When the government has drones and aircraft? Doesn't that also exclude any guerrilla warfare?
If you wanted to rebel against the government you would at least need some military rebels that would give you anti aircraft weaponry
>>78213466
isnt murder already illegal? wtf is the point in owning a gun lmao
>>78213466
>implying people in the military will willingly murder their fellow country men.
>>78213466
Rebelling be damned, I just like owning and using my own guns because I think it's fun to hunt and go target shooting.
Don't own a pistol though. No real desire to.
>>78213466
>Why do you need guns
none of yours or anyone's business
>>78213466
Civilians should also have drones and aircraft.
>>78213466
You have created a contrived scenario where 100% of the military is aligned against the civilian population in a rebellion. That has never happened in history.
ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES
>>78213466
>Implying anyone here in ISAF would turn on their fellow countrymen under fucking Hillary fuckin' Clinton
>need
also
>implying the military would turn against their own people
For police I see it being split around 50/50, but I'd guess 10% of the military or less would actively attack their own citizens
>>78213952
>Civilians should also have drones
If you were a ukrainian billionaire I guess you could fund your private army, something like Azov battalion
>>78213466
Most of the military would rebel if ordered to attack the American people.
>>78213466
What is
>Aircraft and Drones Need Pilots
>So do tanks that need crew
>Ships as well
>all these things require Fuel and people
Guess what, Grunts outnumber officers about 10 to 1 in the US military. Your average grunt is going to tell an Officer to go fuck himself if he orders someone to fire on their own citizens. Yes there are always exceptions.
>>78213466
>need
*sigh (pronounced seige)
>>78213466
>Current year
>Doesn't own an APC
What an odd man.
I only own guns because it pisses off the liberals. I've never even shot them, yet I own a Tec-9, AK, AR-15, an Uzi, and several other guns considered "Assault weapons" by the libshits.
I don't even know if some of them work, but who the fuck cares! MOLAN LOBE
>>78213466
Good goy jump off the cliff become said so.
You don't NEED to have land to stand on in this day and age dumb goy. Your positive feelings will make you float. See everyone else is doing it. Good goy
>>78213466
>If you wanted to rebel against the government you would at least need some military rebels that would give you anti aircraft weaponry
You don't need an AA weapon to do serious damage
>go to major city/military outpost
>cut a power line
Literally that easy
Pls no spy FBI
Tank is driven by defector to the loan star republic. Texas now has tank. One pilot is a rebel, air craft is now rebel property.
You don't fight an insurgency within your own country with bombs, you do it with men, and once they draw formal lines and hold territory you're still bombing your own civilians.
>>78213466
Theres not enough drones to kill everyone with guns dumbass. Theyd be bombing some of us while the rest of us fight WITH OUR GUNS
>Lol anon's seriously they have nuclear weapons...why would you even think you had a chance
>Wait so you're already saying the government could easily implement tyranny if they wanted? and as a Democrat you want to give them more power willingly?
Or how about this rebuttal
>LOL anon seriously they have F-35's and drones you think guns would do anything against that
>So you think every soldier would willingly follow that? And if 1/2 the population is fighting for freedom the other isn't fighting for anything that leaves citizens vs military/government...you don't think that will look bad and cause deserters?
ALSO
>what is guerrilla warfare and Afghanistan success etc etc.
>>78213466
why would the government bomb it's own infrastructure?
>>78214118
>Most of the military would rebel if ordered to attack the American people
Yeah, just like most of the military rebeled against the jacobins and the bolsheviks
You're turning into a jacobin state m8, you think the military can't be liberal and progressive?
>>78214096
Of course the US military wouldn't turn on US citizens, that's why they have plans in place to send in UN troops if there is any organized uprising.
>>78214310
>>go to major city/military outpost
>>cut a power line
>guerrilla
>having any chance against the speed and sight of aircraft
If you bomb cities it becomes difficult to collect taxes
>>78213466
So sick of these threads.
1) No where in the constitution does it say 'need'
2) a semi-trained but well armed group can disrupt and be, for lack of a better word, a pain in the ass to whatever govt group they are fighting against.
