Can Nukes Help Confiscate Guns?

The left seem to be pro-nuke and anti-gun? This is a puzzling concept for winning a civil war. Is the left "literally" retarded or just really, really dumb?

Attached: nukes_end_guns.png (1085x611, 84K)

Good question, OP

Attached: 1542211827019.png (728x1179, 234K)

I literally hope a nuke goes off on his city.

FUCKING DISARM YOURSELF OR YOU WILL BE NUKED

That would actually be hilarious.

K....nuke us. I dare you.

Gonna share something I wrote on Steemit months ago. Mind you I don't even use Steemit anymore so I'm not shilling for upvotes.

1/?

It’s a common claim I see from leftists: “You don’t need an AR-15, you couldn’t stop the government anyways! They have tanks and jets and drones and stuff!” Assuming our all-volunteer military would even follow orders to obliterate their own countrymen (the overwhelming majority would not) let’s point out the stupidity of such an argument.

The first thing you should understand is that heavy military hardware serves only one purpose: decimation. You gun-grabbers seem to think that if push came to shove every gun owner in America is going to be standing in the middle of a cornfield in Iowa waiting for a B2 to fly over and wipe them out. Hate to break it to you folks but we live in the same cities and towns that you do. Do you know what happens when you start lobbing bombs and missiles into cities and neighborhoods? Collateral damage. It’s not just the “gun tards” getting killed. It’s your family. Your friends. And you as well.

2/2

Such action would lead to an endless wave of insurgency. It is estimated that 53 million of the 126 million households in the USA have at least one firearm. At an average of 2.5 people per household if just 10% of the armed populace decided to fight back you’d be dealing with an insurgent force of over 13 million people. To put that into perspective in April of 2013 it took just TWO men to shut down the city of Boston for 48 hours with a few homemade IED’s and a single 9mm pistol. Thousands upon thousands of police, FBI, ATF, and National Guard had to be deployed to stop them.

Now imagine the kind of chaos that 13 million armed citizens (many with military training of their own) would cause. An AR-15 is no match for a tank but a tank needs fuel. Fuel trucks are highly susceptible to pipe bombs. Their drivers are highly susceptible to bullets. And so on. You don’t attack an enemy’s strengths, you attack their weaknesses. We’re not going to face off with a tank or a drone, we’re going to shoot their operators. Get it yet?

And let us not forget – we’re talking about our home soil. Every person killed is one less producer. Every bomb dropped eliminates one more piece of infrastructure. The government would be destroying the very framework that makes its war machine possible. That's not exactly a winning strategy.

Unless you’re willing to completely annihilate a country via WMD’s (and in effect become absolute ruler of a complete wasteland) you will never stop a well-armed, widely dispersed insurgency without boots on the ground moving from door to door, city to city, state to state – where you run the risk of bullets flying back at you at every single encounter. I don’t think I need to explain the logistics of attempting this in a nation that has nearly 20,000 cities, 382 of them metropolitan, spread across 3.7 million square miles.

In short – stop being obtuse.

> women thinking they could take a man in a fight
I've rolled with Cyborg, a woman who has taken so many steroids that she looks like a man. She trains 6 days a week and has for decades.
It was like rolling with a retarded white belt. Absolutely nothing for me, she presented zero challenge- even tho I'm not a people belt and she is. Heaviest ufc women's champ, and an absolute child compared to an average man, like myself. 5' 10", 175.

Based. When you arent playing to win, but insure everyone loses, winning is easy.