The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The Taliban and Vietcong must be really confused right now. Remember, this is the head of the party that claims the government was almost overthrown on Jan 6th by an unarmed dude drinking wine in a Viking hat and his incompetent mob. So the government with all their jets and nukes was almost taken over by some coo coo birds with no firearms or shots fired. Yeah, that makes plenty of sense. It begs the question, what would actually happen if a substantially armed force with a strategic plan took action?

So the guy who suggested to just dangerously and illegally discharge a shotgun into the air is now tossing around the idea of jet fighters and nuclear weapons against American citizens to refute the 2nd amendment. I can see the political and NRA commercials now, haha. Maybe Biden wasn't the right choice in the primary. Might I suggest a cognitive function test for old Creepy Joe, LMFAO

I do a great ventriloquist act at the local clothing optional resort where I do a "lying out of my ass" routine. 

One day, a farmer was visited by the local Department of Acgriculture inspector.  As a matter of routine, the inspector requested the farmer give him a tour of his farm.   While riding the tractor around the land, the inspector noticed a small turtle sitting on top of one of the fence posts.  When he pointed out the turtle to the farmer, the farmer responded, "That's what we call a post turtle.  And it is very similar to Joe Biden."  The inspector asked what a post turtle was and how it could be compared to Joe Biden.  The farmer replied, "Well, it's obvious he didn't get up there on his own.   Nobody knows how he got up there and he obviously doesn't know what to do while he's up there."

I can never un-see that...   :o

Ease down on the personal stuff..

So basically Biden said what many of us said already.

Historical and current real world scenarios don't agree. As shown in most of the conflicts that we've been involved in since Korea. It's hilariously funny to watch POTUS threaten using F-15s and nukes on American citizens while literally giving control of Afghanistan to the Taliban. Does he know we lost in Vietnam and are losing the fight against the Taliban and they’re armed with soviet era rifles? Show me a US Civil War and you'll see an influx of widely distributed modern foreign weapons on American soil within 3 months. Not to mention, all of this ignores that the majority of military and police support the right.

And he is either stupid and/or lying about cannons. Cannons were legal to own during the revolutionary war and they are legal to own now. Nice unification speech POTUS. Is this the Democrats plan to unite the country?

Just another Sleepy Joe, "I meant this but said that" remark.

My father in law owns a cannon

To paraphrase an old softball teammate of mine......218 pounds of Value Meal and Sex Appeal, baby. 

That makes it so much better.

Still has to be preferable to Don the Con's "I just made this up, so it is now the truth...and if you disagree, you are anti-American and I must crush you" remark.

It's funny how Trump is still being brought up, he wasn't really a part of this conversation but okay.

I don't find it funny at all that anyone is still talking about Trump. I was sincerely hoping that once he was out, he'd stay the fuck out. Unfortunately, he keeps telling everyone that he will be back in the WH soon, and the most idiotic sub-segment of his followers keep chugging the snake oil.

He'll be back.  Especially if the voting measures that require voting in person get passed. 

Why are you making comparisons to far-off foreign lands?  It seems like YOU have forgotten that Americans have already tried to use rifles to overthrow our federal government, and they failed miserably.  And that was BEFORE the US military had rockets and helicopters!

One would have to be pretty delusional to believe that kicking the British out of the American colonies is comparable to invading London and deposing King George.  But you appear to believe that they are of similar difficulty?

As I said, it's hilariously funny to watch the POTUS threaten using F-15s and nukes on American citizens when we can't even win against 3rd world countries. Oh, and the lie about cannons being illegal and shit. Threats and lies, that's about par for the course for the Democrats, LMFAO

I agree, you see how long it took the US government to invade and dispose of Gaddafi, Hussein, and Bin Laden. The difference is that we don't have a king and no one would be invading. Civil wars tend to be long and drawn out.

You say "we can't even win against 3rd world countries," but we DID win against the well-regulated militias of the Confederacy by using horses and bayonets.  So if we're going to cite historical evidence, that evidence shows that the US military is quite effective at defeating Americans with rifles on American soil.  The jungles of Vietnam and the mountains of Afghanistan seem to have little relevance here.

