did this movie predict Dictator Joes new fascist america?
scary times we are living in.
please everyone vote for Trump so this doesnt happen.
Well, Biden did say he would turn the US military on American citizens.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/06/biden-says-gun-owners-would-need-f-15s-and-nukes-to-take-on-the-us-govt/
WTF! a sane person wouldnt say something like that. dude is effed in the head.
During a Wednesday press conference announcing his new gun crime prevention efforts, President Joe Biden said the Second Amendment has always had limitations, and those who think they need weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government would need F-15 fighter jets and nuclear weapons.
Biden said, “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons. The point is that there has always been the ability to limit — rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it.”
No, that's not what he said at all there. He's saying that the advances of modern military tech would mean that guns just aren't gunna cut it if the US government did decide to become fascist.
shareYou just said the same thing with different words.
shareHe acknowledges then that he would turn the weapons of the US on its own people if they don't act right.
shareWhen on earth did he say that? Quote it please.
shareHe said, "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons." His meaning is obvious: Fuck with us and we'll kill you with our superior arms.
shareNo, that's not his meaning at all. He's noting the power of contemporary military. It's an argument against the idea that small arms are necessary to protect onself against a potential oppressive government as being an outdated idea.
shareIt's obviously his meaning. If the government had no intention of attacking, then guns would be more than sufficient. The citizenry would only need "F-15s and nukes" if the federal agencies intended to use those things on the People.
In any case, he's still wrong. Assholes in flip-flops with rusty AK-47s kept the US mired down in Afghanistan for 20 years.
>It's obviously his meaning.
How is it "obviously his meaning"? You've failed to demonstrate this.
Whos is the government "intending" on attacking?
>In any case, he's still wrong. Assholes in flip-flops with rusty AK-47s kept the US mired down in Afghanistan for 20 years.
US took 2,000 casualties in 20 years in Afghanistan.
During a Wednesday press conference announcing his new gun crime prevention efforts, President Joe Biden said the Second Amendment has always had limitations, and those who think they need weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government would need F-15 fighter jets and nuclear weapons.
Biden said, “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons. The point is that there has always been the ability to limit — rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it.”
And he's wrong. Biden is another idiot who thinks the gov't. has such advanced gear, that armed resistance would be effortlessly crushed by these advanced weapon systems, ergo, the 2nd amendment is obsolete. This is taking an extremely complex situation, and providing a cartoonish, simplistic answer, which makes people saying this look like complete morons to anybody with a clue about asymmetric warfare.
People saying this must live in an alternate reality where this same advanced military has not spent the better part of the last quarter century struggling to control goat herders with AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. And estimates were that there were at any given time no more than about 22K insurgents in Iraq.
And Biden thinks it would be easy to steamroll millions of pissed off American gun owners alarmed at seeing a the gov't turn tyrannical?
What does he think happens when half the army and national guardsmen refuse to follow orders and fire on fellow Americans? Or when the gov't sends tanks down Main Street USA and SWAT teams start kicking in people's doors?
As one author put it: "In one of the bluest states in America, the New York SAFE Act only has like a 4% compliance rate. And that’s mostly just people choosing to ignore an onerous law. Because the further you get away from the major cities, the more people just don’t give a crap about your utopian foolishness. Its (sic) benign neglect, and most Americans are happy to ignore you until you mess with them. You start dropping Hellfire missiles on Indiana? Fuck you, its game on. And that 1% is going to turn into 50% damn quick."
Insurgencies can't and don't face regular troops in open battle. What they do is make it impossible for a gov't to control its territory, collect taxes, enforce its will. They avoid pitched battle, and make territory ungovernable.
>What does he think happens when half the army and national guardsmen refuse to follow orders and fire on fellow Americans? Or when the gov't sends tanks down Main Street USA and SWAT teams start kicking in people's doors?
Sure, if the governments own forces don't actually follow their orders - then that's different, but this isn't a "threat". Biden didn't say that he would use the US military on US citizens if they "didn't act right".
I'm not saying he did. I'm saying turning lose the U.S. military on American civilians would not be the cakewalk he thinks it would. People wouldn't assemble for pitched battles to get squashed by tanks and Apache helicopters. It would be asymmetric warfare. Small cells of resistance fighters blowing up convoys, assassinating government officials, stopping delivery of food, fuel, ammo and so on. Potentially stopping delivery of supplies to blue cities who support the government using brute force to crack down on red states and "flyover country." And the more draconian the government became in its crackdown, the more people it would drive into the arms of the insurgency. People who had been sitting the fence would join the rebels after seeing their relatives killed by drone strikes.
Back in the 1960s, the civil rights movement gained massive support from all over America when they saw cops in the south turning dogs, riot batons, and fire hoses on civil rights marchers. If the government decided to go into jackbooted thug mode in order to confiscate guns, suppress free speech, or perform other tyrannical acts, you could expect a similar reaction from horrified and outraged citizens. And the government doesn't have enough troops to use force alone to suppress a massive uprising involving millions of citizens.
I mean it would very much depend on the nature of the attempted uprising as to how bad it would get. I suspect strongly that if the USA felt its existence was under threat it would fight much harder than in Afghanistan and Iraq in the occupation period.
>Back in the 1960s, the civil rights movement gained massive support from all over America when they saw cops in the south turning dogs, riot batons, and fire hoses on civil rights marchers. If the government decided to go into jackbooted thug mode in order to confiscate guns, suppress free speech, or perform other tyrannical acts, you could expect a similar reaction from horrified and outraged citizens. And the government doesn't have enough troops to use force alone to suppress a massive uprising involving millions of citizens.
