Unfortunately not as well equipped as the US Armed Forces.
Can't let that fall into wrong hands again.
Remember Lincoln turned The Union Army against states who wanted to be free.
Dude, with NSA, CIA and DOD looking for you domestically
you wouldn't stand a chance. Satellites, Phone GPS, heck,
they have such a voice recognition database on us all already
that you couldn't whisper within 10 feet of a stranger's cell
or cable phone without them knowing where you are once
you are identified. Then the helicopters come and put your
lights out. With Democrats in power, the directive against
using US military on US citizens on US soil goes out the
window, but "contractors" are not inhibited by that anyway.
Remember that citizens fought the Army in the first Civil War
and lost. Do whatever you can to avoid war. If by some
miracle citizens could defend against the above, they'd
simply release smallpox and that would be it for everyone
born after1985 when vaccinations for it stopped. They'd
vaccinate everyone on their side and the rebels would
be vulnerable, even adults vaccinated in youth.
Crap I forgot to mention that aspect as the only
thing that could inhibit the military, but they are
pretty well going to follow all orders short of a
nuke. Look at what the police did recently in
many areas. They seemed to enjoy attacking.
(Don't get me wrong, MOST out during protests
were deserving of police correction, but not the
way it was done. Skunks would have deterred
more people - and a lot of innocent travelers
and residents going about their business got
hurt. )
Attacking commies burning your city down is ok in my book.
STOPPING them would be better. That didn't happen.
What I am more concerned about is Robots with Autopathing / Some kind of AI movement with a "Kill On Sight" Program.
Never even occurred to me - and you're right. 1005 correct.
Even if Soldiers have to control the robots, there is a lot of emotional distance, making it feel too much like a video game than real life with consequences.
Again, you are 100% correct.
But slight chance they still refuse to follow the orders.
The first ones will set the precedent for the rest.
If the robots are fully autonomous. God help us. >All insurgencies will be quickly put down.
If you live in Seattle, watch out for Google cars. They probably know you've been here.
Some big differences: the Southerners had last-gen arms, which were very much worse than modern rifles at the time.
What's the difference between an AR-15 and what a rifleman carries in a modern military? Not much. No one needs burst or full auto, and it's ridiculous how easy it is to convert an AR-15 to fully auto if it did.
The issue is that that tyrant t Lincoln sent The Army to attack free states which didn't want to be a part of a country that sent its Army to attack free states. VIRGINIA was the last state to bow out of The Union, and did so because there was a draft order for their men and boys to present for military duty against the states which left The Union. This could be why John Wilkes Booth yelled Virginia's State Motto;
You know it. They know it. Everyone else knows it.
If they had legitimate concerns, and not just got pissy because they lost an election, they could've garnered support without attacking the North. But no, they believed that their economy was superior and they could force the North to adopt slavery.
By the way, thank God for General Lee, who saved countless lives by surrendering.
they believed that ... they could force the North to adopt slavery.
I'm sorry you grew up in a Democrat-run school system.
They did not intend to force the North to adopt slavery,
they just wanted to be left alone to continue it. In fact
if the North had adopted slavery, it would have negated
their economic advantage - the whole essence of why
The Union couldn't let them leave. Lincoln didn't give
a damn about the slaves - he just needed to use them
for his war and promised them the world to do it and
seriously considered backing out of the deal he made.
DISCLAIMER: The above intends only to clarify history.
Slavery is not cool, but every developing nation went
through it at one point and when done with slavery they
graduated to "child labor". This may be why many have
the notion that all capitalism is bad.
What was the Dred Scott decision about then? The South needed control of the Supreme Court so they could force northern states to enforce slavery.
The South had been in control of the presidency and the senate but that all changed when Lincoln won. That's why they chose that time to rebel. They tried to justify their rebellion but everyone knew it was because the South was on the way out of power.
Take all the guns and ammo in the world compared to what the citizens of the US own.
Not even close.
Even the US military is woefully under equipped compared to us.
What’s even better? Many of us who own guns and piles of ammo, don’t remotely look like the type to be armed up and skilled marksmen.
