As someone who did the Army thing(hooah), I feel it worth mentioning that one of the primary tenants constantly and universally celebrated is that you fight for the freedom of Americans.
No, soldiers don't, but this is something most Americans believe, imagine what Americans "patriotic" enough to join the military believe, oh boy. When is the last time America was really attacked, besides some half-arse Japanese missions in the Second World War? And when was the last time America was attacked without America provoking anything/warning to America? Ever? And don't bring up false flags.
That you are willing to kill and die for even people who hate you, so that they have the right to spit on your grave, because that is their American right.
The folk hate you since you're killing folk for no grounds other than to "uphold the American right" of invading countries for the immoral gain of it. And don't worry, the American government (like most stable militant governments) have successfully "taught" most folk that the military is the most respected organization, that there is no honour greater than being a soldier.
Similarly, they pound into your head that you have obligation to refuse any order you find to be morally wrong. They teach these sort of things for a reason.
Bit of the science behind propoganda is not to make it obvious. Often, there is a false anti-propoganda that is useless under the effects of the real for-propoganda. But anyhow, what can a soldier find morally wrong? They shoot folk for a living, and worst of all, it's legal! And for the torture, just send that to the CIA.
You cannot say "Oh, it'd be easy to convince the military to enslave and subjugate people in a manner directly at conflict with their training/conditioning/tenants/ideological purposes" any more than you can posit mind control.
Well, obviously, you're a victim of it. America fights for freedom of the American folk? Japan fought for freedom and prosperity of, not just Japanese, but all East Asians, and Germany fought for freedom of the German folk. And I guess Britain was making sure the British folk were free when killing/torturing every single person suspected of any affiliation with the Mau Mau. God bless America.
And also, that's kind of what propaganda is, a limited mind control. But there's some evidence that actual "re-teaching"/brainwashing ways has been developed. A lighter example that's been about for a while is hypnosis.
If you're going to go on the premise that anyone can be convinced of anything, then an argument is irrelevant. You cannot fight an omnipotent.
An argument is not irrelevant, it's futile. And it's an extremely likely premise.
Who exactly is supposed to convince the military to change their mind on supporting the Bill of Rights?
They're still going to be supporting the American government, that's not supposed to change.
Because many folks have tried and no one has had any success.
You're a living success of it.
From a cynical standpoint, there's also a HUGE amount of money in the firearm industry that would be working against those efforts.
This is a pretty unrealistic scenario to begin with, but I didn't make it. This scenario is based on that this is already happening, though. And once it's happening, this is one of the things where you go all in or not at all, it doesn't work halfway ever. "Hey, we tried taking your guns away using military force, ummmmm, don't worry, we have resolved the crisis that forced us to do it in the first place and, ummmm, we're really sorry." It's going to be really hard to propaganda that out.
Anything that causes a civilian uprising inherently sparks a military division as well. The point of the rant is that there cannot be a purely military v nonmilitary--you'd have military vehicles on all major sides and open war in as the country split apart while insurrectionist forces all screwed each other over. Eventually there would be some manner of peace in most remaining regions(always is), but realistically, both sides would lose unless one were willing and capable of mass genocide ie nuke large portions of the populated country. It'd fall, as usual, to foreign countries backing various fronts until America either reclaimed itself or died.
I disagree with how you put it, but I generally agree, but this is again, bit of the premise, that it's citizens ag military. If the military splits, some citizens are going to get military warfare, throw away that old pistol if you've it. Ordinary guns will not make a big difference. The military has plenty of better guns for everyone, don't worry, though. Same with "intervention".
Also, to be technical, a fundamental American right promised in the Bill of Rights is the right to assemble arms for the purpose of a militia.
There'd still be the right; some arms are illegal to have. You can't really "assemble some chemical weapons for the purpose of a militia", and here, would be extended to firearms.
So to that extent every time the military fights under the guise of ensuring American rights and freedoms... yeah, that is part of why they're fighting.
How do you find that? Since you shot somebody, some American gets to "assemble more arms for the purpose of a militia"? The stronger the military is, the less need there even is for a militia.
Whether they're managing it rationally or effectively is of course debatable and yours to decide, but from the Army's perspective, that's something for which you kill or die.
You say you kill for upholding these American freedoms. I think you should join the Finnish foreign legions, they've even more freedoms, and rank quite better than America, even according to RWB. Anyhow, you don't kill for American freedoms, you kill since you get money for it, for the thrill (not all folk), and since propaganda tells you this is the ultimate community service, and those who volunteer at the orphanage can get bombed to shreds with my freedom!
America is the idea established in the Constitution, not simply a set of borders
No, it's quite far taken out from it's original ideas. As early as 1785, revolts began popping up since American hypocrisy; now that they were free from British taxes, here are even more taxes and laws. By the 1910s? somewhere about there, it was fully authoritarian.