You are missing the other possibility of the would-be insurrectionists being the potential oppressors.
I mean it would very much depend on the nature of the attempted uprising as to how bad it would get. I suspect strongly that if the USA felt its existence was under threat it would fight much harder than in Afghanistan and Iraq in the occupation period.
This sounds like something else written by that same author I quoted earlier: "In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because “we kept the gloves on”, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas.
You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns? But I don’t think unrelenting total war against everyone who has ever disagreed with you on Facebook is going to be quite as clean as you expect."
I think this is relevant, but the worst danger I see of tyranny right now is from the left.
You are missing the other possibility of the would-be insurrectionists being the potential oppressors.
Not likely in any scenario I can see in the reasonably near future. Again, the worst danger today of oppression is from the left, which has completed its "long march through the institutions," and now has most of the power. share
>This sounds like something else written by that same author I quoted earlier: "In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because “we kept the gloves on”, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas.
USA had hardly any casualties in Iraq relative to their time there. A detail. But if an armed group genuinely went to try and overthrow the US government, would it be justified to the US government to use the military to try and stop them?
>Not likely in any scenario I can see in the future. Again, the worst danger today of oppression is from the left, which has completed its "long march through the institutions," and now has most of the power.
The left don't control the supreme court, don't control congress, don't control many states, and look like they could lose the senate and the presidency in November.
What is it exactly you think the left plan to do anyway?
But if an armed group genuinely went to try and overthrow the US government, would it be justified to the US government to use the military to try and stop them?
Point to an armed group anywhere in the US today that looks like it would have even a remotely reasonable chance of seizing power -- and for God's sake please don't even bother mentioning Jan. 6. That was not an insurrection, no one's been charged, there was no organized leadership, no plan for seizing power, congress was back to work within hours.
There is simply no armed minority of radicals, right or left, who have a plan and stand a chance of toppling the government and seizing power.
he left don't control the supreme court, don't control congress... What is it exactly you think the left plan to do anyway?
The left most certainly did control the supreme court until 2018. And once they lost control of it, lots of Democrats started proclaiming their intent to pack the court. It was recent Democrat administrations that blew up the filibuster for nominations, and now wants to end it period. Also Dems that weaponized the IRS and the DOJ to go after political enemies. The left is now trying to "protect democracy" by keeping a disliked candidate off the ballot, and thereby depriving voters of choice. The left is effectively rewriting the law by having prosecutors simply refuse to prosecute whole categories of crimes. The left is now in favor of censoring free speech.
What I fear the left will do, and what I see it is doing, is securing political power, changing longstanding norms, ratcheting up encroachments on civil liberties, and circumventing constitutional limits on gov't power.
The likeliest scenario I see for civil war is fed up citizens pushing back on this effort, and conflict breaking out as a result. share
>Point to an armed group anywhere in the US today that looks like it would have even a remotely reasonable chance of seizing power -- and for God's sake please don't even bother mentioning Jan. 6. That was not an insurrection, no one's been charged, there was no organized leadership, no plan for seizing power, congress was back to work within hours.
I didn't say such an incident had happened. I'm asking you if it did, would the USA be justified in using the military to protect themselves?
>The left most certainly did control the supreme court until 2018. And once they lost control of it, lots of Democrats started proclaiming their intent to pack the court.
And have done no such thing.
>The left is now trying to "protect democracy" by keeping a disliked candidate off the ballot, and thereby depriving voters of choice. The left is effectively rewriting the law by having prosecutors simply refuse to prosecute whole categories of crimes. The left is now in favor of censoring free speech.
What crimes are these? What censorship bills have been put to the floor?
>What I fear the left will do, and what I see it is doing, is securing political power, changing longstanding norms, ratcheting up encroachments on civil liberties, and circumventing constitutional limits on gov't power.
What encroachments are these? Trump himself has directly threatened to "root out" "left-wingers" who he also described as "vermin". Is that threatening authoritarianism?
I didn't say such an incident had happened. I'm asking you if it did, would the USA be justified in using the military to protect themselves?
Of course it would.
And have done no such thing.
Because they have not had enough votes. Sinema and Manchin were the only Dems not to vote to end the filibuster -- and they're both retiring. Senate and house Dems have both introduced bills to pack the court; they just didn't have the votes to get it passed.
They haven't done it, but it's not for lack of trying.
What crimes are these?
Too many to list; there's a space limit. Google George Gascon, Chesa Boudin, Larry Krasner, Alvin Bragg, and Soros prosecutors in general
What censorship bills have been put to the floor?
There have been many in the history of the country. It doesn't always come from bills in the legislature. A federal court ruled in Missouri v. Biden that the Biden Administration unlawfully colluded with Big Tech to silence Americans in violation of the First Amendment, and that this "arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech in United States history."
Also, on campus after campus -- all hives of leftism today, there is support for speech codes, and poll after poll shows students in favor of banning "hate speech" -- and what that is will be decided by those in power, for their own advantage.
What encroachments are these? Trump himself has directly threatened to "root out" "left-wingers" who he also described as "vermin". Is that threatening authoritarianism?
Trump shoots his mouth off. When you look past words at deeds though, the Trump administration doesn't have nearly as alarming a record on that as the Obama or Biden ones. share