> muh tyranny of the government.
How is your shitty weapon going to take on tanks, planes and machine guns?
The basis for the 2nd ammendement doesnt exist. Even if a huge uprising came, it would be quashed within 2 days. Fat neckbeards from Texas arent taking out the navy seals. Lel
Other urls found in this thread:
This is a good point. It is almost as stupid as expecting a bunch of farmers with old firelocks and cannons made from melted down scrap trouncing the shit out of the finest the British empire had to offer.
It only exists because they can't get rid of it without spending money, effort or time on improving anything to do with internal affairs. Besides that, the only other reason is the upheaval it would cause but ayylmao let's blameshift
t. britcuck who didnt dare object when the goverment stole his guns.
>implying the armed forces wouldn't be the first to take on a tyrannical government
The real question is, how cool would modern tank vs. modern tank battles would be?
Yes it's a good thing the citizens of such progressive countries such as ours have no power.
Really makes me think.
>How is your shitty weapon going to take on tanks, planes and machine guns?
Ask the Mujahideen, Taliban and Vietcong.
Tell me how a rising against the goverment will win.
Because you need police for a police state to function. Drones and Jets can't patrol streets. What would they do? Bomb entire cities that have a guerilla presence? That'd sure get a lot of people on their side.
Ask gookmoot.
>what are gorilla tactics
>Best military in the world
>Can't blow a couple thousands shit skins out of holes in the desert.
>But will stop a resistance in its homeland of a couple million armed to the teeth.
Okay buddy.
You just posted this twice.
Implying the military would follow orders to kill their own families and friends.
GTFO you faggot, this shit post is up there with bbc shit posting.
last time i checked the viet cong won
>not to mention all the autistic old people with literal thousands of rounds stockpiled in doomsday bunkers
Do you know the cost of running those?
Someone post the picture, you know which one.
Thats wrong on all accounts.
Shall not be infringed, fuck off.
You're retarded, he was being sarcastic
Would your military move against its civilian population? Even in some of the most dire of circumstances, that don't involve direct foreign invasion, it isn't legal to deploy our military in our homeland. Anyone giving that order would instantly be removed from office, by force if need be.
The military is made up of citizens who will not fire on their own neighbors.
Its one thing to fight a foreign enemy like Germany or Japan. It's another thing to drop napalm on your own countrymen.
How do you think the American Civil War happened? You think the Confederates were just ordinary civilians? No, a huge part of the military defected
60% of all SEALS come from the state of Texas.
The difference in force between the American revolutionaries and the British army is not comparable to the difference between some rednecks with AR-15s and their government with incredibly sophisticated tanks, machine guns, helicopters, fighter jets, bombers, satellites, missiles, drones, etc. Not to mention the fact that the government could do whatever it wants with the private sector in an emergency, like disabling phones and restricting internet usage (no communication, no coordination). Then there's the CIA that would have any rebellious organization infiltrated and monitored 100% within days.
> tanks, planes and machine guns
Do you really think the government would start bombing their own cities, crippling their own country and risk alienating his population even more?
>How is your shitty weapon going to take on tanks, planes and machine guns?
If our shitty weapons can't do anything against government, why is the government shilling so hard to take them away? hmmmmm, really makes you think.
>you have no chance, give up your weapons freely goy.
>Tell me how a rising against the goverment will win.
A government without the support of its people has no power.
Hey, fag, if we start fighting the goverment, who the fuck will be flying all those tanks and shooting the missiles?
Soros and Hillary?
Get the fuck out of here.
Which is why citizens should be allowed to own any weapon including predator drones.
Oh look this thread again...
stormweenies honestly believe that it would ever come to a full on guerrilla war, with a government army against an otherwise united people
these weenies are retards, mind you
see:
Here you go.
Who operates the tanks and planes retard, good ole boys that love the constitution enough to fight and die for it
Posting it again.
Look is this shill demoralization thread again
At least is good to know they are paying this retards to try to go agains 2nd
...
Never let them take your guns burgers. Never let them force licensing or registration, because taking your guns is easy once they know who has them.
They will never be satisfied, no amount of legal compliance is enough. Even after they take your guns, they will still try to take even the possibility of you ever having guns again.
