We need guns so we could protect ourselves from a government with a 598 billion military budget and 7000 nukes

>we need guns so we could protect ourselves from a government with a 598 billion military budget and 7000 nukes

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Conservatives are so retarded. I'm sorry your country has to deal with that shit. Good luck, mate.

>we need muskets so we can revolt against the British Empire

How dumb can they be?

Seemed to do pretty well for the Afghans

>i've never heard of iraq or vietnam

>2nd amendment doesn't even let Americans own recreational nukes
pathetic, how will you protect yourselves from Kim?

It's better than nothing.

you mean the government that has been repeatedly pushed out of countries by insurgencies of poorly trained, malnourished, inbreds with tech that is decades behind them?

I wish I'd saved that one screenscap detailing how fragile the US power grid is and how easily it'd be for a mildly organized mob to riot and turn the army to their side.

you also need automatic weapons to protect yourself from thugs. and if you think that's overkill, clearly you've never seen a man take a .38 to the face and still manage to slash the shooter's throat.

99% chance you're one of those people who have used the "a lot of good all that military spending has done for you in your war against some disheveled desert people, U.S.A!" non-argument at some point in your life.

>Implying white obeses americans are like afghans

> We need more guns for our safety
>Ironically dies because Americans are degenerate mutts and think everyone should have the right for firearms.

They never learn how an insurgency works do they.

OP confirmed a faggot.

The average white obese American also has an IQ more than a full SD above the average Afghan.

OP do you realize the US is getting it's ass kicked in Yemen by sandal wearing petite men in skirts? K

>Protecting ourselves against the government is difficult
>So it's better not to have any protection at all

...

Stupid argument.

So the US would nuke their own cities and farmland?

Also any insurrection would include an internal network of AD disgruntles usurping tech/weapons along with several foreign countries. Also the military (Many of the female variety, lol) would be vastly outnumbered.

Some good that defence budget did in protecting JFK.

>Vietnam
>Afghanistan

Yeah, nuke your own cities, i'm sure that'll go well.

I think the stability of our society is far more important than a few gun deaths, don't you think?

insurgency against over 9 million insurgents
yeah good luck with that

One word Vietnam

why are you fags spamming this board with this shit?

its not clever or funny, 150 people got shot to death in NOGUNZ France.

Dude the government rules the waves man, what kind of idiot would actually try to take on the crown? These American idiots will never, and you can quote me on this, NEVER beat the British

Until they have an army of androids, your thread is trash.

i can't resist

The government would never use nukes on there on people, there other strikes will not be able to defeat a guerilla army.

more like i can't walk down the street and see tyrone or jose without shaking in my boots

>>we need guns so we could protect ourselves from a government with a 598 billion military budget and 7000 nukes

We need guns to protect ourselves when the reaches the point where it is unable to protect the interests of the population it serves.

>Riots
>Catastrophic system failure
>Gangs and Militia

In dire times, if you are unable to protect your property you lose all claim to it.

>What is Vietnam
>What is every fucking guerrilla war ever?

are you saying that we need more nukes?

>Implying a lot of the military wouldn't side with the patriots if the deep state tried to erase the Constitution.

Looks like all those nukes didn't stop shit.

The British Empire was small and weak af in 1776 and was defeated by rebels on the battlefield in convential battle thank to musket provided by France and Spain

>the government will nuke its own population
>being this retarded

>we need to ban guns to protect our multi billion dollar defense industry

Indeed, Ahmed, they're probably better at warfare.

>what is asymmetric warfare
*tired pepe.jpg*

The rebels only won due to foreign intervention, the largest military action in the revolutionary war was in Gibraltar.

In which case it’s time to arm citizens with nukes to even things out.

Lol. For that defense budget of $600 Billion dollars, it turns out that the United States rarely wins a war against a guerrilla force (See: 'Nam, Middle East).

4 Billion to end world hunger but today weapon stock goes up. Winning. Take your LSD everybody.

>I've never read a history book before: Basement Dweller Edition

The military would go against the ((( government)))if they had to decide to kill off any civilians.

...

>implying soldiers will fire on their own families

>be american
>send kids to school
>they get shot
>take your wife to a concert
>she gets shot
>It's all ok though because you know the evil gubernment is going to send soldiers to enslave you any minute

Besides, he used an illegal weapon. Gun control laws don't do shit.

If that's the case then the average citizen doesn't need guns because the military already has much better weapons you fucking retards

well, if i was living im the USA i sure as hell would have a couple of guns.
But to defend myself from the government, but from niggers.

Is this thread from 2004?

>trying to argue with Amerisharts
It's pointless. It's like trying to argue with a wall, they're unintelligent, fat and ugly.

bait thread. no emotional reaction to news, no need to argue with bait. find the crowdsource investigation farther in the catalog. Sup Forums is building a different profile of the shooter, thats why you are here. back to the catalog, do not post here.

If the people at the concert had all been carrying, and had the mentality of the people that framed the constitution, they would have all organized a counter offensive and taken the entire hotel with the aid of the hotels security.

Don't blame our gun laws, blame our population for going soft.

youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4


Look at how hard it was to disarm one small section of the country, with no civil war. America can always overthrow the government

You need to wake the fuck up and realize just how many innocent civilians the US military kills every year...

