When people say you are paranoid about the government taking your guns

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

God what a stupid argument. Yeah, you've got some AK-47s ... that's going to do a whole lot of good if the government shows up on your doorstep with a tank (or a nuke).

Sorry crazy conspiracy people, if the government wants to take over, they can and will, because they have vastly superior weaponry. The 2nd amendment isn't what protects your freedom: it's our democratic system of checks and balances.

The day that fails all the guns you can hoard won't do shit when the corrupt government drops a bomb from a plane on you.

it's amazing how badly they miss the lesson which is "military sides with dictator, revolution fails"

[DMN]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's amazing how badly they miss the lesson which is "military sides with dictator, revolution fails"

You probably should have read my comment before you looked extra stupid.

I'll throwh Stalingrad in there too, where most the soldiers had garbage weapons(many were given no weapons and told to find one from a corpse. And they had to go against germay's best tech.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You probably should have read my comment before you looked extra stupid.

google north vietnam, rambo.

[Topgunben]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

God what a stupid argument. Yeah, you've got some AK-47s ... that's going to do a whole lot of good if the government shows up on your doorstep with a tank (or a nuke).

Sorry crazy conspiracy people, if the government wants to take over, they can and will, because they have vastly superior weaponry. The 2nd amendment isn't what protects your freedom: it's our democratic system of checks and balances.

The day that fails all the guns you can hoard won't do shit when the corrupt government drops a bomb from a plane on you.

By that same logic, I could argue that the military does not need small arms, because its potential enemies have nuclear weapons and tanks.

My point being that while a nuclear weapon is more devastating than a person with a gun, a person with a gun is better able to defend himself against government tyranny than a person without a gun.

A nuke is too messy anyway, it would likely kill many of its allies along with its enemies.

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

God what a stupid argument. Yeah, you've got some AK-47s ... that's going to do a whole lot of good if the government shows up on your doorstep with a tank (or a nuke).

Sorry crazy conspiracy people, if the government wants to take over, they can and will, because they have vastly superior weaponry. The 2nd amendment isn't what protects your freedom: it's our democratic system of checks and balances.

The day that fails all the guns you can hoard won't do shit when the corrupt government drops a bomb from a plane on you.

Only folks who haven't thought this through make this "argument."

The government can't go door to door with tanks (let alone nukes. Are you fucking retarded? LOL WE'LL JUST USE A TACTICAL NUKE ON EACH OF THE 80 MILLION HOMES IN THE US THAT HAVE A FIREARM IN THEM WHAT COULD GO WRONG?!?!?!). Private ownership of small arms is as potent nowadays as it was in the American revolution.

[azeth]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Private ownership of small arms is as potent nowadays as it was in the American revolution.

His example of nukes diluted his valid point; you couldn't be more wrong.

Any civilian who believes their AR15 is protecting them from the US Military is out. of. their. mind.

[Topgunben]

Originally Posted by azeth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

His example of nukes diluted his valid point; you couldn't be more wrong.

Any civilian who believes their AR15 is protecting them from the US Military is out. of. their. mind.

I guess rock throwing would be more effective? SMH

[azeth]

Originally Posted by Topgunben [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I guess rock throwing would be more effective? SMH

Google some combat footage videos. let me know how the Marines respond when shots are fired.

Spoiler - they don't fire back with small arms fire.

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by azeth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

His example of nukes diluted his valid point; you couldn't be more wrong.

Any civilian who believes their AR15 is protecting them from the US Military is out. of. their. mind.

The Taliban defended themselves with Lee Enfield No. 4's (bolt action rifles, used in WW2)

The AR15 is the civilian platform of what the military currently uses.

The only difference is that it is semi-auto and not select fire.

And no, that doesn't make a difference. Full-auto is only used by idiots in action movies.

[FatherSioux]

Originally Posted by azeth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

His example of nukes diluted his valid point; you couldn't be more wrong.

Any civilian who believes their AR15 is protecting them from the US Military is out. of. their. mind.

Some of the US Military would be on the side of the rebels. Let's assume a soft number of 25%. So you think 1.5M Military members are going to suppress and control a guerilla style war with armed civilians? Because of technology? What are your reasons? Do you understand that the rebels don't need to defeat the entire US Military, they need to resist strongly for a duration. Resulting in help from the outside if it doesn't look like they will survive.