Give them nothing.
fpbp
Saved.
This one is good too.
This is exactly why tanks, missiles and aircraft should be available to the general public
SHALL
You are right, the Tanks, machine guns, helicopters, fighter jets, bombers, satellites, missiles, drones etc are far more costly and susceptible to supply shortages, like the ones a nation in civil war would encounter.
I don't think you understand the mindset here. Even in liberal New York, the assault weapon ban and registration only registered less than 10 percent of all of them.
Nobody would comply here.
>youre going to die anyway so why bother even trying to fight lol
What a cucked mindset you have
I thought shit /b tier threads weren't allowed. The citizens are the military you fool we won't shoot ourselves in the foot.
I understand, but still feel it needs to be explicitly stated. The reason behind never giving concessions should be clearly communicated.
If weapons are so useless why is the government so obsessed in taking them away?
>the guberment is too powerful copy pasta
So apparently if the government can crush you within days, that's supposed to be a reason to just give all your guns away?
Idk bout you but even if they possessed the capability to do that I'd rather go out fighting.
Burgers, are they trying to take your guns to prevent things like school shootings, armed robberies and other such things, or is that just a cover to allow the government to have more power than the people?
Then you dont need guns
Case in point
idiot
Londonstan you're a fool. Now go to bed.
>actually using the second amendment for "protecting yourself from the government"
Go back to fucking your cousin, Billybob.
The modern second amendment is there to defend you from burglars and robbers. If the police isn't there, your right to live is just a piece of paper.
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
you retards realize those groups only stood a chance because their people
-are so miserably impoverished and uneducated that they do not value their own lives and are able to die en masse and keep reproducing and living in squalor
-were being supplied heavily by countries using them in a proxy war
Unless Canada or Mexico (lol) are going to give US rebels aid, we aren't getting shit from anybody. Good luck getting Russian or Chinese aid to US rebels, if US rebels would even work with commies in the first place.
I think you forgot to put in the
>le Cred Forums btfo
Part of your shill post
What Is
>guerrilla warfare
...
> implying bare fists are better than a gun against tanks
we need gook tunnels, we can not allow a gook tunnel gap
If 2nd Amendment was intended to make people equal to government, shouldn't that mean that
citizen should be allowed to purchase operational tanks?
>Even though I have the money, I can't get an air worthy f-4
Clearly US citizens should be able to buy military equipment.
Are you saying that my military will be fully used against me and my fellow citizens?
This does not make me any more partial to giving away muh guns, Ahmed.
Thank you for posting that
...
The first time the fed airstrikes civilians, the resistance will grow 10x.
The armed forces need guns
Check and mate
So you don't imagine that if the founding fathers understood the scale of destruction modern warfare can produce they might've rethought that? When war was won by musketry and cavalry, petty much any group could cause the government trouble. The reality is that no americans would ever do anything if their constitution were dramatically changed, your rights are ignored already yet you accept this.
A tank or fighter jet can't go door to door to enforce martial law, only a infantryman can, and an infantryman can be killed by a bullet. Even the USA doesn't have enough tanks jets and so on to police their entire country without it coming down to men on foot at the bottom line.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
What was the point of doing this then?
Way more than 10,000 would die in the first year from starvation.
en.wikipedia.org
2-7million died in 2 years with a country population of 30 million.
Takes one bullet to kill a man
If the gov. starts shooting it's own civilians then the revolution has already one
Pls send me your guns, America, I've been a very good goy all year. I'd like a Sig P220 with rosewood grips, please.
k, let's get rid of the 2nd
it's the current year and all that
Seems like 30000 goat fuckers seem to be doing quite a good job withstanding our forces current
No worries. It just amazes me to hear foreigners pontificate on our natural born rights.
You only have rights within the government , if you oppose it you won't be subject to that law and will become an outlaw whose rights won't be recognised. Unlike Britain you have a written constitution, and your rights only exist within that constitution. Learn your own fucking system before making absurd statements. This is why Europe perceives you as redneck retards incapable of logical thought. Quite literally the laughing stock of the world.
Americas Bill of rights doesn't give you rights. It says the government cant take them away. They are natural rights.
Ask the Taliban...
