Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military? - Irish Girl Reacts

I almost didn’t do this one. but then I remembered one crucial element...
Right now America seems more divided than it has ever seemed to us from afar.
Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military? - Irish Girl Reacts
Be sure to check out the original video in the Infographics Channel at: • Could The US Citizens ...
"Today we are revolting against the government, and the military has come to shut us down. Who would win in this epic face off between the United States citizens versus the United States Military. You may think you know the answer but the results would surprise you. Let's take a look in this animated video about Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?"
Special thanks to my AMAZING Squad. You guys support this channel in more ways than one. If you want to be a lovely weirdo and get MORE BLOOPERS, more personal content & behind the scenes, influence videos and MORE!
/ dianejennings
Get merch!
www.teespring....
Get ED a coffee to stay awake while editing
paypal.me/Dian...
Dianodrama-ID
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use. I have licences for ALL songs used. IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN DIANE’S INNER CIRCLE OF LOVELY HUMANS :
▶ Patreon: / dianejennings
▶ Buy Editor Diane a Coffee on PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
▶ KZbin Membership: / @dianejennings
▶ Merch: teespring.com/...
FOLLOW MY OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS:
▶ Twitch: / dianodrama
▶ Second Channel: / @dianebeforedawn
▶ Instagram: / dianodrama
▶ TikTok: / dianodrama
▶ Twitter: / dianodrama
----------
MY EQUIPMENT & PROPS
▶ My Sony Camera + Lens amzn.to/3Qn0bVt
▶My Elgato Cam link amzn.to/3s8snDv
▶My Mic amzn.to/3QGU4MN
▶My Audio Recorder amzn.to/3FFFYFt
▶My Lapel Mic amzn.to/3FFFYFt
▶My Laptop amzn.to/3QeJLy4
▶My iMac amzn.to/3FIdBq1 (this is a newer model with the same speed and memory)
▶My mobile desk amzn.to/3FIdBq1
▶My “Gaming” Chair amzn.to/46VyOZo
▶ My Gimble amzn.to/49muggg
▶My Wallpaper amzn.to/40q01kO
▶My Mirrored Desk amzn.to/3QolqWF
▶Ikea “Lack” Shelves amzn.to/4622t1U
----------
I usually upload Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays at 10:15pm (CET) - sometimes only 2/3
I always check comments in the First Hour Club, the first hour after I upload below! So let me know what you’d like to see on the channel ↓
FEED THE ALGORITHM MONSTER! It’s FREE to feed him and he likes eating your Subscriptions, Comments and Likes. See surprise uploads by turning on the bell
----------
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
Dianodrama-ID

[@waltbedford3488]

Millions would die so let's hope it never happens 🙏🙏🙏

[@ramaslambert7200]

There is a reason why we have those pew pews lol! Just in case another Hitler comes along. Maybe Stalin? Either way we live as a nation or die as one. 1st choice is my answer otherwise.

[@ryg9990]

Amen to that, brother. And if other nations got involved in the process... that death toll would be exponentially higher.

[@cyntogia]

Like Brandon and Xi.

[@emanymton713]

Yes, no one wants war… but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t prepare for war.

[@matthewpearson1966]

Agreed

[@0101tuber]

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." ― Thomas Jefferson.

[@astrogatorjones]

But people that promote this nonsense are just Mad Max wannabees and they are the ones providing tyranny.

[@SENO199022]

@@astrogatorjones We The People, For The People, By The People. Democracy Exists here for a Reason which is the same Reason why we aren't a Monarch. We don't have a Dictator and the Bill Of Rights is and forever more will be Constitutional.

[@astrogatorjones]

@@SENO199022 Then you were against the attempted overthrow of the government and Consitution by Trump and hangers-on. So am I.

[@Gene1954]

@@astrogatorjones BS that was a setup

[@antipattern0]

@@astrogatorjones lol still afraid of Trump....I pity you.

[@tomthumb5860]

If the government takes away the citizen's right to keep and bear arms, it's the citizens duty to take away the government's right to govern. ~ George Washington

[@Terminalsanity]

George Washington never conceived of a tank let alone drones or nukes, small arms alone mean precisely dick against even a 3rd rate modern military that has no qualms about taking out its own citizens just ask the Syrian rebels. All an AR-15 does against a tank rolling down a street let the spotter know where to tell the gunner to send the next shell.

[@alkirk6]

All I have to say to that are two more quoutes: 1)The Tree of Liberty must be times be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants. 2)The price of peace, is eternal vigilance

[@johnboy3530]

Matt Briney, vice president of media and communications for Mount Vernon, confirmed to Reuters via email that Washington was not the author of the quote.

[@randybaker6042]

Americans are hilarious. George Washington as the first President of the United States led armed, well regulated state militia to put down an American freedom loving tax rebellion. George Washington in his letter urging ratification of the Constitution said that every individual entering into a society must give up a measure of freedom to ensure the rest. The Union itself is paramount and any individual or state who believes differently has always been put in their place. In a democracy, a large segment of the population is living under tyranny after every single election. Americans are too stupid to realize that every time the people speak in elections, somewhere around 4 our of 10 have to live under rule and law they are opposed to. American democracy doesn't stand a chance due to the people who make up the society. They don't want to live in the same society. The second amendment armed the citizenry to fight against one another's tyranny. The forming of the supposed Union led to a horrific civil war in less than 80 years. You never hear it put that way do you. Arming the people to fight against tyranny in a democracy is arming them to kill one another. Which is exactly what the people slobbering all over themselves about being patriots want.

[@BrendanDormanMMA]

lesser know, and poignant. important

[@garrettelliott2565]

Army veteran here currently serving as a police officer for my city. The short answer is, yes, the citizens could overrun the military if it came down to it which would involve a total tyrannical rogue government completely superceding the constitution. It would not only be within the citizen's right it would also be our constitutional duty to overthrow such a dictatorship or oligarchy.

[@michaelblair6955]

It's close to that now, what with them wanting to change or completely do away with the constitution, watch the real news, and not the network bullshit.

[@almartin4]

Unfortunately, we may not be far from that given how many entities helped Obama steal his 3rd election fronted by Biden. Things could get tough quickly. Regards

[@RyanBlackhawke]

Bunkerbusters. Tanks. Missiles. Well-trained soldiers and sailors against people with no discipline armed with peashooters. It's cute that you think we would ever last against a government that gives their military a budget bigger than the next 14 countries combined.

[@bangoskank493]

@@RyanBlackhawke And you think that American soldiers who signed up to PROTECT their fellow American citizens, would just fall in line behind a corrupt tyrannical government, and start murdering the people they swore to keep safe? There would be a civil war amongst our own military before the war against the American citizens could even get started. And there are WAY more privately owned guns in this country than there are people. And we ain’t running around with “peashooters”. Three people in my family own at least one AR-15, which is easily modifiable to fire on full auto (basically making it an M-16, which is what our soldiers mostly use). Apparently, you don’t know much about guns. Color me unsurprised.

[@JMcIntosh1]

@@bangoskank493 also it's funny vets are the ones on tiktok explaining the two easiest ways to render tanks useless. I knew about fuel. But I had no idea Abrams or Bradley's broke down so much to where if the engineers were gone...

[@IndyRockStar]

I was in the US Army. I can tell you one thing for sure. If there was national rebellion 1/3rd to 1/2 of the military would load up on gear and go back home to defend (or fight with / for ) their own. I didn't know a single soldier (but I'm sure are there are some) that would actually fire on Americans in the United States even if ordered to do so.

[@higgme1ster]

And all of these armchair idiots that say any otherwise need to understand that when we were in uniform the subject would come up in lag times on shift. We swore to defend the Constitution and obey the officers appointed over us but if ...

[@arthurchadwell9267]

God bless, brother!

[@patkarp1965]

Exactly right.

[@shanesplanetshane3795]

Thank you. Your response gives me hope and brought me chills.

[@randybaker6042]

It's called fighting against one another. But what you are describing is of little consequence. The US military is not dependent on the soldiers you speak of. The conflict would be internal and it would be for control of the major powers within the military. Control of the submarine and aircraft carrier groups along with air support would be the determining factor. Whoever gained control of the major power would move to secure it's critical air bases and ports. The rest would be of little consequence. That power would be more concerned with securing it's defense against Chinese and Russian counterparts than American citizenry and soldiers who joined in those meaningless spats. They would simply defend their critical infrastructure and let the divided citizenry and their soldiers do whatever they liked against one another. That power would retain foreign allies and be able to supply itself overseas. Americans who believe they will be able to anything about it are delusional. Americans are divided and will simply play into occupying themselves while the power that controls the major military force will take care of itself.

[@briankeithwood]

First thing that was missed, a large number of the military would refuse to attack their fellow American. Second, civilians and the military use very similar weapons and the insurgents could easily resupply from captured weapons and ammo. Another problem is that the families of the military would be subject to retaliation... meaning that the military would all have to try and protect their families. This would further stretch their resources. I hope this never occurs, but the military would have a much harder time here than in Afghanistan.

[@Platlin]

The military has been and is continuing to be purged of Chritians and conservatives. So much so, that just last month an atheist became the head of Navy Chaplins.

[@diegaspumper8501]

@Sure sure I completely agree, they’ve been brainwashing the cops and military for years now and they’re absolutely programmed to just follow orders. All an officer would have to do is tell his troops that a group of people are a domestic terrorist threat and they’ll fire on them as soon as they’re given the order. Cops and the military both have an us versus them attitude towards the citizens of the country. They view themselves as an authority over the people instead of fellow citizens. The cops and military are not on the same side as the people, they’re on their own side. They just do whatever their democrat masters tell them to do.

[@briankeithwood]

@Sure sure the police MIGHT, if they know that their families would be protected. Everyone in the neighborhood knows where the police officers live. Do you think no one would do a drive by if the police started going door to door rounding up guns? And the military are mostly made up of people from the very states that would be in open rebellion... You'd be asking military members to kill their own families... That would also be a hard sell. It's one thing to guard a facility from attack, another to drop bombs on neighborhoods where you grew up.

[@gordonbrown7477]

@@Platlin look at the make up of combat arms units, they have a totally different composition than the other units.

[@TimHornerWOP]

The current administration is actively trying to politicize the military with their "woke" agenda, very intently filling it with people sympathetic to their views and feeding them propaganda that political dissidents (anyone not leftwing) are existential threats to the state (constantly trying to depict all Republicans & conservatives as racists and extremists). They're also trying to radicalize future enlistees (conscripts?) through increasing state control of public education with things like CRT, and simultaneously restricting parent/taxpayer input by framing those against the hyper-politicization of K-12 curriculums as racists and threats to local government. And retaliation might not be that big of a concern if there are regions that largely support the national government (i.e. major metropolitan areas, New England, Pacific NW, etc.), which would in large part coincide with the homes of the compliant troops.

[@douglas1131977]

They have missed one major issue. Others have mentioned troop defections, but missed a couple key things. Insurgents wouldn't target the military directly. They'd target the government. And a huge difference is that that government isn't protected by 10,000 miles and an ocean.

[@ThubanDraconis]

And the government relies on supplies coming from the people. When the working people walk off the job or simply refuses to work for the government, then how are those government people going to get food, power, and water to their homes? The people wouldn't have to take up arms, just go on strike for a few weeks.

[@augustinetucker2358]

No liberals aloud comrade

[@craigcampbell1843]

@@ThubanDraconis if the people went on strike, the people would lose their food supply and electricity too. Not many people in this country could survive for very long without grocery stores and McDonald’s to feed them. They’d have no way to organize either (not that they could anyway) with no way to charge their smart phones. The government can also call on their foreign allies and other militaries to resupply them. The people can’t.

[@ryuknightofflame]

@@craigcampbell1843 You underestimate the people that would be doing this. The vast majority of bluecollars (let's be honest that's who we're talking about here) know how to take care of themselves. Farmers aren't going to side with a government that's been messing with them for generations. Cartels care about money and there's more than enough ammo that they would gladly supply to enemies of the government. Other countries would be hesitant to throw their chips in and they have their own supply issues already. Then yes there will be defectors but you forget the vets as well. Organizing can happen in a few weeks without cell phones (honestly using tech like phones and internet would be counter productive for civilians. Then there's gangs that would either cause mayhem that the government couldn't ignore or outright fight along side regular citizens. The pampered won't be getting their daily dose of propaganda ( on both sides to be fair) and will have to go off of what they see. What they'll be seeing is military lockdowns door to do searches and violent arrests/detainments. Either side of political divide won't take kindly to that. Just look at how people in the US have been reacting to the situation in Australia. The situation isn't as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.

[@americanpatriot7247]

@@ryuknightofflame U R Right, Friend!! Read this comment!!

[@aero00745]

This is all with the idea that NO service men and women would leave the military to join “the people”. Also the US Military contracts a lot of this equipment and technology to private companies that could easily “defect”.

