>Muh second amendment is for government tyranny
The U.S. military is the best in the world and would kill you wannabe Rambos in a day.
Besides governments usually have a 15-1 kill advantage over insurgents. You'd need at least 20 million gun nuts and there isn't that many.
>let's bomb dense population centers that will kill innocent people in the process
>let's raid people's homes and accidentally pick the wrong one and kill innocent people.
>let's fight patriots while also dealing with massive riots and unrest when the power grid is knocked offline
>let's pretend 100% of the military will not defect and be okay with killing their own families.
there is way more than 20 million gun nuts
> "Only paranoid idiots want AR-15s in case the government becomes tyrannical."
> "What do you think of Trump?"
> "He's literally the next Hitler"
>vets don't like 2nd amendment
>Vietnamese farmers and goat fuckers held us off
>implying the US military would side with a government that seeks to kill US population
>implying the gov tyranny isnt about external gov taking over US gov after catastrophic collapse of gov and military
Why are you so faggot OP?
the military would fight for the people not the government if that actually happened
this
>the military would fight for the people not the government if that actually happened
kek yeah right. who would they be fighting then?? dumbass
...
>the British military is the best in the world and would kill you wannabe rebels in a day.
underrated
The term you're looking for is "bugsplat", as that's what such half-assed small-arm based resistance would look like should it ever mobilise.
Though i wouldn't overestimate their army either: They've been having or had remarkable problems with farmers and goatfuckers in about 5 countries now, so maybe somewhere all that money and all those numbers are either ineffective, lied or apparantly manned by soldiers worth less than a goat.
There's 289 million gun owners
LOL! No sources. That's just some gun fag spewing out his own fantasy.
This is not true today, because if the government became tyrranical and the people rose up a large portion of the military, probably even the majority would defect, remeber they are only people. But in the future as military becomes more technological and the advent of drones this will be a true statement.
Estimated 75% defection of military during an armed conflict with civilians.
Whatever faggot.
You are wrong, as proven by the modern experience with various insurgents. Modern governments have the ability to "control" an area. They have failed time and again to actually pacify them. Estimates of the Iraqi insurgency numbered them at less than 10,000 fighters. That means it only took 10,000 men armed with homemade explosives and AK-47’s to stop the most powerful army in the world.
There are a lot more than 10,000 American "gun nuts", and they're certainly more tech savvy than Iraqi insurgents.
Are many of his points not just logically valid? What do you expect a civil war to look like, citizen? Do you expect you will just go about your life to and from work and pleasure, watch some TV, talk on your cellphone, while other parts of the country are wartorn? Stop it. You lose everything. Riots and starvation due to disrupted supply lines in the cities. The government will crack down hard on what is permitted to be broadcast and when, if at all. Cellphone communications will be severely disrupted. How does a military stop attacks at ports, and powergrid structures, and nuclear plants, and airports, and bridges and tunnels, etc.? Ask yourself if you're asking the logistically impossible of your nation's military. How long can the madness that ensues last under the guise of democracy, before the government even has to shut that down and the mask comes off? How long until people in the suburbs, sick of traffic stops, cell phone and TV outages, food shortages, soaring prices, bloodshed, and general misery say enough and plead with their government to negotiate with the rebels?
People like you are the true fantasy types. You never think any of this through rigorously. You just say stupid, fantastical shit about an omnipotent military you don't even understand.
>hey guys guns are useless, lol you think you could take the government? lmao
>waaaaah another shooting, we can't take it anymore! When will the madness stop, pls take my freedom away
I'm positive half the military will turn against a tyrannical government once shtf.
Check you math again.
See
The second a destabilized America is on the horizon I fully believe Russia will win it.
> (OP) (You)
>You are wrong, as proven by the modern experience with various insurgents. Modern governments have the ability to "control" an area. They have failed time and again to actually pacify them. Estimates of the Iraqi insurgency numbered them at less than 10,000 fighters. That means it only took 10,000 men armed with homemade explosives and AK-47’s to stop the most powerful army in the world.
>There are a lot more than 10,000 American "gun nuts", and they're certainly more tech savvy than Iraqi insurgents.
More Iraqis died than U.S. military personnel. Sorry the U.S. rebels will lose.
>.308 stripper clip
>m16
But Trump is not going to be elected so there is no point you retard.
...
>20 million gun
There are over 50 million
Talk about why I need a gun all you want but the fact of the matter is that there is simply no possible way to take the guns from the people in America.
SAGGEEDDDDDDDDDDD
xd
I see a lot of 3% stickers on the cars going into the Army base I live by...
Jet planes can't guard street corners
Sup Forums used to be a nice place...
You know it's a lot more complex than
>X is better equipped and better trained than Y
>X would win in a fight
>the fact that X hasn't crushed Y yet means X isn't out to get Y
>therefore Y should get on board with X and disarm themselves
Did you ever consider
>X and Y are not supposed to be enemies or else there is no country
>X could technically defeat Y if they threw all their weapons at them but there would be an insane amount of bloodshed
>in the modern world there aren't really any conceivable causes that would make X think it's worth it to go to war with Y
>that is one of Y's best deterrents
...