See
Americans have God given, natural born rights. You are mistaken.
This lame ass thread again? I'm posting OP's favorite author for a bit, because this thread is gay.
Shall not
hang yourself bong
Be infringed
Even by Ahmed in the calphate of bongistan
You're right. This is why I believe private citizens need to be allowed to own SAM missiles, anti tank guns and similar weapons to make the fight fair.
This is what British women look like.
>governments give rights
And I thought I was retarded.
He's right. A right is just an abstraction, both granted and taken away by the government.
Rights are not the same thing as freedoms.
you are right its more like viatnam. oh wait
...
>government army
Hardly.
Because a nation that uses the full might of it's military on it's citizens will begin to make collateral damage And lose legitimacy due to their heavy handed responses.
The government would have to crush the citizenry. Which kind of leaves them out of a job.
Don't tel me that you think so simply to not realize this britcuck?
Also. Fuck the queen.
See
Americans have God given, natural born rights. You are mistaken.
Rights are inherent. Governments have nothing to do with them.
you cant stay in a plane forever
you have to land somewhere right?
they cant carry enough missiles to kill every single person with a gun in america
OP, there are 112 guns per 100 people in the united states. The population of this country is well over 300 million. Thats a lot of firepower.
The most deprived, most uneducated people on this planet have found ways to build bombs that can throw our armored vehicles dozens of feet into the air. What do you think a pissed off american engineer can come up with?
Unless the government glasses every human being in the country they cannot win. And if they do, they wont have anything to govern.
>Protecting yourself is retarded
Well good thing you cucks have up your ability to do so
Now if you would kindly fuck off and leave us alone to our so called "backward" beliefs
This is our country not yours and your opinion means nothing
>Rights are inherent
Not unless you're religious. Rights don't exist outside of human thought. They're an illusion.
Thats a cover up. They know that if guns are actually made illegal criminals will still get them anyway. Just look at the Paris shootings.
ok so you can be the first to give up yours
i will glady rape you continually
They fully understood the scale of destruction modern warfare could produce. Doesn't matter. I would rather die on my feet then on my knees.
Three percent you historically illiterate twat. That's how many colonists revolted against the British. Three fucking percent.
Who's your god now bitch?
Aww fuck. You shit lord are going to argue this again?
You know this thread has been posted twice a day for years?
why the fuck we european always give a fuck about US 2nd amendment ?
>Pakistan flag
>wants to disarm population to fulfill it with niggers and diaper heads without any resitance from the populace
>their own capital isn't white
>their own police try to hide criminals
>their own country autorised shariah law and islamic courts
>their own brexit just mean less whites and more blacks
Oh Britain my old friend, it's sad to see you going this down, also it's 6,30 PM don't you have a bull to prep or a prayer in the mosque in 30 mins ? nigga you need to put your clothes on !
>tanks, planes and machine guns
In the end of the day, unless you're planning to kill everyone, you need boots on the ground to control a territory
>Fat neckbeards from Texas arent taking out the navy seals.
No, but all the Navy Seals and other military personnel who side with their fellow countrymen instead of the government would need arms for themselves and rebels under their command to resist the government ground forces
Quit being a low IQ google for one second and use your brain. I didn't say they don't exist and I didn't say they aren't useful. They're like laws. Their existence is dependent on our willingness to adhere to acknowledge and adhere to them.
Freedoms on the other hand exists in nature. For example, you are free to wave your hands around in the air; you're exercising your inherent freedoms, which were granted to you not by the state, but by nature itself. That freedom cannot be taken from you on paper, but only by physical force.
Hurr durr you only use guns if the government takes over harhar
What is home invasion
What is chimpout
It'd make sense if they had 1 tank and 1 aircraft per person but that's not the case now is it
...
ok and adhering to a smart idea is a smart idea and every time people have lost guns they get slaughtered
so idk what youre trying to do here.... as if the 2nd amendment is bad
it still makes you an enemy to freedom
What government on this planet can legally take away a person's right to self defense?
Do you not see the silliness in waiting for something that doesn't exist outside of human thought, an illusion?
>A government without the support of its people has no power.
or legitimacy, but cucks like OP would still follow their orders because...no balls.
...