Hey I actually bought that print from the artist a couple of years ago after seeing it back in the r/td days. It is really cool.
Unfortunately not as well equipped as the US Armed Forces.
Can't let that fall into wrong hands again.
Remember Lincoln turned The Union Army against states who wanted to be free.
Dude, with NSA, CIA and DOD looking for you domestically
you wouldn't stand a chance. Satellites, Phone GPS, heck,
they have such a voice recognition database on us all already
that you couldn't whisper within 10 feet of a stranger's cell
or cable phone without them knowing where you are once
you are identified. Then the helicopters come and put your
lights out. With Democrats in power, the directive against
using US military on US citizens on US soil goes out the
window, but "contractors" are not inhibited by that anyway.
Remember that citizens fought the Army in the first Civil War
and lost. Do whatever you can to avoid war. If by some
miracle citizens could defend against the above, they'd
simply release smallpox and that would be it for everyone
born after1985 when vaccinations for it stopped. They'd
vaccinate everyone on their side and the rebels would
be vulnerable, even adults vaccinated in youth.
Crap I forgot to mention that aspect as the only
thing that could inhibit the military, but they are
pretty well going to follow all orders short of a
nuke. Look at what the police did recently in
many areas. They seemed to enjoy attacking.
(Don't get me wrong, MOST out during protests
were deserving of police correction, but not the
way it was done. Skunks would have deterred
more people - and a lot of innocent travelers
and residents going about their business got
hurt. )
STOPPING them would be better. That didn't happen.
Never even occurred to me - and you're right. 1005 correct.
Again, you are 100% correct.
The first ones will set the precedent for the rest.
If you live in Seattle, watch out for Google cars. They probably know you've been here.
Some big differences: the Southerners had last-gen arms, which were very much worse than modern rifles at the time.
What's the difference between an AR-15 and what a rifleman carries in a modern military? Not much. No one needs burst or full auto, and it's ridiculous how easy it is to convert an AR-15 to fully auto if it did.
They got air superiority though, which is a big deal.
Air superority didn't seem to make a clear victory in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Besides, we live in their infrastructure. Try feeding NYC without any roads.
The issue is that that tyrant t Lincoln sent The Army to attack free states which didn't want to be a part of a country that sent its Army to attack free states. VIRGINIA was the last state to bow out of The Union, and did so because there was a draft order for their men and boys to present for military duty against the states which left The Union. This could be why John Wilkes Booth yelled Virginia's State Motto;
Sic Semper Tyranni
Revision. The South attacked the North.
You know it. They know it. Everyone else knows it.
If they had legitimate concerns, and not just got pissy because they lost an election, they could've garnered support without attacking the North. But no, they believed that their economy was superior and they could force the North to adopt slavery.
By the way, thank God for General Lee, who saved countless lives by surrendering.
I'm sorry you grew up in a Democrat-run school system.
They did not intend to force the North to adopt slavery,
they just wanted to be left alone to continue it. In fact
if the North had adopted slavery, it would have negated
their economic advantage - the whole essence of why
The Union couldn't let them leave. Lincoln didn't give
a damn about the slaves - he just needed to use them for his war and promised them the world to do it and
seriously considered backing out of the deal he made.
DISCLAIMER: The above intends only to clarify history.
Slavery is not cool, but every developing nation went
through it at one point and when done with slavery they
graduated to "child labor". This may be why many have
the notion that all capitalism is bad.
. .
What was the Dred Scott decision about then? The South needed control of the Supreme Court so they could force northern states to enforce slavery.
The South had been in control of the presidency and the senate but that all changed when Lincoln won. That's why they chose that time to rebel. They tried to justify their rebellion but everyone knew it was because the South was on the way out of power.
It was about "a lot" of issues.
It ruled that only a U.S. Citizen could sue in Federal Court ( and Scott was not a U.S. Citizen )
It showed that just because someone thinks they're entitled to some Right, maybe they're not.
Scott believed that because he was taken to a free State that he was automatically free and sued to get the official declaration of that.
Again, I'm not condoning slavery, I'm stating fact for the time where slavery was done and the rules that governed it at the time.
.