What would owning a few guns do if the entire force of the US gov't and military came to kill you...

What would owning a few guns do if the entire force of the US gov't and military came to kill you? Wouldn't they just be able to dronestrike you, or roll a tank over your house?

Attached: Pennsylvania Church AR15.jpg (640x432, 81K)

Other urls found in this thread:

fashcast.org/articles/f/the-paper-tiger
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

But it won’t.

Sure, but then who would they tax?

Yeah a few guns equal Waco. A lot of guns equals civil discontent leading to civil war. Know the difference!

Because some rice farmers fought off the U.S. army for 20 years and they weren't even white

they would kill me, then all my countrymen would rise against the killers and rope them.

Attached: 1519701063416.png (872x886, 220K)

It's better than a hockey stick

Yes, because the US government is really looking to put down "insurgencies" that it simultaneously funds, trains and supports.

I thought this is what happens when you don't have guns... Your government just kills you, and your military considers you too pathetic to refuse the orders. They enjoy killing you because after a while, you become subhuman...

/bread

yes, whats that have to do with anything?

*rothchild

i could shoot myself first

Attached: 1521251595929.gif (330x216, 966K)

Yeah deny one side point and not address the main argument.
Fucking leaf

Attached: pinhead.jpg (282x179, 9K)

Why doesn't the big, bad government just round up the guns then? Afraid?

Perhaps, perhaps not. At any rate, if they're coming to get you, would you rather die with or without popping off a few rounds their direction? At least make every agent of whatever agency is at your door regret every day they continue to do their job.

I live in apartment building.

AM I BEING DETAINED!!!?

>what would owning a few advil do if you caught ebola

>why don't the government just use their military might to defeat the insurgents?

wow, why hasn't anyone thought of that before? you just revolutionised modern warfare!

Attached: 1411079933974.jpg (468x720, 37K)

the 2nd exists to defend the government from federal coup

Because you will lose all of your support and legitimacy eventually if you keep doing it.....

it's almost like the US government has weapons beyond that which any citizen can legally possess!

Sometimes proving the point comes with a heavy price. Freedom is worth dying for.

If the government is trying to kill its own citizens why would anyone want to give up there guns? You're making the pro gun argument and to stupid to realize ot.

Attached: 3BAB287A-8DCA-4FCB-A0DB-432E721490DD-73103-00003E27241A21AF.jpg (259x195, 9K)

>it's almost like the US government has weapons beyond that which any citizen can legally possess!
So therefore the citizens of the country should be disarmed? Is that what you're saying?

The number of gun owners outnumbers military personnel. They'd never agree to do it and it would be too dangerous. Also gun owners would likely just start handing out guns to neighbors because at that point they are literally defending themselves against a tyrannical government.

Your government is controlled by jews, you think they have any symphathy for you? They will nuke you if they have to.

Attached: DELET-THIS-in-kawaii.jpg (200x211, 20K)

lol I was literally just reading an article about this.

fashcast.org/articles/f/the-paper-tiger

I'm saying the pro-gun argument that citizen ownership of guns is to defend from government tyranny (which is what the Second Amendment outlines) is absurd when a government has access to considerably more powerful weapons than any citizen has access to.

I still don't see where these morons make the jump from civilians continuing to own AR-15s, to suddenly the military becomes roaming death squad and is executing all gun owners LOL WHAT THEN

But really though, what then? Who will pay taxes? If you kill literally half the population, who will manufacture, maintain and provide support services for your drones?

I'm not sorry for taking the bait but hopefully other anons will understand why you shouldn't. It's not a real argument. It's just shill slide thread bullshit to drown out real discussions.

The fact is there's no reason to even discuss these matters with people, we are way beyond that point unfortunately. If they don't understand what guns are for by now its too already too late!

