietnam without a victory? The US did. It was a loss. A Pyrrhic victory is still a victory. Also death tolls from vietnam were always 100% bullshit.

where? probably got me confused as some samefag

>U.S. doesn't commit war crimes.
>U.S. doesn't destroy major metropolitan areas or kill civilians en masse.
O IM LAFFIN

>breaking their oath.

ahahahaha ohh brother. you still believe in that crap?

You can't be this stupid.
That would swell the numbers of the insurrection as it has in other countries.

No country is going to call up its entire reserve force to put down a civil war on the other side of the world. For that matter, no country is going to send even remotely near 100% of its active duty soldiers to put down a civil war on the other side of the world.

You're making up facts and figures jackass, sit down the adults are talking

Because the tyrannical gubmint' totally won against even worse-armed peasants in Vietnam and Iraq right???

Oh wait not they didn't, OP is just a huge flaming faggot.

I suppose that works when the 2nd biggest superpower in the World goes all out and bankrupts itself supporting your revolution whilst keeping the bulk of enemy forces engaged in traditional warfare across the Atlantic Ocean

>mfw people behave like this number equals that many infantry and doesn't understand that 9/10 of these numbers will be in non-combat support roles

If killcounts won wars then Nazi Germany beat the USSR, oh wait it was the Russians who steamrolled all the way to Berlin.

>mfw nukes anyway

>Death tolls from Vietnam were always bullshit
Source? That seems like a weird thing to lie about while also boasting a victory.

I never said it was a smart decision. Neither is putting guns in teachers hands, spending billions to the benefit of the 8000 richest people in the country, provoking nuclear war for no reason, blowing up your own buildings so you can spy on your citizens, believing pyramids were built to store food or spending government money Tory to electrocute gay people straight.
America isn't known for its smart politicians or decision making for the benefit of its civilians.

If a (saudi) country (israel) has vested (china) interest in (south korea) keeping our (Taiwan) country stable (Russia) they would

Not him, but
>missing the point
The point of the 2nd amendment has little to do with who would win a civil war, but rather whether there would be a war in the first place. The fact that we have the ability to resist at all means the government would likely never become tyrannical. Elections are the "normal" way for the people to control who governs, but it can be tough to remove a group of insiders from power if they don't want to go.
If we were unarmed and the government had a monopoly on force, Congress could collude to pass life terms for themselves and 90% income taxes on everyone and it would be law, enforced at gunpoint, with literally no recourse for the people. The 3-branch system should also prevent this, but if corruption reached all levels of government we'd be up fucked creek.

You don’t supress a population with bombers and battleships you retard. Then you would have no population to control and your leadership would be pointless. You’ll be the king of a burning heap of shit.
To supress a population you need police, people on the ground that can patrol a street and break up meetings of dissidents. You don’t nuke them.
And if every citizen might be careying a gun then that supression is suddenly way more difficult to pull of because even the most loyal police officers usually don’t like being shot.

There isnt a lot of point in nuking your own country. Yay you won... What did you win? 1/2 your population (tax paying population) is dead. Your largest 10 cities are radioactive craters (no more population or tax income)... The government would not only be brought up on war crime charges, but they would rule over a shattered and destroyed country that would take hundreds of years to recover.

When you start dropping bombs on your own cities, you have already lost any reason to still be fighting (unless like Assad, you are just trying to keep your own head)

OP you are embarrassing yourself by your lack of understanding of both the 2nd amendment and a civilian insurgency.

The 2nd amendment exists to scare politicians and keep them afraid of ever trying to put soldiers on streets. They would never defeat a tyrannical government. It becomes a war of attrition between those paid to fight, and those who will die simply for what they believe.

Access to arms keeps the government in its place. if you doubt it, simply move to canada. Where you have no rights to free speech, self defense, political change, personal liberty.

well imagine if the 2nd amendment would be a china thing. then it would be 1.4billion people lets asume american statistics that 25% owns a gun than u would have 350 million people so lets say a country like america would invade they would be up against more armed civilians then there own poppulation. so then first but yh when u look at america 325 million 25% owns a gun 81 million with a gun would be still hard to knockdown

>who operates that ship
>who flies those planes
>who drives those tanks
>who guides those missiles
American citizens, whose families live here. There's a pretty good reason that our government isn't some impervious untouchable elite with a standing military that would snap to and kill their own brothers and sisters. I don't expect you to learn anything about this country though, you're just a fat faggot sucking down American snacks and beverages while you watch our films and television and become more and more like what you claim to hate every day.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

Everyone talked out of their ass and nobody sat down and actually took count of who was hurt or killed. The only accurate numbers we have are from our own miltary.

Grunts in the field would get shot and spray all their ammo and not see a single dead body. When they reported back to base they would do the math and if they fired 1000 shots they killed 50 people. Then their officer would say it was 100. Suddenly youve killed the entire population of vietnam and nobody knows what the fuck is going on.

Then there is the vietnamese. Billy gets shot. They bury him. Nobody gives a fuck to record it. After the war they all shrug when people ask how many died.

Any and all concrete numbers are 100% bullshit.

Even then they wouldnt. In your example Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan and others wouldnt send more than 10-15% of their troop totals simply because it leaves them open to attack from Iran.

At the very height of the dual front war in Iraq and Afghanistan the US deployed less than 10% of its active duty soldiers. Again, no one sends 100% of the military anywhere. This isnt an RTS game

>blowing up your own buildings so you can spy on your citizens

Thats not the only reason.
> get to start a war
> get to increase security
> get to invade peoples rights even more
> get a shit ton of money
> manipulate peoples emotions and feelings and beliefs.
> have a "war on terror" from then on
> get to do even more kewl shit
> have even more agencies and departments
> more spending on military
> more oil
> more money
> more manipulation
> more things that are acceptable that normally wouldnt be in the short term and long term

+100 more reasons

>vietnam

so how is your moonshine coming along?

...

Milgram experiment, bud. Those military cucks already think they’re the very hand of god, they won’t think twice to gun down their neighbors if it’s FER MUH FREEDUMBS

Vietnam farmers did it.

Fuckboi doesn't know how guerrilla warfare works.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle user
>Government fights civilian populace
>Government kills large portion of rebelling civilian populace
>Soldiers go to cash in their government paycheck to live life as a welfare queen
>Check bounces because large portion of the population is dead, meaning less people to pay taxes meaning less money going into the government
>government is essentially bankrupt and completely torn from the inside-out.

Besides, don't forget that Abu Jihadi out in the desert has been doing pretty well against our tyrannical government.