The only logical conclusion is that civilians should be able to, nay mandated to, own anti-aircraft missiles. And while we're at it anti-tank missiles too.
Imagine if every single person in Ukraine had had anti-aircraft and anti-tank missles.
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
45 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6384 readers
1111 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Random twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Low Hanging Fruit thread.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Low effort thread instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We can, they're all just expensive.Its just a DD, which is a 200 dollar tax stamp
OK, I don't think I have heard people arguing about vietnam, but Afghanistan was retaken in days by an armed rebellion, and they only ever shot down 38 aircraft, and did not down a single fast mover during the entire war. And even so, a countries government can't survive by bombing its infrastructure against a sustained rebellion. If the majority of America decided to rebel against the us government, they would be completely screwed.
If the majority of the population decided to rebel against the government they wouldn't need guns
Uh, yes they would? Have you heard of: the soviet union, the ccp or ww2 Germany? All had different rebellions, but all failed because they did not have any firepower. One of the very first things the fascist government of Germany did was remove weapons from anyone that was an enemy of the state. Now in present day ukraine, because none of the citizens were permitted to own arms, Ukrainians have no way to fight an insurgent war on Russian occupiers. Without any means to violently resist a fascist takeover, the people are at the mercy of the government. I love how so many people post about how "if enough trans or nby people arms themselves then the government will enact gun control" and completely miss the irony of that point completely proving correct the points people make against gun control.
There has virtually never be a revolution in history that had the majority of the population behind it while it was actually happening.
There's also never been a successful revolution when the majority opposed it either. They only succeed when the public, at a minimum, says "Can't be any worse, right?"
Those gravy seals are totally going to live in tunnels for months.
I always heard a big factor was the land/environment itself.
It definitely was. The Vietnamese kicked our asses but that's because they knew how to use their terrain to their advantage. America had not fought a true guerilla war before that time and especially not one on enemy territory.
But Joe Podunk and his huntin' guns are not going to be holed up in a foxhole surrounded by punji sticks for two weeks. Special forces would just drop a missile on his F-150 and call it a day.
Realistically the only way an American rebellion doesn't get crushed within minutes of forming is if the armed forces fracture and it blooms into a federal civil war. Then all of us are well and truly fucked much more than we are now.
Don't come at them with facts.
The French, Russian, Chinese, and even the Vietnamese revolutions quite literally all started as dudes with rifles. American largely as well, though it did technically start with artillery, that was terrible and got fuckin rekt until the French started doing it all for us. Except, of course, for the OG Insurgent Asshole, the Swamp Fox himself, the man who saved the Revolution, who, you guessed it, fought mostly with muskets and guerilla tactics.
(Also he was a slaver, a murderer, and a rapist, just to be clear. But he was best at murderin')
You start with rifles, then get the big boy toys when you either get a national sugar daddy or murder some bootlickers in their barracks and raid the armory. Preferably both.
Second amendment means we should have anti-aircraft missiles too. This is not a joke. I am serious.
Honestly, even if it were legal, who would be able to afford it? It'd just mean the ultra wealthy would have even more powerful private armies. A single missile costs at least a few hundred thousand dollars, with some systems costing millions per missile. Which is unfathomably expensive when you think of what you can buy with a few million dollars.
The answer is UBI: Universal Ballistic Income
Isn't that just a fancy term for shooting rolls of coins at people with a slingshot?
Afraid of the increasing missile street violence? Call now and buy your own handheld missile launcher today at 50% discount. The best way to stop a bad guy with a missile launcher is a good guy with a missile launcher.
The free market is very good at reducing prices. Do you really think the price the government pays for missiles is reasonable?
When are you announcing your presidential run?