• skillissuer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    83·
    1 年前

    Own a SAM site for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four A6 Intruders break into my airspace. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and S-300. Blow a golf ball sized holes through the first intruder, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my MANPADS on the second intruder, miss him entirely because he uses flares and nails the neighbors Mi-8 Hip. I have to resort to the S-200 mounted in the backyard loaded with grape shot, “Tally ho lads” the grape shot shreds two intruders in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix ZSU-2-23 and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He loses fuel waiting on the F5Fs to arrive since multiple 23mm wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.

  • DavidGarcia@feddit.nlEnglish
    39·
    1 年前

    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.

    • Throwaway@lemm.eeEnglish
      41·
      1 年前

      We can, they’re all just expensive.Its just a DD, which is a 200 dollar tax stamp

  • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    378·
    1 年前

    Second amendment means we should have anti-aircraft missiles too. This is not a joke. I am serious.

    • CoderKat@lemm.eeEnglish
      201·
      1 年前

      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.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      5·
      1 年前

      Anti-aircraft missiles, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear SAMs, shall not be infringed.

  • Zaroni@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    201·
    1 年前

    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.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      105·
      1 年前

      If the majority of the population decided to rebel against the government they wouldn’t need guns

      • Zaroni@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        106·
        1 年前

        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.

        • taladar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          91·
          1 年前

          There has virtually never be a revolution in history that had the majority of the population behind it while it was actually happening.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafeEnglish
            4·
            1 年前

            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?”

    • PutangInaMo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      1 年前

      I’m a fan of using the argument of the post, but I have given some thought to keeping civilians armed enough to combat LEO. But then they’re out there buying surplus military equipment like fuck here we go, endless cycle.

    • skulblaka@kbin.social
      12·
      1 年前

      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.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafeEnglish
      53·
      1 年前

      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.