In a guerrilla war the government still has to maintain its legitimacy and abide by its laws, so they have a large handicap that you can exploit from the get go.
The moment they take abusive measures to find and deal with insurgents, they alienate the population and might even find themselves in a position in which foreign states justify an intervention on the insurgents' side.
Jets and tanks can't go door to door confiscating guns.
Come back when the government develops nearly indestructible remote controlled robot soldiers. Maybe then we will talk about whether or not a revolution is possible.
Its still wouldn't matter if they went full on kill everybody mode. We have direct access to all of their resources. The only way the U.S. government could win is a bunch of countries attempted to intervene to save the U.S.
But if that happened it would be ww3 and Europe would have enough problems on their own.
He posted twice and left.
Sage your posts
Same way ISIS and friends have successfully kept the world out of their lands.
Gorilla tactics are what BLM employs
Even tho the us gov is super powerful with a big military, there is a chance that entire military bases could rebel and then in turn even the odds.
>implying that government combat infantry isn't rednecks with AR 15s too.
Who do you think fights SJWs from amherst and 85 IQ googles?
No I think the second amendment is great and I think the US constitution is one of the best in the world, far better than our charter. You've misrepresented my intentions entirely.
so why even bring up such a stupid statement like "rights dont exist thats only for religious people"
it doesnt accomplish anything but make you look edgy
Because that's not what I said at all. Jesus Christ you're dumb.
In case of uprising, there'll be a very big chance of divide between loyalist troops and pro-rebel troops. Pro-rebel troops will steal the ammunition as much as they can and defect. Just like what happened in Syria.
After that, it all depends on the public support for government and which public groups support the government. The government without support will collapse quickly.
How many fucking times are we going to have this thread and watch you retards get btfo?
Saging your faggy thread.
>usa laughing stock of world
So euro poors with shit tier militaries and no freedom of speech are laughing at US?
You live under our security umbrella.
Piss us off and we'll let a real country like Russia conquer you before you finish slurping up a nice spotted dick
>unless you're religious
>am religious
>your leafy confusion on this point is why you think there's a legal right to suck dog cocks but not a right to defend your family
No gunz liberal cucks could be convinced to support a government that wants to fight wars in the homeland. It would work like this- Hillary tells all the transniggers to join her army and remove guns from the US population. They become the new SS and sniff out every white Christian heterosexual who owns guns. Demand they all be turned over.
Secretly during this process Soros begins to fund black militant shock troopers from Michigan and Illinois. They begin their sweep of Idaho, Ohio, Iowa. Rearm with better weaponry from the spoils ofbtheir raids. Any time they are out gunned, the ATF goons are called in to confiscate the illegal weapons Idaho farmsteads have been stockpiling for tthis day. They route Washington, oregon, and by the time they reach Californian cucks have already dearmed all the non cuck Californians. Now the East has conquered the west, and the standoff states are Kansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas
> why you think there's a legal right to suck dog cocks but not a right to defend your family
Love how all these butthurt illiterate burgers love to put words in my mouth
There's a really easy answer to this shit question that you cucks keep asking. Look at the motherfucking Afghanistan. US DoD went full invasion on a whole bunch of sandal wearing hajis and it's still not over.
Now imagine if instead of those illiterate cavemen you had millions of Americans whose firearms are light years ahead of the shit Talibans have. You stupid fucking retard, any insurgency war in the world will tell you that you don't fuck with an armed insurrection, especially when the insurgents got more or less the same firepower as your average infantry battalion.
Anyone else getting hardcore deja vu from this thread?
>The US government will blow up portions of their cities, causing massive infrastructural damage and killing hundreds of innocents per actual fighter in the event of a rebellion
Sounds like a solid plan, no way that could backfire.
The army is also made of Americans, you know that right? They wouldn't be very motivated to fight against citizens of their own country that they are sworn to protect.
>What government on this planet can legally take away a person's right to self defense?
Any government with legislative power.
Idiots like that think saying a few magic words binds people to do whatever they are told.
home made explosives placed at key points at the US power grid. strategic assassination of politicians. destruction of infrastructure.
generally a bad time. it would be total war.
Unalienable. A government can only use force, the legislation does not create or deny the right.
