Why do people still have guns in this day and age?
>>69248611
I hunt with mine. Large percentage of my diet is wild game and vegetables I grow myself
>>69248611
The counter argument that the government has weapons beyond the force of common firearms is retarded.
Perhaps in an all out war where all gun owners assembled to fight against the US army on some plain they would lose. But as you may know from history, simply exterminating the people of a given country isn't how you win a war. Otherwise the US would have won Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. withease.
Having firearms ensures that 1) you do not (read: to a lesser extent) rely on police to save you if your life, family or possesions are in imminent danger, and 2) the government, since they will not bomb you, as stated above, has little incentive to go against its own people because it would result in a guerilla war like in Afghanistan, taking its toll on soldiers and morale since they'll be shot at everywhere they go
>>69248611
Because of nigger gangs.
>le current age meme
>>69248611
>>69248975
Also its to stop smaller states being conquered by larger states. Unlike the EU, where member states have national armies, states in the US only have militias. In case of a civil war, larger states would easily be able to use their population and resources to attack smaller ones. Thats why its important that people are armed, so they can protect themselves not just from a hostile government, but also from invasions from other states
>>69248975
Not to mention that a war against your own brothers/fathers/sons is the quickest way to get generals and soldiers switching sides.
>>69248611
>Why do people still have guns in this day and age?
A distributed and prevalent sniping campaign around military bases and leadership can whittle down even powerful forces and essentially restrict their actions.
The US military is REALLY good at winning wars. But we haven't had open war-fare for a long time. Even Iraq only had 2 weeks of actual war and 2 decades of occupation.
>>69248611
cant enforce authority On the ground without starting a civil war
>implying soldiers are mindless drones that would obey the orders to exterminate the entire US population
>>69248611
The Taliban and Iraqi insurgents kicked the shit out of American armed forces with only AKs, RPGs and IEDs, faggot.
>>69249367
Texas is probably more heavily armed then then entire entire E.U
>>69248611
Sooo... the people need to be able to own more effective weapons?
They couldn't afford those when almost all of the people become their enemy and the economy crashes
>>69249446
>actually thinking that the majority of gun owners aren't hobbyists
>>69249514
>implying they wouldn't follow an order to return fire if fired upon.
how is this an every day thread?
sage
>burger posting this shit pasta this time
For shame, leave the bad shitposting to the leafs.
>>69248611
ahmed would like to have a word with you
also sage
>>69248611
dude yeah the government can just indiscriminately bomb everyone LOL nice guns idiot
t. idiot
>>69248611
I NEED GUNS TO PROTECT MY FREEDOM!
>does nothing while the Patriot Act is passed
I NEED GUNS TO FIGHT AGAINST A POSSIBLE EVIL GOVERNMENT!
>does nothing while the state approves the law to detain people without pressing charge so they can't defend themselves
BUT I HAVE MY GUNS!
>the state can just ship them to Guantanamo and torture them
GUNS KEEP ME FREE!
>he is spied by the NSA and who knows who else
But I swear someday I will use them to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical
>>69249973
The implication is correct. The Pentagon has already done studies showing that most soldiers would refuse. Most would desert the army rather than participate in a civil war.
>>69248611
>that infographic
apparently made before 9/11 considering a handful of angry sand-niggers have been giving the US military in all it's might merry hell for the last 15 fucking years with nothing but a pile of AK-47s and surplus RPGs and some home-made explosives.
>>69249124
Yes, because all of those 'Nigger Gangs' that roam around Finland on skis?
why do governments still have war machines in this day and age?
>>69248611
because a animal, dindu or serial killer can attack you durr
>inb4 call the police
why the fuck would the government be obligated to protect the right of people to overthrow them? What's the point of democracy then?
>>69248611
>f18 can patrol streets
There would be so much sniper riffles at every single window thatmarines would piss them 0ants at the thought of walking down the block let alone knoking at some neighbor door for a cup of sugar or something
>>69250300
OP is from USA and his pic talks about US military. Why does your burgerbrain tell you he's asking about guns in Finland?
And to answer to you, here we have guns because of hunting and Russians. Sometimes for hunting Russians tho it's been decades since the last big hunt.
>>69249973
>actually thinking that the majority of gun owners aren't hobbyists
Everyone's a hobbyist at revolution until push comes to shove.
I don't think they hand out 4-year degrees at colleges covering this.