[@aero00745]

We also lost a war to rice farmers so 🤷‍♂️

[@DianeJennings]

Good point

[@crash406]

There's a number of serious, hardcore preppers who have written books about what they believe might happen some variety of large-scale military campaign were to happen here in the US. One thing some of them predict is entire battalions of troops 'jumping ship and joining the Alliance' (to use a 'Star Wars' reference); a battalion has anywhere from 300 to 1000 soldiers in it, depending on what the unit does (infantry, logistics, maintenance, etc.) It's not unheard of; Robert E. Lee, the general who commanded the Confederate Army in the Civil War, was a Major in the Union Army (he also was a West Point graduate prior to the war). He joined the Confederacy out of loyalty to his home state, Virginia

[@timlamb6196]

@@aero00745 We had already pulled out of that war when the south failed.

[@Caseytify]

@@aero00745 Your reply demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of what happened during the Vietnam War. I suspect further popular myths are forthcoming.

[@jimallen2461]

It's honestly adorable when these experts predict how many guns there are in the US lol

[@masonlane3183]

How easy it is to make one of your own without ever getting it registered... hahaha

[@esreveRGaming]

@@masonlane3183 well seeing the you can get the files for AR-15s for a 3d printer I would say pretty ez

[@meesegomoo1836]

@@esreveRGaming Not reliable. They break worse than zip guns/pipe pounders. I was thinking of thousands of unregistered family heirlooms

[@Ranger8275]

@@meesegomoo1836 right on the money, I have a derringer 22. Short passed down by my grandfather

[@graceelvispuck]

Right?! I mean it’s nearly impossible to know how many citizens actually have, ya know cause of the weird uprise in “Boating accidents” 😂

[@nikkiplatt316]

“You cannot invade mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” - Admiral Yamamoto

[@1krani]

That quote is apocryphal. It is without a concrete source. It is also correct.

[@outdoorsman7324]

@@1krani , exactly, there is literally no indication it was ever stated at all.

[@1krani]

@@outdoorsman7324 Ah, but question not the source of the idea, but the idea itself. For if the idea is sound, and logical, and well-tested, what matters where it came from? For example, that time the British invaded America back in 1775.

[@coreyvegar9152]

@@1krani Do the Die Hard 4.0 thing take out their power, water and electrical, gas, etc etc, by hackers I don't if that is real or not but that is what you will need to invade the US.

[@Kayvel54]

@@1krani It has a source, it's from the records of General MacArthur's Aid who was cataloging the surrender of japan. The only part that is not confirmed is Yamamoto said it.

[@crazytrain03]

This country has so many veterans...most of them being wartime service veterans. We are the wrench to be thrown into a self conflict. We understand the military, how they function, and how to disable the equipment being used. I can walk up to an Abrams tank, and disable it and it's crew in less than 5 seconds. At the end of the day, the current servicemen/women, will break off back into the population. We win hands down...because there would be no fight. The greatest thing held so close to the heart for our military, is the constitution...and the service to it...against all enemies both foreign and domestic...so help me God.

[@christineschutten248]

You made me tear up a little. I agree with you. Most of our military would refuse to attack American citizens.

[@keithmueller2634]

From a former grunt ,your spot on brother, against all enemies foreign or domestic .

[@lpd1snipe]

Exactly!

[@diegaspumper8501]

@@christineschutten248 most!

[@thetaoofgaming7045]

Amen. That is literally the reason our country was formed in this way. if we need to, we can topple our government and make a new one. literally stated that way in the Constitution

[@OriginalTodzilla]

I noticed this video doesn't cover one major caveat: that most of the US citizens with pew-pew, are pro military and most of those families and communities are the ones that enlist in the military in the first place. The odds are extremely low that most, if any, military personnel would follow any orders to attack those same American citizens. However the video did get one thing right: there are other ways the government can control citizens. I'll just leave it there 😉

[@blakesun]

national guard has attacked protestors when violence broke out for generations.

[@dabooser1048]

I had very similar thoughts. In the end, I believe that most Americans feel America is its people and not the actual land.

[@jackhayes7282]

@@blakesun The national guard and the U.S. military are not the same thing. The Guard is under state control, for state level issues, such as riots. It is against the law for the department of defense to conduct police actions on our own soil.

[@rwbimbie5854]

Could armed rebel group seize US land kicking out police & government, put up *Border Barrier with signs "USA ENDS HERE"* Kill people in that Secession Area ...and be called *CHAZ in Seattle* ?

[@jamesbinns8528]

Many of the January 6 mob were ex-military and most were, I would surmise, pro-military. But, these are also people who called the police "traitor " at the Capitol. I don't think the government as a whole would put up a guerrilla war. Rebels could make a good dent , because a lot of Americans are armed.

[@gkm65]

The thing that seems to always be overlooked on this topic is that most of those "armed civilians" are also military veterans who have the exact same training and experience the "military" has. It would a very ugly situation that we all hope never comes to be.

[@thomasjefferson4492]

FLOWING...ITS GOING TO HAPPEN ,THE US MILITARY PLANS TO KILL EVERYONE IN AMERICA,even their own families,their completely brainwashed..AND THE LORD HIMSELF SAYS THEY WILL TRY...

[@dannyo6699]

2 things to consider. 1: A lot of military personnel would actually resign from the military and go fight beside their families who are being attacked. 2: A huge number of civilian gun owners were actually military trained, so they do have a tactical advantage.

[@awy1977]

To add onto your #1, many of those defectors would bring military equipment with them. Probably not full on tanks or armored vehicles, but small arms and mobile weapons would most definitely wind up in the hands of guerilla units.

[@patriot4854]

Well that is two very bad assumptions in a row. 1. The service member swears an oath to defend the Constitution. To think that the military would just quit only shows how little you know about our dedication to duty, honor and country. 2. It is worthless to steal military equipment you can't sustain or arm. 3. Those prior service military would be more likely to join thier brothers and sisters in defense of the Constitutional rights. 4. Shagent Smity who retired 4-5 years ago would not have first clue in facing an organized military force.

[@dannyo6699]

@@patriot4854 The military's purpose is to protect the citizens against an invading force, and that's the only constitutional purpose for the government as well. If you read the Constitution you understand it's a list of rights for the people, not the government. It guarantees rights to the citizens. Even the Preamble to the Constitution stars as "We the PEOPLE". So of course the military, when faced with a decision to fight for a tyrannical government or the citizens, constitutionally would be fighting for the citizens. Incidentally, I also swore an oath to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION, and that above all else is what we swear to. President's come and presidents go, but the Constitution is forever as long as there is a United States.

[@patriot4854]

@@dannyo6699 Read the Contitution and the Oath of enlistment. You missed a few pages.

[@dannyo6699]

@@patriot4854 The main body of the Constitution establishes the branches of the government and their responsibilities, and the amendments enumerate the rights of the citizens. I missed the part though where the government can usurp those rights. Maybe you can show me where I missed that part. The oath of office starts with an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It's first because it's the first responsibility of the military. Meaning the military's first responsibility is to protect the citizens.

[@sadarax4405]

America is definitely more divided right now than ever before, by intent and design of certain ruling elite (and not being elites from the US, many are foreign). They've been working on this for 60+ years. But it's hard to erase the foundation of America.

[@RagingRapunzel]

Deceive. Distract. Divide.

[@unconventionalideas5683]

It is also not helped by Social Media. But it is interesting to see that Gen Z has a strong consensus that aligns almost exactly with the space the old Rockefeller Republicans or by the German CDU/CSU alliance: a decent welfare state and environmental regulations combined with fiscal conservativism and prioritization of defense spending.

[@wrongfullyaccused7139]

Sad; In reality they have been working on destroying Ameirca since 1776

[@Platlin]

@ That is absolutely not true. The left and right no longer share any common ground. The left is completely under the control of the Marxists who have been running our public school system for over 40 years, teaching that our founding fathers were racist terrorists and that the Constitution needs to be done away with because it is outdated and no longer relevant. Since the creation of the Patriot act after 911, Bible believing, Constitution supporting citizens are considered potential terrorist. The Democrat base actually believe they are Patriots when in fact they are supporting a communist and corporate takeover of the United States. All the 3 letter agencies have been weoponized against conservatives and the democrats see this as a good thing. Anybody who doesn't agree with the Government/media narrative are now censored and considered enemies of the state. That's not freedom, that's tyranny. There is no common ground. If the left prevails it will end in mass re-education centers and death camps.

[@DoubleD72]

That is only the words of someone who lives their life online and reads false information. The rest of the country have jobs and they leave the basement and enjoy sunshine. The internet blows up a topic more then it actually is. Fact is for example cancel culture. The internet makes it seems as if Millions of people are calling for the end of something, someone. When really it's a single person and or a tiny small group that didn't like a tweet someone posted. It's ridiculous.

[@kateealer7]

Fun fact: The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from the government (i.e., military) trying to subjugate them like the Brits did back in the day. Those Framers of the Constitution were smart.

[@racinnut77]

Fun fact: You're dead wrong. The purpose of the militia (per the 2nd Amendment) is to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I Sec. 8) In Federalist 29, Hamilton wrote the following regarding citizens fearing the armed forces (militia), "There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?"

[@neilis2405]

​@@racinnut77 Yet by the same token: Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." And to be specific, the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right to bear arms to the militia - it grants it to the people. This is the legal precedent set in the SCOTUS DC vs Heller decision, but also in plain sight if you read the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to the militia is to specify that it is necessary to the security of a free state. The second part grants a right (to bear arms) to THE PEOPLE, in order to FORM the militia, whose necessity was established immediately prior.

[@midlander8186]

@@racinnut77 I checked my copy of the Constitution. I won't repeat the 2nd Amendment here, but it doesn't contain an Article 1 or a Section 8. The only Article 1 Section 8 I found referred to powers granted to Congress to establish laws pertaining to intellectual property such as copyright and patent laws. Edit: What I've alluded to is actually Clause 8 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, nevertheless, contains no Article 1 Section 8. Article 1 of the Constitution refers to powers granted to Congress. Among such powers is some authority over militias, if such are called into service. Practically, militias called up are state National Guards called up to support the national military.

[@racinnut77]

@@neilis2405 Jefferson was not a Federalist and had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. He was in France acting as the Secretary of State when the Constitution was being written. If you want to know what the Framers intended, you have to read the Federalist Papers and Hamilton thought it was absolutely ludicrous to think that the militia nee: the armed forces of the State would turn against its own people. Hamilton makes it clear that the Militia are in fact the armed forces that exist to serve the State. He writes, "THE power of regulating the militia, and of *commanding its services in times of insurrection* and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy." You also can't ignore that the Constitution aslo specifically states that the purpose of the Militia is to enforce the laws of the State and to put down insurrections, not be the source of them. No Federalist wrote a word about the right to bear arms existing so people can go to war against the government. That's an insurrection and one of the expressed purposes is to put down insurrections.

[@racinnut77]

@@midlander8186 The Constitution clearly states in Article I Sec. 8 that Congress has the responsibility "for organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia as "may be *employed in the Service of the United States*", not fight against it.

[@MrAlaska66]

The U.S. military is only able to sustain operations by depending on a supply and logistics system that relies heavily on the civilian population back home. If involved in conflict with it's own supply system, the ability to operate effectively will quickly dissipate. Ever hear the phrase "don't bite the hand that feeds you"?

[@davidbell1619]

Kindly remember one thing. The Military and Feds make absolutely nothing. All items,equipment,food,parts,fuel,medical supplies,uniforms are made by civilian companies. Biden squeals we would need F15s to fight the Goverment. Clearly he hasn't the foggiest idea on how much effort,time, parts,fuel,ordance for it to fly for one hour.

[@666devilknight]

Excellent point.

[@jmagner]

A lot of folks in the military would take the side of the civilians, and they'd take their military know how with them. Secondly, guns aren't everything. It takes about 7 people to put a single soldier on the battlefield. Our modern military relies heavily on civilian contractors, meaning that 3 or 4 of those 7 people are civilians. The military would still need food, transportation, tech support, etc. Without civilian assistance, the US military would grind to a halt.

[@jerrysantos6484]

Such as the Confederates did during the Civil War. Majority of the Confederate Generals defected from the Union Army to protect their families in the South.

[@michaelhice7636]

Not to mention the retired veterans, as well

[@Jangocat]

No they wouldn't, the vast majority would honor their oath to the constitution to protect the USA from terrorists, foreign or domestic.

[@Jangocat]

@@jerrysantos6484 You realize the traitors started the war by attacking Fort Sumter right? There was no "defecting", only treason.

[@sithsquid1]

@@Jangocat that 'domestic' part is exactly why many military personnel would oppose an oppressive government. The government would have to sell it to the soldiers, and many wouldn't buy it.

