This is and has always been
extremely optimistic of them. I can't recall the guy's name, but he suggested that severe civil unrest in the US would be met with a potential nuclear response. Several politicians have suggested wide scale military force against civilians over the years. We've even had massive cultural events occur based on this issue, namely the
Kent State Shooting. There's a clear assumption that the relationship between politician and military is master and servant. That isn't further than the truth. Sheriff's regularly make the news refusing to go along with some new gun/immigration law. The troops they think will be doing the dirty work take their orders from their commanding officers, and it's rare when a commanding officer isn't some kind of small town roots family man. There was a Marine air unit in Japan that actually threatened to go rogue if Hillary got elected back in 2008, or at least there were a lot of credible rumors flying around the air wing at the time. The important distinction is that these people understand what it means to obey a politician telling them to overtly attack the constitutional rights of other Americans. It's the polar opposite to the reasoning most people even become law enforcement or military, as the vast majority do so out of a sense of duty for country and community. These are usually the people that come to mind first when someone says "patriotism." How out of touch do you have to be to think that Chief Mahoney down at the station is going to hop-to when the order comes down for mass gun confiscation. You'd be looking at mass desertion, as the ones don't care about individual rights usually do care about their own lives, and they have a much better idea of how gun confiscation feels when you're the first person in the stack while executing a no-knock confiscation warrant on a crazy veteran's compound. The left has been pretending to be pro-military for a couple years now, and it's nice to see the cracks in their mask.
