Not only do they not have the 2A, they don’t need it, guns are plentiful and cheap and somehow ignorant farmers who live in caves and huts keep using them to resist drones and smart bombs.
I’m not advocating for 0 gun regulations, I’m pointing out the “the side with the bigger guns wins” argument is stupid and provably false.
What you’re ignoring for the sake of your argument is that the army would be on its own turf instead of going somewhere where they don’t know the land and there’s a big difference between Americans with guns and foreign militias backed by other countries. Also, don’t look up the death rate of Afghans vs foreigners in the 2000s war because it doesn’t look good for the Afghans.
Don’t know why you would bring up Vietnam, drones weren’t a thing back then, today the military wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side.
If the military today wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side (proven false in recent conflicts btw) why does it matter if they’re on their turf? Your own reasoning doesn’t make any sense and ignores a ton of conflicts. You mentioned Afghanistan, who’s in charge there now, is it the US?
The statement wasn’t about how many people on whichever side die, but that pretending that “You don’t need a gun to defend yourself because the federal government has missles” is an extremely poor, provably false argument. I support stronger gun laws, it’s just a really bad take.
It makes sense because they have maps of everything, that’s a huge technical advantage over invading a country where no one but the locals know the terrain.
They have satellites and drones that can map everything relatively quickly, recon isn’t the hard part. Topographical data doesn’t win hearts and minds.
Like I said, I’m not against gun control though. I just feel like blanket “no guns!” statements aren’t really productive to the conversation. It’d be like trying to discuss abortion with a Christian and demanding “abortions on demand up to 10 months no questions asked!”
It’s just such a dismissive, “my way or the highway” take that it makes reasonable discussion impossible and guarantees gridlock.
Satellites don’t let you map tunnels and caves, that’s the difference with fighting in the USA vs in Afghanistan or Iraq or Gaza, in the USA towns have maps of their underground and of all the buildings and heck, authorities have files on the people most likely to be armed and dangerous.
Didn’t know they had the second amendment over there.
Not only do they not have the 2A, they don’t need it, guns are plentiful and cheap and somehow ignorant farmers who live in caves and huts keep using them to resist drones and smart bombs.
I’m not advocating for 0 gun regulations, I’m pointing out the “the side with the bigger guns wins” argument is stupid and provably false.
What you’re ignoring for the sake of your argument is that the army would be on its own turf instead of going somewhere where they don’t know the land and there’s a big difference between Americans with guns and foreign militias backed by other countries. Also, don’t look up the death rate of Afghans vs foreigners in the 2000s war because it doesn’t look good for the Afghans.
Don’t know why you would bring up Vietnam, drones weren’t a thing back then, today the military wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side.
If the military today wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side (proven false in recent conflicts btw) why does it matter if they’re on their turf? Your own reasoning doesn’t make any sense and ignores a ton of conflicts. You mentioned Afghanistan, who’s in charge there now, is it the US?
The statement wasn’t about how many people on whichever side die, but that pretending that “You don’t need a gun to defend yourself because the federal government has missles” is an extremely poor, provably false argument. I support stronger gun laws, it’s just a really bad take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
It makes sense because they have maps of everything, that’s a huge technical advantage over invading a country where no one but the locals know the terrain.
They have satellites and drones that can map everything relatively quickly, recon isn’t the hard part. Topographical data doesn’t win hearts and minds.
Like I said, I’m not against gun control though. I just feel like blanket “no guns!” statements aren’t really productive to the conversation. It’d be like trying to discuss abortion with a Christian and demanding “abortions on demand up to 10 months no questions asked!”
It’s just such a dismissive, “my way or the highway” take that it makes reasonable discussion impossible and guarantees gridlock.
Satellites don’t let you map tunnels and caves, that’s the difference with fighting in the USA vs in Afghanistan or Iraq or Gaza, in the USA towns have maps of their underground and of all the buildings and heck, authorities have files on the people most likely to be armed and dangerous.