[@jbc_8110]

Yeah, the moment this guy called American citizens “insurgents” I knew his opinion meant nothing

[@robertstone9342]

Agreed.

[@JP-ec9rl]

He probably thinks people walking through the capital building with selfie sticks is an insurrection?

[@armadillotoe]

Let's go, Branden.

[@Rorr59]

Beware the propaganda mongers. They use specific words to confuse issues.

[@TAWier]

I almost felt compelled to downvote this video because of the blatantly obvious propaganda and bias from the narrator. Part of the video was factual but a lot of it was disingenuous speculation and propaganda. It reminded me a lot of the Army's failed lame ass woke recruiting videos that was a total flop with the American people recently.

[@samurai215]

The same was said about the war of independence from England. Don't underestimate the resolve of people whose culture resolves around liberty. Additionally, this whole video presumes that the entire military would side with our corrupt government

[@Derrell911]

The initial fight would not be fought against the military but against the government itself. The "insurgents " would be mostly military trained. And most of us have been in an middle east campaign and know how the military thinks. Taking out certain political persons would go a long way to sway the government as there are several anti American congress people who don't have the U.S. Best interests at heart.

[@colinkillian9265]

This would outright become a civil war..It wouldn't be the citizens vs the government, it would inevitably be the government and citizens vs other citizens. You would without a doubt have citizens from both side combating each other, as those political reps you see as against America, other citizens will see them as the exact opposite. It would boil down to ideological identity, at the end of the day all conflict is fought for or against an ideology..The American right wing would almost assuredly win this conflict, people often think of the US military as a fighting force this is largely untrue. I spent over a decade with my Naval EOD team in Afghanistan, and the VAST majority of the US military are support personnel, most of whom touch a rifle once a year during weapons qualifications. The combat arms part of the military is rather small, and the truth is most are recruited from states you would think of as being conservative and most identify as right wing. Certainly not all of these individuals think this way but the majority do. Most vets also identity as right wing, and most gun ownership is also within these conservative states as well.. So this conflict would be rather one sided if it's an Ideological conflict between left and right..

[@linusa2996]

Anti American Congress people you mean those traitors who claim that attacking the capitol during constitutionally mandated business, screaming "HANG MIKE PENCE" were just ordinary folk who were engaged in "normal political discourse".?

[@eddiehammond4178]

Amen. Never underestimate the will of the American patriots. We would rather die fighting on our feet, not coweringg on our knees

[@bradhodge7962]

As a veteran of the U.S. military they can fight them but I don't see the military taking up arms against its own citizens. They would most likely stand down and refuse. Thats the beauty of the UCMJ you only have to follow lawful orders. And attacting it's own citizens is not a lawful order no matter what anybody says. I'm most likely not going to respond to anybody trying to troll me or argue. Have a great day everyone and be safe.

[@matthewayres1641]

As a veteran myself I will agree with you. Granted you will have a certain % of military folks that would take arms up against their own citizens, but I would say the largest percentage would not.

[@jayclark2077]

There is no history to support your opinion. Sorry, but no cigar.

[@bradhodge7962]

And there is none to support yours either so agree to disagree. That's the beauty of this everyone is entitled to there opinions. Take it easy

[@jayclark2077]

@@bradhodge7962: Your reply is not only false, but thoughtless. We have history of soldiers doing exactly what they are told to do--we have books full of it! What about that? And we have some history of a very few individuals of conscience refusing illegal and immoral orders, very few, and while there are many many examples of illegal orders being given, we have zero history of troops in large numbers refusing those orders. Let me repeat that: "Zero!" Let's start with the Washington administration and the routing by the Army of those protesting in the so-called Whiskey Rebellion. Then there's the burning of the encampment of and routing of the Bonus Soldiers by the U.S. Calvary where only 3 or 4 refused to draw their sabers against men who had fought in the First World War! Then there's Kent State. And don't forget Jackson State! And we have hundreds of examples from the behavior of our troops abroad! What about My Lai in Vietnam where one man stopped a massacre on one side of the Village, and another man, Lt. Calley, ordered a massacre on the other side of the village but where no one challenged him and all of those villagers on that side of the village died! Let's do the numbers: Number who refused to allow the murder of innocent villagers, 1. Number who followed orders and fired on those villagers, everybody else! Any questions? So, your claim is simply false. And it is operating, apparently, from the silly american mythology you learned in school and not from any independent thought over the true facts of history! Well, I agree that you might, and probably will, say that those people are not Americans--and don't count. But I would remind you, as your school teachers did not, that the very first American Principle/"self evident truth," is that "all men are created equal." What about that! Does that fit in with your conception of the breadth and depth of genuine American Law? JWC

[@bradhodge7962]

@@jayclark2077 you are really worked up about this. Thanks for the history lesson that I already knew about. My opinion and that is what it is MY opinion is that in today's military not the military from the past is that the majority will not follow through with that order. Also just FYI Kent state was national gaurd not the U.S. Military. I say again have a nice day to you and please calm down a little bit. I said from the start its my opinion so that means I could care less about yours but it is yours to have. This is what I didn't want to get into. I have work to do and I will not respond anymore because I have more important things to do. Take care

[@BasedHawaiian]

We are not as united as we used to be. Additionally, half or more of the military would not participate in a campaign against it’s own citizens. This would cripple the entire system.

[@blakesun]

disagree, the military, the national guard, the police forces have stepped in many times in U.S. history to violently crush rebellion among the citizens.

[@capo328]

Likely more than half, since the part of the population the deep state is against make up a lot of the military. Soldiers, marines, and sailors are more often of rural or small town background than big city. eg. The rate of people joining the U.S. Army from Northeastern cities is nearly 40% below the national average.

[@PaladinsLight]

ill say around 90% of the military wod not engage in warfare against its own ppl. not only because they are americans but some would support the ideas of the other side as well.

[@blakesun]

@@capo328 we've had police forces from the same neighborhoods are protestors unleash violence on them... you are dreaming.

[@fettsforlife4081]

@@blakesun but the most probable cause is political and the vaste majority of marines if nothing else are republicans (faction most likely to cause revolution) so most republicans wont shoot republicans

[@paulsparks771]

One thing that these videos don't take into account, those of us who have combat tours under our belt. We have been in some form of conflict since 2001 and many of us still hold to the oath we took. We have been trained by some of the best insurgents out there just by surviving what they threw at us. It would be ugly and I hope it never comes to that. Not only for America but for the rest of the world.

[@davidfaxon3336]

Preach

[@MasterBlasterSr]

that is 25 million very pissed-off veterans, and on top of that our sons are the warfighters in the military today. Every last blue bubble and DC will be snuffed out in less than two weeks without food water or electricity. They couldn't even make it 3 days without toilet paper in 2020. Just wait til they have their food and energy cut off.

[@thatonewayproductions5170]

As an American I can say my family and I would fight tooth and nail for our freedom be from abroad or at our door. "We The People" . this video is epic great job.

[@chicken2jail545]

Happy Friday Diane! I'm not sure if our government would ever attack its own people, but if it did, it would meet a lot of resistance , especially from rural areas, where church folks would go from sitting in pews, to going Pew Pew.

[@DianeJennings]

😂

[@clevelandmaker386]

@@DianeJennings I'm black...my mom marched at Selma so........Hell ya!!! That's why Editor Diane should take over... And I still offer up myself as a concubine

[@barryfletcher7136]

The current administration is already attacking the citizenry through allowing leftists to murder, riot, loot, and burn with impunity.

[@kylewilliamholdsworth3737]

The government bombed the city I was born in, in the mid 80s

[@metalmonk3775]

@@barryfletcher7136 what impunity, tons of people were arrested during the riots. Also btw, riots and protests are not something the left invented 🤣

[@ericholbrook1733]

Just a point to consider... Our active military consists of about one million members, ranging in experience from less than 1to up to 30 years of experience. The retired military population in the United States is roughly 19 million. The average retiree, unless medically retired, has at least 20 years of military experience... I am by no means advocating conflict of this type. This is just a fact that I believe was overlooked. Please keep the really interesting videos coming!

[@DianeJennings]

Thanks 😊

[@filianablanxart8305]

Not just the fully retired , but Former Service who only served a hitch or two before returning to civilian life .

[@Dragonstalon1001]

Even the 'Medically Retired' Veterans will assist in overthrowing a Tyrannical Government, whether by acquiring Ammunition, making Improvised Explosive Devices, providing Hiding places and giving Information to the Insurgents.

[@jomamma1750]

@@DianeJennings This video you reviewed is a globalist propaganda piece. The U.S. Millitary just got booted out of Afghanistan by 75,000 Tabilan. Do they really stand a chance against 75,000,000+ well armed Patriots?? Hardly Lets discuss actual power structure involved in an uprising. The Patriots are the ones with the 'Home Field Advantage' here. The U.S. Millitary takes its orders from American Politicians who take their orders from rich donors. All the Patriots have to do is kill the rich donors arrayed against them and the orders to continue the war will cease. Those donors in favor of the American population versus Globalist policies will use the constant deaths of their counterparts to their advantage to easily and rapidly wrest control of the government from the Globalists. Most donors simply 'go with the flow' anyway and will quickly be brought to heel as their more 'global centric' compadres get their heads blown off and their families slaughtered one by one. Then you have supply chain issues to contend with. According to the Berry Act of 1941, all U.S. Millitary mission critical supplies must originate 100% from American suppliers. These suppliers are predominantly owned and operated by the very Patriots the Millitary will be attacking. This will lead to severe mission critical supply shortages before the troops even get brought home. I don't even need to discuss the Globalist Vax mandates and how ~40% of the U.S. Troops are standing against these mandates, while ~90% are morally against the mandates or even the concept of mandates, which are Unconstitutional. These Vax mandates were ruled Unconstitutional in 1905 by the Supreme Court. That power rests entirely with the States, not the Federal Government and is currently a very pivotal issue. As far as listening to the Officers and actually attacking Americans? Look up 'Fragging' during the Vietnam War. This has been a part of the American Millitary culture for over a half a century now. The American Millitary is made up of volunteers, not conscripts, most of which are Patriots themselves. Finally we have to discuss numerical advantage. In my State we put over 1 Million hunters into the woods on opening day of deer season. That is only 1 State, among 50 plus territories. The level of actually wielded armament in this country is mind-bending, to put it mildly. Be safe.

[@502deth]

@@jomamma1750 while i agree with 99% of that post...... i can assume where youre from from the "over 1 million hunters" comment. if it were "almost 1 million" we would be neighbors. so coming from the state with the 2nd most amount of hunters in the woods, i can tell you that a very high percentage of those fudds would probably be on the govt side. also, not commenting on your post, but adding to it, i would bet that there are a LOT of countries that would not mind helping to supply an insurgency against the us govt if it came to it.

[@jimclark1131]

I am in my 50s, and prior to 2019 I would have never believed that we could end up in armed conflict with our fellow countrymen. Since 2019 however it is looking more and more like that could very well become a reality. Half of this country has lost it's mind.

[@chancethompson8686]

You need to quit believing the bullshit you hear in the news and social media... This country isnt tearing itself apart, that's just the propaganda that is being blasted out at people thru social media and news networks.. If they can make you believe it, then it will be true.. Fear mongering and infighting, get them views and more clicks which equals= more money.. If they do this enough and cause enough stress, it makes it easier for the politicians to pass laws and amendments that without the fear and stress, people wouldnt allow or accept.. Keep your chin up, put your phone down for a few hours everyday, and filter the content you watch... ✌♥️🇺🇸

[@jhonsauceda6024]

It's a very small and noisy portion of our country that has lost its mind. I do believe that some of the people of some states would greatly benefit from being "reorganized".

[@NoirMorter]

And that half thinks the other is Evil. Playing devils advocate with this.

[@jefflace4949]

"[The other] half of the country has lost its mind!" - person who could be from either half of the country.

[@SamM-gl9zc]

@@jefflace4949 - That's true, but only one side has radically changed it's stances on major issues over the last few decades. It's hard to argue that the side that now thinks that judging people based on race is how you end racism, is the sane side.

[@DEMORALIZING1]

Don't forget everyone in the military is a citizen. Which means everyone is part of a community somewhere so finding enough people to go against their own people would be an extremely hard task.

[@marvm9908]

The military would also be facing off to the millions of veterans usually larger by far than the actual active duty.

[@ripperwrestling6587]

And to that most active military wouldn't take up arms against us...they would join us.

[@dandotvid]

You're dealing with conventional, face to face or rather in person warfare. Military technology has advanced so far that people don't have to be in the same geographic location to kill now. The military can destroy any uprising they wish if they truly wanted to.

[@clivedoe9674]

@@dandotvid Not likely. Smart weapons are useful up until you have friends mixed in with enemies.

