I need my AR-15 to protect against gubberme-

god you sound like someone who never went there or have any idea about guerrilla warfare

>a bunch of hillbillies pretending to be Guevara will beat the US military

Cool story. Reagan’s opinion is also worthless. My RIGHT (not a privilege) to own a firearm is protected by the second amendment. Try not to have a meltdown :)

I was about to ask, "why would the government strike it's own land?"

Are you retarded. The natives got ahold of these weapons by buying them from foreigners, stealing them, or being friendly with us until we decided they were the enemy.

>now it's about jet bombers?
Every serious modern military would have air support when invading

Guerrilla warfare doesn't always work even with a properly trained AND well-armed force. It's also extremely costly in terms of manpower. You sound like someone with poor reading comprehension, you completely omitted the brunt of my argument

??
>like the us military will ever attack their citizens
>like 3-4 kids with rifles cant fuck up a small patrol
>never experiencing a 8 y/o with an ak sitting in the back of a truck killing multiple men
>not understanding how war works

>costly in terms of manpower
Meant to say in some cases, I know Yea Forums has no concept of nuance. Gotta spell everything out here

The debate doesn’t matter and it’s a pointless conversation. Guns aren’t going anywhere and there’s absolutely not one thing you can do about it. Wipe your cheeks, get yourself some fresh soy milk to sip on.

The Middle East is not occupied, it was destroyed. That was the point.

Smashing an enemy of Zion is different from controlling a productive area of the imperial heartland. The strategic goals are different and one is much more vulnerable to guerilla warfare than the other. This is all academic because boomers will never rise up, but your premise is still incorrect.

Attached: 15298677373900.jpg (1080x1080, 919K)

>The debate doesn’t matter and it’s a pointless conversation
You know what I completely agree, I just have a problem when people try to use that as a reasonable defense.

Yea Forums:
>Stupid American faggots can't fight off the power of their own government

Also Yea Forums
>Vietnamese farmers won the war against the Americans

Make up your minds you fucking autistic shitbags

Attached: 1465709628277.jpg (640x480, 46K)

>what is Vietnam for 500
>what is bosnia for 1000
>what the American revolution for 1500
>what is the peninsula war for 2000
>what is the soviet-afgan war for bonus points?
and you sound like some pretentious bitch who has never been or studied war before but yet has the audacity to tell others why that one example trumps it ever working before

>your premise is still incorrect
Not really. Yours is.
> not occupied
Bullshit.
>was destroyed
Name one country on earth that didn't face a considerable amount of destruction during an invasion. Dumb bitch
>That was the point
It absolutely was not.

On Botha sides the conversation should start and end at “the right to bare arms is a constitutional right so there’s nothing to debate”.

>op makes thread
>gets mouth full of cocks
what a faggot

Attached: 1526339131386.jpg (436x436, 26K)

> Try not to have a meltdown :)
the most boomer mom line i've seen today, fuck

Laughs in Vietnamese

If you don't think an armed civilian population wouldn't win you're just in need of a history lesson.

Attached: 1565128924817.png (872x886, 220K)

Don’t call OP a stupid worthless autist, he’s actually a pretty cool guy outside of this thread. Got to know a lot about him recently and things are going pretty well friendship wise between us

>using the word boomer
>cringe

/thread

Attached: Reply to retards.jpg (773x428, 271K)

>why that one example trumps it ever working before
You sound like a child who has no concept of nuance in any of those situations. How many wars have been fought with those tactics and lost? Your confirmation bias is showing.

The attrition tactic in vietnam was working incredibly well for the Americans, we left for political reasons. Not as a necessity. Same for the revolution, they just gave up for financial reasons. They could have kept going but it wasn't really a worth it

When it's a fight to the death, guerrilla warfare means jack shit in the long run

If you're seriously prepared to argue that carpet bombing a state that presents a shadow of a threat to Israel until it doesn't exist anymore is the same as pacifying and coordinating the economic output of a core area of the US under military occupation, I'd like you to show your work. Then I'd like you to demonstrate how an occupation can be carried out with drones.

Attached: jojo_retarded.jpg (1024x576, 87K)

>They had grenades, RPGs, tanks, APCs, anti-air weapons.

You honestly think an outside power wouldn't jump in if a serious rebellion popped up in America? Russia and China would love to fund and equip American rebels in exchange for political influence

>Then I'd like you to demonstrate how an occupation can be carried out with drones.
When did I say that you little bitch? We had troops on the ground too, your point is moot.

"I'd like you to show your work"
What was the purpose of carpet bombing Germany in WW2? It wasn't to wipe Germany off the map. It was to eliminate as many enemies as possible and break will, occupy, then rebuild.

Carpet bombing has strategic value in an invasion.

>You honestly think an outside power wouldn't jump in if a serious rebellion popped up in America?

