How do you refute gun grabbers who say that the Govt can easily overpower it's citizens in a SHTF Civil war scenario

With bullets retard

Attached: _20190325_123019.jpg (3704x1285, 788K)

You need boots on the ground to win any war.

Based nip said it best.

In the case of the US the fact that they are massively out gunned and outnumbered.

Attached: 1536094718543.jpg (2048x1536, 625K)

>Vietnam
You think that the Democrats will end the war early and hand victory to the population? They fucking hate the people they aren't going to pull the government back from victory like they did in Vietnam.

Mexican civilians brandishing semi-automatic weopons pull over the police on aregular basis because police corruption is that bad.

They basically ask for IDs proving the cops are cops and not cartel members. Real life example of a well armed citizens policing a corrupted government,

Attached: 1550667024546.jpg (719x699, 52K)

pipe bombs

lol oh yeah, just look how the towel heads fuck with our military.

I don't entertain such conversations

bro...........afghanistan......vietnam.......iraq

>You need boots on the ground to win any war.
You only need to break the will of the foe to win. Japan surrendered without any home islands invaded.

I spent years in the recent wars doing intelligence and targeting work. Our government is retarded at counterinsurgency. My money is on /ourguys/. All the wespons and systems and dollars aren't worth shit because they're never going to address the grievances we have and they aren't sufficient to defeat us.

How is the drone going to find you? How are the tanks and guns going to tell you apart from civilians? How are all the technocrats and city council faggots and lawyers going to keep their heads on their necks night after night through the conflict without having to withdraw from the area they purport to rule? I'd rather be the insurgent than have to be on guard 24/7 until I lose my home, family members and colleagues to small scale direct action before finally getting hanged in the dead of night with no witnesses. The enemy know that's what waits for them in a real conflict.

They talk their bullshit so loudly because they know we have the advantage. They're scared of us. They should be.

Attached: n7nLbBt.jpg (720x408, 36K)

ay yo ATF, imma let u finish, but...

Attached: ay yo FBI.png (808x550, 32K)

Afghanistan and Iraq were total defeats for both of those nations.

Attached: 6B529DC0-01B1-4B36-96EB-C5C6C57872F5.jpg (1024x768, 171K)

that's why we're still at war in both right?

exactly, but unironically

> we're going to nuke the red states, cut off the world's supply of food and kill our own people there who make up the 45% of the population.

Brilliant. And you wonder why we want the communists dead.

Viet Cong. A bunch of rice paddy daddys beat a super power like a drum

You think soldiers are gonna fire on US citizens? They’d turn on the government

They can't win against an armed population, they aren't even going to try.
Their two options are to subvert the nation and turn them into cucks that will hand power over to them, or to bomb the whole country which will make controlling it worthless.

>that's why we're still at war in both right?
That's why we are helping the local governments maintain lawful rule.

Or do you think that because the USSR had to install an authoritarian security state in it's captured land that it somehow lost WWII to the Germans?

That’s one of those things we won’t know until we try. Just like all the other revolutions in history.

1/2

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.

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.

2/2

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.

>steemit.com/politics/@satrebil/an-ar-15-won-t-stop-the-government-think-again

Mention Vietnam. But mainly i don't speak with them. They aren't human.

Say you have no gun, keep it hidden place. If you live in cuckstate where you need gun loicense, you never had a gun to begin with. Loicense is designed specifically for grabbers.

sigh.
Posse Comitatus

Guns won't matter when the government starts nuking every city in the US to re-establish control.

Attached: 1552983202053.jpg (540x960, 51K)

Just pointing out that you can win a war without any ground troops doing anything if you have enough ability to cause destruction. That's not an option for a military that's fighting it's own citizens by nature of existing in the same area.

Retarded people like to chime in that 'Hurr durr you can only win if you have troops harassing the local population', while ignoring the actual trigger condition for victory which is to end the will to fight.

The UK was extremely close to a surrender in WWII due to the blockade and their own limited actual territorial loses. Why are we fighting? Do we keep fighting until our population dies back to the local carrying capacity of the land? Or do we accept the new reality and make peace with our enemy?