[@christianvanskike2347]

@@ripperwrestling6587 Yep, every single active duty and veteran I have talked to has said that if they are ordered to fire upon US citizens, they wouldn't. They are swarn to uphold the constitution and protect the people's liberties, not to mention the people themselves. They will join with the people and help overthrow the tyranny. Once an order comes out from our government to neutralize the people, they are tyrants.

[@andrewbobb3170]

@@christianvanskike2347 That was true long before the current situation. When I was a (relatively) young O-4 in a Joint civil support command more than a decade ago, we had whispered conversations about how to convince the general to refuse to support anti-citizen operations, should he be so ordered.

[@MrBubonicChronic]

The "Red Team Planner" post cemented it for me, the moment it starts, the government loses.

[@johncollins5591]

Keep in mind, most of the people who would actually fight in a second revolutionary war would be already trained. US veterans would make up the majority of a US insurgency. Also the US military when faced with fighting against its own citizenry, will have a moral decision to make. A significant amount of which may defect or refuse to fight. You will also need to consider that each state has it's own military force. The national guard of each individual state has it's own army and air force. There commander in chief is technically the governor of their respective states. According to the Posse Comitatus Act, federal troops cannot be used against the US population. Should this happen, the individual states will align according to the root cause of the conflict. Rural states such as South Dakota may support the insurgency while more populated states may break according to regional conflicts. US citizens are also very well stocked and very well educated and resourceful. We know how to make our own bullets. You must also keep in mind that there would be other countries that would be willing to support the insurgency just so that the US would destroy themselves. Also keep in mind that in any civil war, the insurgency s primary targets will be to resupply. Government supply points will be insurgency objectives and third column or "government traitors" will be willing to aid the resistance. The US second amendment was created so that the citizens of the US were armed in the event of federal government happens overreach. A government created by the people can only be possible if the government fears it's people. If government no longer fears or respects it's people then they can pass any law they wish or act anyway they wish without consequences.

[@jayclark2077]

A moral decision requires consciousness, which the military doesn’t have. Follow this same logic throughout!

[@johncollins5591]

@@jayclark2077 I disagree and provide the idea of precision munitions as proof. I agree with the idea that no moral consciousness would add in the idea of winning an absolute war. Part of the reason why WW II ended the way it did as opposed to leaving an absolute victory in question was because the countries that were left behind had no civilian infrastructure and entire cities were left in shambles. Since then the military has focused on bombs which are able to ,for example, destroy a tank hidden underneath a bridge while leaving the bridge intact and completely usable. No other country has spent that much money and research to be able to destroy military targets while leaving the country's civilian infrastructure largely untouched. It takes a moral military to be able to care that much. Keep in mind that the US has a simple solution had it not cared. MOABs could just as easily been used and is a much cheaper offensive solution.

[@jayclark2077]

@@johncollins5591: The idea of a "moral military" is itself very strange. And that's before we look at the fact that we don't even have a moral citizenry, but products of the amerikan skool sistem which hands out every sort of propaganda but with no training on how to think one's way through all the sentimental mythology, American Egalitarianism, American Altruism, etc. The American citizenry is completely divided--and in from 12 to 20 years of "education" have not had even one class on how to have a unified nation and what that might require in terms of the willingness to sacrifice one's own untutored OPINIONS! Nor do they teach the genuine American Principles that those opinions would need to be traded in for! Those Principles are there in our Foundational Documents, but we don't read, nor discuss, and we certainly don't KNOW those Principles! And how can we have a moral military if we don't have a moral citizenry? And where did you get the bizarre idea that the Three Parts of Government (no longer separate) care about anything other than their own personal advancement and growing wealthy? Jesus. Kennedy was killed in part because he was going to pull our troops out of Vietnam--and Johnson didn't get off the plane from Dallas before he rescinded that Presidential Order! Jesus! That assassination was a carefully laid out plan by the Military Industrial Congressional Complex and is still being covered up to this day! First Trump, and now Biden is holding back the promised Kennedy documents! That ought to be an earth shaking fact for any citizen who is minimally awake. Where have you been, and how could you possible imagine that war after war after war, ad nauseum, was and remains the product of good ethical people in a good government the "duty" of which is to "secure the (natural and unalienable) Rights of the People" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?" Where in either the Declaration or the Constitution does it say that it is the business of government to send off our young men and women to slaughter and be slaughtered in endless wars the origins of which are not only bull shite but stupid bull shite that only the stupid products of American Factory Schools could fall for it? Jesus! And you placidly "disagree" because the American military has developed new weapons! How about developing real teachers, and new schools, schools that actually teach the meaning of human life and the meaning and implications of living in a free and democratic republic? And you "disagree" as if we are having a chat over tea or coffee and can go home having satisfied our duty as sovereign citizens who allow the psychopathic monsters in Washington to commit atrocities IN OUR NAME! Jesus John, where have you been? Don't you see the complacency of your coffee-table arguments. Or, the fact that your argument from "precision munitions" has a hole in it as big as a tank--which they are still making? Please have another and more earnest thought about this. JWC PS Your "arguments" only weaken instead of strengthening the resolve of those citizens who know that if things keep up as they are we will be forced into the streets by our own government, they WILL use the military, and we will be forced thereby to a decision! Nor is there history in your argument. People don't fight revolutions because they are guaranteed victory! They fight because they are fed up. And historically that spirit doesn't give a damn how many superior weapons they have! Or do you think that the human spirit has no place in this argument?

[@johncollins5591]

@@jayclark2077 a moral military is not just a US phenomenon. Look up how the UK handled the India issue and the Jewish partition in Palestine. It is easy to kill. Moral counties with moral armies will avoid collateral damage to civilian populations. In Vietnam they sought to win their hearts and minds. Destroying civilians would make the job easier. The soviets used to put bombs in toys to target children. In US history, small pox was inserted into blankets and then given to natives. The evolution towards a moral military is like childbirth... Slow and painful. China failed during Tiananmrn Square Massacre. Just look at the news for current Chinese violations. The issue you might be confused on is the idea of moral vs right. The moral thing to do is more often than not... NOT the right thing to do. Think the Deadpool Hitler dilemma. Would you kill Hitler as a baby? You also live in a world that seems to thrive on moral relativism. There are no longer absolutes in morality. This the actual meaning of an existential threat. Personally, I think that an individual can act morally. In groups, the crowd is bat shet crazy. Consider what you consider your morals are and what code you follow, can you say beyond a shadow of a doubt that your values supercedes any other person's. That doesn't mean that there isn't a correct answer... It just means that you will have to defend your logic and thinking process.

[@jayclark2077]

@@johncollins5591: 1) your 3rd and 4th lines are a contradiction. Please rewrite. 2) Your distinction between what is moral and what is right is just sophistry and has no intellectual merit. 3) Similarly your use of one example the British army in India to support what our military will do, is without intellectual merit on the surface. And in any case what the British did in that one case was what they felt forced to do and not what they wanted to do at all! Lastly your argument from natural evolution and its' time taking (gradualist) presumptions is specious. Man as man is conscious and as such his evolution, if it exists at all, is in his hands and is neither automatic or gradual, and there is absolutely nothing in human history to suggests that we are making any true, good, and beautiful choices that might take us to a higher existence! None! Instead the whole thing is vomitous! Genuine American Principles are carefully listed in our Foundational Documents, political scriptures really, and there is nothing in either our domestic or foreign policies that demonstrates that our so-called representatives give the least for any of those "self evident truths." Instead we have the very opposite! They make more and more laws controlling the people whose "liberties they were instituted to secure," and do nothing whatsoever to hook their own behavior to Higher Laws! They are ignorant calculating sycophants looking out for themselves! No, there is nothing higher at all in their behavior! Hell, when looking at the facts there is more evidence to suggest de-volution of our species than evolution. Sure I could be wrong, but my view is based upon the real concrete evidence of history in this nation and is not pie-in-the-sky fantasies about what someone wearing rose colored glasses hopes might happen. My advice would be in the direction of self reliance, and when you see the American military coming it would be wise to "watch out for one in the ear!" JWC

[@davidhill470]

The military doesn’t make its own ammo. It buys it from private sector. Likely half of the factories would support the military, and half would support insurgency. Both sides would be equally well supplied. Also, the military might find that it can’t buy as many advanced weapons for the same reason, and the insurgency would eventually catch up in terms of those.

[@LostButBroken]

No all would support the military, arms manufacturers will support the military, because that's where the money is.

[@frigglebiscuit7484]

same with food. no mres for the military

[@americancapitalist9094]

@@LostButBroken What would stop them from playing both sides?

[@firefly9838]

@@LostButBroken uh no. The large manufactures would support the military smaller ones would support the people most likely.

[@J.D.White1984]

@@LostButBroken How do you figure that's where the money is? You do realize we outnumber our military 300:1, right?

[@reddevilparatrooper]

Majority of the US Military come from freedom loving American families. The US Military will have to think twice before fighting against it's own people. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is a fundemental right to keep and bear arms as a free people to defend ourselves. Speaking for myself as a Veteran of the US Army and a citizen of the US.

[@Jangocat]

Na, the majority since the 1980's are poor uneducated people with no other opportunities, and the majority are minorities who don't give a damn about right wing politics. How arrogant to presume you care about freedom more then other Americans lol, it's childish.

[@sithsquid1]

@@Jangocat well, you won't find very many "freedom loving Americans" that would burn the American flag, or carry a Communist flag.

[@trith72]

@@Jangocat total horseshit.

[@reed13k73]

When we go out for the firearm deer hunting season in the US (starting this week) it is often said that we actually field the largest army in the world during that 2-3 week timeframe :)

[@jerrysantos6484]

Yes because the US Military are Citizens too. Their oath is to protect against all dangers foreign and Domestic. The constitution says we bear arms to fight against our Government if it gets the way it is now. 2nd amendment

[@melissamybubbles6139]

And if the 2nd amendment enthusiasts are the dangers domestic? That's the real worry here. I've got to say, when I see gun related flags and bumper stickers, I see people who are waiting for the order from some demagogue to kill their neighbors.

[@sledgehammerk35]

​@@melissamybubbles6139 yeah that's a good way to go about life... dehumanize people who are exercising a constitutional right. Seems more like a problem with you than them.

[@jerrysantos6484]

@@melissamybubbles6139 Wow. So sorry to hear you think that way. A big majority of us are former military. When we left the armed services, we did not take an oath against the original oath to serve and protect. Remember what James Madison wrote and was backed by all the signers of our Constitution. The right of the people to bear arms, Shall not be infringed. It is a God given right in our Constitution. If you chose not to practice it, fine. Do not. Not one person in this country faults you for it. It is your choice not to. Rest assured, there are people out there that will give up their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to protect you either way. It could be a Police officer or an armed Citizen doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Either way, I love you. Your life is precious to me and to all around you. Please, do not ever forget that. 👍😎🙏❤️

[@willrodgers7974]

While protection from government tyranny was indeed one of the many reasons the second amendment was added to the constitution, no where does the constitution state that the right to bear arms is to fight against our government. As a strong supporter of the constitution, I think it is important to be accurate in describing it's contents.

[@happyjohn354]

@@willrodgers7974 In the court of law the intent has been interpreted as such and thus takes legal precedent. there were many other intentions that were never put into the actual constitution word for word for instance the founding fathers intended for states to be able to leave the union at will. This was implied in the 10th amendment. there is a term that applies here called the spirit of the law.

[@cja2192]

There’s a huge difference in fighting a foreign enemy and an insurgency at home & that is we have millions & millions of veterans who were trained by the same government

[@shan931]

I loved Editor Diane's comment, "This is going to be a shit show". It made me laugh.

[@stevenwilliams1805]

I like the Editor Diane cuts as well.

[@alu.minium521]

A overlooked assumption the video made was that the Military members would remain 100% loyal to the federal government. That didn't happen at the start of the Civil War and wouldn't happen in this mental exercise. Otherwise, interesting video. Thanks Diane BOOP

[@blakesun]

military commanders will make sure soldiers are not sent to quell the 'violence' in their own states, but rather send them to fight against 'strangers' in far off states. Plus, troops will only be needed in some places, the rest will be air power, thousands of drones.

[@DianeJennings]

That’s a really good point Al!

[@neilis2405]

@@blakesun Soldiers wouldn't necessarily wait to be told where to go. A lot would return home if home is on a different side. EG, during the Civil War Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army, however he basically stated that he would be fighting on whatever side Virginia was on (which ended up being the Confederates). I think you'll find that a lot of US citizens feel a stronger loyalty to their state than to the country as a whole. EG, I like the USA, but my loyalty to South Carolina is stronger.

[@randlebrowne2048]

@@DianeJennings There is also the fact that there are far more guns, in the hands of American civilians, than there are in the *combined* military and police arsenals of every nation on Earth!

