Honest question for burgers , noguns need not apply.
Do you really think the general armed population could stand up to the army in any way possible comes the time to stand up to Clinton's tyrannical government ? You do know your own military arsenal right ? It wont be some nigger trying to steal your shit at night , itll be a bunch of heavily armed men coming to take your guns away from you or kill you.
Other urls found in this thread:
strawpoll.me
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
The Afghanis did it with 100+ year old rifles and nothing else.
>2 of 3 homes have guns in them
>most americans won't just give up there guns when presented with tanks and armed+armored soliders
>soldiers would have to fire on americans
>soliders would have to kill 2/3rd of population, or a good deal, in order to regain control
it's not gonna happen desu
Even if less than half the military defected, the feds would stand a snowballs chance in hell. A gun behind every blade of grass.
If say, 70% of the armed forces bailed, ha. Haha. Highest kek.
>Do you really think the general armed population could stand up to the army in any way possible comes the time to stand up to Clinton's tyrannical government ?
As always, the answer is "yes."
Any other questions?
44% of households own guns currently. Only about 2 Million members of the military. Of that 2 million, 200,000 roughly are Marines. And of that 200,000 only 1 / 13 are infantry. I think the General population would be fine.
How is it going to happen then ? Tthe world is on a path to total cucking and Its not like you guys are going to willingly give you guns away.
US military morale would collapse if they had to fight its own citizens. Look at Afghanistan/Iraq, it would be much worse than that.
Oh wait, I get it...this is another one of those OPs that thinks insurgents would shuffle out to a battle field in the open to be cut down instead of fighting a guerrilla war.
TFW at least half the military refuses to kill American civilians and joins them instead.
Did you not check his flag?
obligatory
Commencing dump.
>strawpoll.me
If the army invades yes, but if its just airplanes bombing the crap out of places then no.
Another
The answer to this dumb question is always the same, and that answer is yes, provided that enough of the population committed to civil war. In the event of a genuine civil war, this would be very likely, as such a thing wouldn't take place without having a justifiable cause, which means that a damn good portion of the population would not only view it favorably, but would join in, as per our anti authoritarian culture.
Do you want a post detailing some of the likely characteristics of a civil war in the US?
Last one.
Asymmetrical war, faggot.
>you dumb fuckin right wingers! you cant round up 11 million illegals!
>you dumb fuckin right wingers! the govt can easily confiscate 300 million firearms!
...
You're not understanding how many defecting US Militart personnel are going to be on their side and the fact that asymmetric warfare is unwinable.
Nothing destroys nations better than internal conflict.
Name a single american insurgency and again , ex soldiers and people with general battlefield knowledge would do just fine.
The general population , even if armed , wouldnt exactly be able to stand up to a platoon of soldiers coming with the intent to kill or take away guns.
You dont need military training to own guns. even if half your population armed , what percentage would be effective against the fucking american army ?
>could stand up to the army
You dont attack the army
You attack what supplies funds and controls the army
Of course they could, OP. The population massively outguns the armed forces and it's trivial to make very effective IEDs.
The government would fall within 200 hours.
>Island nigger thinks that the gubbmint would bomb its own infratsructure.
Oh sure thing, lets fuck up the post office and the power plant and the police station and city hall and the schools and the ship ports and the airports and grocery stores and Walmart and the Interstate...
Top. Fucking. Lel.
And those are guarded by , you guessed it , the army.
>The US military would kill American citizens.
This is what Canadians believe.
>Name a single american insurgency and again , ex soldiers and people with general battlefield knowledge would do just fine.
The revolution
>The general population , even if armed , wouldnt exactly be able to stand up to a platoon of soldiers coming with the intent to kill or take away guns.
en.wikipedia.org
You make huge assumptions:
1) American soldiers wouldn't leave ranks to be with their families in the even of Civil War,
2) American soldiers would open fire on American citizens,
3) American soldiers' families wouldn't be retaliated against by insurgents.
These are bad assumptions, and you are a stupid man.
no they're guarded by me & cletus & billy joe
what funds the military is shipped out by the boys back here, & we have to show up to work for that
every bullet has to be made somewhere, son
>the army can guard every soft target in the country
This post suggests to me you have absolutely no clue how war works.
Americans wont shoot Americans.
That's cray cray. The line will be crossed then and
Those that issued the order will be out.
No... Are you even paying attention to what's being posted in your own thread?
There is one wrong thing about this picture, USA tv stations arent about getting money from it, at least direct profit.
