A Question for Ameribros

One main argument that Americans use to defend their guns is that they are not just for self defence, but also with guns they can overthrow an oppressive tyranical government. No considering the govenrment sends infantry with the same ammount of firepower as the civilians, it makes sense to have guns. But what about wjen the government decides to use missiles or gas attacks to stop rebels.
Many Americans on Sup Forums believe that the government would never point weapons like that at american citizens, or that soldiers would refuse to bomb their own people, and so this scenario is unlikely, they say.
But, if we look at Syria, the Government is infact bombing its own people, and soldiers ae infact launching missiles to attack citizens
Now dont get me wrong. I think civilians should have the riht to bear arms, and serving in cyprus for 2 years, i had a lot of fun shooting targets at the range. But what chance would you really satnd if the government went all out and decided to attack its own people, with no restrictions on the weaponry they used to do so

Here's the (You) that you so desperately wanted.

This isnt bait fucktard. Also, if youre replying to the OP, i cant get a (You)

Missiles and tanks are only good for gaining initial control of specific high value locations, they're not very good for maintaining control for long periods of time over wide areas.

See: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan the other time, etc etc all the way back to our revolutionary war. Farmers with guns who live in the area aren't anything to fuck with.

But lets say a tank invades your town. At the time, you would only be able to hide, wait out the destruction, as all your neighbours die, and have your house destroyed or burned down. Whetehr you have guns or not, you cant protect anyone around you or stop the tank. Maybe you can kill the odd soldier but by that point so many other civilians would have been killed so you would be outgunned anyway

But private citizens can also own tanks, even with working guns

Funny all that bombing and all that missile launching just seems to steel the resolve of the insurgents

>just blow up tens of thousands of towns and murder hundreds of millions of citizens, what now smart guy?
Well, now they've got a nation of corpses to rule and still have some, now extra-determined, rebels innawoods.

>tank invaded your town
what is IED

Well Syria is third world and until Ivan went to town on the hadjis the hadjis were winning. The fact is that we start with our small arms, and that it'll only be a matter of time until we capture a base, or a depot, or an armory, and then shit will snowball against the government.

>be a member of the military
>ordered to invade your own hometown

If the military turned on its citizens, it would cease to exist. American pride starts and ends with family and community.

Even so, bringing tanks to bumfuck idaho and through the streets of austin would cost tremendous amounts of resources that the state cannot afford to reallocate inwards.

Hope is better than fate.

There would be armed assaults on DC well before it got to tanks on the ground.
Or a coup

So your defeatist attitude is supposed to convinced me to relinquish my arms and the rights associated with them?

Nice try.

It's also for overpowering local governments, not just federal. A bunch of WW2 vets bootyblasted a sheriff of some shithole in Texas in the 50s so much he had to step down.

>le government will carpet bomb its own cities maymay

Shut up Aristotle and pay your debts.

What I don't understand is the argument that we need gun control because since the government has tons of weaponry that it means we should have LESS weapons and not more. That's like saying if a wife is being beaten by her husband with a metal baseball bat that she shouldn't even be allowed to use a pocket knife for defense because "lol you're going to be beat anyways".

I really hate this topic of discussion because it almost never proceeds in a rational manner. People just talk past one another and proffer vague, murky hypothetical scenarios.

How big is this rebellion? Where is it confined to geographically? What is the cause? Who are the rebels? What is their objective?

What if, for example, the rebellion comprises 60% of the adult male population, is located primarily on the east coast, the cause of the rebellion is, say, foreign agents illegally capturing the American government, and their objective is to oust the foreign agents?

Still think it's impossible to succeed?

Our military is us Americans you broke ass yogurt eating queer. I'm a veteran and I have absolute faith in my brothers to do the right thing if it ever went that far. Good luck and have fun US govt when when a numerically superior and just as well armed populace pushes you either to the gallows or into exile. They push gun control and globalization because they know this is what will happen as well.

It's called asymmetric warfare, and with a bit of luck and the right timing it can work for the little guy.

The Patriots defeated the British Empire, because they had widespread support in the 13 colonies and Britain was fighting France too.

The Vietnamese communists defeated the U.S. because they had widespread support, knew the terrain. As well with the hippie movement in the U.S. and a conscription based army lacking zeal, the U.S. had no chance.

Similarly, look how the mujahideen defeated the Soviets with a little C.I.A. backing. If a civil war broke out in the U.S., some other country (i.e. Russia or China) would fund and supply the people fighting the state surely. If the rebellious faction had enough support and unity, enough zeal, yes I think they could win because many U.S. soldiers and police might themselves defect.

There is literally no way in hell that the US government could win a civil war even with WMDs.

They've got the choice to either fight a conventional war being outnumbered by 30:1 which they'll lose.