I love how foreigners fail to understand that private citizens can own tanks, jets, and rocket launchers. Fight with modern weapons of war. That's how it was in 1775, that's how it is today.
Fun fact: The guns, artillery, and ships the Continental Army fought with were privately owned.
>Unalienable.
Says who? The government?
>A government can only use force, the legislation does not create or deny the right.
Legislation means it's legal.
Rights are a social construction. Different cultures and governments accept different rights.
As rights are a function of the legal system all rights are part of a legal system.
Navy Seals have something around 2.000 men and whole JSOC hast 25.000 (officially). You would have 20-100 million people with pistols, shotguns, sniper rifles and semi auto assault rifles who would also get a huge support from large parts of the military. You can not bomb cities like New York to take out a militia without getting 90% civilian deaths.
Do you actually believe that the USA soldiers will agree to go against their people?
Yeah, except it's usually Norway that starts them. Now it's just an asshurt Redcoat from two sessions of buttfucking by the US.
This. Commanding officers would have guns drawn on them to assimilate with the revolution or die as loyalist scum.
>implying the military would turn on its citizens
>implying the international community would let a government nuke its own people from orbit
go home muhammad, youre drunk
>implying the government gives me the right to do anything
>implying the government isn't just restrictions on absolute freedom
>implying the government is God
Laughing stock of the world, eh? How's that whole forced immigration thing working out? Surely those people needed to travel 3000 miles and across the channel in order to feel at home?
You're like a little baby. We could give a fuck what a bunch of faggot cucks think about us, have fun with Sharia you fucking losers lmao.
Yeah the is troops proved super effective against insurgents in Iraq....
It would be infinitely harder to take on america. We have more than just guns bud. Alot more.
Also our troops wouldn't all agree to attack us. Trust me, I have yet to meet a marine, navy or army inlisted That would.
Afghans took down a Hind with a rock. I think we'll be okay.
>lel
GET THE FUCK OFF THIS BOARD
I thought that was the reason, thanks for confirming my suspicions friend, good luck to whomever is voted into power.
The government orders you to go to the home across the street and in cold blood shoot its owner.
Will you, as a person, do it?
Will soldiers do it?
Tanks and airplanes are ineffective against guerrilla warfare... The collateral damage to innocents civilians is too high for even the most tyrannical governments, and reinforces the rebel's narrative... Just look at the civil war in Syria... Syria had planes and tanks, but couldn't use them to crash popular uprising...
>The government has so much powerful shiiieet so lets make ourselves even weaker by giving away even the little bit that we do have.
4/10 made me reply
The Second Amendment isn't about government tyranny. Americans have one of the most tyrannous and oppressive governments in the developed world and they didn't use guns to overthrow the state. The Supreme Court decided who would be president in 2000 and they didn't overthrow the state. A fucking nigger got elected *twice* and they didn't overthrow the state. Both their political parties are dedicated to flooding their country with non-whites (so under-25s are already majority non-white!) and they didn't overthrow the state.
Guns are a way for their rulers to convince Americans that they're free. They're simply a way to distract Americans from the objective reality of their country's destruction at the hands of globalist liberals. Americans will let the government do whatever it wants because they believe they *could* overthrow the state. They never will, but they believe *could* and, for Americans, that is freedom.
The globalists laugh at their fixation with guns, their childish belief that guns mean they're free. The globalists - like Hillary, Obama, Bill and the Bushes - know the truth: all those guns and all that "freedom" hasn't stopped them from selling America to the Saudis or from flooding the country with Mexicans to drive down wages. All those guns haven't stopped George Soros from deciding that Hillary will be the next president. All those guns, in the end, make no fucking difference because the American people will never ever ever in any circumstances use those guns.
So cling to your guns. Enjoy them. Convince yourself they make you free. Then go pay your credit card bill and fill in your tax return and go vote for Hillary in November. Yeah, I said vote for Hillary. She's going to win anyway because Soros has decided. Might as well get on the winning side. Right?
>Says who? The government?
Says no one, which is my point.
A man's conscience is his own. He stands accountable for his own actions and makes his own decisions. It is a choice that he follows the legislation or fights it. The only action of government is force, it cannot decide what is right and what is wrong.
