Biden To Americans Who Own Guns: You Need Jets, Nuclear Weapons To Take Us On

[Spider-Dan]

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?

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?

[pondwater]

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!

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

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?

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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. 

[Tenshot13]

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.

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.

[pondwater]

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. 

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.

[pondwater]

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.

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.

[ArtieChokePhin]

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?

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"

[pondwater]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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?

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

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.

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:

Can you even name a single nuclear power that has had the government overthrown by armed civilians?

[Dolphster]

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.  

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. 

[pondwater]

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.

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 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?

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.
 

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

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.

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:

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.

[CF DolFan]

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.  

[Fau Teixeira]

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