[@BlindSpot1000]

@@blakesun The problem with your scenarion is that a full 50% of the US Army's fighting force are National Guardsmen. Many would refuse a call up to be sent to fight in another state knowing that Gaurdsmen from that state would be sent to fight in theirs. Secondly, many governors would refuse to allow their Guardsmen to be called to active duty either because they refuse to support the federal government or they want to keep their own troops close to home during an insurgency.

[@BlindSpot1000]

The "1/2 of all guns are owned by only 3% of gun owners" is bunk. It's simply not true. Estimates are that 35% to 47% of Americans own at least one firearm. That's between 127.5 million and 171.5 million citizens who own at least one firearm. Last year alone saw approximately 8 million people purchase a gun for the first time. It's estimated that there are between 350 million and 400 million firearms in civilian hands in America. You can do the math. The video doesn't take into account that somewhere between 75% to 80% of the military would likely refuse an order to fire on American citizens. In fact, those in the Special Operations community would most likely side with the citizens. And let's not forget that the logistics chain is fed and transported by US citizens working for various companies. The military could quickly run out of the fuel, food, ammunition, medical supplies, and other things needed for a sustained campaign. So that logistics chain has to be protected by the military which would reduce the numbers who could actually fight the insurgency.

[@mike28003]

Yeah when I heard that percentage I said yeah right and went to look it up.

[@Sean__F]

Yeah we can do the math alright. 3% of individuals own 150 million firearms, or 15 firearms per person, and the other 97% own at least one gun. This averaged out, obviously there's more than one gun in more than 3% of the hands of Americans, but the 35% of American households owning a gun would include households of 4-5 individuals and only one or two guns. If you did the same statistics for car ownership, Jay Leno would throw off the average with his 100 cars but the vast majority of households have only 2 cars. All of the wealthy individuals who buy cars as a hobby would be represented in a disproportionate percentage of the total of car owners, just like there's individuals who own more than 20 firearms that offset those who have 1 or 2 in their household with a family of 4 or 5.

[@BlindSpot1000]

@@Sean__F Okay. Let's look at it another way. The Harvard/Northwestern survey is bunk. It was "leaked" to the Guardian and the Trace. It's never been peer reviewed, is still unpublished to this day, and relied on the honesty of respondents. In today's political climate I don't know too many people who would tell perfect strangers that they own guns and how many they owned.

[@DH-xw6jp]

Those numbers also ignore the totally untraceable homebuilt stuff.

[@Sean__F]

@@DH-xw6jp aaaaaannnnnnd? Untraceable guns, because they are home built, are not the vast majority of firearms which are manufactured and sold the conventional way. How many households that have at least one firearm exclusively have firearms not manufactured by gun companies?

[@faheedalajmi6872]

I’m a veteran of both wars and studied and learned from my enemy. Solders fight by Rules Of Engagement, we won’t.

[@firefly9838]

Smart man. We would win in any of those scenarios. I pray our military is never stupid enough to actually try and fight the people.

[@tomkuisis9496]

The military doesn't supply ammo to the people, independent manufacturers do. They could sell to the people or military, it's up to them. You should do a video about the overreaching of the Australian Government right now.

[@jonathonfrazier6622]

Thats a good suggestion.

[@stevenhoskins7850]

Yeah. The Aussies have it much worse than of the rest of us. I'm a Texan. All restrictions have been lifted...AND I can carry a gun on my hip, without so much as a license. God Bless OZ! They remind me of Texans, with an old English accent.

[@GregoryFariss]

Selling arms to domestic insurgents would be treason (even by the very limited definition in the Constitution). Resupply from manufacturers would be cut off immediately. The existing supply is another matter. 18 USC 2381 "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason"

[@stevenhoskins7850]

@@GregoryFariss It's a catch 22. We have the right to revolt, yet they have the right to put down an insurgency. We should only revolt in defense of the Constitution, and the governments should uphold the Constitution, so that revolution isn't necesarry. That is what we pay them for.

[@GregoryFariss]

@@stevenhoskins7850 where does the Constitution define a right to revolt?

[@crash406]

As a Veteran (also in the National Guard), I need to point out a few things; We swear (or affirm) an oath to "... support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States & the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." 'So Help Me God' is the only part that's considered to be optional, for (obvious) religious reasons. I haven't heard of a single legal precedent or any kind of case law that relinquishes whoever swears, or affirms, that oath. I also haven't heard of any kind of 'sunset clause' that stipulates or implies when that oath expires. There are plenty of veterans still alive who take the oath they swore seriously. Although not all of us did 'the cool stuff', like the hardcore warrior fighting things, we don't exactly get our minds wiped when our time is done. We remember things like basic marksmanship, first aid, land navigation, and the focus required to get something done (another way of saying 'we know how to objectify ourselves and push our discomfort away'). That doesn't mean that we just go right to the 'default setting' all the time (there are some who fight that). In fact, we're the ones who have more of a clue as to what might happen IF we were to have a war on our soil especially against our own government.

[@FastEDismo]

I understand your point however my current president is Trump its has never been proven he lost the election. So I would rise up against the communists.

[@ExpolringWithBudgyMcGhee]

@@FastEDismo I agree however not a military vet myself but yet a military brat as they would call us I have grown up in the military background and bases being my day was in the united states army for 20 plus years i have learn a thing or two and agree i would rise up against the current communist if need being trump is my president

[@ronhuckaby5336]

I took the same oath, and the part about GOD was NOT optional. God , country, people........NOT government!

[@filianablanxart8305]

Less tinfoil- ly : The Oath taken by US Military and Law Enforcement is to Protect & Defend the Constitution , not a particular leader or political administration . Of course a number of them will just follow orders or seek personal benefit , but a meaningful % take their Oath seriously .

[@TheBetterManInBlack]

@@filianablanxart8305 And those are the ones being purged. We live in a post-Constitutional nation ATM. It's why we're pissed, and why they want us gone.

[@christopherdale1745]

One thing he didn't bring up is that many servicemembers would be loathe to follow orders to take up arms against Americans, especially at home. Many would refuse such orders. Not all, but many would.

[@brianstocks8049]

this goes back to the clinton BS, if there is an uprising Canada would get the reigns for our forces. A poll of the troops was done back then 75% wouldn't take arms again the population

[@tywaits3896]

They would have to bring the EU and that wouldn't work good luck getting guns in Alabama or George in the swamps

[@witchcraftwilliam7879]

About 70% would refuse

[@wilsonpope3255]

I noticed that one aspect that was over looked is the amount of veterans who have been trained and battle tested that would be in the civilian population.

[@darrenheadrick3669]

I just looked up the total number of military, federal and civilian law enforcement in the US, comes to roughly 3.5-4 million. I also looked up the most current total amount of private citizen gun ownership, total is 393 million. Now mind you, they can only count the ones that are registered. Some states like Arizona dont register their firearms. Then there's always that nagging little oath that all persons took when they enlisted in the military. To protect and defend the Constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes governments that go against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would be messy, but yes, I do believe the citizens of this nation would be able to defeat the US military. That's why the democrats have waged war on the second amendment.

[@joshpotter9261]

That number is based on sales, not registration. Most places don't require registration, especially not for long guns.

[@kennethsmith6367]

If you think only the Democrats are waging war on the second amendment, your an idiot. Both parties nibble around the edges of the second amendment.

[@jerrymoomey4390]

There are also so many weapons that have been handed down through the generation's There is no way of getting a good number how many are actually in private citizens hands

[@MasterBlasterSr]

@@jerrymoomey4390 I would expect my sons to come home to our state with their military weapons especially Anti Tank and machine guns. 80% of the sons in the military today would kill their commie generals on the spot.

[@justinmiller3046]

Ive spent almost as many years of my life in the US military as I have as a civilian.... Yes. Yes the Citizens could in fact overthrow the government. Without writing a novel I'll explain why. 1. The US Military has a lot of rules and conventions they MUST abide by. The citizenry do not... This is why fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, among other places was such a pain in the ass. 2. Posse Comitatus. As recent years have shown us, the US Government wouldn't suspend Posse Comitatus in favor of the Insurrection Act in a manner timely enough to matter. 3. Also as recent history tells us, many citizens are quick to destroy infrastructure. The US government is not. 4. As sneaky litmus tests have shown, the majority of US military personnel would not be willing to fight a war against their own citizens they swore to protect. 5. Whoever made the original video was ignorant of how insurgencies work... There would not be a shortage of weapons, ammunition, equipment, etc for the insurgents. 6. Plenty of firepower in the hands of the citizenry. To especially include the AR15, which is an M16 minus the full auto capabilities... Both firearms utilize the same ammo, magazines, manual of arms, etc. When you realize that actual warfighters are trained to primarily fire in semi automatic for the presentation of ammo, accuracy, and the longevity of the rifle....well that full auto really doesn't matter. Its also worth pointing out that many citizens possess AR15's supperior to the militarys M4 in terms of accuracy, parts, etc. 7. Its somehow often overlooked, but the active duty military makes up less than 5% of the nations population... Of the other 95+% a large portion are veterans of recent wars whom love their country, but are upset with the government... They'd side with the insurgents, especially if the government engaged in a war against the people. Add that in with the other portions of disenfranchised people, well the government has a real problem. Those veterans know how to use that fancy military hardware too. 8. As is well known and previously stated, the US population is armed, and at a much higher rate than the video suggested. Many Americans even take courses on Survival as well as courses involving firearms training, and tactical application... Not to mention spend $1,000 of dollars on military grade equipment. AND many of those individuals share their knowledge. 9. I spent the first 15 years of my life in Lisburn, NI, not far from Belfast before moving to rural West Virginia in the states. In both places, I learned that citizens know how to manufacture and deploy explosives, as well as use firearms. So, god forbid it would ever come to it (I doubt that it would) but I think that if it were to happen, the citizenry would prevail.

[@JP-ec9rl]

Since the NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS are all run by a bunch of turncoats, trying to decide whether to embrace marxism or fascism, my bet is that the algorithms have already got us all pegged since we've all been running our mouths on social media for the past year and a half and they'd just dress up Chinese and Russian troops as federal swat teams and start serving bogus no knock warrants in the middle of the night and get the drop on most of us as we sleep.

[@nicshere]

Couldn't have said it better myself! Why do people forget about ex-military? Also, don't forget the police that swear to protect. Citizens also know how to get things supplied from...er...backdoor measures. The video maker is naive to think that our supplies don't outweigh the military nor that not one country out there would find a way to help us if we were in need. We might even be backed up, if you catch my drift. Anyway, thanks for setting the record straight. God Bless

[@generalkayoss7347]

Seeing as some goat farmers in Afghanistan did it with half century old AKs, US citizens with their billion guns and 10 trillion rounds of ammo won't have much problem.

[@op-4]

Well said

[@thelibertariantrucker1528]

Couldn't have said it any better

[@sjgavenger37]

As I am sure a few people have already said....most likely majority of the current active duty military men and women would leave the military and fight on the side of the citizens. As this is what a few active military people have told me as the subject has come up on base. I was told by these people that about 90% of the current active duty members would NOT fight on the side of the government.

[@calm713]

"The Union itself, which it cements and secures, destroys every pretext for a military establishment which could be dangerous. America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited with a hundred-thousand veterns ready for combat." -- Madison, fed.paper no.41

[@midlander8186]

What about domestic ambition for freedom?

[@astrogatorjones]

@@midlander8186 Freedom? It won't be freedom. It will economic disaster. Disaster that crashes the world economy. This whole thing is being promoted by people who can't seem to think things through. Mad Max wannabees. There is no freedom to be had in that. Just chaos. Its not going to happen anyway.

[@remo27]

@@astrogatorjones You aren't paying very much attention to the world and internal conditions in the US, now are you?

[@midlander8186]

@@astrogatorjones There is both support of and opposition to secession from both the political left and right. I think secession offers considerable hope for satisfying the political desires of many people, including what freedom might be for them.

[@astrogatorjones]

@@remo27 Of course I am... a bunch of incompetents are trying to BS their way into power and toss out the Constitution.

[@davidhobbs8949]

I think this whole exercise boils down to one question; would a US Marine, Sailor, Army Soldier, Air Force member fire on an American citizen in the continental US? Some would, yes. Others, possibly many others, would not and right there, that reluctance to fire on a brother/sister American citizen would doom the military's effort to quell any rebellion..

[@js2727]

Remember the civil war? It has happen

[@tonyquellhorst6871]

Hmmm, maybe this is why they are allowing more non citizens to join the military. It was happening in the early 80's, they were allowed to serve and after their service they received citizenship. Not sure if it is still going on but if it is I imagine there may be plenty of them that would go against the citizens. They are also trying to divide the military by labelling many white supremacist and then drumming them out of service. It appears that forcing the vax on healthy soldiers and giving dishonorable discharges to those that refuse will get rid of soldiers that use their own free will while also prohibiting them from owning firearms once they get out. If you get a dishonorable you cannot purchase a firearm.