>using the entire for of US gov't and military
>using a multi million dollar drone w/ strike capabilities
>using a multi million dollar thank and crew/resources
>my house
>deploying a

>I'm saying the pro-gun argument that citizen ownership of guns is to defend from government tyranny (which is what the Second Amendment outlines) is absurd when a government has access to considerably more powerful weapons than any citizen has access to.
So how is the military going to fight a winning battle against tens of millions of citizens with hundreds of millions of firearms?

On top of the fact that those soldiers would be fighting their own people, their friends and their families in their own hometowns.

>But really though, what then? Who will pay taxes? If you kill literally half the population, who will manufacture, maintain and provide support services for your drones?

China and Israel.

>the government
foreigners just dont understand the way the US is structured.

the 2nd is very specifically to ensure that a 3/4th state majority (the only thing of higher authority than the constitution, since that what it takes to amend the constitution) can oppose federal military assets.

Private weapons are just one component of each states military capability. The reserve militia (all armed citizens capable of fighting) would be joined by state militia (state national guard under control of the governor) as well as other state martial forces (some states have their own state defense forces as well). As well as likly a reasonable portion of federal assets within this territory since it would be the federal government breaking the law and moving against constitutional authority in this case

filter thru my typing autismo and get the message

Drone Operators and Tank Crews live and bleed just like we do.

How does the government stop it's citizens from taking pot-shots at politicians and officials whenever they show themselves in public with their weapons beyond that which any citizen can legally possess?

I get how Cletus the red-neck militia man get's blowed the fuck up real good, I just don't get how that stops his cousin Bubba from putting a bullet in Senator Douchefuck's 8 year old daughter's head when she's playing in the park.

Great article, thanks!

Well how often do you see your Senator's daughter playing at your local park?

>okay gang, are you ready to murder your own people!
>unanimous support

That isn't how civil war works.

>Leftists really believe pic happens

Attached: 1521755801319.png (600x450, 212K)

It depends on the objectives of the government. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the insurgencies everyone on this board keep touting as proof that an armed population can fight off the government did absolutely nothing as far as stopping the US government from completing its objective: Toppling and replacing the governments of both countries.

So, if the object of the government is to win a war against their own armed populace, yes, the government would win with ease, but if the objective isn't to fight an all-out war, but rather to "pacify" the armed population, then maybe it will succeed and maybe it won't. Look at pacification attempts in countries like Brazil and Nigeria, they work sometimes and fail others.

If they want to wage war against us? We're fucked. If they want to pacify us? Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

Attached: 1360991054958.jpg (827x1024, 145K)

How many members of the FBI/CIA/military/police are really willing to kill Americans? Probably not many. Probably many would defect and take their gear with them. Also there’s way fewer tanks or drones than there are people. The number of casualties would be astronomical but a popular uprising could work.

Me personally?
Never. Then again I've never looked.
Low level politicians are VERY accessible though and seldom have security more sophisticated than their local police departments. It's not like everybody in the US government rolls around with a presidential security detail.

Posse Comitatus.
No. The Feds cant use our own drones and tanks to kill citizens.

Most intelligent thing I’ve read on Sup Forums in a while desu senpai.

>average gun confiscation raid

pic related

Attached: gun confiscation.gif (370x281, 1.98M)

Just look at how sedate the US public is when anything happens. They're completely oblivious to anything. I'd say it'd be quite easy to win a "pacifying" war against the modern US public.

>Just look at how sedate the US public is when anything happens.
If the government starts to actually murder and oppress people (especially blowing up homes with entire families inside because they didn't give a piece of metal) you'll see that change real quick.

We're already taking guns from criminals. "When they came for criminals guns I said nothing".... you know the rest.

What is that from?

Rigged houses scare pigs.

>What is that from?
I'm not sure but I think it was a central or south america raid.

>>On top of the fact that those soldiers would be fighting their own people, their friends and their families in their own hometowns.

Simple. You send the fucks from the northeast down south. You send the fucks from down south to affluent suburbia. You send the fucks from flyover country to the left coast.

See how that works?

WE HAVE THIS THREAD EVERY WEEK.
Sage.