Well of course they would, that wasn't my point at all dude. What's the point of this thread? The context is that the 2nd protects us from a tyrannical force. Maybe in 1776, but bitch times have changed. They had muskets and cannons back then, that was the height of their military tech

>we can't argue about things because constitution
the constitution can be changed it's not set in stone.

What he'd probably say in response is that the fathers meant for this to be kept in forever. That really is a fallacious way of thinking about it though. They weren't the moral authority for all of humanity from now until the end of time. We have the right to rewrite our society, whether or not we should is the right question.

>the military will willingly attack the populace it's drawn from

no

>drone strikes are inexpensive enough to use thousands of them on anything but securing oil or opium

no

>the government wants the best rifle for defending a private walled compound against an ATF/FBI type raid so killing dissidents doesn't turn into siege situations really often

if you want to ban the AR-15 you support the US government doing to us what China is doing to Hong Kong right now, there is no practical reason to want this weapon gone when 90% of non-suicide gun deaths are delivered with cheap, unregistered handguns in inner cities

the only reason you won't stop blickies instead of black rifles is you want a black person to shoot me to death so you can redistribute my wealth, land and job position to someone who will unquestioningly obey the US government

Attached: 1566921148774.png (1500x500, 76K)

the founding fathers also made the constitution in a time where you needed to manually pour new gunpowder into a rifle
not in a time where a rifle can unload 45 shots a minute by holding down a trigger

Mineralyeet is a fascist.

Believe it or not fatty mc tubberson actually probably will shoot the transformers out at a power station. Doing more damage in the long run.

Government can't drone strike everyone. Especially if he's not at his home or in q place with other citizens who aren't involved.

Its different when you blow up sand people because they are all usually in on it.

Blowing up citizens who aren't involved will make people commit mutiny and treason because they don't want to hurt other innocent Americans.

>when 90% of non-suicide gun deaths are delivered with cheap, unregistered handguns in inner cities
Completely ignoring context of the proposed situation as to use an otherwise irrelevant statistic to fit your narrative

>the military will willingly attack the populace it's drawn from

>no
They can with the right motivation. See the civil war, where brothers fought brothers. See the great purge in the U.S.S.R.. The list really goes on and on

your definition of a fascist is anyone who resists the 1%'s authority over all life on earth

one time in the 80's the FBI wanted a guy to be an informant on white gun nut Christians, he wouldn't do it so they raided his house and a sniper deliberately shot his unarmed, nearly naked son and wife when they tried to flee, they took him into his own house and mocked and tortured him for days, beating him several times a day, raping him in the ass with a flashlight and saying shit like "Hey, when's Vicki gonna make breakfast?" and "Hey, doesn't Chris have school today?" while he cried on the floor, he wasn't allowed to eat the entire time and almost died

for something like 5-10 years before the oklahoma city bombing Timothy McVeigh was known to distribute flyers calling for the assassination of the sniper who shot the son and wife by name

Attached: 1565751057213.jpg (466x493, 51K)

americans are retards ,,yes, whats the news here?

>you want a black person to shoot me to death so you can redistribute my wealth
>90% of non-suicide gun deaths are delivered with cheap, unregistered handguns in inner cities
You apparently don't need an AR-15 to kill someone or defend yourself. You're seriously going to walk around with an AR-15 around your back? What's the draw time on that versus a pistol?

Not who you're arguing with but can I get a sause on this?

>your definition of a fascist is anyone who resists the 1%'s authority over all life on earth
my definition of a fascist is a race realist who denies the holocaust. Sedimentthrow does these things
-> Pebblelaunch is a fascist

The Vietnamese had less and they whooped a military superpower without a a serious mechanized infantry division, barely any Anti aircraft and almost no air power.

And hell... The American soldiers back then were tougher than they were now and they fought against a people they racially hated and or didn't care about.
While they would have to fight their own kind in a civil war.

No, literally no they actually won't. They're Americans, not your half-starved commie moron troops with a 5th grade education.

>the context of the proposed situation

ban something because criminals use it, so if you want something banned just have a criminal do it? except no, you don't actually respond to or legislate against criminality unless it's a social issue that fits your narrative and agenda. gun violence serves your purpose so you will deliberately ignore real solutions in favor of getting your way.

if you send anyone to speak about or collect guns we will open fire on them immediately, no negotiation will be tolerated

Attached: 1566795202532.jpg (600x429, 192K)

Reagan is dead.
His acting career left no mark
And his political career left no mark

He is considered a failure.

except for all the reps jerking off to how great the Reagonomics were

Not humanity but the United States, absolutely. It’s kind of weird he didn’t mention an expiration date. Having a gun isn’t a big deal, you’re gonna have to get over it eventually. The constitution is the basic foundation of our legal system and it’s working perfectly right now as intended.