>>69248611
Look at Isis, taliban, al-qauda. They're not fighting with fighter jets, etc, etc. They improvise and use simple weaponry.
If people were to fight against the U.S. Army.
It wouldn't be army vs army. It would be gorilla tactics.
Short bursts. Utilizing the environment entirely.
Fighter jets and tanks can only go so far. Also keep in mind that there would certainly be Military defectors.
Hell, maybe even a quarter of the U.S. military would side with the people, we would aquire some of their gear and intel.
People would not go down without a fight, and it would be a hell of a fight.
When the day of the rope comes, cowards like you will wish they had guns. Traitors will be held accountable, funnily enough, it's the traitors that will give their weapons away first of all.
>>69248611
Watch the whole thing, draw obvious conclusions like the US did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJaZtAYM9KU
>>69248611
>send planes and drones on rebels
>they get shot by russian anti-air defence that was bought in some local gunshop
>>69248611
There would a coup of the government and most government officials would probably be massacred if they ever attempted to openly invade civilians with F-15. States like Florida, the Carolinas and Texas have the most advanced anti aircraft missiles available for such an occasion.
Why aren't we treating encryption and drones like they're part of the 2nd amendment?
Being unarmed is the one best cuck determiners.
>>69248611
It doesn't matter how many jets you have if I live next door to your shit. I can literally make your jets my jets.
>>69251014
How olds that hunting tradition about 75 years
>>69251785
90% of the U.S Military is made up of civilians. They are not going along with killing their family members and neighbors.
>>69251164
You're right mate, the talibans have toppled the us government! They are indeed in control of the USA at this very moment!
Actually. You seem to be confusing toppling the government with, fucking hiding in caves all the damn time.
Fucking dumbass yank cunt.
>>69248611
Vietnam had 200 farmers with shit guns, how long did it take yous then?
>>69248611
What difference does the date make on anything?
Are you against law enforcement carrying small arms?
>"Hahaha! You rednecks think your guns can fight tanks and bombers!"
>Later...
>"Hahaha! Your American tanks and bombers can't fight peasants with AKs!"
Left Logic
>>69252842
said aussie's older brother...
>>69252842
someone didn't watch to the end.
The lesson is that ANY infantry force properly armed can take down some expensive military tools.
SOME. Specifically helicopters. GREAT tools for blowing up lines of tanks and close air support. But ultimately too fragile for their cost.
If drones get cheap enough that they simply don't CARE that few get shot down every week, it's a game changer.
Please stop trying to fight yeterday's wars.
And I still think a widespread distributed sniping campaign would FUCK UP even the US military. At least how it is now.
>>69249871
Exactly. How can small states even compete when you have literral superpowers as states. If texas were to start aggression, then smaller states would not be able to combat them with only militias
>>69252842
How well did we do against the IRA again?
>>69248611
>>69253308
Look at how the IRA's campaign worked. Random mortar attacks and many IEDs. Carry out ID checks etc in out of the way places. Occasionally take down a big target for propaganda.
>>69253176
Yeah, we've got our share of retards. At least we don't have all the dumbasses on the right.
>>69253308
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIgNj43S9sE
>>69252942
>Comparing the open fields the the thick jungle of south-east asia
Nice one anon
Basically your comparing any pussy in your vicinity to your moms unshaved snatch
>>69253308
>taking down a plane halfway round the world is the same as taking over a government.
>>69248611
Because nobody who swears to serve the constitution will carpet bomb their fellow men.
>>69248611
isn't it against the constitution to use military, air force and tanks against US citizens in The US?
>>69253520
>taking over a government.
Who said that was the goal?
>>69248611
The army would not go out in force to kill civilians. Maybe 1 or 2 edgy trenchcoat wearers, but most would refuse.
>>69253485
Yeah, in case you hadn't realised the whole US isn't open fields. But if you want to go for 'open fields' go for IRA vs UK.
every gun nut that say prohibition of guns only hurts law abiding citizens fails to realize one thing, and that is all illegal firearms that criminals posses. For example, a glock with the serial filed off, were produced in legal factories at some point
>>69248611
to protect themselves from niggers
>the entire US military will willingly bomb American citizens
I can't believe people are this dumb to believe this.
>>69253316
The IRA would get assfucked with today's tech.