Or they can use WMDs which basically turn the entire nation and all of its industry to ash. What's the point in fighting a war for a pile of ash?

If you kill all your taxpayers, you're gonna have a bad time.


>>>>>Syria is bombing their own civilians

Oh, I didn't know this was bait. Pay Denbts

It's about leveraging force for a political coup. The bargaining is different between millions of armed civilians vs the government and millions of docile unamrmed subjects vs the government.

>Aristotle
This nigga is Plato tier.

1. Killing that many civilians indiscriminately would only lead to more people joining the rebellion.
2. Congrats, you've taken over a pile of corpses as opposed to reclaiming your country.

Dumbass.

>But what about wjen the government decides to use missiles or gas attacks to stop rebels.
t. Someone who has never been to a milsurp store or a gun convention in the US

That's not how wars work, especially not modern civil wars. It's hard to run a country with a hostile population that has 300 million guns.

The 2A is, in fact, the 'doomsday' amendment. All the others have failed; 2A brings them back. I'm glad to see people acknowledging this...I wind up explaining this to a lot of Fudds who think its all about muh huntin.

In a practical sense, our sporting rifles and the like would be a stop gap measure to hold out for military defections. It would be a gorilla war. We would have to capture hardware to use.

There is a meme that floats around about jets and drones not being able to stand sentry on a street corner etc. etc. which holds true as well.

It would be protracted and bloody, unless the military outright resisted and instigated a coup of their own somehow. And frankly there is no guarantee that a resistance would win. Ultimately as a gun owner you have to ask yourself two things:

1. Are you just a 'muh shootin sports' or 'muh hunting' gun owner, or are you willing to stand up for liberty?
2. Are you willing to give up modern comforts, guarantee of security, and face probable death to defend that liberty?

Americans had to ask themselves that in the Revolution. I think it was easier to say 'Yes' to #2 then, because the 'comfort bar' was far lower than today (no mobile devices, no air conditioning, no night clubs and what not). They also believed more in what they were fighting for; they held genuine political ideals, as opposed to people of today who are more short sighted in that regard and focus more on maintaining the 'comfort bar'.

I like to think I would say 'Yes' to #2. I think about it frequently, and so should everyone else.

Only 10% of the population stood up to fight in the revolution. Remember that.

Guerilla warfare

Military hardware, especially tanks, ships.and planes, needs tons of personal and maintaining. All it takes is one person with a bag of bolts to shut down an air wing, a scoop of gravel to take down a tank. Drone pilots are being treated for PTSD. Let us not forget that this will not happen on a political island and counties like Russia would flood such an uprising with so much equipment that there will be 100 RPGS for every tank. Going to war against your own who are armed never works out. That is why they need to disarm us so they do not have to fear us.

You've answered your own question. If the government is doing missile strikes and fucking gas attacks on its own population centers, its FINISHED.

You don't even have to WIN in a situation like that.

1. America is not Syria
2. Posse Comitatus Act forbids military from acting as police
3. I'd rather be dead holding a gun, than alive in a slave-labor camp
4. With the potential for a gun in each house, it would take a very very long time for the military to sweep and clear each house --no guns means they would just smash your door in, walk in, and shoot you, then move to the next house.
5. A resistance does not overthrow, it endures.
6. I have a question for you OP. Why is this any of your business?

>But what chance would you really satnd if the government went all out and decided to attack its own people, with no restrictions on the weaponry they used to do so

Have you not been paying attention to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Somalia and the world in general for the last 20-30 years or so?

>But, if we look at Syria, the Government is infact bombing its own people, and soldiers ae infact launching missiles to attack citizens
And is losing territory to illiterate goatfuckers.
Asymmetric warfare is amazing isn't it?

I've thought about this sort of sabotage. How does one sneak in to sabotage the tanks and planes? At night obviously, but what are we realistically having to bypass for security if it came to that?

I've seen an E&E shelter called the SHARK bag which provides visual and IR camouflage for a period of time, but I don't know how noisy they are or if a garment like that could be made to sneak through the lines.

The people united can never be defeated.

This has been done many times before, and the conclusion is always something like this: "Do not assume that everyone in our military will blindly follow illegal orders, as those who fight for a living are often the most freedom-loving and anti-war."

Also, reminder that these are literally for sale on Apex Gun Parts right now, and that somebody is going to buy them and machine them to functional state again. And that the ammo specifications are all readily available, and with civilian machining capabilities we could make our own casings and rounds in a pinch.

I could be wrong, but I always assumed that the moment the US gobberment decided to launch missiles and/or biochemical weapons on citizens/rebels would give another world power to step in and try to "liberate" the population.

Not that they actually care about US citizens, but there would be enough incentive (resources/infrastructure) to make others want to cause problems.