Gubmint can't even win against Muslim farmers or Charlie fishermen lol

Yeah and they can easily overpower Vietnamese rice farmers too, right?
>oh wait
And they could totally overpower middle eastern goatfuckers too, huh?
>oh
>wait

lol imagine keeping guns because you think you stand a chance against a tyrannical government.
do people actually do this?

Nam, Afghanistan, ww2 resistance groups. Etc etc

Military won't fuck over the citizens for politicians. Probably.

They're not afraid yet because you need at least 30% of population with nothing to lose for insurgency. Not counting niggers as they're too stupid to form effective militias. US population is nowhere near that number yet.

imagine being this retarded

8POL SCREENCAP FOR ANTS

you dont you just point out instead sending over weight retard taking you in they need a Littel swat army to take out one man.

>nuking
Not fucking useing biological or chemical agents to preserve the infrastructure.

Your the reason Americans are considert idiots.

It's not just one guy with a handgun against the military, it's the entire country. Military are made up of the people, they would side with the people over the government. Even if they didn't they're outnumbered, and 'winning' would require killing everyone, which would destroy the function of the country which would mean the government are then tyrants of nothing, and they would be taken over by another country's military.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Bastogne
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

Tell them all the redneck gun lovers they hate are in the Military.

Tell them about the Mexican War just prior to Civil War where George Meede and U. S. Grant from the union fought with Jackson and Lee that were Rebs.

Explain the military would splinter as it did then.

And explain to them that Private Arms goes way beyond riffles. There are guys that own tanks.

And lastly tell them if the US government would slaughter civilians like China or the Soviet Union then they need to be overthrown anyway

It's funny that people keep saying Vietnam over and over without seeming to know that the war had been won and it was only the Democrats stabbing the South in the back that let the commies take over and doom millions to a communist hellhole.

What did the Democrats do exactly? They refused to honor the agreement to supply the South with weapons and material after the Paris Peace talks leaving them without the equipment to maintain security.
I'm sure most school don't actually teach that all the death and destruction in Vietnam was for nothing because of one of the two political parties that couldn't be trusted to uphold a treaty.

What makes them think the government can take out the most armed citizenry in the world when they literally got BTFO by Vietnamese rice farmers?

Attached: 1548262001752.jpg (960x756, 98K)

>Gutowski
Is he a merchant?

The simplest way to stop insurgency would be executive making GogaGola and McBurger stop making sugar water and food, full on McDonald shutdown. In 2 weeks insurgency is over, starving em out.

>America won Vietnam

Attached: 50155049-summer-style-emotions-and-people-concept-laughing-man-in-sunglasses-pointing-finger-on-you. (1300x866, 64K)

Polish.

Laughter.

Go look up Simo Häyhä.

That's how.

And realise that in the real world, military and police are humans too. We're not dealing with legions of implacable Sardaukar here, but people with brains. You're already getting sheriff's departments who are refusing to carry out gun seizures which they consider unconstitutional. (or perhaps they know the person well, and simply don't want to die...)

How many military desert? How many rebel? How many take one look at the person who's telling them to shoot American civilians and realise who the real enemy is? How many police take off their badge, but keep their gun and go home to protect their families?

Yes, the military has some awesome kit. You know what most of it's for? Destroying the enemy's military and/or infra-structure. Something you can't actually do on home soil. And no, I can't take out a Predator drone with my handgun. But the guy who drives it has to go home sometime. He's highly trained, very specialised, and probably a lot harder to replace than the drone machinery. I can kill him with a bit of wire. Want to cripple the local fighter wing? Find the bars where the pilots drink after hours. Yes, you still have half a billion dollars worth of state of the art tactical fighter aircraft sitting on the tarmac. The guys who could fly them never made it out of the bar's car park. How long does it take to train a skilled fighter pilot again?

When wearing a uniform makes you a target for the handgun in every bag, the rifle behind every tree, suddenly nobody wants to wear a uniform. Good luck running any sort of cohesive government.

Explain how the US was surrendering to the commies during the Paris Peace talks then.

Always keep this jap-cap/nip-slip to sage these slides threads
Sage

Readable version.