Resist tyranny. Nobody said shit about winning. See Pyrrhic victory. If you think a bunch of amateurs can't compete, see those sand niggers in the middle east. They know they can't go toe to toe with our military, but they know if you employ guerrilla warfare long enough they just give up.

Without us, no tax money, and without money companies stop making military shit. So the government borrow money to wage war on it's own citizens? Yeah, okay.

It's a lose lose and that's the whole fucking point.

a general strike would achieve the same, without giving raging incels easy access to mass murder machines

is that retarded comic trying to say Fox is left of center?

You can’t purchase automatic rifles. Only semi automatic (one trigger pull and release is one bullet). They also had compressed air automatic rifles back then as well and they were very popular. Maybe you should stop trying to be a mouthpiece for a bunch of people who have been dead for centuries and maybe focus on what they left behind such as the constitution. Then this conversation doesn’t have to keep taking place.

>Gets fucked by the ones who actually train to use them

Putting faith into politicians is foolish.

The Right has principles but is too busy getting free yachts and campaign contributions from Lobbyists to actually make good decisions.

The left is soo stuck up about trying to be politically correct and being thrown money from nearly immortal tech and entertainment giants who are doing it under the guise of charity. They pretend to fight for the poor but really have never been poor and all live in mansions.

Both sides waste too much time and money on gerrymandering and campaigning for re-election that they spend very little if any time actual doing their jobs.

If the government can have them, why can't it's citizens? They aren't supposed to have more power than us.

One party spends more time gerrymandering than the other.

>Can't take a direct donation? Well then we'll give your totally unrelated super-Pac some money. And they can freely give you anything you need!

They've both been caught gerrymandering.

Wouldn't be a problem if electoral college had been gone since the beginning.

the whole point of a state is to have the monopoly on force, of course it is supposed to (and already does) have more power than you

So you're just as much of a whiny bitch as every liberal is

The United states government wouldn't have any political problems with waging a war against their own people? And there wouldn't be any financial problems with this war? And there wouldn't be any outside interference from other countries?
How well do you think the government could discern between legal citizens and gun owners, they can't even tell the difference between legal and illegal citizens. The government is too incompetent for it to work, and the loss of lives in 'mass shootings' is irrelevant, just like every other cause of death around the world, because it doesn't often happen to politicians

Right because China didn't send them hundreds of thousands of troops, and the Americans didn't have a far higher kill/loss ratio

Came here to post this. Glad someone beat me to it.

Attached: Gun-Facts.jpg (1029x4529, 1.45M)

Also, this image and this thread reveal the script ShareBlue is given, lmao

>They're Americans
See the civil war
>not your half-starved commie moron troops with a 5th grade education.
I chuckled. After that I reminded myself our education isn't exactly top notch. 17th in the world.
>ban something because criminals use it, so if you want something banned just have a criminal do it?
No no no, I just mean in the context of this thread. Talking about the 2nd amendment. Though a criminal would have a much easier time buying and concealing a handgun over an AR-15, so your point here is moot. Mass shooters are typically law abiding citizens who obtained their guns legally prior to committing the crime. SO again, your point is moot.

>l open fire on them immediately, no negotiation will be tolerated
That would by definition make you a terrorist. You have to accept the agreed upon law of our land whether you like it or not. Don't like it? Then leave. You have no right to murder people because you want to keep your stick

Your constitutional right was written in as an amendment based on the NEED for it, which in turn was based on a set of circumstances and consequences that are utterly different now. Have fun living in the past though, to the detriment of yourself, everyone around you, and your entire nation, dumbcunt.

Attached: 1499715444367.jpg (640x478, 50K)

You keep living in fear.
I'll keep my rights.

>see those sand niggers in the middle east
I see neither. One is buried and the other is in ruin. We kicked the asses of every single insurgency group until their numbers were so insignificant they didn't matter. Anyone who thinks we've been losing there is an idiot

>So the government borrow money to wage war on it's own citizens?
The 2nd amendment's wording is meant to apply to ANY tyrannical force

>waging a war against their own people?
>And there wouldn't be any outside interference from other countries?
>And there wouldn't be any financial problems with this war?
Lol, war is always expensive. What an asinine thing to mention

Is this job really actually better than your old job as a barista or whatever?

Attached: 1558873910855.jpg (640x655, 34K)

One person is caught going 5 mph over, the other is going 40 mph over.

Oh geez, they're both speeding.

> he disagrees with me he must be some kind of idiot
sound rebuttal, i'm afraid of your incredible intellect and feel very small and afraid of your inflated ego and tiny dick

>what is guerilla warfare

Attached: retardalert.gif (493x342, 400K)

400 million americans with half the worlds guns can definitely defend its land against a modern military. Even our active duty military is like 2 million strong. Youre fucking retarded

test

It's not always the government you need to protect yourself from. In 2015, Baltimore Maryland had one of the largest riots in US history. Massive gangs attacked the police and first responders, looted businesses and burglarized private homes. The violence was squashed after a few days, but it could have been worse. Watch some videos of the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict of the Korean business owners fighting for their lives against armed gang members. Do you think the Crips obey gun laws?

