Steve Scalise (house maj. whip) others shot at baseball practice Virginia

What do foreign wars like Afghanistan and Vietnam have to do with the fantasy of an armed uprising against tyranny in the nuclear age?

So now the US military is going to use nuclear weapons against a domestic uprising?

LMAO Ok, guys lets nuke our own hometowns that will show em.

Why the fuck does it matter if its 2000 BC or 2000 AD. The fact is we aren't using 21st century WMDs against ourselves, and guerilla insurgencies defeat conventional forces more often than not as evidenced by the US militaries utter incapability of dealing with any insurgency in the last 73 years.

We are currently losing to insurgencies in half a dozen countries against enemies less well equipped than our own citizenry.
 
The fight against tyranny argument is not talking about the complete collapse of society, it is talking about our government turning on us, and being tyrannical. Our gun rights work within the framework of our civil society. Arguing you'd need your guns if the framework went away is evading the argument, as it has nothing to do with it.
You really think, that the Rangers, Delta, and all those other groups would willingly turn their guns on the US populace? Really?

FLOL. We won't be fighting entire battalions of military members in this you nonce.
 
i await your citation of any post of mine where i said there is an active insurgency in the US

I await your citation of any sort of active insurgency attacking the government within the US.

There is an active insurgency within the US and also in many other Western nations.

Radical Islamists have been waging a guerilla campaign for the last 2-3 years in the West and despite all of our modern tactics and technology attacks are increasing in frequency and destruction.

The greatest military and police forces on earth are incapable of dealing with a few radicals concentrated in 1-5% of their respective populations.
 
You really think, that the Rangers, Delta, and all those other groups would willingly turn their guns on the US populace? Really?

FLOL. We won't be fighting entire battalions of military members in this you nonce.

Did I even intimate that I thought anything like that would happen?
 
So now the US military is going to use nuclear weapons against a domestic uprising?

LMAO Ok, guys lets nuke our own hometowns that will show em.

Why the fuck does it matter if its 2000 BC or 2000 AD. The fact is we aren't using 21st century WMDs against ourselves, and guerilla insurgencies defeat conventional forces more often than not as evidenced by the US militaries utter incapability of dealing with any insurgency in the last 73 years.

We are currently losing to insurgencies in half a dozen countries against enemies less well equipped than our own citizenry.

Did I say the government was going to nuke it's citizens? We are in the nuclear age, that is not up for debate, but I did not even hint at a prediction of the US nuking it's own citizens.
 
Did I even intimate that I thought anything like that would happen?
Our government has an array of attack helicopters, jets, tanks, drones, ICBM systems, nerve agents, MRAPS, crowd dispersal systems, etc etc etc. Good luck thinking access to an unregulated SKS is gonna help you fight back......

Sure seems like you are intimating we would be fighting the full force of the US military with that post bruddah.
 
Sure seems like you are intimating we would be fighting the full force of the US military with that post bruddah.

No, we would not. That is the absurdity of the "Gotta fight the government with my mossberg and ak" argument.

To counter this, you're talking about roving armed gangs in some dystopian hellscape.
 
No, we would not. That is the absurdity of the "Gotta fight the government with my mossberg and ak" argument.

To counter this, you're talking about roving armed gangs in some dystopian hellscape.
And I am saying I think you're being a dense motherfucker if you think the US gov't were to start dropping bombs on us that the roving gang shit wouldn't start. It 100% would fucking start.

If some fucking starving Africans can run roughshod over Delta Force and the Rangers with nothing but beat to shit AKs and some shitty RPGs I think the civilians of the US that are armed and have taken even basic training stand a decent chance of fighting to a zone where they can survive which is the whole point.

The US starts dropping bombs on it's own people I ain't standing in a line and fighting, I'm grabbing my shit and fighting my way to the mountains to wait it out.

It's like the anti-gunners/"LOOK AT AUSTRALIA" types all think the tyranny argument means US gun owners will stand in a trench across from tanks and shit with their SKS, AKs, and AR15s.

No, we won't.. we'll run to the hill and fucking wait that shit out while the sheeple from San Fran with no way to protect themselves beg the gun owners to save their ass.
 
And I am saying I think you're being a dense motherfucker if you think the US gov't were to start dropping bombs on us that the roving gang shit wouldn't start. It 100% would fucking start.

If some fucking starving Africans can run roughshod over Delta Force and the Rangers with nothing but beat to shit AKs and some shitty RPGs I think the civilians of the US that are armed and have taken even basic training stand a decent chance of fighting to a zone where they can survive which is the whole point.

The US starts dropping bombs on it's own people I ain't standing in a line and fighting, I'm grabbing my shit and fighting my way to the mountains to wait it out.

I never proposed a scenario where the US government nuked it's own citizens. I actually find it funny, your logical line. Tyranny leads to nukes being dropped, which leads to roving bands of armed gangs.
 