Maybe if Constitution-hating insurrectionists moved to Vietnam or Afghanistan, they would have a better chance at defeating the US military in that environment... but they already proved they can't do it here in America.  So I don't know why you keep referencing armed uprisings from Americans as if that's some sort of credible threat to our military.

One thing that is clear is that the for the gun nuts it was never about arming themselves to prevent the US government from becoming undemocratic, but rather to overthrow our constitution. 

First off this whole discussion is pretty ridiculous, but sure I'll entertain it.  Comparing the civil war in the 1860s to if a civil war happened now is just plain dumb.  Weapons are different, wars have been fought differently.  Making an apples to apples comparison to that is just not accurate.  A true civil war wouldn't just be one side fighting the other across a battlefield.  It would be guerilla warfare and strategic terrorist attacks by the side that isn't in power, whoever that may be.

Gun nuts? Define a gun nut for me?

Also, if a civil war did actually happen or we got invaded by another country. What would you do? You're going to depend on the government to protect you? The same government that the left claims indiscriminately kills black men? ACAB? Defund the Police? BLM? Experimenting on minorities, etc etc countless examples. That government?

If I was a Democrat and thought the other half of the country was racist, Fascist, Nazis, and the greatest threat to humanity in history, maybe I'd think about those gun control laws that don't do anything but make it harder for poor people and minorities, to legally own firearms. And then go buy as many guns as I could get my hands on.

It's laughable that you complain that I cite current world conflicts because they are in different parts of the world. Then immediately turn around and cite something from 160 years ago as some kind of definite proof. Furthermore, the Union certainly didn't move in and squash the Confederacy like a bug. The Civil War lasted 4 years and it wouldn't have been a good thing, but the Confederacy very well could have won. I would assume that conflicts from the past 50 years would be more relevant predictor of the type of warfare in such a scenario. The US has different type of terrains that pose problems like the rest of the world.

However, that's not the main issue. Like in recent past conflicts, a civilian enemy tends to blend in with the greater population. They wear no uniforms like military and LE. You literally don't know who the enemy is, but they know who you are because you're wearing a uniform. Collateral damage is the main issue in this situation. You can't just send F15s and/or use nukes because you can't just kill everyone. In a city of 50,000 you might have a few hundred rebels. Where are they? Now apply that on a large scale countrywide. And once innocent civilians started getting killed you'll have other countries around the world picking sides, applying pressure, and supporting one side or the other. Also you wouldn't just have 2 sides fighting. The civilian rebel population would be fractured into several different groups with the regular civilian population stuck in the middle. It could turn into a Israel/Palestine type situation.

So tell me again how your POTUS is going use F15s on nukes against American people and American soil? After all, he did actually say it.

Funny you mention getting invaded by another country.   In WWII, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, someone asked a Japanese Admiral if he planned to invade America from the Pacific Coast.  He said, "No because there will be an American citizen with a rifle hiding behind every tree, rock, and blade of grass"

Exactly, just like everywhere else in the world. People seem to think that things that happen in other countries are impossible to happen here. If you get enough "radicals" in office on either side you a setting up that exact scenario. It's not necessarily about Republicans and Democrats. In my opinion in that situation, the government opposition would be a good mix of Republicans and Democrats with a good percentage of the citizen support and sympathizers. Then you have the whole military and LE population that would splinter.

Correct: in the 1860s, the military didn't have tear gas, helicopters, rockets, or armored personnel carriers.  Rifle technology has improved in the 180 years, but not nearly as much as other areas of military armament.

It's not just that they are "in different parts of the world"; it's that you are trying to compare ending a foreign occupation with overthrowing a government on its home turf.  So where are your examples of the latter?

So you think that a good comparison for potential insurgents in the US is... Palestinians today.  I wholeheartedly agree!