>>69253650
and anti-gunners fail to realise that even in countries where there are no firearms factories, like the UK, you can still get them. You can literally get them shipped to your door in the post.
>>69252842
>>69253578
Read the post you replied to first you fucking goldfish
>>69253710
Remember these are the same people who rely on daddy government for everything and lick it's boots and tip of dick endlessly.
>>69253767
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35823798
>>69249711
Damn..... nice proxy sand nigger. Keep believing that.
>>69253900
>Seriously hurting 1 dude = winning.
lol
>>69248611
ITT faggots who don't understand protracted warfare and have feeble understanding COIN operations in the 21st and latter half of the 20th century
Shame on those thinking that the U.S. government isn't scared shitless of a domestic insurgency.
>>69253767
The IRA would HAVE today's technology. God damn you're a dumb cunt.
not to mention there is a consistent trend with countries in regards to gun violence. those that have banned firearms alltogether (including russia) have lower rates of gun violence than countries that havent. Dont believe me? just look at the incidence of gun crime in Australia before and after the ban on guns. and furthermore, I find it incredibly moronic and paranoid of people living in the first world that genuinely believe there will ever come a time when their governments will become repressive enough to justify armed rebellion...
>>69253633
Is the IRA relevant nowadays?
There is no reason for the army to claim a coup d'etat nor would it be succesfull. On the other hand the rednecks that think they actually think they'd stand a chance would get bombed to bits which I am a supporter of.
>>69253874
The OP is probably a liberal brainwashed SJW commie. They really get off on the notion of the U.S Military using its force against "right wing" civilians.
>>69252842
My sides
>>69254062
Killing.
And given they're not even considered 'active'. And the point isn't winning, it's too make it to costly for the other side to continue. If they went full scale with bombings like that, shootings like the David Black one etc people would be out. One attack like that and everyone who works in the prison service is paranoid. They're switching phones/cars atm. If more were carried out you can guarantee they'd be quitting.
>>69254134
What about the UKs?
>>69248611
IF A GOVERNMENT KILLS ALL OF IT'S PEOPLE. IT HAS NO POWER.
THERE'S NO ONE LEFT TO RULE, RENDERING THEM POWERLESS AND WEAK WITH NO MONEY.
What the fuck are you smoking OP?
Governments worst nightmare is the people rising up against them.
>>69248611
>this thread AGAIN
fuck off, report
The image implies that the military would not also have some defectors in the circumstance that the government goes totally rogue or something. It also fails to mention how well we did against the cave dwelling, AK weilding snack bars.
>>69253779
supply and demand. sure you MIGHT be able to find an illegal firearm to buy internationally in the UK, and you MIGHT be able to get it through customs to your door but it will be expensive as all fuck
>>69254134
>I find it incredibly moronic and paranoid of people living in the first world that genuinely believe there will ever come a time when their governments will become repressive enough to justify armed rebellion...
Precisely. History clearly shows that people with a great deal of power and politicians are entirely trust worthy. Never has a government ever oppressed citizens and even if they have, people are so much nicer and more trustworthy now.
>>69254134
I find it incredibly moronic and paranoid of people living in the first world that genuinely believe there will ever come a time when their governments will become repressive enough to justify armed rebellion...
Lel. Mao. Castro. Hitler. Stalin. Chavez.
>>69254328
.23 gun deaths per 100,000 per year
>>69254378
Not olny this but you imply that ALL MILITARY PERSONEL WILL FIGHT FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
Do you really think that the army wouldn't choose their own people over the government?
You must be retarded.
>>69248611
>300 million civilians vs the US army
If the US army can stop any revolt then how did the French Revolution happen?
Keep in mind probably half the army would defect to the militias
Fucking autists
>>69248611
this thread again.
>>69254499
>>69254399
ok sherlock, when in the last 20 years was there a first world government that oppressed its people hard enough for there to be armed rebellion
>>69254388
It's expensive-ish but it's easier to go to a big city and get one.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
>>69248611
niggers exist.
>>69254528
>>69254443
i said FIRST world
>>69254561
>>69254459
If you want to say the ban was effective, the compare before ban and after ban please.
>>69248611
>implying the military wouldn't back us in overthrowing a corrupt government
Nigger, the military vows to protect us from all threats, foreign and domestic. If they American populace rose up against the government, there is no way even half of the military forced would side with the rich and kill millions if their own.