You mean like what happened in Waco? Thankfully someone had balls to do the Oklahoma bombing and show the feds their own dead body count.

More recently the Bundy Ranch situation shows how we are more prepared now that the media can't just convict you as child abusers and illegal weapons owners (pretending to care about innocent women and children) ---- only to burn innocent men, wome and children alive while shooting those fleeing the fire.

With the internet, armed militais and gun owners from all over the country showed up to make sure it was fair play. Tons took vacation time off and used Vegas as an excuse to go out there and see for themselves. Tons of people on gun forums and facebook organizing caravans. People who couldn't go donated money for gas, food and other supplies. It was the perfect setting too, deep into the desert like iraq so not a bunch of innocent civilians scared they would be in the line of fire if a civil war kicked off. Tons more would have gone if feds started shooting.

Attached: branch-davidian-fire-01-gty-jc-180103_16x9_992.jpg (992x558, 76K)

>See how that works?
So you're going to go through the files of every single soldier and ensure that he has zero connection to the field of battle that he's being assigned to?
"shit sir, we can't send this general to this state because that's where his wife's family lives."
"shit sir, we can't send this seal team to this town because the commander's brother lives there."

And regardless, they still have to deal with killing their own people and blowing up their own country.

I was nearly ready to go and would have jumped in my car if shooting had begun.

You think Vietnam was not a proxy war against Russia and communism?

Are you on the bong, user? Mobilizing troops in open warfare to disarm people, that's supposed to be 'simple'?

>Toppling and replacing the governments of both countries.
The US didn't do a very good job in either country. In fact, the US installed a puppet government in Afghanistan, and a weak government was barely formed in Iraq. Hardly objectives to be proud of.
And the insurgencies are still active!

>How many members of the FBI/CIA/military/police are really willing to kill Americans? Probably not many.
You forget Ruby Ridge and Waco.

we sending submarines tanks and air craft carriers after this faggot,
> he memed

Based dominican

What happens when said fucks decide to shoot their officers and go home to protect their families?

What makes the US military so powerful? The reason why the US military is the most powerful in the world, and the reason why it poses such a big threat to any other conventional army is not only because it has better technology, but because of its ability to reach every corner of the world and project enormous military influence anywhere it wants. One advantage it has are the two huge coastlines on the two largest oceans, another are US territories like Marshall Islands, Virgin Islands, Guam, and yet another is the vast number of its allies spread across the globe which allows US army to station troops close its targets. The largest air force and the greatest number of aircraft carriers - 19 aircraft carriers as opposed to Russia's one aircraft carrier. All of that advantage the US army has over any other nation in the world, is useless when dealing with its own population - its navy, the overseas territories the military stations in the UK, Japan, Israel... - all of it is useless when fighting against its own armed civilian population. If shit ever hits the fan, armed civilian militias will form, constituting a >150 million armed civilian population with >22 million well trained, experienced and armed veterans against a military of 2.5 million (a fragmenting force, as many of the professional soldiers will realize they are going in a war against their own families) .You can count on veterans to plan taking over military stations, breaking off contact between military stations and disabling or stealing military aircraft, equipment, and vehicles. You can count on segments within the army aiding the civilian population by supplying them with aircraft, vehicles and equipment. You can count on outside forces - like Russia - arming and training civilians with conventional weaponry and supplying them with food, water etc, while the civilian force slowly takes over military bases, hospitals, bridges, highways and cuts access to food and water to the military.

What would actually happen if the US government suddenly announced that they're repealing the 2nd Amendment and everyone had a given date to turn in their firearms?

Attached: 1508072177333.png (1802x905, 203K)

They have to go home at the end of their shifts, if we cant blast them face to face, we will follow them home and play some personal politics with them and their ilk.

We have 350,000,000+ guns you dumb fuck. You can't fight militants.

Oh Canada, never change. We built our military on ProAmerica propaganda. We also made sure that a lot of them were second amendment nuts who know about tyrannical govment control. You not seeing SJW fuck boys getting their heads shaved to fight for this country. No one will take orders to kill and genocide the heartland. You will see instant open revolt.

