The second amendment

Your right to have a gun is bullshit, and not for the reasons you normally hear.

a typical liberal argumant will be something along the lines of "you dont need guns its premitive in today's society" and i like you think this is wrong. But for some reason no one talks about the much better argument. That is your lame ass pathetic $3,000 AR-15 is no match for a AC-130 gunship. I dont care how "prepared" you think you are when the shit hits the fan and this thing comes to your town you will run hide or die. You wont fight because youll just find that you die quicker that way

If the right to bear arms was made so citizens could protect themselves from tyrannical governments then the 2nd amendment has usless for ~100 years. How on earth do you think your going to defend against APCs, tanks, drones, jet-fighters, bombers steath and otherwise, nukes, cruse missiles, heavy artillery, and battle ships. WITH A FUCKING LONG GUN AND 1000 ROUNDS OF 5.56???

Your right to bear arms is only keeping you safe from other people with guns NOT any government.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CcLGRZfX5C0
youtube.com/watch?v=1_I4WgBfETc&ab_channel=ToleratedVandalism
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>If the right to bear arms was made so citizens could protect themselves from tyrannical governments then the 2nd amendment has usless for ~100 years. How on earth do you think your going to defend against APCs, tanks, drones, jet-fighters, bombers steath and otherwise, nukes, cruse missiles, heavy artillery, and battle ships. WITH A FUCKING LONG GUN AND 1000 ROUNDS OF 5.56???

maybe you should ask isis? they've been kicking obama's ass

this argument has been beaten to death already, think, you aren't supposed to defend against all those with small arms

oh and

>battleships

also on this point it's unlikely a totalitarian state will happen anyway, but the point is those civilian small arms are not meant to combat heavy equipment

Our military cannot fight it's own population, the very people supporting it, and win. Planes and trains all run on gas and energy that WE make.

/thread

literally no reason to say anything else

saged

...

The persons motivation and conviction on either side of those weapons plays an important role in this scenario.

You know the full might of the US army got BTFO by some chink rice paddy farmers in the 70s and are currently getting BTFO by some goatfucking muslims with black market horseshit as weapons, right?

explain isis and vietnam

Honestly that's more because we're holding back very hard so as not to build a worse reputation with the rest of the world

Two problems syira has none of this and relies on Russians for air support. Something that is finally turing the tide against goatfuckers international.

If the US was in syria (besides with air strikes) I suppose they would win the war in two months like they did in iraq.

Remember iraq? YA THEY HAD A MILITARY! And we fucked them into oblivion in three weeks. They couldnt fight with anything other then gorrilla tactics from that point on. (With very few short lived exception)

Underrated, OP

I agree.

The right to bear arms has already been nulled by the fact that if me and all my neighbors get together our six shooters and rifles in order to fight off a tyrannical gov't...

We'll all be blown up by a drone strike

See
Also we could of won the Vietnam but lost become of politics and lack of public support. We lost because we didnt occupy land after we concured it AND we wouldnt invade the supply lines in Laos. We killed plenty of fucking gooks we just fought with both hands tied behind our back and the people got sick of the draft and the war

Well to that end, going full scorched earth and slaughtering 100+ million gun owners of your own country would certainly hurt your reputation and would even probably incur action from the UN.

> (OP)
> >If the right to bear arms was made so citizens could protect themselves from tyrannical governments then the 2nd amendment has usless for ~100 years. How on earth do you think your going to defend against APCs, tanks, drones, jet-fighters, bombers steath and otherwise, nukes, cruse missiles, heavy artillery, and battle ships. WITH A FUCKING LONG GUN AND 1000 ROUNDS OF 5.56???

>he thinks air and sea power actually wins wars

The US military would get clapped in any kind of domestic insurgency scenario. Half of it would desert, and most of that half would be infantry. Many soldiers will NOT fire on their countrymen. The ones that will will not be willing to die to root out cities, towns and villages where half the population is armed and hostile.

Any situation where American citizens have to use their guns against a tyrannical government is ridiculously lopsided in favor of the armed citizenry, unless the tyrannical govt replaces all their soldiers with robots.

YOU. MUST. HAVE. GROUND. TROOPS. TO. TAKE. AND. HOLD. TERRITORY.

You cant hold territory with equipment nigga

You need boots on the ground. Thats where we shoot them niggaz.

Damn you dumb.

This thread has been done to death a million times over and I am too bored to elaborate so here are five quick points:

>implying military won't defect
>implying foreign countries won't intervene
>implying 1 million soldiers can fight 80 million gun owners
>implying you won't be blowing up your own taxpayers - guys who feed and equip said military
>implying Civil War 2.0 won't immediately lead to WW3.