I never proposed a scenario where the US government nuked it's own citizens. I actually find it funny, your logical line. Tyranny leads to nukes being dropped, which leads to roving bands of armed gangs.
I never said nukes someone else did.

So is your argument as I quoted that the tyranny argument makes no sense because the US govt has missiles, planes, Apaches, and tanks? Cause you posted that seemingly insinuating that because of those things the citizenry stands no chance and I contend no one in their right mind is going to stand up to an M1 Abrams with an AR. They'll use the AR to get themselves out of the city and avoid the conflict.

And I contend the fucking rice paddy farmers of Vietnam did a good job of thwarting that with nothing but bamboo spike traps and old beat to shit AKs.

I also find it hilarious you seem to think the moment the JDAMs start dropping that the rule of law would stay in place. Did you not see what happened in Baltimore and fucking Ferguson when the cops killed just one person?
 
Reports were that Scalise was friends with that black lesbian.
I'm sure he was. Just like Obama has Christian friends but still legislates against them by endorsing sodomy and baby murder. "My black friend" doesnt work anymore, rip.
 
I never said nukes someone else did.

So is your argument as I quoted that the tyranny argument makes no sense because the US govt has missiles, planes, Apaches, and tanks? Cause you posted that seemingly insinuating that because of those things the citizenry stands no chance and I contend no one in their right mind is going to stand up to an M1 Abrams with an AR. They'll use the AR to get themselves out of the city and avoid the conflict.

And I contend the fucking rice paddy farmers of Vietnam did a good job of thwarting that with nothing but bamboo spike traps and old beat to shit AKs.

I also find it hilarious you seem to think the moment the JDAMs start dropping that the rule of law would stay in place. Did you not see what happened in Baltimore and fucking Ferguson when the cops killed just one person?

Yes, because our government would have no way of monitoring people trying to leave where they currently are. It's just tanks. No drones, no ICBMs, no satellite tracking, etc. Get out of the city? sheeeeit.

Our government has quite a few different technologies that would make our situation far different than that of Vietnam in the 1960s-70s.

What happens if the tyrannical government cracks down on it's people AND it doesn't turn into Mad Max, like you are proposing. I have never heard your type of argument. Second amendment folks usually talk about a tyrannical government, not a crackdown them BAM! Mad Max.
 
What was your post on guerilla tactics in reference to, then?
are you disputing that they could work?

lets just ignore that the san bernadino terrorists attacked a government facility. using what one could call guerilla tactics.

are you forgetting the lone bernie supporter who JUST shot up a congressman? shit wasnt even a week ago
 
are you disputing that they could work?

lets just ignore that the san bernadino terrorists attacked a government facility. using what one could call guerilla tactics.

are you forgetting the lone bernie supporter who JUST shot up a congressman? shit wasnt even a week ago

There is no equivalency between a full on rebellion and two separate, small incidents. There is zero.
 
Our government has an array of attack helicopters, jets, tanks, drones, ICBM systems, nerve agents, MRAPS, crowd dispersal systems, etc etc etc. Good luck thinking access to an unregulated SKS is gonna help you fight back......

Ironically the best protection against tyranny is strong institutions, civic society, economic equality etc.

All the things that neoliberals have been trying to break down since the 1980's, while meddling the idea of fuck the gubmint buy guns fuck immigants.
 
And? So if the law does not stop people from getting weapons 100 percent of the time, fuck it? What about Australia? They dont have terrorist gun attacks all the time. The people of Australia seem pretty happy about their state of affairs. They had their own Sandy Hook in 1996, and did what they thought was best, restricting ownership of guns greatly, and they dont have mass shootings all the time.

Also, I hope nobody attempts the "Our guns are for stopping tyranny" bit. It's hilarious to me.

Yeah, but they still have as many mass killings as they did before 1996. Taking away guns reduces shootings, not killings.
Unless the only thing that matters to you is the cause of death, rather than the fact of death. Seems a fucking stupid stance to take though, and I would suggest you rethink your priorities.
 
Our government has an array of attack helicopters, jets, tanks, drones, ICBM systems, nerve agents, MRAPS, crowd dispersal systems, etc etc etc. Good luck thinking access to an unregulated SKS is gonna help you fight back......

And yet it let desert bandits armed with cutlery kills 3000-odd member of its citizenry, and crash a plane into the HQ of its department of defense. Yet, somehow, you don't think that armed and well-trained members of American society could muster the means necessary to give the government pause for thought.

Also, you seem to believe that the pilots and soldiers of the American military would be willing to engage in full-scale war against a segment of the American population whose motive would ostensibly be the pursuit of liberty.
Sounds like America's a bit of a shithole, from your perspective.

Is there any logic at all in the world you occupy?
 
Back
Top