3) a well trained and well armed rebel group can launch their own ops, hijack vehicles, etc.
4) as far as getting some military rebels there would be A) American military deserters and B) Russian military backing the rebels, the US and Russia have been at it in every proxy war and this would be no different.
5) Look at the entire middle east over the last 20+ years. There has been 'insurgents' (local populous) fighting off well trained and well armed foreign invaders and winning. It's already proven that well armed militias/rebels can fight off better trained and better armed armies.
5) The USA got fucking started via a rebellion of simple farmers and militiamen against the motherfucking British empire.
>>78214738
UN troops are US troops dumbass
>>78213466
A bunch of sand niggers held out and we didn't give a shit about their country. The U.S. would get royally fucked if it fought it's own people
>>78213466
If drones and air superiority worked against a determined insurgency why aren't Vietnam or Afghanistan clear U.S. victories?
>>78213466
>the government has drones and aircraft? Doesn't that also exclude any guerrilla warfare?
Considering the "war on terror" has still gone nowhere fast, the answer is no, they don't do shit against guerrilla warfare.
>If you wanted to rebel against the government you would at least need some military rebels that would give you anti aircraft weaponry
And we would, because at least half the US military is going to defect the second they get an order to turn on the civilian populace.
>>78215599
>why aren't Vietnam or Afghanistan clear U.S. victories
Because you don't know the territory. I guess in a civil war you know the territory much better
>>78213466
If a rebellion got to that extreme, the rebels would likely get it indirectly from the army or just steal it.
VERY LOUD
>>78215954
It doesn't even matter if they are victories or not
They are bombed out war zones
The economy and the Feds tax base would collapse overnight if even a minor domestic insurgency happened
>>78213466
Because guns are fun to shoot at ranges.
>>78214957
>thinking that American soldiers, marines, and airmen would fight against US citizens instead of abandon the military
>>78213599
Lmao /thread
/pol btfo
>>78213466
In the future every crime is solved anon, sorry
http://www.wnyc.org/story/conspiracy-theorist-radiolab-surveillance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Stare
>>78215599
>Vietnam or Afghanistan clear U.S. victories?
But they were, you're defining "victory" wrong.
>>78213599
In the US we have justified homicide for cases of defense of self or others. So killing is legal in some situations.
>>78218606
it is the taliban growing and selling heroin now. so much for their own ban.
>>78218957
>implying
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html
>>78213726
>us civil war
>waco siege
>>78213466
>Polan
>Gun comment
Opinion dismissed.
>>78213466
I don't need my guns. I have them because I want them. No intention or inclination to try and overthrow the government either.
See, having things because you need them is basic survival and a core argument of the left fringe that want guaranteed income and such. Nothing wrong with that line of thinking, it'sputting it in practice that causes problems.
Having things because you want them is freedom and there needs to be a strong argument to win me over. As it stands I have never shot or shot at anybody nor do I plan to. There's no reason I shouldn'thave a gun. And unfortunately for you, I don't give a flying fuck what someone else plans to do with theirs so I don't have much support for any ban. I'm not afraid of being shot and I'm not afraid any of my family will be. Everyone else can get blown away and I really just don't care. You're all shit anyway.
>>78213466
I have drones and EW equipment
>>78213466
>Why do you need guns
It is the right of every mentally stable and law abiding citizen to own and carry guns for their personal defense.
That is the only explanation that anyone needs, and the only one any person is entitled to received.
>Yes, but WHY?
It is the right of every mentally stable and law abiding citizen to own and carry guns for their personal defense.
>I UNDERSTAND THAT, DUDE! Fuck, I and just asking you WHY? What are your JUSTIFICATIONS?!
It is the right of every mentally stable and law abiding citizen to own and carry guns for their personal defense.
That is the only explanation that I need, and the only one you are entitled to.
>>78220024
> thinking the DoJ and the DoD are the same
Our queen has guns and you should too!
>>78213466
Bill of Needs?
cuz guns r cool and make me feel manly and shiet 'murica
