1 man.
With a particular set of skills…
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
19 points (91.3% liked)
No Stupid Questions
49176 readers
239 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I dunno man, maybe marching at the military isn't the way to go, you'd get a lot more bang for your buck dealing with the sources of the problem directly
Armchair general here who is bad at strategy games. Please take with a grain of salt.
The US sent advanced armies at several agricultural societies and still got their asses handed to them. I can imagine that in a domestic setting, the death toll will be high, but that the civilians eventually win. Also, I wonder whether the military would want to fight their own people. Then again, ICE is a thing as well.
ICE is a thing because bullies love when people don't fight back. The moment their lives are on the lines they reveal themselves as the cowards they have always been.
The populace will eventually win a war of attrition if we stipulate that the world has to be livable afterwards, so you can’t just agent orange the globe.
I’m just wondering if there is a critical mass for a mob, basically, at which point it overpowers even the US military. I think it’s somewhere in the millions or tens of millions, but I have no idea how to narrow it down more.
There is no amount of civilians that beat the US military. You could gather 100% of the "ive got guns to fight the government" crowd, and they wouldnt do shit against tanks, helicopters, and jets... a mob is going to die unless there is an insurrection in the ranks of the people who control the equipment.
With the world being livable afterwards?
It depends.
Are the people actually part of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state? Or had the government spent the last century reframing that right as "any idiot can own a lethal weapon without training", and as a result the people are a disorganised and easily-suppressible rabble?
It's worth noting that at the time of writing, the words "well-regulated militia" referred to all fighting age men of sound mind. It wasn't a thing to join or train for.
That's half right...
Militias were always things that you joined and they had a chain of command. Just because they were volunteer forces, it doesn't mean that they weren't an organisation. The Peterloo Massacre (1819) was conducted by the local militia. They were all volunteers, but they operated as a paramilitary group.
"Well-regulated militia" literally meant what it sounds like today - a well-regulated volunteer armed force.
The amendment is saying that the government shall not prevent people from joining well-regulated armed militias. Which admittedly sounds terrifying to modern ears but, historically, armed militias helped keep the peace in the days before police forces.
No, it's completely right. At the time of writing, it did literally mean all able men of fighting age. This was determined by the supreme court in 2008. That's not to say there weren't specific militia organizations, but it's not what the amendment is specifically referring to.
I'll admit, I didn't know the Supreme Court had said that.
It's an insane interpretation - and I see that many justices said so at the time.
I guess whether or not the writers of the amendment actually meant every able-bodied man when they wrote "well-regulated militia", or whether they meant a militia, is impossible to know for sure.
But to say that the word meant something different at the time is patently untrue. Around the English speaking world at that time, local militias - with that specific word used - were used to keep order. It was a common word for an actual thing people would have been familiar with.
Certainly as you approach 8 billion, they’re more disorganized, but they’re not ever an actual militia, more just a horde of people all trying to help each other dismantle any relevant infrastructure and kill/disable any soldiers sent to suppress them. No training, but absolute solidarity.
They were poking fun at the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.
I know, but it’s still a legitimate question, so I answered it.
Fair enough. I just know not every English speaker is from the US and might not be familiar with the US constitution.
Just start with all of them. Restrictions will follow naturally along the way.