- 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
re: "Your guns won't be able to take on military tanks and drones"
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:39 pm to 56lsu
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:39 pm to 56lsu
quote:
how many years have you yourself been fighting, and keyboard fighting doesn't count.
All my life, you have to because no matter how many times it fails and how many millions die there will always be the weak minded amongst us who will buy into socialism, it's a shame we cant kill communists on sight
1
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:39 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.
By trying to make a case against gun control you also made a case for it by asking how many would obey the order. Why wouldn't this apply to enslaving a gun-less population?
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:41 pm to Norbert
quote:That is exactly why leftest want to take our guns.
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 5:42 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Tell them their nation is under attack from a threat and they will do just about anything.
I think a lot of them would have a hard time going into their own hometowns and gunning down their parents friends.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:43 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
First, the resources and logistics to even attempt something like this with a fully functioning military at full strength would be nearly impossible. Too much land and too many gun owners. Second, the Military would take out a dictator if they would order something like this. Most military members would refuse to attack the homeland and confiscate guns in an Unconstitutional manner.Third, we had our hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan dealing with mostly an uneducated population that were very effective with small arms. You have militias here that are well armed and have structures that can be very effective. Also, former military members can become force multiplier by training other to fight.
Anyone who thinks the government will try to confiscate weapons using the military is off their rocker. US citizens account for 46 percent of small arms owned in the world (close to 400 million in total). The way they will try to control guns is taxes, insurance, and regulations. As you see you have members of Congress and others calling for mandatory insurance. They also want to tax rounds 50 percent or more to start. They also want to regulate gun manufacturers and ammo producers. They will try to use legislation to control production. The goal in the future will be to make it so expensive that only people with high income will be able to afford it.
Anyone who thinks the government will try to confiscate weapons using the military is off their rocker. US citizens account for 46 percent of small arms owned in the world (close to 400 million in total). The way they will try to control guns is taxes, insurance, and regulations. As you see you have members of Congress and others calling for mandatory insurance. They also want to tax rounds 50 percent or more to start. They also want to regulate gun manufacturers and ammo producers. They will try to use legislation to control production. The goal in the future will be to make it so expensive that only people with high income will be able to afford it.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:44 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
My drill instructor told our class " a man defending his home is the same as twenty ordered to take it"
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:44 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
The majority will join the right .
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:44 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
quote:
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.
You also have to figure at some point that some civilian militia will overpower tanks and confiscate drones incorporate them into their arsenal.
This post was edited on 3/18/19 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:45 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
The military is charged with defending the Constitution.
quote:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God
You left off a few important parts.
I am assuming you arent talking about the officers.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:46 pm to Revelator
Also consider how reactive instead of proactive information security is in the Government.
Patches are typically released AFTER zero-day threats, not heuristically.
All it takes is an enterprising individual with a crumpled up Pringles can finding a rogue access point within a drone control center and now those drones are not on the tyrant's side anymore.
Patches are typically released AFTER zero-day threats, not heuristically.
All it takes is an enterprising individual with a crumpled up Pringles can finding a rogue access point within a drone control center and now those drones are not on the tyrant's side anymore.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:47 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I think a lot of them would have a hard time going into their own hometowns and gunning down their parents friends.
The odds of an active duty unit having any action in any one soldiers town is miniscule. If youre talking about National Guard or Reserves your argument holds more sway.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:49 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:Probably correct, if some future POTUS tries to accomplish gun confiscation by EO or something similar. But if it works its way through Congress, that will mean that more than half of those elected representatives voted for it, and that (roughly) the same percentage of the military would have elected those people.
It's even more of a fantasy land to assume that all of the leadership will turn on its own populace because of loyalty to a particular leader. Maybe the General Officers (3-star and above) might, but most officers O1 to O6 would quit in disgust and so would most E7-E9 leaders.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:49 pm to AggieHank86
You are severely underestimating the will of the people when it comes to the right to bear arms.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:49 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
You left off a few important parts.
At the same time you are trained from day one that you not only have a right to ignore unlawful (unconstitutional) orders, you have an obligation to do so.
The OP's scenario ( 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) would be a clear unlawful order.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:50 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:50 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I mean I'm sorry bro, that's just how it would work. The economy would collapse in a matter of weeks and the sitting president would be impeached. It's not like the insurgents would be going up against the 82nd airborne in pitched battles in the streets. I mean some of them might but they'd die pretty quick. Nah, it would be a war of murder and kidnap and terrorism. It would be filthy as frick and the populace would turn against the government for turning their streets into a war zone. Most people would rather just live with a few nut jobs with ARs than tanks rolling down the streets and bombs going off in their neighborhoods.
Within 3 weeks a majority of the populations in cities would be dead from starvation.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:50 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
You left off a few important parts.
I am assuming you arent talking about the officers.
That's the enlisted oath.
The commissioning oath is different:
I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:50 pm to airlinehwypanhandler
ok, as soon as they pass a law saying i have a constitutional right to own military tanks and drones, then i will agree to give up my AR-15 that i lost in a boating accident
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:51 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:It doesn’t matter. The second any unit sees “action” in any town in America the war is automatically lost for the government. It wouldn’t take but maybe 100K insurgents to ruin the economy in a matter of weeks if not days. The government wouldn’t survive that.
The odds of an active duty unit having any action in any one soldiers town is miniscule. If youre talking about National Guard or Reserves your argument holds more sway.
Posted on 3/18/19 at 5:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But if it works its way through Congress, that will mean that more than half of those elected representatives voted for it, and that (roughly) the same percentage of the military would have elected those people.
That would trigger a Constitutional Convention if not struck down by the Supreme Court.
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News