Not sure why you are so amped up about Biden using the n-word.  I mean, I said it myself last week in the same context and got nothing but crickets:

I don't actually believe this, but I'm going to say it anyway just to stir the pot a little bit.   So, a foreign occupation that overthrew a government on its home turf happened in what some people call The Civil War but was actually the War of Northern Aggression.   The Confederate States of America seceded from the union which was legally well within their rights since it was not forbidden by the US Constitution.  The Union illegally occupied Fort Sumter which at the time was part of the Confederate States of America, essentially invading the peace loving new nation.  Eventually the US overthrew the legally formed government of the Confederate States of America. 

All that improved military armament and we still can't win against 3rd world countries and banana republics using Soviet era technology. I'm waiting for someone to explain how those other areas of military armament will be more effective on American soil with American citizens using current technology.

It's not just their home turf. It's everyone's home turf. Are you saying that the US government would be better at killing their own citizens than killing brown people in their own countries, LMFAO? I'm of the opinion that the US government wouldn't have as much leeway with collateral damage and innocent civilians being killed before military, LE, and citizens started to turn on them. Not to mention, it doesn't matter what weapons you put on an F15 when you know where the pilot's wife goes to yoga and where his kids go to school. Now multiply that across the country. I'm sure it's much easier to go across a large ocean to kill brown people that you don't know, while your wife, kids, family, and friend are all safe stateside. All that "safety" goes away in a civil war, no one is safe. I would assume that you would have at least 20-30% of the military and LE defect and go AWOL in the first 12 months. Due to those constraints they would be less effective here than they are against all those other shithole countries.
 
Good, I'm glad you agree. Now tell me how long that situationship has been going on? Also, let me know when someone finally wins and it's over. I'd like to quit hearing about it before I die.

Because you're a nobody and self proclaimed "radical". The POTUS threatened a vast assortment of Americans with nuclear weapons and jet fighters for wanting to exercise their constitutional rights. There's a big difference.

Let's take a poll. Who here thinks that if Trump would have said something about using F15s and nukes against his political opponents. That Spider-Dan or one of his merry group of "radical" leftists would have posted this thread instead of me? The media and left would be having a "nuclear" meltdown of epic proportion.

This thread is funny as is the political climate we live in. We are supposed to believe that a self proclaimed un-arned shamen and his cohorts almost toppled our government but millions of seriously armed citizens have no chance?

The leftt is so f'ed up that White House press secretary Jen Psaki said this week that Democrats are for reinforcing and funding police and "the other party" is for defunding police. that was voted into law by Democrats just a couple of months ago. Some might say that the other party was for defunding the police; LMAO ... I would say it's an insult for them to think that their constituents are that stupid but it certainly appears they are.  

not for nothing but the recovery act that the democrats passed and biden signed contained money for states and cities to fund things like police departments .. and the republicans voted against it. So the democrats actually funded police and the republicans were against funding the police .. ijs

I've gotta say that I'm somewhat disappointed in myself.  I keep making the same mistake of taking a conservative's claim in good faith when I should know better.

Let's just say that there's a very good reason why there is neither a direct quote, nor a link to a direct quote, in the original post.

Sunstroke called this correctly from jump.

And you quickly prove my point. You believe that is what actually happened if you want. As Paul Harvey would say .... you need to research the "rest of the story" and not just the liberal lies and bullet points they tell you to speak.

Fuck man use google, it's all over the place. Your sissy friend is rarely ever correct. There's no need to make shit up when Biden starts slurring his words like he's having a stroke while simultaneously drinking a cheap bottle of gin.


https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1407808797029113857 (https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1407808797029113857)

Are cannons illegal or is ole Creepy Joe lying again?

Biden said that if you want to take on the US government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.

This is not even remotely in the same ballpark, league, or sport as Biden threatened to use nuclear weapons on Americans.

This thread should not exist.  It is based on a lie, and a rather ridiculous one at that.

It's based on a false statement by Biden.  Citizens can take on the U.S. government.  January 6 proved that.  Too bad it wasn't successful. 