[@chriswhinery925]

@@js2727 The difference is that in the civil war who was on what side was clear. The north were on one side and wore blue uniforms, the south were on the other side and wore gray uniforms. That isn't how a modern civil war would look. The people rebelling would be wearing regular civilian clothing and they'd be operating in guerrilla cells in every state of the country. How many US military personnel are going to be willing to shoot a citizen wearing jeans and a t-shirt without knowing for sure if that person is a rebel or not? It wouldn't be like the first civil war where both sides line up on a battlefield and you shoot the people on the other side of it.

[@CJoksch]

Though alluded to at the beginning, asymmetrical warfare would be the main method to fight the military. The military would have to consider every American the enemy. Not a good way to win the hearts and minds of the populous.

[@darkangelsoaps8258]

Of course we have guns. I have 8 myself. Mainly different ones for hunting different sizes of game. Plus a handgun for the car and one for personal carry. And of course a few surprises for home defense. 🙂

[@joshuapine9883]

"people shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of it's people" v for vendetta

[@DH-xw6jp]

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears it's people, there is freedom." Thomas Jefferson.

[@kendavis8046]

I literally cannot see a scenario where the US military and the mass of the US population would be in a major conflict, as in an uprising. There are occasional "uprisings" in the form of riots where the military (National Guard, the Army, etc,) can be called out to support relief efforts, but we have a Posse Comitatus law that does not allow the military to be deployed here. But I'd honestly trust our military to refuse to follow unlawful orders. They've demonstrated that they are protecting us, not fighting us. And for most of us, they are our sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. In short, American civilians are not going to "rise up" and the military is not going to fight the bulk of the American populace. That said, of course I am an American, and I have a LOT of firearms! Fortunately I have never had to aim one or fire in anger at another human being, and pray that this will remain true until I shed this mortal coil.

[@daxherring630]

There was a civil war once upon a time. That didn’t just begin as 2 big militaries opposing each other. Things have to be formed and it wouldn’t be difficult

[@christopherbaldwin2005]

@@daxherring630 So, do you want the North against the South, or East against West? Maybe 72 million voter's are upset, but how many are going to risk not only their life, but their Parent's or children's lives possibly? Do you actually think the F.B.I. wouldn't see someone forming a huge militia? Oh, I'm an Independent and I have LOTS AND LOTS of gun's too, and I have fired in anger. How easy would it be to "form" now?

[@daxherring630]

@@christopherbaldwin2005 Easy...I never said I wanted any of it

[@daxherring630]

@@christopherbaldwin2005 and much easier than you think.

[@eq1373]

@@christopherbaldwin2005 a new civil war here won't be like the last one. It will be more like the Troubles in Northern Ireland. As far as "72 million voters" go, the issue has far more to do with than just a single sham election.

[@robertireland4589]

Per DOD study the government would resign in 7 days, cities would run out of food and services in 3 days, much of the military, prior service, police, and others would join. We aren't divided. We have a percentage who's brainwashed on television and government school indoctrination, but the vast majority are prepared and would win in a very short time. The guns per capita estimate is low and doesn't account for more powerful weaponry. Nor that the know how and materials needed to manufacture more sophisticated arms is not soley in military hands.

[@randlebrowne2048]

Out of curiosity, do you have a link to that study? It sounds like it would make interesting reading.

[@nancysexton4364]

Agreed. Guns have outnumbered people for decades. Plus I don't believe for a second that 3 percent of the population own half the guns in America.

[@TheBetterManInBlack]

@@nancysexton4364 I'm not so sure. BRD is an insidious and terrible affliction. You buy 1 AR, and it's like trying to eat 1 potato chip. It just isn't enough. And then, you have folks like Palmetto State making their meme lowers and now you've got fifty or sixty AR lowers you don't know what to do with. Also, long winter nights get boring, etc... :) Of course, "half the guns in America" is one of those grains of sand on the beach numbers. If you believe the 20 year old number of, what 450,000,000, then it doesn't leave much room. Of course, if you double or triple that number (or more) then that other half gets to be quite the respectable sum. Edit to add: BRD=Black Rifle Disease

[@erichsbloodaxe]

@@nancysexton4364 Even if they do, they become the armorers for their fellows in such a situation. Are you really going to hoard your guns so you're the only one armed in your neighborhood, or are you going to arm the neighborhood so you can all fight together at once? We all know which of those two scenarios more likely leads to victory.

[@WDLC1911]

I pray you're correct, Robert Ireland.

[@jnywd8450]

Keep in mind that such a travesty would involve guerilla warfare, and the government would be in unfamiliar territory, while the citizens know the hidden entrance to the neighbors basement. Hunters regularly hide in the trees waiting to kill something with one shot. The civilians are a force to be afraid of, and there are people wearing shiny shoes who are afraid.

[@joshuastrawser9160]

Except no one has any idea what side the military would take in such a scenario. The one example we have to go on, the American Civil War, saw many of the most seasoned military officers resign their commissions and support the rebels. It's a toss up.

[@ericlanglois9194]

The American Civil War isn't really comparable because back then the vast majority of the population felt more loyalty towards their State than the Nation. While I'm sure there's still people with a greater loyalty for their State (Texas is a good example of that), realistically most Americans are proud to be American first. As for what the military would do, well, if they have proper leadership then they would defend the Constitution from any enemy, foreign or domestic.

[@joshuastrawser9160]

@@ericlanglois9194 That's rather my point: they had the same oath in 1860. A lot of the professional soldier class felt that the federal government was behaving as a domestic enemy as defined by the Constitution they swore an oath to honor. Others felt precisely the opposite for precisely the same reason. America can be complicated ☺ (but we love it here!).

[@irwfcm]

Agree. It is a gigantic leap and assumption to assume "the military" would fall 100% behind the federal government if a real insurgency ever happened. Honestly, I think it would favor the insurgency by a good percentage if it really came down to it, and I'm talking like a real Civil War II kind of situation.

[@corrywhatever3516]

This, I believe, is the single most important factor except maybe international interference. The number of insurgents inside the military, and their level of knowledge & access will make the difference. It would most likely become U.S. Military vs. U.S Military.

[@chaost4544]

The Confederates almost won because of it.

[@aaronsanborn4291]

There are 14 Million out of 21 Million U.S. Veterans who could walk into combat today. Veterans like myself (I was a Scout and Infantry for 15 years) know how to deal with everything from Infantry patrols to killing tanks. In my home state there are over 7 million guns owned by a total population of about 1.5 million people. Roughly 6 guns for every person. I also grew up knowing how to hunt, fish, farm etc....

[@Sir_Scrumpalicious]

It seems like it would depend on how large the insurgency is and what the reasons are behind that insurgency. The military is a 100% volunteer force. Would there be a strong enough pull by the insurgency to recruit military people to fight with it?

[@melissamybubbles6139]

The military can draft people. The insurgency is already happening. Not much is being done to prevent it from taking over.

[@sailor1553]

I'm not an American but I think if the military try and draft people to fight their own people,family and friends they could have many cases of bone spurs.just my opinion.lol

[@outdoorsman7324]

@@melissamybubbles6139 , like a draft would even remotely work in a situation like that.😂

[@kirkharig192]

I have watched that video and its wrong when it says only %3 of Americans own firearms. Divide 340,000,000 firearms by %3. That's around 113 guns per firearm owners. That would make only 10,200,000 people owners of them. That's anti gun propaganda.

[@JohnnieGarner]

I believe that a real insurgency in the US would entail troops switching from the US military to the insurgents. The only way an real insurgency could occur, involving large areas in the US, would mean that the government had become a tyranny. For such a situation, many in the military will defect to the citizens. Many citizens are also ex-military and many others also have a pioneer spirit, making a revolutionary movement quite potent. I do not think the government could survive. Interesting fact. US civilians have 7 times the number of firearms of all police and military combined. Let's go, Brandon!

[@philquintana3576]

Ms. Jennings, the last time I looked, there were 2m+ veterans in the US. A large majority of whom have had at least some weapons training. A large majority of those veterans own weapons. Big Bro owns seven, Baby Bro and I own five each. Seventeen weapons between the three of us. Now, consider that we know Arizona like the backs of our hands. The deserts, the mountain ranges, the forest in northern and eastern parts of the state. Throw in our familiarity with the urban areas and guess who has the advantage? Then consider my family alone could field two squads of infantry Marines along with a few soldiers and a couple of airmen. I would put our chances as pretty good.

[@donovanfoto3263]

Don't forget the DRONES and helicopters.

[@philquintana3576]

Gentlemen, the toys and maps "show" you area they don't let you "know" the area. They won't tell you how the terrain is different from last year. You put three infantry veteran's together, that know the area, and all that other stuff is useless.

[@mattipps]

@@andrewft31 so you are just gonna send a satellite to every area where unrest is happening? Not enough satellites or drones bud.

[@mattipps]

@@andrewft31 we weren't watching every part of Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. Maybe you do not know how satellites work lol.

[@mattipps]

Off the grid tech huh lol. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[@sadarax4405]

On the topic of home-front cultural battles: I think there are plenty of cultural misunderstandings right now, unfortunately. There's an enormous cultural misunderstanding between the armed services and ... `certain` portions of the American public with `certain` political views. The media is very happy to exacerbate and feed on these, and has done so for at least 22 years.

[@d.briancasady48]

The American Citizens, despite the snobbish disdain shown them by so many in the European countries, have a large percentage of the public with military training. Having been in myself, I am aware of the training limitations of an Army. One of the currently most popular target rifles in civilian hands will shoot almost twice as far with better accuracy as compared to the pipsqueak poodle shooter M16 or the darn near adequate rabbit hunting rifle M4. Most hunters have telescopic sights which are better than all but the tiny number of those which snipers use. One shot, and one dead radio operator would leave the Army platoon unable to fight effectively. Then, using their own night vision devices, the citizenry could sneak close enough to the Army unit at night to suddenly blind them with flashlights putting out 2,000 lumens or more held by each citizen. The surprised and blinded soldiers would be then stripped of gear and ammunition. The bodies would be probably left where they fell. Michael Collins was effective because he knew how the English Army thought. We know our Army even better than that. With the things found in an average household in America, I can improvise something to destroy any tank if I get behind it. The US Army would need to resort to a Pyrrhic Victory for the win.

[@Jangocat]

It's not a large percentage in a country with over 330 million people in it, in fact military participation in the USA is very low and has been for at least 50 years. Vets are 7% max depending on who's statistics you believe, and many of them are old people incapable of fighting or disabled so you can probably cut that number in half.

[@FallenAnvilForge]

With the way things have been going in the states lately, this just might happen sooner than people think. And if it does, it's going to get ugly. Not to mention that a large portion would leave the military to side with the so called insurgents, I prefer to call them Patriots. We would not run out of ammo or weapons, it's called take it off the enemy. I was in the Navy and I'm also a tactician, the video your watching isn't bad but I feel like it was done by someone who has no idea how actual people think.

[@carnivorepolice5-0]

If the population actually rose up I think the video left out the amount vets that would rise up my oath didn't end when my service did.

[@gtiboy73]

Or it seemed like a biased propoganda advertisement for the US Military. Fact is, the US Government has no clue how many firearms are in circulation. A citizen who has 5 "registered or store bought" guns will likely have as many more no one knows about. In some places, 99% of the families will each have enough weapons & ammo to arm & sustain its entire neighborhood. The likelyhood of the population being "starved out" of fighting supplies is very unlikely. Im pretty sure the USG is well aware of the futility of such an exercise

[@kennethsmith6367]

Who is supplying the US military? If the government’s at war with it citizens doesn’t that mean the factories would supply the citizens and not the military trying to take them out.🤫

[@FallenAnvilForge]

@@kennethsmith6367 Actually the US Military makes most of its own munitions.

[@FallenAnvilForge]

@@carnivorepolice5-0 Neither did mine brother, neither did mine

[@dirt4fun]

Good video, as quite a few said before, many in the military wouldn't take up arms against American citizens, but was wat forgotten, was that many of the citizens are ex-military. The other thing that wasn't quite right was when they said that the military would have the home court advantage.... During deer hunting season, Wisconsin hunters could be considered the 2nd largest standing army... Add just a few other Midwest and Southern states, and you would easily have the largest standing army, that knows the terrain, and how to hide within that terrain. It would be suicide for the military to try and take those areas.

[@crash406]

I remember reading an article some time back describing each individual state's National Guard; Pennsylvania alone has a National Guard big enough to be considered it's own Army. And you spelled 'former military' wrong.

[@SunwardRanger83]

Yes, I fail to see what benefit a home court advantage would give the military when the insurgency has the exact same, or possibly an even greater one.

[@mnomadvfx]

"Add just a few other Midwest and Southern states, and you would easily have the largest standing army, that knows the terrain, and how to hide within that terrain. It would be suicide for the military to try and take those areas." This is not the Civil War though. This is NOT Afghanistan. The moment Predator drones were invented the strategy you are talking about became obsolete.