Attached: 5a38f0253cd489b04322a8cab68adb2490f757a055b6e05166bd7b1c24c042a8.png (1802x905, 203K)

Wow, I did not know so many Indians own guns. I never hear about gun crime there

If you’re too retarded to figure it out you shouldn’t be arguing. Sage thread anyway

That's factually incorrect, according to the army's own analysis. They just finished a multi-year study, and concluded that the only people who actually benefited from the whole thing was Iran. Read the report, it's publicly available.

You don't. You're delusional and a cuck that wants to overcompensate.

It's like saying "How do I get my gf back after she got a taste of 9 inch black cock?" You don't! Let's be honest, you're a 5 incher at best. And what kind of vanilla ass sex do you have? Fucking cucked.

You're little store bought gun is useless against the greatest military on Earth. You have no organization and no lasting supplies for battle, let alone survival.

You wanna live? Find a way to organize yourselves you fucking lazy faggots. Otherwise, you will be weeded out with no issue.

Fuck, you are literally retarded to think you can do anything on your own

The US' ""win"" in Vietnam was based on agreements between the elites, not through any domination on the ground.
Gook farmers completely fucked the US military.
Tyranny of your own armed country can't happen with agreement between the elites, they would need to dominate by force, which they can't do in the US, and they couldn't do in Vietnam.

Yeah like that one you cunts sat out of when WE stormed your Buddy fascists back to Berlin. FUCK YOU FRANCO

Most of the military would not help the government take people’s guns, they would join the rebellion

Ask them why they believe that in a society with huge wealth inequality, systemic racism, and gerrymandered voting districts, they want to strip marginalized peoples of their right to defend themselves.

>That's factually incorrect, according to the army's own analysis. They just finished a multi-year study, and concluded that the only people who actually benefited from the whole thing was Iran. Read the report, it's publicly available.
Yeah, Iraq didn't benefit from getting it's nation wrecked. That wasn't the goal.
What sort of insane standard of a military victory includes the nation you are fighting ends up ahead of where it started after the fighting stops?

You cunts were there to Shut the fuck UP PUSSY

>Proven false through legitimate experiments

Lost vietnam, lost Afghanistan, lost Iraq and they're going to win against a population with 4k$ ar15s that self funds ammo to go to the range weekly. Ok champ sure whatever

Pure bulllshit

>Gook farmers completely fucked the US military.
And by completely fucked up you mean died in greater numbers than Russians charging German divisions while holding a single stripper clip of ammo while looking for a rifle to pick up. I guess they clinched that victory.

to be fair Vietnam was a lose-lose no matter what, Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires for a reason and the war in Iraq was never meant to be 'won' but regardless you are indeed right, the govt wouldn't stand a chance against it's own populace

Attached: 84uc8zqp5t621.jpg (661x767, 89K)

YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE GUNS PERIOD COCKSUCKERS

I'm confused. You talked like a spook at first, and you've got an unknown flag, but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what our stated goals were for the region, and achieving those ends is the measure of success. War is strategic, not "kill all those fuckers." We went there with the stated goal of rooting out terrorist cells, effecting regime change, and creating stability in the region. We failed on 2 counts and half succeeded in 1. Again, read the report.

>le the US won Vietnam because of le body count

Hello LBJ

>lost Afghanistan, lost Iraq
How exactly did the US lose to those nations? What term of victory did the government of Saddam Hussein gain from the 2 gulf wars? Did the US government build a golden statue of Saddam and fly it to one of his Palaces when I wasn't looking?

youtube.com/watch?v=xZ_TS0fVxqQ

I just think of what country has the proportion of trained marksmen we do. Theres a YouTube video of a kid dropping a bull elk at 1400 yards. What other countries have that in the volume and gun culture we do...none

LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!!!

Attached: gadsden-usa.jpg (720x480, 53K)

>>le the US won Vietnam because of le body count
Learn to read. The statement was that the Vietnamese "completely fucked up the US military". I simply pointed out that dying a lot doesn't count as fucking up the enemy. The NVA got wrecked even their much celebrated Tet Offensive was actually a massive loss for them leaving them weak without securing any of their objectives.

