Amerifags, do you think there is a civil war coming between pro gun and anti gun...

Amerifags, do you think there is a civil war coming between pro gun and anti gun? And who do you think will win if the war does come?

Attached: 1520622913763.jpg (750x528, 46K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_civil_wars
townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/03/12/why-democrats-would-lose-the-second-civil-war-too-n2459833
youtube.com/watch?v=ohNCsboNIvs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The people with guns, you dumb fucking foreigner

>do you think people with guns will lose to people without guns

Small minded posts.
The answer is whoever has legislation on their side, because the fucking military would get involved.

The side that wins is the side that the government is on. Your little guns are not going to stop that. You fat rednecks should resist tho. Please resist and help raise the average american IQ.

this guy gets it

It's very simple, people in the military love their guns. If it ever came to war, which I don't think it will, the gungrabbers would either die immediately or learn very quickly why it's important to have guns.

>implying the US military would engage US civilians

sametard

majority of police and military are gun owning republicans.
have fun getting completely blown out in a week.

They literally would though. Especially if they were characterised as dangerous criminals, which they almost certainly would be.
Like fuck man, you seriously think militaries never participated in civil wars? They were the main instigators throughout history.

lol.
this fag actually thinks the military is going to kill civilians.
vietnamese rice farmers with rusty mosin nagants kicked the fuck out of america for 20 years.

can op be any more retarde than he is?
stay tuned to this thread and find out

I'm not American and I don't have an opinion on gun control, I just don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

sure kid

this retarded

Says the guy who doesn't know what capital letters are.

sure kid

>literally
fuck off retard.
and no, they wouldn't
if you think a volunteer army is going to drop bombs on their own friends, families, and neighbors, you're mistaken.
most people don't trust the media anymore anyway, so they're gonna have a hard time convincing the military and law enforcement that all these people are criminals.
you're completely delusional.

this retarded

It's happened before. Thank you for actually presenting an argument by the way.

>being so simple you can't see the obvious outcome of guns vs no guns in a civil war

jesus, man. what shit hole are you from?

I didn't say that though, I said that the side the government is on would win.

it's happened before with mercenary armies.
give an example of a time the citizenry was at war with itself and a national army broke it up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_civil_wars

>"defend the Constitution"
>"against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Unless the 2nd Ammendment is repealed, there's going to be a big split in the US military between the asskissing careerists and those that remember what their oath means.

I wonder who would win.

Attached: hi-lm-david-hogg-and-lve-sold-more-ar-15s-than-31262541.png (500x490, 93K)

fucking lost!

Attached: 1464332430897.jpg (300x300, 21K)

Of course, but the central government would have all the fancy toys, and foreign backing.

Civil wars are now waged through the utilisation of subversion. There is no need for conventional warfare between developed nations when more effective methods are available.

forgot green text

here let's try again:

>I wonder who would win.

much better

the government in america isn't one sided.
if we're gonna play this dumb hypothetical scenario out:
all governors mobilize national guard.
republican governors will dispatch their boys to fuck up hipsters, democrat governors will send theirs after rednecks.
the rednecks will be much harder targets than assorted hipsters, faggots, muslims, and whoever else gets targeted.

the question was (paraphrasing): who would win a war between pro gun and anti gun?
sorry, but i think the dudes with AKs are gonna fuck up the crowd swinging bongs and buttplugs.
i used to say there were no dumb questions, but OP cooked this shit up.

Being anti private gun ownership also doesn't preclude the use of guns in a fight for rights?

It is pretty retarded I'll admit. I don't think it's as simple as the left and right goes to war though. After all, America's getting deep dicked by anti-gun propaganda so I don't think it's as simple as Johnny Republican calling the flock.

fancy toys did shit in 20 years of vietnam and have done about the same in 20 years of bullshit adventurism in iraq and afghanistan.
tanks and planes don't run without a crew and even drones still have a pilot at a screen somewhere. i imagine the number of soldiers who would bomb their own people is around 10-20%.
the other 90-80% would happily turn their muzzles on the others who kill civies.
you don't live it, so you can't know.

think whatever you want, but you're only fooling yourself if you think lefty faggots have much chance.
that disgraceful bunch of pussies in antifa is the closest thing those guys have to a fighting force.

ok, please don't start WW3

Attached: last-saturday.jpg (800x530, 246K)

What you're failing to understand here is that the gun owners would be the ones characterised as civilian killing domestic terrorists.

That's kind of why my entire point rests on the military's involvement.

I really really want it!!!!

Attached: givemegun.jpg (489x396, 43K)

sure kid
stay retarded

this retarded

try more recently kid

Drone army vs a bunch of rednecks with guns
Hmm...

well STUPID, if the Armed and the non-armed have a war, it's obvious that the ones melting from the violence will win because those with the evil black guns will feel bad for them

showing us how retarded you are
oh wait you believed the 99.3% meme

military sides with gun owners.
Because the population that makes up the military is southern and gun owning.

Majority of federal military members, if mobilized to fight civilians, would flatly refuse as that's illegal and the job of the national guard. If they were through some crazy scenario, they would do the shittiest job ever and have a desertion rate that logistically would leave the federal military untenable for any duration of fighting.

Logistics win wars, even a 30% desertion rate would leave units unable to function. The result would be mass reorganization, which takes time and resources not spent fighting your war.

Tides foundation shills lurk in this thread

Not really, no. There's just some political faggotry because some kids had a good enough angle to get other kids to protest. It'll die down, just don't tell them anything stupid or you'll galvanize them.

nah.