[@andrewft31]

Drones and satellites eliminate that problem plus both Kennedy and Nixon activated the National Guard against citizens. Kennedy for Governor Wallace and Nixon at universities, so it has happened before.

[@commonstragedy]

And those hunters are already skilled in accurately shooting long distances.

[@urbanmetro]

I fear we are closer to finding out the answer then ever before. The current political atmosphere is scary!

[@ronhuckaby5336]

I'm not scared, unless I should be scared for the government , in that case, I am very scared FOR them.

[@filianablanxart8305]

Ever Before? Nah . Not counting the War Between the States , there was the Whiskey Rebellion , and the actually far larger Coal Wars of the early 1920's .

[@TAWier]

A good portion of the active military would be forced to fight against their own family as it is common for military service to be a tradition in many families. I think a lot of them would refuse those orders and leave to fight along with their family members.🤔

[@dakotaparker4388]

I spent two years of my early twenties in a country that had running water and power in two cities in the entire country. They fought us for 20 years. I think that a war on the US population wouldnt be economically, politically, or physically possible. Also, there’s 50 mini governments that are almost exclusively at odds with the federal government at all times, that would be the individual states. Without state tax revenue, the federal government would run out of money in a month. They dont have the stomach for it.

[@JP-ec9rl]

I get the sentiment. I spent most of 2003 and the beginning of 2004 in Iraq. I'm guessing that you are probably talking about Afghanistan. Would you say that the majority of Americans are as hardened towards survival and a will to fight as the average Afghan is? I'd also have to disagree that 50 states are at odds with the federal government. Thirty at most but even a good portion of that thirty are just paying lip service to what they think red state voters want to hear. Right down to your local city and county buildings, establishment municipal type folks are bought and paid for by federal grants and globalist initiatives. How do you think they pushed, critical race theory, sexual deviance and marxist ideology into the local education system? I'd also say that they don't worry about running out of money. They'll just make more of it, the same way they have for the past century and the more they print, the less yours is worth. The federal reserve system is free range slavery. It was designed with that intent from the beginning. The decimation of currency value in the Weimar Republic was a key factor in getting the Germans to embrace Nazism. Once the population felt the pain of poverty, all they needed was for someone to villify a segment of their society to unify them to the point that they were willing to embrace an initiative enough to commit atrocities. I'm always hopeful for the future but I'd say that the majority of Americans need a real gut check to decide whether they value freedom or comfort more, if they are going to overcome the tyranny that I see on the horizon. I'm not fully confident that our society will be unified or dignified enough to meet the challenge. I think the past two years has been exactly about litmus testing our boundaries and I still pass idiots, everyday, riding around in their cars with a mind control device on their faces. I hate to be the "glass half empty" guy but just say'n .

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

They are crazy enough to try it, in my opinion. The current administration is a threat to the country.

[@chefsanders9151]

Never forget, less than 2% of the population of the clonies defeated Britain.....the most powerful military on the planet at the time. Farmers, merchants, the poor and uneducated defeated the best professional army on the planet. Less than 2% of the American colonists..... Let that sink in PS: The registert deer hunters in Wisconsin and Minnesota alone would be the 7 largest army in the world

[@JasonMoir]

If this were to ever happen, different regions of the country would unite and we would split into several smaller countries. Trying out a new recording location? The lighting here gave you an angelic appearance.

[@DianeJennings]

Thanks! There are builders on the balcony out front so it was quieter in my room

[@matthewedwards6025]

I agree. The video makes it seem like it will be a united government against a handful of individuals, when the reality will be closer to the first civil war, with entire states seceding to form blocs.

[@chadm6981]

Because she is angelic. If I wasn’t married and 20 years younger.......:)

[@ronhuckaby5336]

@@chadm6981 let me help you finish your sentence.......she still wouldnt give you the time of day!!1 hahahahahaha

[@wraithvendeta]

Well another thing they are not considering is the number of people that reload ammo or the long range competition shooters. Or long range hunters.

[@dmwoodgmail]

Ms. Jennings, I appreciate the open minded way you approach this. I would suggest as a 3rd generation U.S. military veteran, that this video in no way discusses how large the Veteran community is in comparison to the Active Duty personnel or where the majority burden of combat experienced people is in contrast. Those who defended previously and moved into civilian life haven't all given up their oathes to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC.

[@thomaswelks2988]

Make sure you keep a sharp eye out for the ones who may try to Epstein you bro. Aquila Natus.

[@dmwoodgmail]

@@thomaswelks2988 Carpe diem e semper fidelis.

[@dmwoodgmail]

Additionally, I would like to remind naysayer's that you are only afforded that option by the Will of those who stepped up and signed their name on a check to defend YOU, up to the cost of their life. Oath's like that, never expire.

[@theallseeingmaster]

I have seen, with my own eyes, several private collections of guns that numbered into the low 100's. Regular working class people exercising their Right.

[@witchcraftwilliam7879]

I know somebody who has a private walk in safe. Over 600 guns he has.

[@theallseeingmaster]

@@witchcraftwilliam7879 Very impressive.

[@jereland8200]

The narrator also failed to mention the sheer number of veterans who may join an insurgency who have skills equal to present day active duty military. Also, less than 10% of military members are combat personnel with the vast majority being support personnel.

[@joeryerson9295]

A major point that was missed is that the service members would be potentially have to fight against their own family and would more likely support the citizens over the government. Plus all military members take an oath to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, if the government tries to take away the rights of the people, than the government becomes the enemy.

[@bgonzales817]

We can legally own tanks and jets, most of us just aren't millionaires that can afford too.

[@morrigankasa570]

Remember the tanks can't functionally fire (legally) but there are loopholes in how the barrel is "unfunctional" and yes it is expensive.

[@bgonzales817]

@Conservitarian 17 its not hard too, but getting the license the safest route lol

[@DianeJennings]

Oh! Honestly I hadn’t even considered if it was legal! That’s mad 😝

[@wethepeople5753]

@@morrigankasa570 but "expensive" isn't necessarily true in that scenario. Those who may charge hundreds or thousands of dollars now could very well do the job free in the case of taking back the Rights and Freedoms we now take for granted.

[@morrigankasa570]

@@wethepeople5753 Maybe, I hope they would.

[@84marcow]

Two things: There are far too many trained veterans of the War on Terror in the civilian population who are better trained than the current military. Secondly, the majority of the military is conservative Republicans who would never take up arms against their own citizens. And as far as you saying that Americans seem more divided now than ever, that is just the media showing the worst 10 percent. Majority of Americans can solve any problems or quarrel over a beer and after dinner.

[@jamesbinns8528]

Let's not forget Washington DC last January 6.

[@thurin84]

@@jamesbinns8528 or the "mostly peaceful" riots during the 2021 "summer of luv2.0" that left 33+ dead and had actual insurgent autonomous zones.

[@RabidMNPanda]

The military generally votes Democrat more than Republican.

[@Blasto2x]

What makes you think the majority of the military are conservative Republicans? The Military Times poll saw a drop of 46% in 2017 to 38% in 2020 for active duty personnel favoring a Republican candidate.

[@chuckleon5366]

@@RabidMNPanda Those would be typically young officers, and they don't know sh*t.

[@Operator8282]

This video that you are watching has SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many incorrect assumptions, Most of all, there is only so many military personnel, and there are a LOOOOOOT of citizens, and, especially now, a goodly chunk of those citizens are veterans. Also, there are rather a lot of "military families", with a several generation long history of service. This video assumes that the ENTIRETY of both the Active duty, Reserve units, and the National Guard (nominally under the controll of the state government(s), but can be nationalized in time of war) would just blindly follow potentially unconstitutional or illegal orders. If the government was set to "quell uprisings and suppress domestic insurgencies", just how many of those military members (and former members) do you think would be the very people the government is trying to quell and suppress? Remember, that the US Armed Forces are an all voulunteer force, and that one of the main reasons for joining it is love of country. If the government, or parts of the government were acting in bad faith, acting in an unconstitutional manner, or displaying a tyrannical overreach of power, or the civilian leadership in charge of the military were to issue orders that were unlawful, it is not only the soldiers duty to NOT act upon those orders, but to stop them being carried out. Unless the rules have changed in the last few months. This video also assumes that the "Insurgents" are the "baddies" and the government/military is the "good guys". This may be percieved differently depending on the pollitical tendancies of a particular region, Mostly due to the fact that some American citizens believe that a constitutionally limited government is a good thing and some American citizens believe that the government isn't bound by the rules that it, by law, must follow, and should be the central power, superceding all others, in cotradiction of the limits imposed on the government by the constitution. Varying levels of either governmental/"insurgent" support from the local populace will differ from region to region accordingly On a final note, When Admiral Yamamoto was questioned about tje Imperial Japanese ability to invade the United States, he answered them by saying tomething allong the lines of, "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." There are a lot more Citizens than there are Soldiers, and a fair number of soldiers, probably a majority, more than likely a large majority, would not engage citizens of their own country. This is the same reason that the Chinese government had to bring in outer provincial military units to quell the Tiannenmin Square protests, as the local units were being hesitant to act, or only halfheartedly obeying the orders to disperse the crowd. Also, that 3 percent of all firearm owners owning 90 percent of the firearms is probably no longer true, while people who have them are likeley to have several, within the last 5 years the first time ownership of firearms in the US has increased sharply. And, to be honest, guns are like pokemon; gotta catch 'em all.

[@blakesun]

love of country doesn't mean love of the violent home town militia. Average folks with guns do not equate to a massive air force and drones that would crush anything before it even started. Remember, rebellions don't erupt nationwide immediately, but rather break out in spots of violence where the national guard will be called in. You say the national guard won't shoot on their own citizens, well, they have in the past. Why is now different?

[@ingenuousgambit261]

@@blakesun sure they can kill lots of people, but how long will their morale hold up if they have to take on people like Autumn (for reference kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWSxmH-inJaHfLM )

[@jonathonfrazier6622]

@@blakesun It would be like the Boston Massacre. Didnt work out well for the British.

[@Operator8282]

@@blakesun Who said anything about a violent militia? And who would said "violent militia" be violent toward? I also never stated any thing of the sort that a situation like this would be a homogeneous uprising. I know, roughly, how many members of the national guard and active duty personnel there are in my are/region, and there are a paltry few of them compared to the ammount of people not otherwise employed in that field.They can't be everywhere at once, and it would be a reasonable assessment to state that an insurgent populace cannot be, either. you are still under the assumption, if your above statement is how you really feel, that there would be overwhelming support within the national guard and militaries, to act against the very people who surround them in their daily lives. A drone, not manned, an aircraft not piloted or maintained, and a rifle not ysed are a burden to their masters. As evidence, look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. No, not an example of a not overtly violent militia, but as a group of determined individuals, following an idea, who just had to wait until the other side quit and went home. This most recent example of that would be something like the third or fourth time they have done the very same thing in the last two hundred and fifty years. It's a proven strategy. Now look at a similar situation in the United States. There, you have a technologicly savvy populace, in contrast with the Afghans, fighting a portion of the military. I say a portion, because it isn't a monolith, and many would leave before fighting their own. Always remember that the US armed forces are an all voulunteer force. Do you think a partial air force, and a few drones would deter, or for that matter, should deter, a force fighting what they believe to be an oppressive regieme? Also, the military can't get away with ANY collateral damage if on their home turf, if they want continuing support from the populace. There seems to be much you don't consider when you say "they got the good stuff and they'd just roll them up before anything got started".

[@chago4202000]

@@blakesun The air force would be almost useless in this scenario. Dropping bombs in American neighborhoods because you claim there were "insurgents" in that house would not even be an option.

[@seandooley7205]

350milion americans. Estimated 500-600million civilian owned guns. This why neither germany nor japan would even consider invading US during WW2

[@one2869]

I see the many comments about many of the military would go against orders because they themselves are also citizens of this country. I also see the comments about how many veterans we have compared to how many enlisted we have so I don't need to explain all that or how that plays a roll in this scenario. I will just add that those citizens are the ones that design, manufacture, and sell all that fancy equipment and ammo to the military. Those same citizens and factories would instantly be supplying the people and not the military. The citizens know the tech. They know how it's put together and how to dismantle it. Takes less than a minute to render a tank useless. And hackers have proven time and again what they are capable of. Add all that to everything else that others have mentioned and you quickly see this video is completely flawed in many ways. It doesn't take into consideration the obvious that would happen. Fortunately, it would never play out as it does in the scenario in the video. It would most likely play out as more of a civil war with 2 pretty evenly matched sides and the reasons would most likely be political. That's the unfortunate part. Either way, it would be ugly. It would be the most devastating war to ever be fought anywhere. The U.S. would definitely fall. Although many may celebrate that, they would very quickly regret it. This being because it would negatively affect the entire world. Wars would pop up everywhere. The global economy would fall. It would truly become hell on earth. Humanity would be the loser so I hope it never happens.