The communist won because the Democrats refused to honor the US's obligation to supply weapons and equipment to the south.

When did I ever say I didn't know how you cocksucking r*dditor

We have combined arms warfare so nailed down that it's an artistically wrought science. We can out logistics absolutely anyone else you put us up against in a conventional warfare scenario. In fact, I would wager you could put us up against everyone else in the world, and setting aside nukes, we would either win or force a stalemate. What does this mean? We have more money, and we're really good at moving it around.
That might seem like burger arrogance, but it's simple fact. Now asymmetric warfare, that's another animal. We're ok at it, but not great. No one is. The Russians are probably the best nation currently for that, because they started it, and even they're not super good at it. Once that transitioned into 4th gen.... No one fucking knows anymore, there are no rules, there are no noncombatants and everyone loses.

But if you go back? Way back? The Germans new. The Germans fought the communists and their insurgency tactics on the Eastern front *very* effectively. But they weren't really concerned about silly shit like rules of engagement in that theatre.

if you fucken idiots really believe the goverment is controlled by satan, technology is evil and the world is flat. fucken disconnect yourself and do the world a favour.

if i believed as you d i would. you fuck tards continue to shit the contents of your mind all over the internet and its stinking up the place. i hope more of you are taken to court and silenced and your baseless retardation is removed from humanity.

I agree with you here. The US won the fight on the ground in Vietnam. It was gritty and hard going, but we won. Fucking Ho Chi Minh and his bullshit lost us the war overall, because no one accounted for the fact that they could propaganda so hard our own people would fuck us over.

The fuck are you crying about, leaf?

Thank you for trying to write a coherent point! I'll give you a pouch of fruit snacks and let you play with my Hot wheels now. You deserve it.

The Iraq war was fought to end the invasion of Kuwait, that was a total success after a long build up.

The continuation of the Gulf War in Iraq was to end the government of Saddam Hussein and to stop the development and use of WMD. Given that Saddam was fucking hanged and his government dissolved hat's a complete success. The continued use of, by UN resolution, illegal WMD in the form of extended range SCUD missiles and the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish population and threats to the surrounding region also stopped with the destruction of the Iraq military.

Iraq also hasn't invaded another nation or fought in another war at the same rate they did prior to the Gulf War so that's another win condition.

You dont. Its the wrong argument.

The right argument:
Every living thing in the universe has defense mechanisms to protect it from harm. It is the desire of every living thing to continue to live. Every living thing has an inalienable right to protect itself from harm.

Guns afford you the right to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property from harm. The founding fathers recognized that self-preservation is a fundamental right of life.

Dont fall for dumbshit arguments. They are mean to entangled you intellectually.

Tbh if you declare war on your own people, you're probably not going to get very far before you get lynched.
Sad fact about the second is people will see it this way, that if they start shooting cops they'll just be overrun.
The second says MILITIA. One person isn't going to make a difference, we all need to stand against the government if they do this and fight them tooth and nail.
A lot of people will die and get overrun, but once they have to start militarizing against their own people they will be unable to govern.
The point is if we honor the second amendment, we can never truly be defeated by the government because they still derive power from the people. If you give up your weapons, you do so willingly. The state should know that it will be forced to attack it's own people for every single gun in the country, and that will force them to stop if they wish to remain in power.

Should have thrown all the commie lovers in fucking jail for treason.

>># of multi gun owners in the USA that have skills and will to overthrow the us government in a prolonged guerilla war and siege of cities: appx 80 million. Armed with as military grade or easily convertible to military grade small arms.

>># of viet cong armed with bamboo and mosin nagant rifles primarily, with about 10% of them being armed with ak47 rifles: 3,480,000.

Yeah nobody else has that.

I always think about the # of men and women who have gone in and out of the armed services, who swore an oath to uphold the constitution and protect this country from enemies foreign AND domestic. So many have taken that oath. It's one thing to consider all the active mil personel who would deny orders to kill US civilians, but add in all the former as well?

it would be over so quickly.

Attached: PEPE-0008.jpg (419x610, 164K)