Why exactly would a very large group of Americans "taking on" the government need F-15s and nuclear weapons?

1 That is false, like most pro-gun arguments it is founded on straight up lies about history.

2. Wouldn’t have even made sense.  Gun ownership in the US was less than a quarter of what it was today.  And mostly hunting rifles in rural areas.  Very low gun ownership in coastal cities.

Yeah, cannons are illegal and always have been. That is a straight up lie from the POTUS, just another lying piece of shit...

From the Whiskey Rebellion, to the Civil War, to Waco, to the Capitol invasion... citizens have been taking on the US government and losing since the nation's founding.

I don't think anyone disputes what kind of armaments are needed to take on our government and lose.

The mask is slipping a bit.  You're supposed to pretend to be a supporter of the Constitution, not of traitors that want to overthrow it.  Gotta stay in character!

When it comes to the largest and most powerful military this planet has ever seen, if you want to defeat and take control of it by force of arms then you absolutely will need nuclear weapons.

This thread contains some of the dumbest discussions I have ever seen at TDMMC. 

You'll only "need" them if the largest most powerful military on the planet has the balls to use them on their own soil to kill to it's own innocent citizens over the short and long term. Well do they?

I'm sure you can understand that "You need nuclear weapons to defeat us" does not mean the same thing as "We need nuclear weapons to defeat you."

The largest and most powerful military in the world would not need nuclear weapons to stop civilians with rifles.

"When a form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to stand up and alter or abolish it"

~ Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence

Of course that's what it means. If what you say is true, why can't "the most powerful military in the world" stop civilians with Soviet era weapons and Toyotas?

You haven't really addressed anything being discussed. All you keep saying over and over is the "most powerful military" blah blah blah. But "the Civil War proved" blah blah blah. If that's all you got then your argument sucks.

If you threaten to beat my ass and I tell you that you'll need a gun to win. I am in fact threatening to use my gun if you attempt to beat my ass. The fact Biden would bring up "taking on the government" and "you'll need F15s and nukes" implies that we have more powerful weapons than you and we'll use them before we let you win. Dog whistles from the trained professionals who invented them.

Like I said earlier, if Trump would have said the same thing you would be all over it. You can spin it anyhow you want, but it shows your hypocrisy and just how weak your arguments actually are.

Wrong.

Snorkel

This statement explains a lot of your posts in this thread.

So if if I were to threaten, say, Brock Lesnar, and he says that I would need a gun to kill him, by your logic, he is also saying he would need a gun to kill me.  That's how it works!

The ramifications of this belief system are... hilarious.  So if Iraq would have needed to use nuclear weapons to successfully invade and conquer America, that must mean that America needed to use nuclear weapons to successfully invade and conquer Iraq!

No you're just twisting people's words again.

That's how what works? Brock Lesnar? WTF are you talking about? You're side tracking again. If Brock Lesner says that I need a gun and I bring a gun. Then yes he would need a gun to kill me or he would be dead.

But if I didn't have a gun I would bring a knife, bat, brick, gasoline and match, etc. In the real world big fat bloated steroid bitches die like everyone else, LMFAO.

Japan would have needed to use nuclear weapons to invade and conquer America, likewise America needed to use nuclear weapons to successfully conquer Japan. Biden was implying that, "you can't win because we'll kill you with our better weapons".

Again I'll ask, if you threaten to beat my ass and I tell you that you'll need a gun to win. Whatcha gonna do? Bring a gun or just try to beat my ass and get shot?

You're the one that specifically mentioned beating people up as an analogy!

In your analogy, you have ACTUALLY BROUGHT the "F-15s and maybe nuclear weapons" that Biden claimed would be necessary!

Once again: someone much bigger and stronger than you says that you would need a gun to fight them.  That doesn't mean that THEY also need a gun to fight YOU, or that they are threatening to shoot you.  Because they're much bigger and stronger than you!

Iraq would have needed to use nukes to conquer America.
America DID NOT need to use nukes to conquer Iraq.
Apparently, you can't explain this.