>>69254597
>>69248611
Because having guns makes you an order of magnitude more capable of defending yourself than having none.
So simple that even a shill cannot refute it.
>>69248611
Yeah, because the U.S military, the same brand of 2nd amendment supporters and patriots are just going to go and kill us citizens.
Did anyone think this through?
Fuck yourself you pussy. You dont deserve American citizenship. Get your dinly ass up here and we'll trade. Then you can go get your food stamps and public housing
>>69248611
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Shall not be infringed.
>>69254615
this isnt the gun rate for australia its for UK
>>69254581
None at the moment, but that's not to say there won't be in the future.
>>69248785
What do you hunt mostly senpai
>>69254711
the last time was the nazis, and they were what, 70 years ago?
>>69248611
Angelfire is a defensive weapons system designed to destroy heat seeking missiles. As such the test jet equipped with the Angelfire system wasn't outfitted with offensive weapons of any sort. And this image is what you use to tell us guns are useless in war?
>>69254541
If something has not occurred in the last 20 years that eliminates the relevancy of all recorded history?
How precisely does that work?
>>69254793
Plenty of 3rd world countries could do with one at the moment. And what sort of argument is 70 years ago? Hey we should gas the kikes, why? Cause the last time was 70 years ago!
>>69254793
>implying history does not function in a cycle
>wanting to deny your heritage and constitutional right
wew lad
You are going down the same line of thinking that got the prohibitions in trouble.
Mug gun ban worked so well
>>69254615
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument before ban http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi161.pdf after
>>69254913
my point is the nazis are the only gov i could think of that fit this bill. however, theyre the exception not the rule. my point is that a first world government doing what they did is unheard of in the modern world and is incredibly rare in general.thus far theyre the only example i can find from the 20th century and i cant find any from the 21st
>>69255143
Your point is that gun control leads to less gun crime. That is not an absolute. Didn't happen in the UK.
>>69255143
And Aus's had been falling already.
>>69248611
QUIT BUMPING THIS BAIT THREAD, MORONS
EVERY FUCKING DAY???
>>69255556
Cause people are actually having intelligent debate here.
Making americans feel better about their small dicks
>>69255360
gun bans certainly lead to more expensive and less accessible guns. so that cuts out petty criminals
>>69254134
>talks about gun crime
>not violent crime
gonna have to bring something better than that weak shit on /pol/
>>69255833
Available in the UK for as little as £150. Ban hasn't reduced number of firearms being used in crimes.
>>69254581
Suddenly Germany isn't a first-world nation?
>>69255833
No. You are just a faggot.
"gun bans certainly lead to more expensive and less accessible guns. so that cuts out petty
criminals" Tell this to the San Bernardino or Paris terrorist victims.
Idk. I love guns but I can enjoy them behind the pages of a book. I collect vintage battle rifles from ww2...that's about it. Most cant even fire.
>>69256392
Germany is on par with America.
>>69256392
not currently with all the sand niggers invading....
>>69256438
5 bucks says those AKs werent cheap. theyre not cheap here in the US and they are legal here
>>69248611
because they think the military is actually on their side, when the opposite is true-- it often fights against the best interests of the people. often unknowingly.
>>69255833
no, it just makes petty criminals turn to other weapons. Crime rates had been falling throughout the 1st world for years before UK and Aus went full cuckold and banned guns, and neither nation's overall violent crime rates saw a significant greater rate of decline after the ban. "Gun violence went down" is nothing but an a priori statement used to try and deflect the discussion away from statistics that actually matter.
>>69257293
in the 30s and 40s it sure as hell was though. Hitler was even one of the major players in getting it's auto industry to be as big as it is today.
>>69248611
Because bombing your own country is something so retarded, only a liberal could think of it as a counter argument.
>>69248611
Yeah bc the Vietnamese and Iraqis never killed any occupying US troops. The mujahadeen never dicked the Soviets. And no government was ever overthrown before.