Exactly, America is fucked the point where you need guns because everyone else has them.
"Muh freedom" and "muh evil government" arguments are utterly retarded though.
"Muh freedom" can be used to argue for all degeneracy, and America is never going to reach a point where the army turns on all of its own citizens. Even if it did, I'm sure Americans will have a fun time putting some dents in the hull of a drone while it systematically kills their family.

Well unless those 598 billion dollars are spent on building Terminators, you're pretty wrong.
However, American gun owners are exaggerating. Armed people could be a huge hindrance, but a lot depends on circumstances.

>7000 nukes
Those are rookie numbers, user.
We have way more.

The entire us military could barely win fights against poor Iraqi farmers with Aks and jungle gooks that hid in rice paddys

Second amendment doesn't say why. it doesn't say we need guns either.

It says your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Your reason for owning a gun doesn't matter--it is your right,

It only takes one bullet to kill a man

>implying the government would ever use nuke on a territory it is interesting in dominating to achieve the ultimate goal of ruling over a radioactive wastland

Genius.

Because you lose politically.
Insurgencies on their own, without sufficient internal or external support, very rarely succeed.
If the government is brutal enough, insurgencies can be crushed pretty easily.

>The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Yes. That's the responsibility of the people.

Sage retarded b8 threads.

Pretty sure "all enemies foreign and domestic" would cover the killing of US citizens thing. I'm not opposed to shooting an American civilian if they were trying to overthrow the government.

Right the all volunteer military is going to indescriminately bomb the houses they signed up to protect so that the elites can rule the rubble? You're an idiot.

...

Look at Brazil. They banned guns and what happened is criminal still have a lot of guns and citizens are unprotected.

Exactly. And any government intent on seizing more power wouldn't proclaim they are evil overlords who want to slaughter patriots.
They would use propaganda and propaganda can be pretty effective.
Of course, America has a long history of relative political stability and population that embraces ideals which hinder such attempts, but nothing is impossible.
My point is, it wouldn't be just the government and government forces against all gun owners. It would be government and part of population against another part of population.

...

According to his social media pages he was a liberal, left wing Clinton voter. This is the second terror attack committed by the left wing. It’s time to call them out.

No, they're not. They're going to turn against the government, which means civilians don't need guns in the first place.

France didn't enter the war until we had proven that we weren't a losing cause. It wasn't until we kicked limey ass at saratoga that France decided to enter the war.

I need sauce senpai

>he doesn't understand the concept of asymmetric warfare

Faggots made this exact argument in 1776. Faggots then, and faggots now like you. It still doesnt work and no you cant have our guns. Sorry, not sorry. :)

>we need muskets so we could protect ourselves from a government where state budget pretty much =/= military budget and 20 pdr. cannons and howitzers
this is how you sound like

Its the principle.

USA in 1776 had the benefit of British not really caring that much, part of Britain openly opposed to war, and French and Spanish support. Without French support in particular, rebellion would be crushed quickly.

>muskets won the revolutionary war
>not the french navy

What if the Russians and Chinese supported a US rebellion?

The citizen has a gun to provide for his own personal defense and to join in the collective overthrow if necessary. We don't need the military to overthrow the government for us. That would just make the military the actual government.

Someone needs to spam this shit in every one of these retarded threads

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying guns are useless, or that armed population is powerless. But it's not that simple.
>Russia and China
What happened to your navy?

>muh boots on the ground
The government is never going to convince the entire army to turn against the people they signed up to protect.

But even if they somehow did, the boots on the ground argument is retarded because it assumes the government is just going to send soldiers out by themselves to every street corner as soon as the police state is formed.
They know they can't control an armed population, so the first thing they'll do is strip you.
Half of their tanks / drones / guns will be stationed protecting the elites, and the other half will sweep the country stripping weapons.
You can own as many assult rifles as you want, but they're going to do jack shit when 30 tanks roll down your street and 5 soldiers rush into your home to detain and search you.

Once the entire population has been stripped then the boots on the ground will come into place and there's nothing you can do about it.

Guns won't protect you, the military will, so you better hope they're on you're side.

they could of if they wanted too lol they just had morality...well more

>2017
>Navy

I'm fairly certain the Chinese have or are developing missiles specifically designed to take out Naval vessels. The US navy will only be useful in a defensive war. Any naval vessels near China will be taken out pretty quickly.

>muh freedom is a dumb argument
>being responsible for your own safety is a dumb argument
>being an advocate for the rights of an individual is a dumb argument

This personality is why you guys are losers compared to us, I can't imagine being this sub-human

>buying Chinese propaganda

Point invalid.


The shooter was using an illegal full-auto weapon

Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.

trips of truth

Op is a retard

None of that matters when a population engages in Asymmetrical Warfare.

no civilian needs semi or fully automatic firearms

stfu dude you've already been exposed

Look, the only reason you need guns to be "responsible for your own safety" is because the average criminal in your country is armed.
Like I said, you only need guns because everyone else has them.
Being responsible for my own safety in the UK doesn't require me to own a firearm.

>being an advocate for the rights of an individual is a dumb argument
Yes, it is. Abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, immigration etc. all fall under "rights of the individual" as well as pretty much all other degeneracy, yet I think we can agree these aren't all necessarily "good" freedoms to allow.
Not all freedom is necessarily benefitial, or a good idea.