What does that have to do with anything I said? Yes, they are insurgencies. No, they didn't stop us from doing what we wanted. In Iraq, we toppled Saddam Hussein, disbanded the Iraqi military and dissolved the Ba'ath party. In Afghanistan, we toppled the Taliban, destroyed the al-Qaeda training camps, and put Karzai in power.

The fact that people were planting IEDs and sniping at our soldiers did nothing to stop any of this from happening.

Whether or not any of this was a good idea is another discussion entirely.

I invite you to read the history and the breakup of the former Yugoslavia to see how that "neighbor vs neighbor" thing really works.

"
And regardless, they still have to deal with killing their own people and blowing up their own country."
Just read these forums on Sup Forums. How many wait for the day when they can shoot the nigger/jew/spic.
"Their own people" is only valid when some other group is killing.

>that's supposed to be 'simple'?
Hell yeah! It worked in New Orleans post-Katrina

This argument is getting boring and it's fucking stupid.

I know I'm talking to a dumbass leaf, but realize what you're saying and look at a fucking map of the USA.

You think the entire force of the US government and military is going to be able to handle an insurgency across the United States? Why don't you look at where all the military facilities are first and where all the manufacturing is based out of. Any armed insurgency is going to focus at taking these facilities and damaging logistical systems across the US.

What happens if those facilities get taken over? Well guess what? No more drones or airforce for the United States government. Logistical supplies are going to get cut off and the military is going to have an extremely tough time dealing with an insurgency.

A damn great example of this is in Syria. If it wasn't for the Russians getting involved, Syrian airforce was actually completely grounded until logistic points could be opened up to supply airfields. The vast majority of the Syrian Airforce was in near collapse if it wasn't for the retreat to Russian bases.

And we have no idea what US soldiers will do in such a scenario either. Where their loyalties will lie.

Is this a weakness of the United States? Not really, it was always the US's defensive strength and unity through its people. It's what scared the shit out of any invader.

Leftists trying to take guns away from US citizens is actually frightening, because the gun is actually what unites Americans. Black, White, Mexican, Asian, whatever. We maybe racist, but bring a gun, everyone is on equal terms. These leftists trying to pull this shit off is a sure sign of major foreign intervention in the US.

Attached: 1521917692573.png (1200x685, 1.06M)

I love this argument. In the event of an armed uprising against a tyrannical government atleast some, if not all of the military would side with the rebellion so you would have military fighting military with armed civilians on either side.

Why leave your boys in green without backup? Grab a gun and lend a hand.

Its like people always think of cops/military/public servants like they are mindless drones with no thoughts of freewill of their own, they live for nothing more than to serve the overmind, fearlessly running into raking machine gun fire with no thoughts of pain.

How meny generals and soldiers would notice the governments collapse into a tyrannical bunch of bullshit? I bet the first shots of rebellion would be fired by the military against government forces.

Said fucks will be considered AWOL or deserters. In today's pro-military environment, both will be spit on.
Read up on the Civil War; Brother against Brother

Nice quads

The eternal leftist.
>Guns are so dangerous, they must be confiscated immediately
>Guns are so weak, they won't stand up to the military

Attached: 321100ebce61a256f98198a08f6ac681.jpg (564x754, 95K)

What the fuck you care about the 2nd, you're a leaf. Take a hickory hike

Lon Horiuchi is still alive.

>owning a few guns
Listen up, troll. Any, and I mean ANY police action
that commenced mass gun confiscation would trigger a civil war. You know the funny thing about civil wars? Absolutely nobody is neutral. Everybody on both sides becomes fair game. There will be no more 'civilians", just "terrorists", vs. the "duly established government authority." Remember all the civil wars south of Mexico? Tanks or no, everybody gets involved, maybe even the families of those "authorities." It would get ugly, real fast.

Attached: elsalv2.jpg (3404x2229, 3.97M)

Tell that to the Taliban who are literally win the war in Afghanistan. They control 70% of the country now.

