Recent examples of 1st world military coups or coups stopped by the armed populace.

[Fists_of_Fury]

I guess a Brit has to say whatever he needs to to cope with the fact that a rag tag militia kicked your as$.

[DoubleLeftH00k]

This is one i cant understand about democrats

They Hate hollywood coz hollywood is racist
But hollywood is their biggest sponsor and ally

They hate guns and police shootings
But okay with disarming citizens and only arming authorities

[Eff Pandas]

Yes, I've looked at the casualties. Comparing the numbers, the Army would have to be 5 to 10 times more efficient than it was during Nam. Yes it's true the military has advanced in the last 40 years, so has the general public, especially when you compare 2018 USA with 1970 Vietnam. That and we're not talking about unarmed Vietnamese villagers here

Idk about more efficient. There are no numbers to suggest how nuts the kill ratio was between soldiers & citizens. This is 22-1 with our soldiers vs their soldiers & citizens. You think people in the US are training for war games after Starbucks once a week or something?

Idk where the f#ck you are living where people are THAT ready for the sh^t to hit the fan, but I've lived in multiple places in the US & most cats I've encountered don't have the guns, the ammo needed, the food stockpiles or the balls to fight trained soldiers. And the few you got guns, ammo, food + balls are gonna be in short supply when they start seeing a real battle go down & their neighbor Barney has his guts leaking from his body in their driveway.

I don't think you are understanding what this would really look like & how much of a massacre it'd be with how ill prepared people are. And thats even those preppers & sh^t too. Most of them cats got 3mos of food stored I bet. What is that mfer doing in month 15 of this war when the grocery stores got raided on day 1 by 300M people, who've mostly been captured or killed now? I say that mfer is in a FEMA camp watching the Alex Jones training video explaining how to break rocks without hurting your hands too much.

[GGG Gloveking]

Idk about more efficient. There are no numbers to suggest how nuts the kill ratio was between soldiers & citizens. This is 22-1 with our soldiers vs their soldiers & citizens. You think people in the US are training for war games after Starbucks once a week or something?

Idk where the f#ck you are living where people are THAT ready for the sh^t to hit the fan, but I've lived in multiple places in the US & most cats I've encountered don't have the guns, the ammo needed, the food stockpiles or the balls to fight trained soldiers. And the few you got guns, ammo, food + balls are gonna be in short supply when they start seeing a real battle go down & their neighbor Barney has his guts leaking from his body in their driveway.

I don't think you are understanding what this would really look like & how much of a massacre it'd be with how ill prepared people are. And thats even those preppers & sh^t too. Most of them cats got 3mos of food stored I bet. What is that mfer doing in month 15 of this war when the grocery stores got raided on day 1 by 300M people, who've mostly been captured or killed now? I say that mfer is in a FEMA camp watching the Alex Jones training video explaining how to break rocks without hurting your hands too much.

I see food being more of a problem for the army than the people. There's millions of us that can grow food, only so many soldiers. They're going to spread themselves thin logistically with people protecting their assets, acquiring good and essentials, running those FEMA camps you mentioned. This isn't a war that will be won from the skies. Its a boots on the ground type deal, and the numbers just don't add up. How long were we in Afghanistan?

Whether you want to admit it or not, the army is going to have to be more efficient. A 22 to 1 ratio won't get the job done. They need at least 100 to 1. And that's assuming 100% participation from the army. Nobody to defend their stuff, run their camps, or keep the army fed.

[Eff Pandas]

I see food being more of a problem for the army than the people. There's millions of us that can grow food, only so many soldiers.

Millions can grow food. Shoot a gun. Kill soldiers. Strategical not be trifled with. Man I'd assume the US would be a lot less f#cked up with all these cool people looking after each other & handling sh^t around.

They're going to spread themselves thin logistically with people protecting their assets, acquiring good and essentials, running those FEMA camps you mentioned. This isn't a war that will be won from the skies. Its a boots on the ground type deal, and the numbers just don't add up. How long were we in Afghanistan?

Every legit war is boots on the ground + other sh^t. And all citizens HAVE is boots on the ground. Everything else they'd be a limp dick in.

And wtf does Afghanistan got to do with anything? We are talking about a full out war where civilians ARE the target. Usually we avoid killing civilians as much as possible. If you don't think a bunch of wars would look a whole lot difference if we weren't blowing up everything civilians need systematically from day 1 idk how to continue debating this with you.

You seem to think this would be some part time war or something where a mfer could plant some grapes in between battles or something. The military would conquer any region they wanted to via sheer force vs the average guy or average guy with a gun. Mfers with guns would be trying to protect their families from the military & rabid civilians more than going out on military base runs.

Legit can't believe this is an argument I'm having here. Or A+ trolling.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the army is going to have to be more efficient. A 22 to 1 ratio won't get the job done. They need at least 100 to 1. And that's assuming 100% participation from the army. Nobody to defend their stuff, run their camps, or keep the army fed.

I think you missed my point. My point is 22-1 ISN'T even the ratio in the first place cuz its not a direct comparison. Thats against a trained military + civilians. A military vs a civilian "army" is guaranteed to be more than 22-1 in kills.

