Why do retarded gun nuts think owning guns will protect them from the govt? the military would crush them all lol

why do retarded gun nuts think owning guns will protect them from the govt? the military would crush them all lol

Other urls found in this thread:

m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/47fl0n/is_a_nonviolent_revolution_feasible_in_the_us_or/d0cxl7t
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

They claim it's for when the gummint fail, what a dumb thing to base something off.

>b-but the military will revolt and fight for us

okay, are you going to use your AR-15 to shoot down a drone cruising a mile above your head dropping bombs?

Just like they crushed the taliban

And just like the crushed ISIS

And the Viet Cong.

I'm so glad I'm Canadian and not some fuckhead yankee doodle

>why do retarded gun nuts think owning guns will protect them from the govt? the military would crush them all lol

The military won't turn against it's own people, its the foreign soldiers that are planted at our bases that are going to. I've seen them during my time in the service, Chinese soldiers were the red flag for me.

Nope, but I can sure as hell use it to make warring against the civilian populace more expensive than it's worth to oppress us.

I was in the Army and we couldn't even shut down a country of 30 million backward 3rd world goat fuckers. There are single cities almost that big in the US and a hell of a lot more guns. The military wouldnt crush shit.

Yup

m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/47fl0n/is_a_nonviolent_revolution_feasible_in_the_us_or/d0cxl7t

I would rather go down shooting than sit with my thumb up ass if I'm bout to die anyways

Just like in vietnam huh :)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have guns for sports like target shooting and just plain fun.

474747 noice

I do what I want you stupid moosefucker.

so you're suggesting some percent of the population if well armed could in fact defeat the US military? and how would they all converge to do that?

>because it's impossible for cold war tech to decimate us forces

So in your opinion...if an actual revolution occurred and you were called to arms to kill civilians, you're saying you would disobey?

So many faggots don't get this.

You're under the assumption that soldiers would willingly kill US citizens. During my time in the military I learned that the majority of soldiers thought that 9/11 was an inside job, zombies are a possibility, and that nearly all of them would do whatever it took to keep firearms in the hands of US citizens after seeing what shitty farmers could do with a rusted AK and cold war vehicles could do.

Even if 25% of the US armed forces mutinied against command it would leave the rest in such shambles that a civil war could easily be stared. You're forgetting that the US Military still keeps hard copies of medical records rather them input them into a computer. Any one that as served can tell you the US military is a giant cluster fuck and that convincing soldiers to kill civilians let alone planning an efficient tactic to do so is ludicrous.

TL;DR fuck off eurotrash

>comparing 50 year old technology skirmishes in low visibility entrenchments on the other side of the world to Walmart off of I170 that lies within 8 hours of half the nations landing strips

They dont have to converge dumbass. In fact they'd be idiots to converge in one place and make it easy. Its called guerrilla warfare and thousands of incidents all over the country are much harder to fight than just a few larger gatherings. Thats assuming all of the military would even fight which they wouldnt.

>taking it sitting down

So basically, you're a bitch? :)

The military would crush the people who keep it running?

Very interesting. What brand of faggotry nonsense are you smoking?

>taliban
>just desert
>0 cover

>how would they all converge to do that?
Using tri-cornered hats to communicate with.

Ask any patriot.

OP got rekt

It's an unlawful order. He wouldn't have to obey it.

Anyone who wants to disarm themselves and their fello Americans, suck cock by choice

Sit down or stand up, you're gonna get raped. Your life is at the behest of America not a fan of killing Americans. Were we actually in a police state, youd have a drone up your ass after you hit the enter key

Former army vet here. This guys right. That and the fact most soldiers would never fire on civilians. Even if they did there's just not enough soldiers to lock down the entire country. We couldnt even lock down Baghdad you think we could shut down LA or Chicago?

>just desert
>tunnels
>100s of square miles of mountain desert, laced with tunnels
>super easy

Not as bad for me, i'm not black. And rather get raped complaining about it than just bending over and taking it...

Don't get what ? All I'm saying is if shit hit fan I would rather have a weapon than not, not saying it's happening

OH BOY IT'S THIS THREAD AGAIN

the bottom line is that the government would not be able to inflict civilian casualties indiscriminately as it would provoke foreign intervention.

in order to kill the right people, they have to know the right people. to know the right people, you have to talk to people. as in have human contact between the military and any people of interest.

it'd be an unwinnable insurgency, and I haven't even touched on how frail u.s. infrastructure is.

Wat, both of us agree with you

That's a big meaty pussy. Thought it was a ballsack in the thumbnail.

