- cross-posted to:
- aiop@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aiop@lemmy.world
‘I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics,’ Republican candidate tells Fox’s Maria Bartiromo
…
“And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military,” he said.
“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. Not even the people who have come in, who are destroying our country.”
It isn’t clear under what circumstances Trump would view it justifiable to call in US troops against his own countrymen.
But his comments mark a baseless attack and a particularly hollow one coming from someone whose supporters violently attacked the US Capitol in an attempt to stop him from being thrown out of office three years ago.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
Military weapons? Yeah. They should be.
Pistols? Shotguns? Not really. And yes, you can point to more extreme cases of ‘liberals’ who do want to amend the constitution, which is about the same thing as calling anyone even slightly conservative on one issue a fascist.
OMG! The former president is threatening mass violence and possible oppression by using the US Military on the citizens! Oh btw you shouldn’t have a weapon that looks like the one the military uses or shoots faster than those made 100 years ago.
The AR-15 is not a military weapon, purely civilian. In any case you should be able to own military firearms, the government is not to be trusted.
An AK is a better fit, lol.
But (just going with this for a second) I dont see a scenario where even having like an M240 is going to make much of a difference going up against the US military. What do you picture happening, a good honest firefight? At that point homemade bombs and such are your only resort where a pistol wouldn’t work.
Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam have left the chat. Why is this talking point always used to counter gun rights? It’s objectively not true ans has been proven time and time again. It’s guerilla / asymmetrical warfare, thr gov has to come to you.
The AKs available to the US consumer are also not weapons of war, they are strictly semi automatic.
An M240 would be a major upgrade in such a scenario. It would be more effective than a pistol, ideally you would have people with M240s and people making IEDs.
The US military failed to fight insurgents in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What makes you think they’d be any better against an insurgency in the US, especially when it’d involve a good portion of people in their own ranks?
You guys are living a fantasy if you think a large chunk of the US population will turn into the Taliban, Viet Cong, Mujahideen or whatever over which party is in the govt and whatever antics you think Trump or Harris get up to.
We live in a rich, militarized surveillance state. A rifle is not how you fight that.
For now. But if you can’t imagine any scenario where an M240 would be useful, you’re very shortsighted. If (and this is a big if) we devolve into civil war, then an armed insurgency is very much on the table. All the tech stuff relies on infrastructure, and stable infrastructure is one of the first things to go.