Also, are you aware to what extent are the people in the military dependent on their civilian population? I mean they are not fighting against the civilian population of Iraq, they are fighting the same people who supply them with food and water. How many of the soldiers will continue to fight when they realize they are killing the same population that government taxes in order to pay them their salaries. They would be literally killing the people who employ them. And do you even know who these soldiers are? These are family and friends of the civilian population. The military is immediately going to fragment, and you'll see that a good portion of it will take the side of the civilian population.

I suspect, that even without the 2A right the civilian population will stand a decent chance at opposing the military.

(1) If without guns there is 0% hope for the civilians to be able to protect their freedom, and having the guns increases the chance that they will win by only 1% - that is a good enough reason to keep the population armed.

(2) If without guns there is 99% chance of the civilian population winning against its army, and having guns would make them 100% sure they will have secured their freedom - that is still a good enough reason for the population to be armed.

Regardless of what is the probability that the US civilian population will win a civil war against its military, having guns increases the probability that the civilians will be able to defend themselves. And that is a good enough reason for the population to be armed.

Disarming old white women in New Orleans isnt the same as disaarming this entire country.

The bulk of the military will be AWOL dumbass. The goveremt will have to import muscle to implement gun control.

In Hawaii, id like to see him live in a place like Idaho or Montanna.

Pro-tip:

Governments and modern militaries actually don't know very well how to wage war against insurgents and civil guerrillas using modern asymmetric warfare tactics, especially on massive cities and metro areas of millions of people, think of Tokyo or Mexico City, it's basically a situation where you have to go house by house and you are constantly being snipped by the enemy. It is especially hard for modern democracies where the military wants to "save the face" and where they just can't carpet bomb them (they do it sometimes on the middle east, they just try to hide it from the public as much as possible) and still it wouldn't be the best strategy, especially on home against let's say: far-right or commie insurgents, and especially given how you would basically obliterate your own inftrastructure and create a refugee situation among your own populace and massive local civilian casualties.

>>In Iraq, we toppled Saddam Hussein, disbanded the Iraqi military and dissolved the Ba'ath party.
A world changing #1 fuck-up by Bremer. Saddam was the only one that could keep the various tribes under control. disbanding the Ba'ath Party and dissolving the Iraqi military and police directly led to the insurgency in Iraq that still goes on today.

>> In Afghanistan, we toppled the Taliban, destroyed the al-Qaeda training camps, and put Karzai in power.
Karzai. He was sweeping the floors in his BIL's supermarket. He was a POS who turned his back as soon as he was installed.
He would have been taken out long ago if the US didn't provide for his personal security, and he never did hold power outside of Kabul.

I wonder if there is any historical perspective of the U.S using all their might to fight countrymen to compare to

Attached: americanslose.jpg (950x619, 108K)

>>I bet the first shots of rebellion would be fired by the military against government forces.

The military ARE government forces......

The precedent was set.

The people who would remain in the military would be nigs, fags, and dykes.

You dont win wars with nigs, fags, and dykes.

It is not a precedent, it was simply some bootlickers trying to flex their shit. If they had seriously gone afyer guns, alot of troops woukd be dead, fallen by their own comrades.

Oh. like Eric Prince an his Blackwater Boyz?
Oh, excuse me, it's Constellis now.

If yo think the bulk of the military will go AWOL in a civil war, you are living in La-La Land. hey will follow their brain-dead ociffers and listen to the propaganda they are fed.

As I said, he is still alive.
Now, why not make good on your comment and "follow him home".

Against an individual sure, the government fucks up psychos with guns all the time.


Against a giant rebellion of gun holders they are fucked.

I would if I wasn’t in TN and didn’t have a decent life.

Some white guys will go along with it, but the bulk will not. They will have to live wjere they make war, that’s alot different than larping in a desert halfway across the globe.

Keep believing our military is composed of mindless bufoons, you are in for quite a dissapointment.