Mr. Hitler wants a word with you, young man. So does Mr. Napoleon III.
Of course guns can make a coup more challenging, but what are we really debating here? That we need an AR-15 to defend a free State? That’s a tough sell.
How about an ex-general who went to war with them and earned their love ? Worked for Caesar ; and it would likely have worked for MacArthur too had he been inclined to try.
I rather doubt it. MacArthur was one general. The number of officers who would place a general above the Constitution and join in a coup would have been very small and those that did would quickly have been taken into custody by loyal troops.
Because he would have to carpet bomb the whole goddam country outside of San Francisco. Our military has one benefit that the armies of tyrants do not have. We have a volunteer army that isn’t serving in the military because its one of the best paying jobs in the country. They are doing it despite the fact that the pay is shit (unless you are an officer, then the pay is just moderately bad) relative to private sector jobs.
Well, yes and if America is in the midst of the sort of shit that Germany or France were going through at the time, then all bets are off. But its not going to happen because we elected a black guy or even because we elected Trump.
Yes. But the insane (and still growing) wealth disparity and receding of workers’ rights might do the trick, provided there’s nothing good on TV that day.
Considering that this is not true in the slightest, I have doubts about your assertions of what the military would or would not do in the extremely unlikely scenario of a constitutional tyrant in power.
“Constitutional tyrant”-for instance? What specific things do you think a Prez would have to do to qualify as a “Constitutional tyrant” that would cause an uprise of the patriots?
I have no idea. That’s why the whole idea of “preventing or protecting against tyranny” makes no sense.
He was one temporarily massively popular general, whose canning immediately caused the administration’s popularity to drop down to some 20% and, some would say, its ultimate downfall. His rallies following his canning drew truly massive crowds, even though he was just being a cranky old man ragging on how Truman had done him wrong. His removal caused an uproar in Congress, too. And he had a lot of friends among the officers and enlisted men, despite the fact that he quite evidently didn’t give a lone toss about the President’s constitutional role and authority.
If you can show me a better picture of “potential military demagogue”, I’d like to see it. You ask me, it’s a real blessing he was as unambitious as he was unhinged.
Sure, but if he would have went to DC and proclaimed “I’m the ruler of the country now” what do you think would have happened? I know what **wouldn’t ** have happened - He wouldn’t be the ruler of the country.
I decided to start a new thread asking this same question.
What? How is this not true in the slightest? Starting salary for a buck private is something like $1500/month. A specialist caps out at $2500/month. A sergeant makes about $3000/month after 14 years.
Officers get a better deal majors cap out at about $7500/month after 18 years.
Or are you saying that most people are doing it for the pay because its the best they can do?
That’s fine, if you only include the base pay that you can easily find online. You didn’t add in BAH, BAS, TA, combat pay, tax-free status, uniform allowance, hell, even submariner pay.
If you only look at base pay, then yes what you said is true. When you add everything that a military member gets, including the tax advantages, it actually comes out to a lot, depending on where you are living. As an E-7, I made close to 100K per year before I retired.
To some of your colleagues, yes, it is. But what would, in your view, be a plausible or even possible scenario?
I’ll repeat the comment about your side’s non-credibility for as long as this keeps getting brought up as an excuse.
That’s not how coups happen. He could have whipped his supporters in a frenzy, gathered momentum. And even if all you know is American history, that’s just how the Civil War got started : a bunch of guys saying “We’re our own country now”, convincing a whole other bunch of guys who had fuck all to gain in the deal and much to lose that it was a great fucking idea.
And then they were, if for a short time.
Yes, that’s not how coups happen in other countries. Countries that don’t have the Constitution that we have. Countries where the military follows a popular man, and not the founding document of the government. There’s a reason the military takes an oath to the Constitution and not to the President or whomever.
I just don’t see the military throwing that away to follow some charismatic leader.
Well, shit son, anything is possible. We might get invaded by aliens a la falling skies. But plausible? I don’t think there is a plausible scenario where we would have a legitimate claim of resisting a tyrannical government as long as our votes determine who runs our government. I don’t see that happening in my lifetime or my grandchildren’s lifetime.
Fortunately there are many bases for the right to keep and bear arms. I don’t subscribe to the notion that our second amendment protects all the rest. If history is any indicator, then the first amendment and our right to vote has been a much more effective in preserving our second amendment right than the other way around.