>400 million americans
only 327, only half own guns, not all of which will defend shit. Spread across 3.8 million square kilometers. Under-trained, under-equipped.
> half the worlds guns
Pulled out of your ass
>our active duty military is like 2 million strong
This all assumes that has failed or is failing
>Youre fucking retarded
Enjoy being rolled over by a tank dumbass, while I hide in a bunker until China ships me some ordinance. While you're out there in your fucking blue jeans holding a pistol as a tank rolls up on your house

>waaah,gun control good.2nd ammendment bad.even though my left wing community has gun control and has more shootings in it then the places with people who actually respect the constitution

Nice LARP fag

I am underwhelmed by your stupidity.

If there are no weapons in civilian hands (things like ar15) there is no conflict. No chance for outside nations to contribute.

Fuck I would suck his cock dry

Add another belt extender and Chubs could carry more ammo.
Super-size it!

>No chance for outside nations to contribute.
there's a chance either way
>I am underwhelmed by your stupidity.
As I am by yours as you seem to be completely oblivious to the context of the thread and have no real point to make. Not even a rebuttal

But we don't train for COIN, never really did.

Wow...just fucking wow.

I’m not living in the past, I’m living in the present where it’s my right to own a gun. This isn’t going away. You’re getting upset over something isn’t even up for debate

No armed population = no resistance.
No resistance = no conflict.
No conflict = why are you in a bunker?

No one is coming to help if there isn't a resistance to help. Intact US government will use WMD on any nation interfering.

And... Why are you wanting help from China? Will you help them put up the camera towers?

>cringes in zoomer

I’m living in the present where it’s my right to own a gun. The circumstances haven’t changed, the second amendment is very clear. You’re getting really emotional and upset over something that isn’t even a debate :)

You're both in the wrong.

Your country is fucked up beyond belief, and having or not having guns won't change that. The lot of you need to be put down like the rabid animals you are, and your whole country turned into a parking lot.

Listen bud you don’t want any of this. I’ve seen some stuff in my day and I’m from a time where cellphones weren’t a thing yet. A 30 second porn clip took Algiers to buffer so back the fuck off

Inferior countries don’t get to have an opinion (everybody else besides the US Russia and China).

I'll still die defending my rights. Giving them up is far worse than death

You're so fucking stupid. The Pretense of the second amendment is that it will protect in the resistance against tyranny. Not in the utopian scenario where the invaders and subjugation are welcomed.
>Intact US government will use WMD on any nation interfering
The U.S. government wouldn't be intact if we were under total occupation, they wouldn't use it on their own people, and if they used it on the enemy the enemy would take it out on their American "hostages" and use WMDs on the ones that weren't. That's the "nobody wins" scenario.

>Why are you wanting help from China?
It was just used as an example you fucking adolescent-minded idiot. It could come from anyone.

I think your just mad about your shitty country not rolling with the big boys such as the US

Too bad you'll be too dead to enjoy them.

i don't know about that whole "mutually assured destruction" thing... the way it's always played is that the US nukes russia and they nuke us back, hundreds of times in each direction, and it's as if the rest of the world doesn't exist. sure, when they came up with the concept in the cold war, and even later, the US had adopted a general disinterest in the rest of the world and that even led to jokes like in "futurama" post 1999 where leela reminds fry that the USA is "part of the world" and he replies "i have been gone a long time" as if even in 1999, we didn't care that the rest of the world existed. personally, i grew up with that attitude, even as a russian immigrant, but still... right now we have warehouses where the US military keeps tons of old school mustard gas bombs. that shit is nasty. it's just a really ugly weapon. i don't see us using it ever in real foreign war, because it's... just kind of stupid so it's probably even for internal conflict or some stupid civil upheaval but then, even if we nuked russia, they might not just "blast" us with everything they had. they still have neighbors they want to be friends with and not look THAT bad. in fact, when we nuked japan one could argue that we didn't really hit them... the nukes went off well above the ground. i honestly think there's a big difference in "nuke above your head" and "have a giant crater".

The active duty military couldn't even defeat the State of Alabama. The modern military is extremely complex and difficult to keep supplied in a civil war setting.

The US government sure has done a bang up job against a handful of retards in Afghanistan and in Vietnam...

The US government sure has done a bang up job against a handful of retards in Afghanistan. How long has the war been going on now with no victory?

Nuke over head is the intended use

Not very many drones can carry ordinance anyways, The usa has like 10k "Drones" Yet only like 600 can carry a bomb