>>69257853
i dont give a fuck about violent crime in general or other weapons they turn to. my point focused solely on gun related violence and incidences of using guns in crime
>>69248611
because the US got fucked up by sand niggers with shitty guns and rainforest chinks with shitty booby traps.
it's the man behind it, our military tech is very low right now. Earth is quite primitive until we reach the true cyber era after all this nonsense of today's events fade and we emerge better. a scared US soldier isn't going to be much of a fight against a radical rebel who wants to spill his guts with his shitty, attachmentless AR. bombing your own country doesn't benefit anyone, and tanks are scare tactics, again not used for utter destruction. the most our heavy weapons would be used for is the shelling of a guaranteed rebel occupied bunker/building etc, but in guerilla warfare nothing is guaranteed so it would be a very difficult fight for them.
once the US becomes an empire and we have energy shields and anti-gravity tech, yes you can drop the act that guns are for anything other than having fun. in that new era, we would have to buy from arms dealers/sympathizers and shit to get our hands on the imperial technology to fight back using their own weapons.
>>69258005
then your point is fucking pointless. if all you've done is make criminals use something other than a gun to commit violent acts, you have failed to achieve anything of substance.
>>69248611
>confusing resistance with overthrowing
weapons are to protect ourselves from tyrannical governments. we all know that the military outguns us, but we also know that if they did try to take over an area in the US they would be met with heavy resistance. that resistance would have casualties. the government doesn't want to risk those casualties and will usually back down in favor of negotiation. with an unarmed populace, the government can just swoop in with guaranteed success and do whatever the fuck they want. that is anathema to the American way.
>>69253355
different people every day. of course the discussions are going to be repeats. yesterday's threads weren't witnessed by every single person on /pol/
>>69248611
80,000,000 gun owners. If just 1% kill just 1 soldier, that's 800,000 soldier deaths. The US can not handle that. That's the entire active army and Marine corps combined.
>>69258612
And the day before that with a russian IP, and a day before that, and nearly every week with the same exact image and the same exact post.
Thats why i am surprised its not a russian or canadian id this time, but simply shitposting without proxy.
>>69258475
no it wasnt. if the goal was get criminals to not use guns then id say it was a solid point
>>69259234
what good have you achieved, exactly, if criminals continue to commit violence at the same rate as before, except using weapons OTHER than guns?
>afghanistan
>vietnam
You cant win against determined, oppressed people armed with basic military weapons and improvised explosives.
Read the constitution and think about what it says. The answer to your question is riiiiight in there babby
>>69248611
This argument has been debunked countless times.
As a previous poster stated, the US is great at conventional warfare, but like every other big army in history, they struggle to deal with insurgency.
The US had immense trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq due to geurilla warfare by an under equiped fraction of the population.
What do you think will happen when they go up against the US population that is armed to the teeth?
Morale will be the first casualty, because unlike foreign enemies, they will have to fight their own people. There will be many soldiers and military leaders who switch sides. It will become impossible to differentiate friend from foe and the system will be destroyed from the inside.
Then there is the sheer size of the US. The military will be spread thin and unable to defend every key position. Lots of highend military equipment will fall into the hands of rebels very early on which puts them at a further disadvantage.
These are but a few points, but essays can be written about how screwed the government will be if it turned against its well armed population.
History proves this time and time again.
All the greatest democides (governments slaughtering their own people) in history occured against populations who had been disarmed.
>they will take guns gradually
>they will do it with no mainstream media coverage
>they will never use massive force to carry out an attack on their own citizens because as much as the usa propaganda would have you believe, russia or china dont hate us that much and would step in (especially russia)
>normal military men and women would never support this
>the only people who do/would is 3 letter organizations that your tax dollars fund and dont care about you and sold their soul a long time ago
Use your fucking heads.
>>69260858
>Morale will be the first casualty, because unlike foreign enemies, they will have to fight their own people
True, but they're organizing everyone against everyone, be it political shift, gender, sexual orientation, race etc, relations are at an all time low and they will use that to their advantage. People can do damage when they think they're taking out a "bad" person.
>>69251267
Yes I would like to purchase an S-400 SAM system. I have the tax stamps and all the paperwork done.
>>69248611
niggers,muslims,methheads,crazy homeless ppl, and niggers
>>69254541
>when in the last 20 years was there a first world government that oppressed its people hard enough for there to be armed rebellion
North Korea, Syria, etc
>>69261334
Gender, sexual orentation and race will be irrelevant. Women, gays, transexuals and SJW's in general will become irrelevant after the first shots are fired. They will be the first to cower and hide in such a war.
Regarding race: Most minorites already have anti-governemnt sentiments. Their innate desire to loot plunder and destroy will help to overwhelm the government who will then have to fight a war as well as dealing with riots.
