- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"Your guns won't be able to take on military tanks and drones"
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:46 pm
Leftists and gun haters love to trot this line out whenver someone defends the 2nd amendment saying one of the reasons for the 2A is so the people can defend themselves from a tyrannical government.
Here is my question.
Say a tyrant became president and ordered the military to attack innocent citizens. For the sake of this example lets say the president ordered the military to attack citizens who refused to give up their guns in a gun grab.
How many military would actually obey the order? And how many military would defect and join the rebellion instead?
This always seems to be the flaw in the leftist logic of "your guns cant stand up to the military, tanks and drones". They assume that the military would blindly follow such orders.
quote:
"Hah, you say the 2nd amendment is about protection from a tyrannical government, well sorry bro, but your guns won't make a difference against drone missle strikes and tanks"
Here is my question.
Say a tyrant became president and ordered the military to attack innocent citizens. For the sake of this example lets say the president ordered the military to attack citizens who refused to give up their guns in a gun grab.
How many military would actually obey the order? And how many military would defect and join the rebellion instead?
This always seems to be the flaw in the leftist logic of "your guns cant stand up to the military, tanks and drones". They assume that the military would blindly follow such orders.
66
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:46 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
WOLVERINE!!!!
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:47 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
How difficult a time did our soldiers have recently in the Middle East not knowing who was good, who was armed, etc?
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:48 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
quote:
They assume that the military would blindly follow such orders.
That’s all that needs to be said. That and liberals are completely useless dumbasses.
/thread
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:48 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
I guess they’ll missle strike my house in the middle of a New Jersey township and kill all the libs around me.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:48 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
Then why are we still fighting the Taliban after 20 years?
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:48 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
It only makes sense if you assume the government would "win" by killing and alienating millions and millions of people. Like dipshit Swallowell talking about having nukes.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:50 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
quote:
How many military would actually obey the order?
A lot. Tell them their nation is under attack from a threat and they will do just about anything.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:50 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
quote:
Say a tyrant became president and ordered the military to attack innocent citizens.
This will be when our country doesn’t exist anymore...
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:51 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
The military will follow orders. Next question.
Is there any probability that the military will be utilized in this manner? No likelihood that I am aware of.
Can the civil war fetishists on the right wing really win a civil war? No.
Is there any probability that the military will be utilized in this manner? No likelihood that I am aware of.
Can the civil war fetishists on the right wing really win a civil war? No.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:53 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
It's funny Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy understood the dangers of attacking the US on the mainland better than some of our own citizens.....a rifle behind every blade of grass
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:53 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
The government would stand exactly a 0% chance of defeating an insurgency in this country and it's got nothing to do with the what type of weapons one side or the other are carrying. Even if 100% of the military obeys the order, which is likely, the government still stands no shot.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:57 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
"Shall Not Be Infringed."
The military defends the constitution.
The military defends the constitution.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:57 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
quote:
How many military would actually obey the order? And how many military would defect and join the rebellion instead?
This always seems to be the flaw in the leftist logic of "your guns cant stand up to the military, tanks and drones". They assume that the military would blindly follow such orders.
They blindly follow orders when they go to other countries.. why wouldn't they here?
Posted on 3/18/19 at 4:59 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
They don’t have to.
They would make the cost too high
They would make the cost too high
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:01 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
I happen to know one guy in an elite infantry unit, if you will. That dude would be home and slitting throats of anybody that tried to take his or his families guns. I'm assuming most of the military members that grew up with guns would be somewhat like him.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:01 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
Other issue with the logic is that liberals need us workers and tax payers to live . So if they kill us then they don’t have near the taxes coming in and would be missing a lot of everyday working class men .
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:04 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
Ya this is the dumbest line going for the anti 2A crowd. The government can't nuke it's own city and they can't just level a city with bombs. Not only would they not be able to identify their enemies but destroying tax payers and expensive infrastructure is counterintuitive because they need both to survive themselves.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:07 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:08 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
Military has to uphold the Constitution not some Prez.
Until the SC says gun ownership is unlawful, it would be illegal for the military to try and enforce some gun grab.
Until the SC says gun ownership is unlawful, it would be illegal for the military to try and enforce some gun grab.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News