Im not black either and I beg you to "stand up for your rights" so you can be shot to death. Please, go enforce tour sovereign citizen rights, faggot.

>the cities aren't in tunnels

How'd overtaking that Bird Sanctuary in Oregon go for the people?

Or Ruby Ridge...
Waco...
What happened in Philly with the MOVE group?

Sorry didn't mean it like that to tag you I'm on the same page now

Civil war, faggot. And guess who's going to live out the rest of their lives in a POW camp?

You.

So you just give up your rights.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Civilian now, but yes and so would have a good portion of our bases.

>taking back a single building complex is equal to the complete capture of thousands of major cities

Stop being retarded.

Yeah like all that intervention in darfur...

Standard protocol in the internationally community is to stay out or civil wars. America and Russia re pretty much the only countries to violate this rule.

And who do you think Russia would support if the American govt was "slaughtering" it's civilians in a civil war?

But why tho? Why would a soldier who 'stands for their country' (as I hear a lot) then attack it?

I have my rights. Plenty of them. More than any other country. So do you, but you're a spoiled brat and think you deserve more and have bought into a retarded ideology.

Army bases sound like the tribalism of prisons

No i'm just not going to give them up, not try and get more. If you're willing to do that, at least you can tell me how the cock tastes, cause I know i'll never taste it. :)

they're worried about the government failing and they want donald trump for president? logic

Why do Sup Forumstards shitpost? It doesn't make them any less a virgin.

Because soldiers stand to defend our people and our land, "from threats both foreign and domestic" hope i got our oath right. Its been a while

>why do retarded gun nuts think owning guns will protect them from the govt? the military would crush them all lol

US citizens outgun the US military by a vast ratio. The guerilla war would last for decades and make governing impossible.

ok well why is the govt so scared of people then?

are you telling me the corporate leeches that are polluting our earth and stealing our money are going to let this happen?

Why do you retards think we couldn't do anything to the government with guns? We only need them to take out strategic points. We wouldn't be exchanging fire very often until some other country came to the aid of the rebellion and then we would have military equipment and training enough to fight anyone dumb enough to oppose us.

>the govt
you mean niggers

Who is on each side of this war? Us versus corporations?

Even though I despise conservatives I wouldn't let that stand in my way of joining forces with them

That's the first step though right? Before its a group large enough to take over cities it would be people in a compound or building or plot of land. You're skipping steps in the militarization

Lol okay. I'll keep on not sucking dick because I understand basic cause and affect on the political scale while you arm yourself against the boogeyman. I wish dems actually wanted to take guns so I could possibly see you get mowed down in your front yard.

But why attack the people, surely the value of human life over rules the value of land and basic human morals would stop the military from killing

It would be private armies vs citizens essentially.

you mean like the vietnam war?

>proves militia can't take over a building
>expects them to take over a city

Major KEK

... you think the government will just say "go and slaughter your fellow civilians"?

They'll say "eliminate those socialists/Communists/traitors/terrorists/[insert any other fear mongering label here]. Take up arms to defend life, liberty and pursuing if happiness! These [insert term here] are betraying our forefathers. And it's up to YOU to defend what they created"

If there's one thing the US army is incredibly good at, is PR and spin

Wouldn't the armed groups seizing territory in the US be considered a "domestic threat"?

what do you think the military is for and does?

Notice how you're the one saying violent stuff to someone who has a different opinion. God damn your stupidity hurts

I think you have me confused. I'd rebel in a heart beat. I meant our government being the domestic threat and defending our land from them.

What happened in the late 90's? Nig nogs go on sabbatical?

Why are you a pro government shill?

Would the members of that private army be citizens?

I recognize this as a chairforce vet. Propaganda is real.

It's a low paying job for people who can't get real work or hack college. They'd barely have the ability to hold a gun straight, much less shoot Americans. Why do you think everyone who comes home from actual fighting has ptsd now?

Bill Clinton and all his anti-nig laws.
3 strikes basically put a lot of violent nigs behind bars for 20 years

Your retard the military is made up of the people which most will not support the government. I was in the military and I wouldn't support the government trying to destroy the constitution. So shut the fuck up and go back to your California suburb liberal home thinking the government is going to always act in your best interest.

Depends which side you choose to fight for.

That doesn't make any sense. You are the government. Someone who wants to destabilize or destroy it is the enemy

Not guranteed. Mercenaries can come from anywhere.

Never said I was a liberal. I want to see lone wolves massacred. If you whine about muh rites, let you catch a bullet for it.