It's not like every soldier in the military is a fucking drone.If the government were to ever go rouge a quite good portion of the army would desert.
What if the all the things you listed weren't up and running, no jets in the air, no tanks driving around, all the helicopters were on the ground and civilians were to attack the base?They would have no effect by that point.

Ok but you understand 500 people with artillery tanks and air support can hold WAY more land then 5,000 people with rifles.

...

No they can't lol

What are they gonna do about fuel? About food?

Shit its like you don't even know how these kinds of wars are fought.

They will find a gun behind every blade of grass. No territory will be safe for them.

As soon as they step out of their armored cuck sheds bubba will light their ass up with a deer rifle.

...

Your making the mistake that it has to be a senerio of the American government doing it to there citizens. (Something i think we could argue IS more possible the you think when you look at communist Russia from 1920-1950 among others)

But even if i give you THAT and say your right you still have to account for other modern military powers that are capable of invading the US is a doomsday scenario

no they can't you fucking stupid nigger. it's literally the exact opposite.

christ how are you even alive, you are too retarded to breath, unbelievable faggot idiocy

>Untrue. Artillery, tanks and air support can't patrol the streets. They can't defend against guerilla/terror attacks against logistics, support, command and control. They can't perform espionage or gather intelligence.

Modern weaponry is very effective at smashing opposing conventional armies. No conventional army on the planet can stand against the United States. But they completely fail in asymmetric warfare. The only way to "beat" an insurgency is to break the citizens will to resist, and that's not happening in America - every person in this country is culturally and psychologically prepared for this kind of HAPPENING. Even the NEETs, housewives and SJWs will join the Resistance if shit gets pushed too hard.

This is some Grade A USDA Choice® bait right here OP.

Gotta hand it to you! I'm impressed!

Read up on asymetric warfare and then look at Afganistan. The most powerful military in the world can barely keep control.

isis isn't just in syria, dumbass. they established their "caliphate" elsewhere

youtube.com/watch?v=CcLGRZfX5C0

We shouldn't have to fight the U.S. government.

As for foreign invasion, check out the binary fire mode AR-15 plus body armor.

and you presume US soldiers wouldnt pussyfoot against US citizens?

You presume the entire US military would turn? Where do those pilots sleep, how do those bases get their food? Do they have families, friends, etc?

When shit goes sideways, it goes big an there is no clear US/THEM. You got guys on team A and guys on team B, but the majority are somewhere inbetween.

Using tanks, AC-130s, apaches etc against American Civilians is how you start an American civil war.

Do you not understand what national guard units are for? How long do they need to hang on to make the massive logistical clockwork that is the US military to fail?

Dide the fact that your wrong and you got this mad kinda makes you seem like the stupid one. Also i forgot to mention the intelligence aspects of warfair given recon like drones or things and land baced robots will provide in the near future. HOW ARE YOU PLANING ON ATTACKING, ADVANCING, AND HOLDING LAND ON A ENEMY IF YOU CANT FIND THEM?

Somebody post the pic of the jet in the open door wearing a police hat.

All those expensive weapons are made to kill expensive toys. If an army is using a 2 million dollar cruise missile launched from a 60 million dollar jet launched from a billion dollar carrier just to take down 5 guys with $15k worth of weapons and a $5k truck. well they're losing the war economically.

which is important since that missile is striking directly at the nations economy, its industrial base and its infrastructure and workers.

Assymetrical warfare works. especially in a civil war.

And this is assuming the armed forces aren't similarily split on their loyalties in said war.

Of course it all depends on ones willingness to die for their country. Whether soldier or civilian.

Sure. For a little while, as long as they retain superior mobility ... until the tanks and planes run out of fuel because the roads are impassable due to insurgent activity. And until their crews desert because they can't get food and water because of those same impassable roads. They can airlift fuel, but that doesn't scale very well, it's enough to keep a few bases supplied, but not a large military force dispersed across the country. It isn't just 5,000 men with rifles, user. It's closer to 100 million men with rifles. That's enough to control the entire countryside even without tanks.

How about you fuck off to plebbit with you're dumb liberal nonsense

jesus christ this doesnt even seem like copypasta is op literally this stupid

OP is a retard. We mainly need guns to defend ourselves from dangerous shit-skins and schizophrenic junkies. America is to dangerous in some regions to outright ban guns.

What happens when the economy becomes fully automated and robots do everything?

How you going to stop the zombie apocalypse numb nuts.

Cool flares, bro

Dude... 180,000 allied troops pacified 28 million Iraqis. Just think about it dude.

shut up jessica

I will concede that this is the only reason to own a gun. That and shooting is fun... but please please don't honestly tell me you think you could beat a foreign government with shit you get at a gun shop.

like people forget the sort've shit American civilians have, you think Yugoslavia was nasty? Consider the fantastic amount of arms that regular americans have, nevermind the artillery, aircraft, etc.