They exist to push agendas, those agendas will help those involved to get money and power.
A
I knew of the kind of replies I would get but I find it extremely funny that not a single of you guys even think it would a hard thing to accomplish.
>April 19, 1775
Weapons got modern son.
The problem is, if they military was ever turned on American citizens, at least half of the military would defect immediately. Tensions between the government and the people have been high for a long time. A single move in that direction would severely cripple the entire deal.
So, yes, the common populous would win.
if an armed populace couldn't, why are they so eager to take away guns?
Why is it that refugees come from countries with strict gun laws? One day people are going to keep poking the bear and when that bear has had enough it will retaliate and and three will be a reset.
FUCKING
>Do you really think the general armed population could stand up to the army in any way possible
come on guys
ITS A FUCKING LEAF
LEEEAF
>These are bad assumptions, and you are a stupid man.
The first amendment is based the bad assumptions where your own government tries to take away your guns , I just expend on that idea.
requesting the picture of the fighter jet with a police hat knocking on the front door
>How is it going to happen then ?
At least half of the soldiers and police would join the rebellionŠ± others will refuse to shoot their fellows.
As long as the guns are there the government knows it can't piss off the people.
When guns are go they will go full Hitler with a small but powerful homicidal Secret Police killing and terrorizing unarmed population without any coverage.
>Do you really think the general armed population could stand up to the army in any way possible
The army would be on our side
The army is part of the population, you know.
...
If the government started killing its own people. I'm sure half the police/army would help the people. Also other governments would gladly help to strengthen the people
There are millions of people in the U.S. that are better equipped than most soldiers
>I find it extremely funny that not a single of you guys even think it would a hard thing to accomplish.
OK, I'll bite. What aren't you understanding that you find the responses extremely funny?
I would think that most of the military would side with the people they signed on to protect.
Half the police and military are pro-gun, if not more than that
They would steal military equipment and guns and ammo and help the rebellion
Yeah. There are about 2 million people in our armed forces, both active and reserve. It's estimated that between 40 and 60 million American citizens own firearms. And we aren't just talking about sidearms, there are more AR15's in the hands of average citizens than there are active military by a wide margin. If a mass citizens coup were to arise, the only way the government would be able to forcibly quell it would be by armor or air support which would mean leveling cities
Even so it's all semantics; our military would never raise up against the citizens
It's obvious that toe to toe the US populace would not stand a chance.
But I find it highly unlikely that US soldiers will agree to slaughter their fellow citizens.
I don't know if perhaps policing some areas with geographically distant troops, i.e. sending troops from New York to California may make them more likely to do such a thing - I'd say, probably no.
However, I will say that the idea of an armed revolt is entirely impossible - as I doubt such a thing could gain any substantial size, it would be geographically isolated, and more easily justified in attacking.
But armed resistance against gun-grabbing policies I think is a certainty, and one of many hurdles facing the gun control lobby.
You must be retarded if you think a martshart revolution wouldn't be successful within a year.
The American military got cucked out of evrey unconventional guerilla war its ever gotten involved with other than when it literally had to nuke Japan to make it stop, and if you think they're gonna nuke their own country you should just stick your hands in a lawnmower so you can never post again.
The point of an armed populace isn't to stand up to the government and overthrow it. The point is to present a clear danger to the government by way of civil war, in which the entire country would be destroyed.
Think about it. The second a civil war starts in America, every other country will leap into action and make the whole thing worse. It would be Vietnam in America.
You might as well ask what I would do if my own country nuked itself. Of course we aren't going to last against a tyrannical army bent on enslaving all of us, but we'd sure as hell try.
>Weapons got modern son.
I am sure blowing up your own cities will be great for the economy and tax revenues
The funny thing is even in a scenario with no military and police defections and less than 10k people in open rebellion this country would be bought to its knees
The Feds know this and its why they are so obsessed with disarming the population
This, not to mention very little of the military is voting for Clinton.
Some of the biggest 2nd amendment supporters are members of the military. The military would no more disarm the public then the Democrats would seek to remove the biting rights from blacks and women.
>bongs still not understanding guerilla warfare
Wew the first person who doesnt think its possible. You must be a cuck.
The Vietnamese farmers did it with outdated weapons.
>you should just stick your hands in a lawnmower so you can never post again.
I fucking LOL'd
Except they didn't, they got their absolute shit pushed in until we got tired of it and left
...