Criminals exist, dipshit. So do bears, mountain lions and coyotes who may or may not attempt to kill and eat you. Speaking of animals, my own father was murdered during a home invasion, he was unarmed, robber was armed, killed my dad goddamn anyway. Why? Because my dad is white and the robber was black and full of hate for whites. I also personally know two people who have been attacked by mountain lions, the unarmed one lost a hand, the armed one used 12 cents worth of bullets and got to keep all his body parts.

So, in a world like this what foolass is unarmed? Especially when you have a constitutional right to arms?

Liberals: How much money and time do you think it would take to collect all the guns in America? How violent do you think this event would be? I'll take my answer off the air, thanks.

And here it is, the current year and the democrats and pretending that nigs are human. The 90's was the shit, fuck millennials.

I was, not anymore.

counterinsurgency never works, doesn't matter what tech is used
the brits in Malaysia, the French in algeria, the US in vietnam, the russians in afghanistan, even napoleon in Spain (where the term guerilla comes from) learned this
you either play to win by wiping them out or you lose. no in between

What are the sides? I can't figure out how an entire new govt is going to spring up and seize major territory in the US

it's happened before

It was gun owners' responsibility to create a Well-Regulated Milita. They didn't.

It was gun owner's responsibility to Protect The People from tyranny. They didn't.

Gun owners have joined the tyrannical. And thus have lost their right to own guns.

The 2nd Amendment will be repealed. Guns will be banned. Guns will be confiscated. All within the next 20 years.

>If there's one thing the US army is incredibly good at, is PR and spin
Hell they even got MacArthur to attack the Bonus Army vets in '32.

No it hasn't, not in the way you're suggesting

And I never said you were :). And no you don't, you're trying to act edgy. You probably nearly throw up when you get a nose bleed

The sides would be any loyalist fighting for the side of the government, and the rebels which are going to be anyone who decides to take up arms and fight against the government.

>why do retarded gun nuts think owning guns will protect them from the govt? the military would crush them all lol

Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria are notable examples of failed crush attempts. Military illiterates think the US wouldn't be divided, including the military, in civil war.

Military illiterates cannot count and have no idea of the size of the US forces plus reserves plus reserve vehicles vs. the enormous number of weapons held by the public, many of whom are vets themselves (self included).

Small arms are merely part of a revolt, but a dispersed revolt leaves no safe harbor and ties down large forces. Partisans in WWII are examples of the few tying down large forces which could not be used elsewhere.

Military illiterates have no idea how to take out weak points with light forces. All the armored fighting vehicles in the US inventory might secure a couple of States, but they need logistics to roll and POL burns. The US doesn't do armored resupply. Tank cars and trucks burn. Rails are easy to sabotage without the damage being visible.

Cops can't control areas from MRAPs, and MRAPS roll easily so they are nearly useless off-road and mire in wet or soft terrain. Infantry has to LEAVE them to fight which exposes them to gunfire.

The US couldn't control Iraq in a war and Iraq is tiny compared to CONUS. A bunch of sand nigs are still in the fight after outlasting Saddam, the US, and their competition.

US global power is tied up protecting our frenemies. US naval power is useless in a CONUS land war. US air power sits on unhardened bases and has a delicate support system easily disrupted.

The US military is tiny compared to its Cold War size, and is designed for nation-state war, not counterinsurgency in the homeland.

>The 2nd Amendment will be repealed. Guns will be banned. Guns will be confiscated. All within the next 20 years.

And we will all be a lot safer.

Do you realize how many Vietnamese were killed in the Vietnam war? Do you realize how many Afghanies were killed by the Soviets?

The tune of millions (in each conflict). Counterinsurgencies are most certainly effective.

Also, you're trying to compare the US with extremely poor, developing nations. The average American has far too much to lose in these meager times. A gun ban is not only possible - it's likely.

And this gets to the heart of the matter - people in America want guns because of rampant racism. It's got nothing to do with home protection. It's got nothing to do with sport. It's all about the nignogs that will kill because they hate.

>America, the land of the terrified

They would not.
The first problem you would have is that your military would not fight it´s own people.
This is the reason why Austria or France had to send Soldiers from other regions so supress the people.
If the US would try to fight it´s own people it would loose 50-70% of the soldiers and generals.
After that the Deserters would join the rebels wich would have weapons because of the 2nd amendment.
Even if the people lost it would not be worth it.

> entire new govt is going to spring up and seize major territory in the US
is that not what the confederacy was?
from a legal sense, you're right, but for the length of the war non-occupied confederate states were a de facto nation state

well said.