No. People are not THAT passionate yet on the anti gun side. Besides the opposition has guns, duh.

>war between pro gun and anti gun?
>war
>gun
>no gun
Ugh the one with the guns, obviously...

It depends on how swiftly the gun-grabbers move on their agenda, Op. If they tried it tomorrow, then yes, civil war part 2. But if they keep incrementally banning stuff and phasing out certain types of ammunition whilst brainwashing the next generation coming up, then I think a disarmed society is possible. It all depends on the government's self control, really.

>do you think there is a civil war coming between pro gun and anti gun?

No.

>And who do you think will win if the war does come?

Just gonna take a wild guess here -- the guys with the guns

townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/03/12/why-democrats-would-lose-the-second-civil-war-too-n2459833

Pretty much this, if they changed the 2nd amendment, they would no longer be considered law abiding citizens. If there was a "war" where the armed populace started shooting unarmed lefties, they would be domestic terrorists, and will get their shit treaded on hard.

youtube.com/watch?v=ohNCsboNIvs
Obviously the anti-gunners will not fight their own fight. What do you think the gun-control is? It is a war on gun owners, you think these fucking cucks are gonna do it themselves? No the governments army the guys with guns that they do like cause government sponsored.

If there were ever a "civil war" between the pro-gun and anti-gun people, it would be fought between different factions of the U.S. military, using U.S. military equipment.

There actual "gun owners" would be irrelevant and ignored, aside from a few acts of terrorism which would be denounced by both sides.

Almost all gun owners in amendment-28 territory would either comply, or (at most) hide their guns. Those who would actually use their own guns to try to rebel would either do so by enlisting in the 2A army (made up almost entirely of active military personnel using existing u.s. military equipment), or would be seen as crazy loaners and quickly killed by non-military police.

There would be a *lot* of amnesty. Even when using your gun to "defend" against a search warrant, you would not be charged so long as you surrender your weapon without firing it.

There is no universe in which "the gun owners" win, even if the 2A army eventually does "win" against the amendment-28 army.

Either way, the end involves a constitutional convention, and the result is worse for everyone because it is written by modern politicians

Military wouldn't even need to be used. Law Enforcement would shut (have shut) that shit down before it even starts. That's wht special agents are imbeded in militias and the like, they keep their was to the ground.

Learn to type before you post
Or, proofread your posts

I love this pic. They're such good friends

It doesn't matter if the 2nd amendment is abolished, or if "gun control xd" meme is enacted. Too many guns in the United States, no one is going to go confiscate them either.

those masks are fuckin creepy

Prohibition happened before and law enforcement did its best.
Can we drink alcohol in America?

The US military cannot conduct operations inside the US against its citizens.
The responsibility would fall to local law enforcement and the national guard by special request from that state's governor.

>be in burgerland
>gun people try to start war by shooting up a peaceful protest for gun control
>police show up and shoot all 14 autistic hillbillies dumb enough to think they would start a war
>news on tv says 14 right winged terrorist attacked crowds of protesters with political motives
>more gun bans


We win every time you fuckin retards

Attached: 5AB17F8D-1205-46D7-B2F6-D5120F15C17D.jpg (249x212, 48K)

No one is coming to take your guns you fucking losers... we're not all getting sent to the fucking ovens either. Get a fucking grip. It's just going to be harder to buy some types of guns.... as it should be.

Jews control half the country. They want to take away a lot of things the other half of the country cares about.

the people without guns will murder the people with guns

I have a grip, its on my assaults rifle

Whoop de fucking doo. Don't be a knob with it and everything will be ok.

Well even if i am a knob I'LL be okay naw sayin

>The US military cannot conduct operations inside the US against its citizens.
Think again.
>Protection of federal property and functions. When the need for the protection of federal property or federal functions exists, and duly constituted local authorities are unable to, or decline to provide adequate protection, federal action, including the use of military forces, is authorized.

I think it will run deeper than gun control but yes, the divide between sides is widened daily by the media and it's already taken the left turn into radicalization on both sides. It's only a matter of time until we see either entirely new ideologies spring up and demand a voice through violence, or current ideologies have offshoot parties that become paramilitary. There would be way too many factors to accurately predict who would win without specifics.

back to /pol russian faggot

Attached: what a fucking clown.jpg (571x572, 38K)

Anyone saying the hicks with guns hasn't seen your typical hick with a gun. The vast majority are mouthbreathing and sedentary and asking them to hump a mile with rifle and ammo would be nothing short of hilarious.

Why would there be a war? All the gun-loving mouthbreathers live out in the sticks. Unless they intend on invading cities, lol just lol, then they can stay out there.

Inbred redneck hicks thought the same shit during the last Civil War.

They had all the guns and knew the land and knew how to shoot and hunt better than us Northern city folk.

But guess what? We had the gun factories. And the shipyards. And the money.

And we had a limitless stream of Irish Immigrants who we could hand guns to to go shoot Southerners.

And we had a righteous moral cause so all the former slaves would fight for us too.

If a pro-gun, anti-gun civil war popped off, the anti-gun side would have worldwide public opinion, more money, bigger, more important cities like New York and LA and SF and Boston and DC, a limitless supply of Mexicans who'd fight and die to kill racist rednecks, plus 95% of all blacks, and all the know-how of MIT, Harvard, Stanford to make space lasers and whatever, plus all the Navy (fags) still.

Southerners are dumb as fuck if they think that a bunch of shitty inbred hicks with aramalites is going to stop the Yankee War Machine.

Attached: William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg (2364x3000, 908K)