You're conflating conquering with taking on. Biden didn't say "to beat us", he said "to take us on". This isn't about winning, losing, or conquering.

Once again, America was bigger and stronger than Japan at the time and yet we only "conquered" them because we used 2 nuclear weapons. We can also reference the Israel/Palestine situation in which Israeli military is much bigger and stronger than the opposition. How long has that been going on? Is it over? Who got conquered?

Just two actual real world examples that refute your OPINION that being bigger and stronger always equates to conquering the enemy.



Of course it can be explained rather easily. It's rather simplistic and correct to assume that Iraq (and Afghanistan) would more than likely need some type of nuclear weapon or other strategy to conquer America. But by no means do they specifically need nuclear weapons and or F15s.

Furthermore, Iraq didn't need nuclear weapons to keep "much bigger and stronger" America engaged in an endless military engagement and fighting for 31 years. An endless war that spans 9 Presidential terms, 6 different Presidents, and trillions of dollars in debt. Also of note, Afghanistan has kept us engaged and fighting for 20 years. I wouldn't use the word "conquer" when referring to either of those endless wars.

And for reference, the Revolutionary War only lasted 8 years, the American Civil War only lasted 4 years, WW1 only lasted for 4 years, and WW2 only lasted 6 years.  The US hasn't conquered anyone significant since WWII.
 

Hypothetically:

1% of US population = 3.5 million
US civilian firearm ownership = 393 million

US active duty = 1.5 million
US military firearms= 4.5 million

So are you saying that, just 1% of the US population and all of their modern firearms couldn't "take on" the US military without having nukes and F15s and at least do as well or better than the rag tag groups in the Middle East using Soviet era weapons and Toyotas?

Already asked and answered:


First of all, the idea that the Iraq War is still ongoing is bizarre.  Iraq isn't Afghanistan.

But more importantly: convincing a foreign government that occupation is not worth the hassle is not remotely similar to overthrowing a government in its seat of power, which is what you and yours want to do.  So your continual comparisons to Vietnam and Afghanistan are irrelevant; the goal of those insurgents is to make the Americans leave, which is not an option for you.

Unless you're literally talking about seceding and forming a new Confederacy.  Are you?

Pond you need to study history some more. The fact that we defeated Japan by using a nuclear weapon doesn't mean it's the only way we were going to defeat them. It would have been a longer process but Japan was already in the process of being defeated. The bombs were dropped to avoid having a full scale invasion. We had been beating them back one island at a time.

You also need a math lesson. We invaded Iraq in 2003. 31 years?

Wait... I think pondwater believes the Gulf War - i.e. Poppy Bush's Operation Desert Storm - never ended and is still ongoing to this day!

You haven't really conquered or defeated anyone if your military has been engaged with them for 31 years. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2020/08/03/the-us-military-has-now-been-engaged-in-iraq-for-30-years/?sh=5b7b8522543f)

Here's something no one is talking about...we're seeing more and more UFO sightings every day.  What if they're aliens and what if they're hostile?  I bet you wish you'd have an AR-15 then.

...I'm half kidding, but you can't deny all of the recent UFO sightings.

Probably need one of those cannon thingys that Biden was talking about. But since they have been illegal since the beginning of time, I'll just have to use my "weapons of war" on the little green men from outer space, haha

If they are hostile aliens they will probably probe you with an AR-15.

Probably.  It's better than rolling over and dying without a fight though.

Saw a meme that pretty much sums up this conversation and the dilemma of the left. An AR-15 is (A) an assault rifle/weapon of war or (B) not enough to fight with the military. LMAO ... you really need to pick a side and then stick with it.

just repeating what chris wallace has said on fox news .. my bad .. if you can't trust the republican news network who can you trust i guess

I find it hard to believe Chris Wallace said this but then again he is a Democrat. I don't mean that figuratively as he is literally a registered and voting Democrat.

Seems like "C" is the logical answer... An AR-15 IS an assault rifle and it still ISN'T enough to fight with our military.