>tfw you will never live in a Bizzaro world Red Dawn where russia is air dropping arms and munitions to freedom fighters in the US, only to have to suck ruskie slong after we cede Alaska/western coast

Exactly the kind of question you'd expect from a slave. You've been in bondage so long you can't imagine how'd you'd resist.

Those of us who are still free know the oppressors aren't all powerful.

Pay debts.

The shit skin behavior of Mudslimes shouldn't be your benchmark for how civilized whites would act.
Also, last I checked the rebels were still at it so clearly the guns are doing something

>The odds are low, therefore we should make it zero
That slave logic.

Got my "flare launcher" in the mail today.

I know a guy who actually snuck a few "flares" out of his Army base when he got his discharge.

I'm jelly as fuck.

I'm proud to be an American where at least i know i'm free and i won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me

Yeah, it's baffling isn't it?

>THERES NO CHANCE DONT EVEN TRY NO NO NO DISARM YOURSELVES NOW ITS HOPELESS CUZ I SAID SO GOSH WHY ARE YOU EVEN THINKING ABOUT IT JUST ACCEPT YOUR FATE REEEEEEEEE

It's so backwards to me, I can't even understand it. I literally cannot do the mental gymnastics to come to the same conclusion.

The Brits and Swedes (big surprise) seem to be the worst about it. They literally think their slave culture is better because they are 'more secure'.

These threads always assume that the tyrannical state would be representated by a "worse than hitler type of guy". In reality, it would be some progressist democrats aiming at "gun nuts" and other "raycis republicans" threatening the stability of the state.

It's easy to use the governmental power against internal terrorist factions. There is little public support for them, and islam is fucking bonkers... there are different sects that always fight eachother.

This is not the case in the US. You can't justify attacks so easily.

You do not have to go that route. All you need is a sympathizer who handles maintenance or dress as one, as in war conditions it is hard to tell who is who, and then do it from that point.

Tanks don't take kindly to being swarmed, especially not in urban areas. But that's nothing compared to how much the logistics batallion required to keep the tanks running dislikes their trucks being set on fire in every town they stop..

Does anyone have the Private Snuffy screencaps I think it was called?

Perfectly illustrates what would really happen during an uprising/civil war.

It ain't pretty for the government

>but what are we realistically having to bypass for security if it came to that?

How many security guards in the US militairy are realistically just going to stand by and guard the tanks, knowing that they will soon be deployed on US soil to combat US citizens? That's the real question in a scenario such as this.. Americans tend to be pretty loyal to authority, but I doubt all members of the US armed forces will slaughter their own like docile robots..

>gas attacks to stop rebels
Wouldn't article III of the Geneva convention prohibit the use of tear gas on a rebel force?

This. That land occupation shit that happened in Oregon, lasted 41 days. Some dudes with guns.

>But, if we look at Syria, the Government is infact bombing its own people, and soldiers ae infact launching missiles to attack citizens

They're sand niggers, what else do you expect?

An unseen benefit of having a heavily armed populace is that it acts as a deterrent for would-be tyrants. A good government should have no fear of its citizens being armed.

On paper, whether a popular revolt could succeed against the force of the US military is very difficult to quantify and is completely hypothetical.

In the short term, probably no. In the long-term, if the insurgents' resolve in strong enough, you only need to bleed the opponent enough, in money and blood and morale, to make the cost of continuing unbearable to the individuals who are actually carrying out the orders.

Hopefully we never have to find out.

Gun control should only be used if a person is mentally unstable. Example you should have a doctor verify your brain to own a weapon. A lot of shit wouldn't happen if this was part of the process to own combat weapons. IMO good bill of health you should be able to own anything you can afford. Irresponsible retards with mental issues give leftist faggots fuel for their argument.

And not just the US, but Russia in Afghanistan with even fewer qualms about scorched earth

And of course the entire fucking vietnam war

So some libtard shrink can just deem anyone who desires a gun to be mentally unsound because they believe the desire to own a gun is mentally unsound,.how convenient..

What happens when, a few weeks/months into an American Revolution or civil war, the power goes down?

Then it will be soldiers with m16s fighting civilians with ar15's. Not even a fair fight, the civilians would absolutely destroy any resistance.

Also how can you possibly equate Syria to the United States? Nigger pay your fucking debts and end your retarded life.

Just when I thought the shitposters were banned some greek faggot dragged us back in.

sage

I don't think this is a shitpost though.

An extremely retarded post>
>yes

Should OP kill himself?
>yes

Is OP a faggot?
>yes


But not really a shitpost

The us military does not function as police here generally.
There are about 120k armed Feds.

Americans are not loyal to authority at all. No idea how you got that.

Essential reading,