But you guys realize the whole believing that if the government becomes too tyrannical you can overthrow it - This is a meme. No matter how many guns we have the government will still have superior technology and weaponry. Not to mention the air force, navy , and drone capabilities to strike us.
Sadface.jpg
The Answer to 1984 Is 1776 = Myth
>>76332492
The US had both superior numbers and tech in Vietnam.
>>76332492
The government would need the support of the military for that.
And, if there ever WAS full-blown rebellion, I'd be willing to bet a good half of the navy would desert and join the rebels, if not more. Also, Texas has their own nukes.
>>76333756
FBPB, let's not forget every country that has tried to take over afghanistan
and
>>76332492
shit bait, daily reminder just 10% of all gun owners in America (legal, not counting illegal) constitutes the largest army in the world
and even not mentioning that the military would be split over supporting the gov't vs supporting the People
>>76332492
>Riceniggers BTFO US Military in Vietnam
>Sandniggers blew out US military in War On terror
>Jungleniggers BTFO CIA operators in Nicaragua and Cuba.
With more registered guns than citizens, I'm pretty sure we can take on the US.
>>76333756
DELET THIS
... no wait this causes OP to have rectal prolapse...
UNDELET THIS
t.CIA
>its *this* argument again
>>76334858
This. The government is afraid that if by banning guns, up to half the military will defect in protest. Plus if they government goes after miltias, the battlegrounds will be suburbs and cities, and you know how messy those fights can get if the Army kills innocents when trying to fight, not to mention the whole world would be watching and monitoring the conflict 24/7. Even Russia might step in to assist the rebels, other countries too. Getting rid of the second amendment could actually be the doom of this country.
>>76332492
A civil war would force America to lose it's global hegemony. The government is guaranteed to lose no matter what.
>>76332492
>learn 2 military history
>assume US soldiers will fire on their fellow citizens
>>76334858
>>76333756
We won vietnam though, we lost to China who kept funneling in arms and people.
We didn't lose we just got tired of turning slanted eyes ricefuckers into paste
Literally the exact same thing happened in Korea.
China doesn't let anyone mass immigrate to them, they set the rules on large groups of people becoming a part of China(when they invade) and anyone else who contributes to doing that without their consent gets the shaft.
Regardless, anyone who thinks we couldn't remove the government can leave our clay and find somewhere to finger their vagina because you can't do it here.
They wouldn't even need to win. They would just need to bleed enough of the loyalist US forces (however few that may be) until the political will to continue the fight dies. The Confederates came very, very close to doing so in the ACW.
>>76335671
>we won Vietnam
No, we accomplished our objectives.
South Vietnam, our allies, got shrekt.
>>76332492
Every time i hear this argument...
Look at the Hajis in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...if they can resist the US and prevent law and order why the FUCK can't the US with 1.1 guns per person and 30 million veterans
>>76332492
It's called a show of force. A lot of battles are not fought simply because the opponent has guns.