Duh...

As usual you try and rewrite the narrative to fit your argument rather than making a logical argument. First off it's NOT an assault rifle as it isn't automatic but if it was an assault rifle then it would be "designed for infantry use". Infantry is part of a military. hahaha

as·sault ri·fle
Learn to pronounce
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Like usual, you're wrong again.

He is a registered democrat because he lives in Washington DC and local elections are typically held in the democratic primary but he voted for both democrats and republicans in the general election.  I have a very liberal leaning friend who moved to Idaho and is now a registered as a republican for similar reason.  Chris Wallace definitely leans right, although certainly  more moderate than the rest of fox.

Is a fully-automatic .50 caliber machine gun:

a) a weapon of war
b) not enough to defeat the most powerful military in the history of this planet

For conservatives, this is an either/or question.  Both things can't possibly be true!

No one is talking about .50 caliber machine guns except you. Stay on topic.

AR15s aren't:

a) fully auto
b) assault rifles
c) weapons of war

But they are enough to "take on" any military and keep them engaged for a substantial amount of time. History has proven this time and time again through countless conflicts throughout the world.

pondwater doesn't like examples that disprove his point.  Stay on topic!

Like I already said: the Branch Davidians (among many others) already showed what you need to take on the US government and lose.  I'm pretty sure Biden would agree that you don't need "F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons" to take on the government and lose.  Hell, you can do that with your bare arms!

Again, I'll ask. In your opinion, what would it take to justify American citizens to take up arms against the government? Is there no circumstance that you can fathom?

Hypothetically, say a "radical" political element took over the government, shut down the borders, went full Nazi/Hitler mode, and started firing up the gas chambers? Would you just get in line or would you pick up arms against your government? 

I do not believe that a nuclear power can be overthrown with handguns and rifles.
So no, I do not believe that there is any circumstance in which an armed revolt on the US government within the United States of America would be more successful than an unarmed revolt.

I would think this should be very intuitive to most partisans like yourself.  To wit:

1) Think of a political group you oppose or disagree with (e.g. BLM)
2) Give them lots of guns, and have them use said guns against the government

Do you really think these guns will help advance their cause?
Specifically, that they will help more than nonviolent protest?

That wasn't the question. So I'll try to decipher your ambiguous reply. Are you saying that you would just get in line for a concentration camp, gas chamber, or firing squad.

Also, what does being a "nuclear power" have to do with it?

This from a guy who has been preaching that an unarmed buffalo hat guy and his buddies took over the Capital and all the democrats were in mortal danger. HAHAHAHa I promise you that millions and millions of law enforcement and former military, as well as current ones, would stand to do pretty well. In fact we have seen that other countries would come in and aid so there's that possibility as well. I don't see Biden carpet bombing for very long if at all.


Hopefully this pic doesn't trigger fear in you guys
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/01/06/USAT/52169b7b-9379-4d8c-a827-7263aab635e7-AFP_AFP_8YA6MQ.jpg?width=660&height=467&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)

In that case, I've already answered that question:

Again, the fact that you always talk about this in hypotheticals is bizarre, because hypotheticals are unnecessary.

If you were an undocumented immigrant applying for asylum (in full accordance with international law) in 2018, and the US government came to steal your infant from you before deporting you, what are you gonna do... shoot them?  Do you think that will make any difference?  The very idea is laughable.  Furthermore, your perpetual cry of "Are you gonna just lay down and take it when the concentration camps arrive?" rings bitterly hollow, given your enthusiastic support for the very actions I described above.  

The choice you offer - either you pick up a gun, or you "get in line for the camps" - is not only a false choice, it's a dumb and ineffective one.  There's another option that involves neither meek submission nor picking up a gun: mass protests and civil disobedience.

Because nuclear powers aren't some "3rd world countries and banana republics using Soviet era technology."  The latter are the types of countries that might be susceptible to an armed revolt.

And the Capitol invaders didn't fire a single shot.  Q.E.D.