A large section of the military would side with the people.
He is a shill and this is a slide thread.
It would be a civil war all over again. People seem to forget that every true American will uphold the constitution, civilian or not. Which entitles overthrowing any government that goes against the People's interests.
The Army is bound to the constitution in such a way that a coup de tat would occur in the case of government severely overstepping its boundaries. At least 75% of US Military are pro constitution and pro freedom.
What is RDX for 500 Alex
>Not understanding guerrilla tactics the shitpost.
>implying US soldiers would fire on citizens and not defect
1/leaf bait, you made me reply
>shill
What the fuck am I even shilling ?
The thing is the sheer number of armed americans completely dwarves the size of the military. There is just too damned many of us.
cucklolding
>MUH ASSAULT WEAPON CAN DEFEAT TRAINED, 24/7 AVAILABLE SWAT TEAMS AND PREDATOR DRONES
Lmfao. You amerishoots are a fucking joke. Just end it already.
Justin Trudeau, back your cave.
But you assume that the military would stand against the people and the constitution. This is the general misconception of the left. They think once they have power, they control the military. But the military does not swear an oath to the politicians, they swear an oath to the constitution.
>The US War of Independence was a guerrilla war
A shiggy diggy.
>York Town
Americans fought the British toe to toe in conventional warfare (with substantial aid),perhaps that makes our defeat more shameful.
Guerrilla warfare as we've seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam is only possible with rifled and automatic weapons.A few guerrillas with smoothbore muskets are easily destroyed by a conventional army, but with rifled and automatic weaponry they can cause far more damage.This isn't even factoring in IEDs, perhaps the staple of modern guerrilla warfare.
Britain has actually proven itself rather effective against guerrillas, Northern Ireland, Malaysia, the Boer Wars - all wars won against irregular forces.
>What is RDX for 500 Alex
Overpriced if you ask me.
It takes an entire swat team to end a standoff. Now multiply this by some millions.
Because 1st world coalition did so well against farmers equiped with small arms and improvised explosives? Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam went so well right?
Leaf-user. You cannot force occupy an armed nation. Doesn't matter if it's a Stan or if it's fucking Iowa.
>to the army
You don't need to beat the army in a pitched battle, you just need to deny them control of an area. This is what insurgencies usually do... well that and purge collaborators.
Kicked you faggots out of our country
Like the soldiers would open fire against their own families and people.
Nah.
No you don't understand guerrilla warfare.
The military would have nothing to fight.
They would get their supplies and bases hit and would have to react only.
They would raid towns and find only citizens who pretend to be peaceful.
All weapons are stashed away hidden.
There is nothing to attack.
Have you updated your internet license and posting permit in order post here? Should probably bin that computer of yours.
Here we have an example of a country that has laid down and decided to just take it in the ass folks.
Only because the US government isn't willing to bomb, call artillery, or drone-strike them.
If the US government was able to gain public support to take down rebels (which incidentally I don't believe they would), then it would be a very short battle.
>Britain has actually proven itself rather effective against guerrillas,
Fighting a guerrilla warfare requires total scorched earth policy against the natives
Good luck doing this in an area that you need to collect taxes from
To be fair, factories and production zones are hard targets, not soft.
Alright so if the army would stand with the population and the government basically doesnt stand a chance against its own people why the fuck are they actively trying to take your guns away ?
I know its hard to believe but Im not here to shill leftist bullshit , I just want to understand why they try so hard to disarm the population If they KNOW it wont be possible.
Are they assuming you guys wont do shit until only a bunch of armed citizens remain ?
why would tim kaine take away the weapons from the people?
>abrams cost 40mil
This right here senpai. Vietnam II Appalachain Hillbilly edition.
Go look up the Glorious Revolution, which is the actual case for the practicality of the Second Amendment. This is a settled fact rather than a hope in search of an experiment.
>people are going to support their own cities being bombed
maybe in bongland
In a pitched battle, poorly armed militias fail. They use guerilla tactics to attack the nations infrastructure and rely on better equipped standard army units to defect and join them.
You need about 2/3 of the military to defect. hypothetically of course.
But the could not identify who is a rebel until they attack , that's the point of insurgency and 4th generation warfare.
You literally swinging at the invisible man who keeps slapping you in the side of the head then moving away.
You don't seem to understand that you've presented an incredibly stupid and unlikely scenario. If the US were to attack its own citizens, other countries would intervene, and that's only if there are no defectors (which there will certainly be)