Do you think a parked aircraft can't be disabled by a 20mm or .50 cal? Nevermind the damage most hunting rifles can do against body armor.

When fucks defect to the rebellion, you think they wont take heavy weapons, tanks, SAMs, Aircraft, entire US defense installations etc with them?

you're thinking army vs army in that scenario. if it was 180k military vs 28 mil guerillas, the army is fucked.

Your airpwane did a great job on all the Iraqis in 03, right? They never used guns against invading forces afterward, right?

Two words; Supply Lines.

War isn't a video game where you re-up your ammo at a supply box that never runs out. You need to feed your troops, you need tons of fuel and ammo. This is why a war against an armed populace would fail, hard. I don't care how many tanks and planes you have. If you can't supply them your war is over. Supply lines would be the primary target of any insurgency. Asymmetric warfare: It's a bitch.

You greatly overestimate the capability of most nations to sustain a conflict in contested territory against a determined, well armed aggressor.

Let me clue you in on a little documentary alright friendo?

youtube.com/watch?v=1_I4WgBfETc&ab_channel=ToleratedVandalism

do you not have netflix?
did you not watch cartel land?

die(); //please

>gorrilla
top kek

implying civilians' and corporations' right to bare arms shouldn't include gunships

also, you're assuming conservative cops and members of our military will just up and enforce non-nonsensical liberal policies on their own family members. fuck you and fuck your life. you psyop shills ruined this board. It used to be funny and even had a modicum of integrity.
You fucking niggers made this place almost as bad ass CNN and MSNBC. Curse you and everything you love

You're a dumb fucking nigger.

You know what your absolutely right. 100%. Where your flawed is in your logic that you think a whole country would mobilize and fight. This has never happened. Ever. In history. Well with the exception of a few falling dictatorships, but that's because it was; you guessed it. Government sanctioned and enforced. (Usually with threats of death if you refused to fight.) even then it didnt work out well.

People are more content with living and avoiding risk at all cost and will avoid certain death at every turn. What that comes out to is most people dont and wont fight.

Get cancer tool.

...

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare numb nuts?

Glad you brought it up, it's not that we have guns that is the problem, it's that guns just are big enough for the job.

always relevant, anyone got the one with the f-22 asking to come into the house?

This

>hourly anti-gun shitbait
>200+ replies still guaranteed
>every
>single
>time

Sup Forums is even more autistic than Reddit.

easy solution
>legalize recreational nukes

Implying that the military would turn on the citizens with high powered weaponry for the government.

I'm sorry, but that wouldn't happen. You'd have battles among military ranks or among military branches before you'd see military turn on the citizens in a combined/concerted effort.

>ISIS has Russian air support
These are the type of people who propagate liberal talking points gentlemen, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's just seen some shit on TV and wants to be part of the herd.

>This has never happened. Ever. In history.

the US military is less than 1% of the US population. they are volunteers. now if people of the US have their country taken away from them which has happened they would be much more inclined to take arms. it was called the american civil war, faggot.

Ya dude and supply lines arent some cute little waggon train that you seem to think is undefended. Also news flash a lot if supplys nowadays comes in on these things

...

> THIS THREAD IS A VIOLATION OF THE NAP PREPARE TO BE MCNUKED

Well, what else would we talk about?

This is nice practice for beating out liberals in real life.

How long do you think the fed will last with out the support of the majority of people?

Actually your argument is very common. I see it all the time. It is false, though. In a real revolution scenario part of the military would probably join the rebels. Civilians with guns would be an auxiliary force supporting the military defenders, enabling them to focus on what they're good at while the civvies handle all the lighter tasks plus infiltration, sabotage, espionage, and other tasks irregulars are good at.

Part 2: Armed civilians are an important deterrent. A completely unarmed populace is very weak deterrent. A populace that is armed with light weapons and whatever explosives they can steal from military bases and jury-rig from industrial supplies, on the other hand, is already a significant deterrent.

we need nigga control, not gun control

And how long could helicopter operations be sustained? Most of the oil in the us is in the Midwest and the refineries are mostly in the south where any civil insurgency would occur. Trucks can use shit grade ag diesel instead of jp8.

OP has a flawed argument, but how about the fucking retards that didn't even finish reading his post and don't realize he's not anti-gunz, but pro-biggergunz?

To expand... yes, the military could roll over even such a populace, but they would pay a higher cost. And keep in mind that the longer the civvies can hold out, the more damage the nation's economy and world standing would suffer, the more radicalized the population would get, the more officials would get assassinated, etc.

In the end its a 295:1 ratio of civilians to enlisted military and government workers, including the old guy who does the mail on Tuesday; and that's assuming no one defects or abandons their post which is hugely likely when ordered to attack their own people.