You keep overrating numbers over weaponry, technology, ability to gather resources & disperse among all parties, ammo stockpiled & a lot of things military's do that regular people, gun owners or not, don't do.

I can only assume you feel the US military is 3rd to India & China since they have superior numbers as well.

[Eubankjr]

It should be noted that coups often take place to preserve democracy or overthrow corrupt/dangerous leaders. This is also far more likely to be the case in modern times in more developed nations such as in the first world. A more fitting question would be to ask for examples of armed populations resisting totalitarian regimes. This gets you closer to the matter at hand and makes it easier to take your understanding of the world seriously.

Anyways, that aside...

I know this is beyond your mental capacity, so I will simplify it as best I can. There is a deterrent effect when it comes to force. By the virtue of having force, one often does not have to use it for it to affect how people treat them.

To show you the flaws in your logic, a more extreme example is nuclear weaponry. Your form of logic would assert that because we have not used nuclear weapons in war since the end of WW2, that they have had no impact geopolitical strategies and war in that span of time. That should be obviously stupid, even to you. War and politics have been shaped by the mere existence of nuclear weapons over the last few decades. You have no understanding of psychology at all if you don't understand this concept.

As for the capacity of armed citizenry to even theoretically resist first world military prowess, perhaps you should take a look at some of the third world theaters the US military has operated in and the fierce resistance mounted by the poorly equipped, malnourished, uneducated populations there. I can give you some examples of that and even explain why their resistances were effective if you'd like.

I can also give you some examples of oppressive totalitarian regimes disarming their populaces in order to exert complete control over, and in some cases commit war crimes against them. Why do you think they disarm them first?

If a heavily armed populace is a deterrent then wouldn't we expect to see some examples of coups in the 1st world countries that have strict guns laws since there are many more of them and no such deterrent exists ?

As for the nuclear weapon analogy, it isn't really apt at all because Nukes rely on the fact that the only outcome is total destruction of both sides as a deterrent.

[Eubankjr]

Yes, I've looked at the casualties. Comparing the numbers, the Army would have to be 5 to 10 times more efficient than it was during Nam. Yes it's true the military has advanced in the last 40 years, so has the general public, especially when you compare 2018 USA with 1970 Vietnam. That and we're not talking about unarmed Vietnamese villagers here

35% of Americans are obese, 66% are overweight. 20% have some sort of mental illness. 20% are over 65, more than 70% are on regular prescription medication and on average an American of fighting age will take 35,000 selfies in their lifetime.


Id take the Vietnam villager in a fight everyday of the week.

[GGG Gloveking]

35% of Americans are obese, 66% are overweight. 20% have some sort of mental illness. 20% are over 65, more than 70% are on regular prescription medication and on average an American of fighting age will take 35,000 selfies in their lifetime.


Id take the Vietnam villager in a fight everyday of the week.

And I'll take the fat guy with a gun over the skinny guy with a stick all day. Especially 100,000,000 of them

[Eubankjr]

And I'll take the fat guy with a gun over the skinny guy with a stick all day. Especially 100,000,000 of them

A fat guy with a gun who cant even keep his diabetes under control never mind fight a prolonged war over a skinny guy who will dig tunnels with his bare hands 18hrs a day. Gimme a break.

Most modern western people can barely run their day to day lives but are going to suddenly become a disciplined and motivated military force ?

Trained US soldiers took 10,000 rounds to get one kill in Vietnam, most of this 100mil guns will never even be picked up never mind ever hit anything.

[GGG Gloveking]

Millions can grow food. Shoot a gun. Kill soldiers. Strategical not be trifled with. Man I'd assume the US would be a lot less f#cked up with all these cool people looking after each other & handling sh^t around.



Every legit war is boots on the ground + other sh^t. And all citizens HAVE is boots on the ground. Everything else they'd be a limp dick in.

And wtf does Afghanistan got to do with anything? We are talking about a full out war where civilians ARE the target. Usually we avoid killing civilians as much as possible. If you don't think a bunch of wars would look a whole lot difference if we weren't blowing up everything civilians need systematically from day 1 idk how to continue debating this with you.

You seem to think this would be some part time war or something where a mfer could plant some grapes in between battles or something. The military would conquer any region they wanted to via sheer force vs the average guy or average guy with a gun. Mfers with guns would be trying to protect their families from the military & rabid civilians more than going out on military base runs.

Legit can't believe this is an argument I'm having here. Or A+ trolling.



I think you missed my point. My point is 22-1 ISN'T even the ratio in the first place cuz its not a direct comparison. Thats against a trained military + civilians. A military vs a civilian "army" is guaranteed to be more than 22-1 in kills.

You keep overrating numbers over weaponry, technology, ability to gather resources & disperse among all parties, ammo stockpiled & a lot of things military's do that regular people, gun owners or not, don't do.

I can only assume you feel the US military is 3rd to India & China since they have superior numbers as well.

Our biggest difference is that you rate the army higher than I do, and I rate the people higher than you. I don't think you give the people enough credit to think we wouldn't organize a resistance. There are a lot of military installations that will need to be guarded. That takes manpower. Movement of supplies and food, takes manpower. The army is going to spread itself very thin in this vast country of ours. They can't be everywhere at once.