Asymmetric warfare targeting their logistics lines and their personnel when not in air.
Additionally machine guns, CBRNE agents, and IEDs are trivial to make
Right, but the scenario is a divisive political situation where a faction of the government uses ideologically loyal troops to do it's bidding... could be along racial, religious, ethnic or class lines...These factions will not be loyal to ALL Americans, but to their own faction... Just look at solders who won't stand for the national anthem or salute the flag...
Another scenario assumed a "red dawn" situation where foreign troops will reinforce the local traitors to oppress Americans... Let's say Islam grows exponentially in the US and gains political control... Then, they bring in foreign Muslim troops to reinforce the local faction... Would they be loyal to American values or their own Muslim imperatives?
Cool thread, Khan. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more moslims like you to like shitposting. It's what makes \Pol\ great.
And yet, they are desperate to take away our guns... If the 2nd amendment isn't a threat to them, why try so hard?
ctrl+f
no posse commitatus
pol, i am disappoint
>Only autistic old people stockpile ammo
It's a smart hedge against inflating ammo prices to buy in bulk.
Do you honestly think they didn't understand how destructive warfare was? They were alive during Napoleon's conquest of Europe, and fought their own wars. They also had history to look back on, like the Mongols, and the Chinese who fought a war so terrible they reduced the world's total population by 20%.
Musket and cavalry and cannon aren't that much less destructive, they're just way more inefficient at it. In some cases they're more destructive. What do you think is worse, a sporadic firefight in the mountains or standing line abreast volleying into a bayonet charge with 3/4" lead balls and then being run through by a sword bayonet?
>Be government facing armed insurrection
>Blow up infrastructure in major cities
>Kill hundreds of innocent civilians for every actual guerrilla fighter
>Cause millions of dollars in damage and cripple entire cities in the process
>Society collapses on it's own in the complete absence of a properly functioning society
>All this because a few good men told the government to fuck off with a couple bullets
>And didn't have to do any work after that
Or do you expect them to line up in blocks in open plains away from anything important or something?
If nobody wants the gubmint and everyone has a gun, they have millions of snipers and saboteurs to deal with. They can roll through with the army unopposed, but then nothing gets done and their apparatchiks are picked off one by one.
Yea, but how did Vietnam beat us?
FPBP
What people don't understand is that guerrilla warfare will always prevail over a conventional army. It's impossible to completely irradiate a force that cannot even be separated from the average citizen.
It didn't work in Vietnam.
It isn't working in every middle-eastern conflict.
It won't work here.
It took an entire police force just to kill that one nigger holed up with a rifle in Texas. That was a five-to-one ratio. Now imagine every motherfucker with a gun (tens of millions) rising up.
The reason why it might not go full guerrilla is that most likely you would have whole units of the army defect if orders were to fire on US citizens.
eat shit and die britbong
I can go places that no tank will ever reach and I can do so very quickly and with the ability to sustain myself in the field indefinitely. I could leave tomorrow morning and thrive off-grid and out of sight.
Would I engage in a firefight? No, that is stupid beyond belief. I would live my life and protect my territory. The only way we would be taken out is by boots on the ground and they would have a lot of trouble doing it. Maybe they decide we are high value targets and burn a cruise missile on us but I doubt it. It is far more likely that we would watch the world burn and be left alone.
Seriously, this is not the UK. We are not removed from the land, our mountains, our streams. We can live here as comfortably as you huddle in your cities.
If a bunch of sand niggers can hold off the well equipt Syrian government with some old ass aks and seizing other weapons, why can well trained rednecks so the same?
>How is your shitty weapon going to take on tanks, planes and machine guns?
There was no standing army directly prior to the civil war
>This coming from the "muh greatest military of the 18th Century" that we beat in eight years.
The US Army had a standing force of 18,000 officers and men in 1860, of which, 20% officers and around 33% of enlisted men defected to the Confederacy, including 198 West Point graduates who would make up some of finest leaders in the Confederate Army.
>how is your shitty second ammendment going to defeat planes tanks, etc.
How about you ask the middle eastern farmers with AK's who the US government failed to take out.
Or the rice paddie farmers that the US failed to take out.