[@Jangocat]

People are more patriotic then that. They will support the military defending the USA, not terrorists and traitors. The military has enough stockpiled ammo and equipment to last decades, they aren't depending on todays production in factories. The USA will not fall and the fight wouldn't even be close. At most insurgents could muster maybe 5-10 million people, against the other 320 million plus people. Only 7% of the US population are vets, that's around 22 million. At least half of them are crippled from war or too old to fight so make that 11 million. Out of those most vote democratic and many republican's would honor their oath to the constitution and fight the domestic terrorists, so you can probably half that number again. Military guys follow orders first and foremost, they always have.

[@bob_._.]

FWIW, the Declaration of Independence (the defining document of the country) states that not only do the people have the right to overthrow the government if it no longer serves the will of the people, it makes it a responsibility. In the Constitution (the defining document of only the federal government) however, the government grants itself the full power of the military to put down any such popular action.

[@LavitosExodius]

Government grants itself that power sure but the Military also falls under being just that people. The Government can order them to put down said action, and I'm not naïve enough to believe the whole military would refuse said orders. Much like the civil war we would see it splinter with those that thought the Government was right and those that thought the people were right. Or in short it'll be one hell of a shit show.

[@prodigalson6166]

This is why Declarationism is the only proper interpretation of the Constitution. This of course has been undermined by dissenters, from the beginning. We really do need a fourth document in our charters of freedom in order to close the loophole that allows us to experience the Tyranny which we are experiencing now.

[@andrewft31]

Kennedy sent the National Guard to remove George Wallace who was blocking black children from entering the University of Alabama. So it has happened.

[@LavitosExodius]

@@andrewft31 Correct but it's hard to use that as and example as a tyrannical government.

[@scotto5426]

I don't know anyone who doesn't have and most carry a firearm. Even my 80 year old parents have guns on them at all times. Here in West Virginia there's not much violent crime. Ya never know if granny is going to empty a pistol into you for trying to steal her purse

[@nancysexton4364]

"An armed society is a polite society" (at least in the civilized parts of America)

[@christiansoldier1465]

i have alot of friends in the military and they have told me if they were ordered to attack there own country would fight for the people not the government

[@Gonzo614]

I love Editor Diane's comment... "It's going to be a sh*t show."

[@jamesbrown4092]

If the story of my life ever gets made into a movie, I'm going to have Editor Diane do the intro. 😁

[@douglasfrompa593]

Oh, where to start? The majority of the military will not take up arms against it's fellow Americans. The technology is easily overcome if you are the guy who fixes it. And besides, there would be an ambush set up at any opertune location. For as long as the war on our citizens lasts. Hi Chewy and Diane. What a weird topic in our idyllic and peaceful current society.

[@DianeJennings]

😂

[@melissamybubbles6139]

I wish I could believe that the majority of the military would refuse to fight fellow citizens.

[@YOSHI450R]

@@melissamybubbles6139 most soldiers will straight up tell you their oath is to the people and freedom and not to the Government so when forced to choose they'll choose the former

[@rylian21]

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I cannot imagine a scenario where any US commander orders soldiers to open fire on the populace, and even less likely that the vast majority don't refuse to follow such an illegal order.

[@jamesbeylik1]

My brother is a combat veteran. I like his take on the subject. You see our military is us. Our fathers, brothers, sisters, etc. Yes the command will go down, but you’ll find soldiers with a pistol to each others head before they’ll strike their own people.

[@gregbryant3826]

This video is asking the wrong question. The US military has never deployed on American soil. It's also important to note that the Military does not swear an oath to the government or the president. They swear an oath to the constitution against all threats foreign and domestic. The reason for the conflict would be very important in determining if the military even gets involved. If the question is can the American people win a war against the American government that is an obvious yes. Lets say we divide the sides into red and blue. The red team decides the blue team is violating the constitution and pushes for a national divorce, an idea that is gaining a lot (over 40% support) of traction. The blue team decides they will use force to prevent this from happening. The military would likely stay out of it. What you would have is federal law enforcement against the red team. Nukes are off the table because nobody wants to rule over a nuclear wasteland. If you look at popular vote totals it would seem the blue and red team are pretty even but that's not the case. Biden got 80 million votes and Trump had 74 million. However if you break it down by county Biden had 500 counties while Trump had 2500. What you would have is a war of the cities against everything else. It takes 3-5 acres to feed an American for a year. A square mile can produce enough food for around 200 people. New York has over 10,000 people per square mile and none of it is farm land. Given that the red team's condition for victory is the Blue team leaving them alone all it would take to win is to stop growing their food. The blue team would have no choice but to send federal law enforcement agents out into the country to try to force people to grow food for them. This would not go well, I'll leave it at that. His theory about needing a foreign nation to re-supply ammo shows how little he knows about rednecks. We make our own ammo. We can (and sometimes do) make out own guns as well. It's not exactly a complicated technology and every small town in America has a machine shop of some kind. The biggest advantage the blue team would have is the big tech companies would be on their side. Every active combatant on the red team would immediately throw their phones away and if necessary live in the woods and hunt for their food. This would make communication and logistics a nightmare. It still wouldn't be enough to overcome how unbelievably stubborn rednecks are. Luckily it is unlikely to come to that. As long as the supreme court holds up its role in government any violation of the constitution will be shut down. Even the most ardent liberal hating rednecks out there don't want to have to go to war with other Americans.

[@bsrpython257]

Also, the cities will "get to" deal with the assholes they have bred and misled within their own borders. Civil authority: "Would you please stop looting long enough for me to free you from oppression."

[@andrewft31]

New York has farms, upstate not sure where you get we don't have farms, plus California has them too.

[@andrewft31]

Plus the government has deployed troops on American soil several times, Washington did it, Lincoln did it, Nixon did it, Nixon did it against unarmed college students. So it has happened, go read a history book.

[@gregbryant3826]

@@andrewft31 New York City does not have an abundance of farmland. I wasn't suggesting the entire state of New York has a population density of 10,000 people per square mile. In the scenario I described it would be counties that voted red vs counties that voted blue. Believe it or not Biden didn't win every county in New York or California. While I am amused at the lack of historical knowledge combined with the condescending tone I'm going to have to poke a few holes in your argument here. You could possibly make an argument for the whisky rebellion counting as a deployment but you would have to take a very liberal definition of deployment. The other two, however are just factually inaccurate. Lincoln deployed the US army against a contingent of states that declared themselves a separate sovereign nation, and didn't do so until those states fired on Ft. Sumter. I'm guessing your knowledge of the Kent state comes from a Neil Young song because it was the national guard that was called up and Nixon had nothing to do with it. You may notice the commies currently burning down cites didn't receive a mention in my scenario. That is because they are incompetent and are a non issue. Just like the recent riots commies were running around burning things down like the ROTC building and threatening to burn down businesses for not displaying anti war posters. Because of this the mayor of Kent asked the governor to call up the national guard. If you can find me a history book that says the national guard is the same as the federal military and says that Nixon was both the president and the governor of Ohio I would be willing to read it. Otherwise I will just leave this here for you. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

[@andrewft31]

@@gregbryant3826 I didn't say NY had farms, I said upstate NY does, two different things. The majority of the state is very rural, especially outside of Albany.

[@rickstevens1479]

When my nephew traveled to Spain he was surprised to see machine gun toting police walking the streets . Even an American is surprised by the armed European security forces....this was twenty years ago......

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

Reading the comments my favorite is, "Do more drunk cooking videos!" 😆🤢

[@DianeJennings]

Hahaha and yet when I do, the views are always low!!

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

They just don't understand that the Irish have a special dispensation from the Pope to drink! As my dear friend James from Cork (and Best Man) once said, "I feel a thirst come upon me!" I can neither confirm nor deny we have any stories to tell.

[@DiddynoDiddle]

The most valuable asset not mentioned in this video, 20 years of pissed off disgruntled veterans.

[@BeefHarbor]

The idea of American unity is hilarious.

[@witchcraftwilliam7879]

Last time I seem America united was after. 9/11. But it lasted a few weeks. Than it's back to. Hatred

[@1776SOL]

As much as people today want to dismiss the contextual intent of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. It's there because one of the steps the British took prior to the Revolution was seizure of firearms & powder. Also prior to Federal policing Agencies, the US Military was regularly used against the citizenry as "police" not to mention against the sovereign Nations native Americans. Use of Military as Federal police is what lead to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

[@pskarnaq73]

It would all come down to who and why, which would determine the type of support they get from the citizenry and military members.

[@stevearnold2456]

Hi, Diane. I'm an American with a lot of Irish and British ancestry. I love your videos. I'm glad I ran across your channel.

[@tommurphy2332]

This is an inconceivable scenario in my opinion. It's like saying "Would your sons come and arrest your family for the government?"

[@xyzzy01]

I don't think it just would be the military vs citizens. I think it would also be citizen vs citizen if something like that actually broke out. It would definitely not be a good time to be an American.

[@lucius_cursor]

12:28 worth noting, there's a hard understanding of how much ammo and weapons the citizens have. so take that with a grain of salt. also, reloading and such is quite common as long as the supplies are available. also worth noting, it's impossible to tell how much of the US military would defect. it's hard to tell but largely depends on the actual reason for the war.

[@YOSHI450R]

Gun numbers in the USA are a nightmare to account for because of the variables. Numbers are based on Legal sales, they don't account for illegal firearms that enter the country. The 3% number is wild as well as that doesn't include the firearms sold privately and never registered. It's funny they say there would be no outside supply but yet they can't stop millions of people and billions worth of drugs coming across the borders yearly. Outside support would definitely be a factor

[@lucius_cursor]

@@YOSHI450R agreed. I also think that the 3% number is misleading as well in general, as almost half of the American population has at least one firearm. Where I live it's extremely common to own multiple firearms, and ample ammo. So it's kind of an interestingly hard to understand part of this topic I think. Also, I think it might be worth considering the Civil War (I know this was about the populace fighting the military, however, realistically this wouldn't be the case). During the Civil War it was two armies in their own right, and I think it's worth considering something similar would happen if there were to be another conflict in the US. But again, all of this is pure speculation with really no evidence to back up what I'm saying. I appreciate your comment!

[@TheBetterManInBlack]

@@YOSHI450R There is no central registry of firearms. It's against federal law (if that means anything, I suppose) to database them. What they've been using to keep track is NICS calls for new sales. So, 1 call equals 1 gun so far as those lists go. However, they don't account for multiple purchases. There are a large number of spaces on a 4473 form, and no special form for multiples unless they're handguns. So, if you purchase, say 5 AR15's, that's 1 form, or 1 listed sale. Which only gets counted if a NICS call is made. If you go into the fun store with a Concealed Carry permit that proves you jumped through the hoops and dotted the i's, no call is made, so no sale is listed federally. The 4473 just goes into the fun store's private files. At least in free states. Some of the authoritarian ones have stricter rules. The state of Wyoming, for instance, they figure has more guns in private hands than the armies and police forces combined of 3 or 4 South American countries. And they probably only know about around 50% of what's actually out there. Guns last a really long time if you take decent care of them.

[@WDLC1911]

"as long a supplies are available". DO you think they'd *NOT* take control of ALL manufacturers of components??? They are not stupid.

[@lucius_cursor]

@@WDLC1911 wouldn't work that way. They can't stop basic things coming across the border. Not to mention, what I also mean is plenty of people already have years worth of supplies, specifically ammo and much needed components to reload ammo. The scenario isn't cut and dry is the point. We have 0 way of predicting this

[@bartonabrams3433]

It’s not a fair question, who would win? The answer is “the question is irrelevant”. US troops would not “willingly” open fire on US citizens with “live” rounds or with lethal force because they’re friends and family. Tear gas, concussion grenades, bean bag rounds, sure. Live rounds no. The vast majority would aid the civilian population with food and medicine and “possibly” supply light weaponry ( hand guns, assault rifles) but nothing on the level of tanks, howitzers, rocket launchers. That’s just to much destruction no soldier would want the responsibility of. To give an example let’s say the US military has 100000 personnel across all branches. Out of that number let’s say 1000 of them would open fire on civilians. First that’s 90000 that would side with the civilians. Second that 1000 that would fire would ether be imprisoned or executed for firing on civilians. US military don’t play like that, would they try to keep the pease yes. Would they fire on people that could be friends and family no. You would actually see the military do something it has never done, military commanders negotiate peaceful results with civilians ( normally that’s politicians) because they don’t want to open fire on their neighbors. Also, it would be one of the few times you would see military units hunting down “rouge” units for firing on civilians to hold them accountable for committing war crimes on their own people ( again, US military don’t play that way) and seeing whole devisions escorting civilians out of combat zones. So yeah, it’s not a valid question