You still need to put fuel in helos, genius. For that you need to control the oil fields and the refineries. Take out any one of those and there goes your fuel source. There are always going to be vulnerabilities in your supply chain. You don't need to directly attack an army to defeat it.

sage

sage this fucking reddit psyop

i suppose you think fuel is easy to secure, and that LZs are easy to protect. nope

yeah, they're going to have AC130s and F22s dropping ordinance on the suburbs

fucking dumbass

Guerrilla warfare. Any conflict w government would be gorilla and all the heavy machinery in your post irrelevant. Civilians, innocents, etc.

>Your right to have a gun is bullshit, and not for the reasons you normally hear.
>a typical liberal argumant will be something along the lines of "you dont need guns its premitive in today's society" and i like you think this is wrong. But for some reason no one talks about the much better argument. That is your lame ass pathetic $3,000 AR-15 is no match for a AC-130 gunship. I dont care how "prepared" you think you are when the shit hits the fan and this thing comes to your town you will run hide or die. You wont fight because youll just find that you die quicker that way
>If the right to bear arms was made so citizens could protect themselves from tyrannical governments then the 2nd amendment has usless for ~100 years. How on earth do you think your going to defend against APCs, tanks, drones, jet-fighters, bombers steath and otherwise, nukes, cruse missiles, heavy artillery, and battle ships. WITH A FUCKING LONG GUN AND 1000 ROUNDS OF 5.56???
>Your right to bear arms is only keeping you safe from other people with guns NOT any government.


Not really. You take the airbase. The manufacturing facility that makes engines and airframes. You capture ground to air resources with the rifle and shoot down the gunships.


You are scared of guns because you are afraid of human nature. You distrust the population and want them slaves.


Next.

no, you're retarded. you should read it again, slowly

Dude i live in a shit city in the US have been shot at AND own guns. Im just not some tacticool foolish preper, thats all.

Also your Italian, gtfo and eat some spaghetti with your cucked nation. This is a discussion that's relevant in free countries

Fuck off. 9/11 was done w/ a box cutter.
Somebody re-post the red day planner thread, please.

one of the main points behind the idea of the right to bear arms is that the government will become oppressive so the majority will rise up. You make good points that a rebel force would not be able to defend themselves against everything you listed, but because the rebel force would be the majority they would still have a fighting chance. I mean look at the middle east, those goat fuckers don't have access to any of the advanced weaponry that the west has yet they hold their own and still persist. I'd imagine that an uprising against a tyrannical government would go over similarly, just with less goat fucking

>he thinks an AC-130 can search houses, knock on doors, and patrol streets
>he doesn't know how fucking expensive AC-130s and drone strikes are

The American Civil War II would be over in months, as in, assuming the rebels even take that long to invade DC

>thinks jets/apcs/drones/bombers will use heavy weapons in population centers domestically when we don't even do that in shitthole nations
>thinks these same machines will be able to patrol the streets effectively in a place as large as the US without catastrophic collateral effects
>thinks those machines would be the things going door to door confiscating contraband/weaponry

OP, I'm sorry you had to find out this way
>but you're fucking retarded

>Your right to bear arms is only keeping you safe from other people with guns NOT any government.

The guns aren't for shooting an airplane you autist, they are for shooting the pilot, and his wife and kids when they go to the grocery store.

>implying the government is retarded enough to kill its own workers
>implying every person in the military will be okay killing their countrymen

Also
>Vietnam

People need guns to protect themselves from nig nogs, without the threat of death jiggaboos would chimp in record numbers.

Read the thread
Read the entire first post. Lazy ass.

>unless the tyrannical govt replaces all their soldiers with robots

This seems plausible given enough time, and spooks me.

>implying foreign countries won't intervene

What if they intervene in the governments favor? Like the way Russia is with Assad?

So you plan on controlling an insurgency with the indiscriminate bombardment of populated areas. You must have been on some kick-ass bender for the past two decades.

You can't enforce a police state with a plane retard

Yes because the almost entirely conservative US military which isn't mad of robots would kill their own countrymen and not start a coup to overthrow whoever is in power SAGE AND HIDE

This thread is bait, and even posting this is too much but here you go you fucking faggot. This isn't for OP because regardless or not he is baiting, (which he is), this is for those who seriously do not believe we can defend ourselves from our government or feel hopeless.

...

I want to punch that faggot in the face.

>How on earth do you think your going to defend against APCs, tanks, drones, jet-fighters, bombers steath and otherwise, nukes, cruse missiles, heavy artillery, and battle ships. WITH A FUCKING LONG GUN AND 1000 ROUNDS OF 5.56???
By avoid direct confrontations on the field of battle and striking at soft targets.

It's fucking asymmetrical warfare 101.