"What Scares Elitists? Civilians Own 70 Times More Guns Than U.S. Police and Military Combined"

Is this an argument in favor of not having guns?

 

The basic Molotov Cocktail can still take out a tank and so can IED's using ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel. Then there's those pesky "EFPs have been used in improvised explosive devices against armored cars." A recent development is their widespread use in IEDs by insurgents in Iraq against coalition vehicles and Afghanistan.
In the meantime, American ingenuity is famous and I'm sure destroying Tanks would soon become common place if the needed.

 

Ever heard the name Christopher Dorner? An angry ex cop had every so cal police force jumping at their shadows. Had the police chiefs in LA and orange counties holed up in their homes afraid to leave. He took out a few cops, but that is what one armed and angry man did to Southern California.

 

This, plus tanks are not capable of holding land. This became obvious as soon as they were put into service during WW1. You could drive a tank across no-man's land, but then what? In conjunction with lots of guys with guns behind tanks, they are quite effective. The same is true of air power. You can't hold and defend land without a lot of boots on the ground.

 

Cops have few weapons. Only some guns, I'm speaking you of military campaign, bombers, tanks, missiles.

 

None of which can be used to any degree of effectiveness in the united states. Too much of the infrastructure is exposed and vulnerable like a raw nerve. A missile in the wrong area can easily cause widespread outages in electricity and other services that the country is dependent on just to continue functioning.

If a sizable area of the united states were forced to endure a two week period without creature comfort distractions such as electricity, running water, television, the internet, or free travel, nothing to distract itself from the fact it is being occupied by unfriendly forces, the military may find itself in a situation where its members will be wishing to be deployed in the middle east.

 

______

Not since the incident in LA where the police were out gunned. Today most police cruisers contain a 12 gauge shotgun and a semi-auto AR-15. The NYPD to the best of my knowledge has not adopted this, but many police, sheriff's Dept's and State troopers follow this.

 

I'm talking you of war, especially of civil war. Their is no nice war or nice civil war, in that case of war, no one care of keeping electricity, it can even be use as a tool to make the population poorer and so more docile.

 

what has this got to do with anything

 

tanks can be outfitted with machine guns and other accessories designed to gun down mobile targets, and if the tanks don't work, you can always get and armored car with a .50 cal mounted on it

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own a gun, but don't justify it by saying you are protecting yourself from government tyranny

 

______

I was responding to your statement about using drones to kill Americans in the case of Civil War to kill Americans. Obama did use Drones to kill Americans. Whether it was in Yemen or America makes no difference. Obama murdered four Americans without using the legal means set forth by the Constitution. There was no Civil War.

 

what makes you think there will be armed confrontations like this?

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, a resistance would be far more likely to destroy infrastructure the military is dependent on for logistical resupply to its forces instead of direct confrontation. Destroying a few bridges, electrical substations, and electricity transmission lines would leave the military unable to supply itself let alone the populace.

When the military can't be fed, housed, paid, or resupplied the military will rapidly descend into chaos. Just ask Washington what happened at Valley Forge!

 

I don't think there will be an armed conflict like this, but I'm just saying we couldn't beat the government in a fight

 

I'm sure that was not an intentional act.

 

You mean in a direct confrontation! But a direct confrontation is not always required to defeat an enemy!

When that machine gun equipped truck has no gasoline to run on or there is no more ammo for the machine gun then of what use is it?

Why did Napoleon and Hitler fail when invading Russia? The Russians defeated neither of them militarily in direct confrontation.

 

Can said machine guns withstand being struck with rifle rounds? Or could a shot from a simple marksman from several hundred years away render it a useless piece of scrap metal that is just taking up room?

Beyond such, tank crews have to eventually step outside where they themselves are vulnerable.

 

______

You have got to be joking. Obama set out to assassinate al-Awlaki, his son and other Americans.

Obama Killed a 16-Year-Old American in Yemen. …
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old...
Video embedded · In 2010, President Obama directed the CIA to assassinate an American citizen in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki, despite the fact that he had never been charged with (let alone convicted of) any crime, and the agency successfully carried out that order a year later with a September 2011 drone strike.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

The Secret Story of Obama’s Assassination of Americans …
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-secret-story-of-obamas-assassination-of-americans-in-yemen/
In an hour long special on “Democracy Now!” on Tuesday, author and Nation magazine war correspondent Jeremy Scahill tells the story of the radicalization of ...

 

No, they can't

 

They lost because they were ill-equipped for cold weather, it won't matter that they have to get out when everybody they've either run over or shot is dead.

 

^^^ Exactly this ^^^

The hypothetical example would have all of the combat units, including SOCOM on our side. The libs would get the Jag Corps, along with the desk drivers who haven't touched an M16/M4 outside of basic training.

 

They lost because they couldn't get the supplies they needed, including the supplies for cold weather. Their supply lines failed. Remember, Germany has winter also. So the military in Germany *knew* what was needed for cold weather fighting, so did Napoleon. The problem was getting the needed supplies!

It would be the same thing with the US military trying to suppress the population of the US. How would they resupply such widespread forces when the entire population was working to stop the resupply?

 

Then tanks would prove mostly useless in a heavily urbanized area, such at the city of Manhattan, and at best would likely amount to traffic obstructions in need of constant maintenance.

 

If guns prevent tyranny from taking hold, then why was Saddam in power for so long? In his Iraq, you couldn't walk down the street without seeing a kid wielding a loaded AK-47, yet he managed to terrorize his own people.

Oh, and the US is already violating our rights and has been for at least forty years. Are you unaware of the NSA searching and recording our private electronic communications? This violates our Fourth Amendment right. So much for guns stopping tyranny.

The truth is that modern tyranny is an invisible tyranny. What is tyranny except power, and what is power except knowledge? When the government knows your every text and phone call and internet search and purchase (and maybe other things we still assume are private), then the tyrant has already bypassed the need for soldiers on the street.

 

If it were up to me, it wouldn't. But it's not up to me. So it stops wherever the majority of people believes it should stop. I understand I'm in a minority... I can live with that. But I am in the majority that believes in restrictions such as this one.

I've seen that argument for years. Seemed like nonsense the first time I heard it, and it seems even more nonsense today.

Not following... I don't know what you mean, but it certainly doesn't sound like anything I have said.

That is absurd. The Chinese are oppressed because they made the mistake of believing in communism.

I would ask the UK, Germany, Japan... how they have such low gun violence cases compared to the U.S.