If you have political power, you don't need guns to overthrow the government.
If you don't have political power, no amount of guns is enough.

WTF does undocumented immigrants have to do with anything? If that situation were ever to arrive, what does it matter HOW you get to see your wife and children gunned down and killed. Whether its fighting the government or dragged off to the firing squad, dead is dead.

So you're saying that if America turned into modern day Nazi Germany, that your strategy to survive would be mass protests or civil disobedience? To which the modern day Hitler would send orders to just drag your ass off to the concentration camps to await your final demise or just shoot you in the street like a dogs.

It's already an established fact that a random person born in the world has a greater chance of being killed by their own government than dying in a war.
 
So you're saying that you don't support people's right to fight against the evils of the world based on who has nuclear weapons? Does that mean you don't support Palestine's fight against Israel?

You keep going on about this hypothetical situation where the US government starts committing unspeakable atrocities, but when the Trump Administration was literally stealing children and deporting their parents, you and yours were clapping and cheering.  So what are you talking about hypotheticals for?  We already know that the 2nd Amendment did nothing to stop it, just as the 2nd Amendment did nothing to stop government thugs from snatching law-abiding Japanese-American citizens from their homes and trucking them off to barbed-wire-enclosed concentration camps.

You tell me!  You're the one insisting that it's super important to be able to defend your family with a gun when the jackboots come.

And for the record: NOT firing at the government thugs might mean that your entire family is murdered in the concentration camps (as with Jews in Germany)... or it might mean that you are let go in a few years and allowed to resume your normal life (as with Japanese-Americans in the US).  But if you shoot at the people come to take you away?  Yeah, you're definitely all dead.

I'm glad you like the Hitler analogy, because the original Hitler would not have been deterred at all by Jews with handguns and rifles.  And we don't even have to hypothesize on this point: Polish Jews in Warsaw tried to fight back (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising) against the Nazis, and the Nazi response was to go block-by-block with flamethrowers, burning every building to the ground and killing over 13,000 people.  The 50,000+ Jews who did not die in the fires were immediately sent to death camps anyway.

I'm not talking about "random countries," I'm talking about the country I live in.  As you love to say, stay on topic!

No, I'm saying that handguns and rifles are an incredibly ineffective way to fight against a government that has risen to the level of a nuclear power.  Any Palestinian can verify this.  (And don't pretend like you care about the fate of Palestine.)

As you probably know, the 2nd amendment and any other rights guaranteed by the constitution only apply to American citizens. Not illegal aliens. And for the record, the border crisis has exploded since Biden took office. There have been kids in cages since Obama and they're still there. But you and yours already know that the Democrats are complicit in the border situation, you just can't admit it.


It's interesting that you call the government "jackboot thugs" and then turn right around and argue against standing up to those same "jackboot thugs".

You and yours that have the same thought process would be the first to be eliminated such a hypothetical situation. Just so I understand, are you saying that there is absolutely no situation in which you would pick up arms and fight your government since they are a nuclear power? Is that correct?



Do you think that they would be more sympathetic to your "mass protests and civil disobedience"? Also, what would those mass protests and civil disobedience turn into when they are ineffective and/or the flamethrowers show up?

Also, there's a big difference between adults and children, sparsely armed with handguns, gasoline bottles, and a few other weapons that had been smuggled into the ghetto by resistance fighters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising) and the American population who is one of the most heavily armed groups in the world.

1% of US population = 3.5 million
US civilian firearm ownership = 393 million

US active duty = 1.5 million
US military firearms= 4.5 million


I am on topic. I didn't mention any other "random countries".


How would a bullet be any more ineffective against a human body from a nuclear power? Was Afghanistan ineffective against the nuclear powers Russia or the US? What does nuclear power have to do with it?
That makes no sense. The Soviet Union was a nuclear power actually using Soviet era technology. Did that make them a 3rd world banana republic? What specifically does being nuclear power have to do it besides being able to use those nuclear weapons?


Again, since Israel is a nuclear power, does that mean you don't support Palestine's fight against Israel?